Politically Incorrect Canonization

[trickster]

I have read a bit about "canonizing" lately. I heard that they have or want to canonize Queen Isabella of Spain and her husband. As an aboriginal person I find that offensive given the destruction that european states and the church played in the role of our people's cultural genocide...

Question: What standards do we use to decide whether a person is a saint or not? Like should they be vetted like the Republican candidates

Bruce

[PhilOSophia]

I think political correctness should be flushed down the toilet of history. It's no substitute for morality.

A superior form of social organisation bulldozed an inferior one. I would guess at the time this was thought well and good.

I do sometimes fondly imagine what it would be like to strip those, who prate on the nobility of native cultures, of all vestiges of Western civilisation, and make them live as natives for a decade.

In sum: the locals lost. Their conquerors played them off each other and with better organisation, weapons and tactics comparatively few men beat whole nations.

[Ohana]

Originally Posted by PhilOSophia

I think political correctness should be flushed down the toilet of history. It's no substitute for morality.

A superior form of social organisation bulldozed an inferior one. I would guess at the time this was thought well and good.

I do sometimes fondly imagine what it would be like to strip those, who prate on the nobility of native cultures, of all vestiges of Western civilisation, and make them live as natives for a decade.

In sum: the locals lost. Their conquerors played them off each other and with better organisation, weapons and tactics comparatively few men beat whole nations.

Of course! Might makes right! How could I forget.

[Filii Dei]

Originally Posted by PhilOSophia

I think political correctness should be flushed down the toilet of history. It's no substitute for morality.

A superior form of social organisation bulldozed an inferior one. I would guess at the time this was thought well and good.

I do sometimes fondly imagine what it would be like to strip those, who prate on the nobility of native cultures, of all vestiges of Western civilisation, and make them live as natives for a decade.

In sum: the locals lost. Their conquerors played them off each other and with better organisation, weapons and tactics comparatively few men beat whole nations.

I share your sentiment about political correctness, but that's about all we agree on. Your proclivity to whitewash the events of the colonisation of the Americas is disturbing. Great sins were committed in the name of exploration, and although South America now greatly benefits from the Catholic faith, it can never justify the great evils that occurred in the process. What you suggest edges close to utilitarianism, and let me remind you that such views - justifying the deaths of innocents for a 'common good' - are condemned by the Church. Would you tolerate the Muslims similarly saying that a "superior form of social organisation bulldozed an inferior one" in their conquest of Jerusalem?

[Armyvet007]

The conquest of the Americas didn't take place because of or for the Catholic faith. It took place because of and for Spain. It wasn't funded from Rome, it didn't become Papal territory, it wasn't ruled from Rome, and the treasure fleets didn't sail from the New World to Rome. It was a secular (state) action; and no different really then the conquest of Gaul by the Romans or the later actions by non-Catholic European states in Africa and Asia. And, the only real difference between what the Europeans did to Native Americans and what some Native Americans did to other Native Americans is a difference of scale [made possible by their advanced technology and different approach to empire building].

That being said, it was morally wrong and those who supported it from within the Church were morally wrong (and those who opposed it from within the Church were morally right).

As for PC playing a role in the selection of saints, it has no place in that process.

[A G]

"Political Correctness" is evil. It is a philosophy that often hides or suppresses the truth.

[1ke]

I suggest you read Isabel of Spain by Warren Carroll.

I also suggest some fact checking regarding the so-called "conquering" of indiginous peoples you attribute to her. Isabella died in 1504.

[trickster]

Originally Posted by 1ke

I suggest you read Isabel of Spain by Warren Carroll.

I also suggest some fact checking regarding the so-called "conquering" of indiginous peoples you attribute to her. Isabella died in 1504.

Good point 1ke! Math was never one of my strongest points....let alone counting! Another commentor made that point...I stand corrected...but the central question still stands..the role of canonization in "rewarding" certain historical realities...as opposed to honournig a saint's spiritual life while understanding and contextualizing his or her decisions, actions and writigns in the context of his or her world at the time...


Bruce

[trickster]

Originally Posted by A G

"Political Correctness" is evil. It is a philosophy that often hides or suppresses the truth.

AG...political correctedness is also a fluid process that gives voice to the marginalized of society through attempts on the part of the privileged to find ways in which to promote conversation in all parts of society...I think the opposite to a certain degree that PC is also a philosophy that challenges the often assumed aspects of the truth...a socio-cultural or even "class" understanding of the truth the church teaches us...(note; I am differentiating "Truth " form perceptions of "truth" held by many in the chruch...

Bruce

[PhilOSophia]

Originally Posted by Filii Dei

Would you tolerate the Muslims similarly saying that a "superior form of social organisation bulldozed an inferior one" in their conquest of Jerusalem?

I would. They won. The crusaders lost. That's war.

I am tired of the constant hand-wringing and whining about Western society.

If you want to destroy a society, its very economical to get its own members to do it for you. Political correctness is the Left, having lost the argument with Capitalism, trying to seek power by inflating a guilt complex.

[PhilOSophia]

Criteria for naming someone a saint:

They are dead;
The Church declares that they are in Heaven.

That's it.

[trickster]

Originally Posted by PhilOSophia

Criteria for naming someone a saint:

They are dead;
The Church declares that they are in Heaven.

That's it.

Hmm...the "art of the possible"....

Bf

[trickster]

Originally Posted by PhilOSophia

I would. They won. The crusaders lost. That's war.

I am tired of the constant hand-wringing and whining about Western society.

If you want to destroy a society, its very economical to get its own members to do it for you. Political correctness is the Left, having lost the argument with Capitalism, trying to seek power by inflating a guilt complex.

Does your church stand with you on the "hand-wringing" of western society when in fact it is critical of western society?

Bruce

[RogerDeCourcy]

Originally Posted by trickster

Does your church stand with you on the "hand-wringing" of western society when in fact it is critical of western society?

Bruce

I would say the Church, having created Western Society, may critique it encouragingly, but leftists critique it destructively. I would say the Church prefers the atmosphere in Western Christian, capitalist societies than it does in communist, atheist, pagan, or socialist ones.

What's happening now is that a dunderheaded, pseudo-educated, left-leaning consensus, picking up ideas by osmosis, is groping its way, not to a New Enlightenment, but a darkening of the mind.

All the old sins are coming back and the old gods with them. A great pity.

Aside: You see, the Devil loves a man who thinks he's clever. By tempting him with forbidden knowledge, half-truths and lies, he can get him to do the most noxious things, and bit-by-bit damn him. E.g. the 'liberation' of sex.

You'll certainly find clergy who've got the eco-tolerance-for-peace-and-justice bug. You'll find them in bare churches with dwindling congregations, wondering why no one comes to confession.

[trickster]

Originally Posted by RogerDeCourcy

I would say the Church, having created Western Society, may critique it encouragingly, but leftists critique it destructively. I would say the Church prefers the atmosphere in Western Christian, capitalist societies than it does in communist, atheist, pagan, or socialist ones.

What's happening now is that a dunderheaded, pseudo-educated, left-leaning consensus, picking up ideas by osmosis, is groping its way, not to a New Enlightenment, but a darkening of the mind.

All the old sins are coming back and the old gods with them. A great pity.

Aside: You see, the Devil loves a man who thinks he's clever. By tempting him with forbidden knowledge, half-truths and lies, he can get him to do the most noxious things, and bit-by-bit damn him. E.g. the 'liberation' of sex.

You'll certainly find clergy who've got the eco-tolerance-for-peace-and-justice bug. You'll find them in bare churches with dwindling congregations, wondering why no one comes to confession.

C'mon Roger, would you say that when Paul VI said that we have no food shortage problem that we have a distribution problem is not critical of the western world? Or when JP II warned Poland not to fall into the traps of capitalism? You have a point though..do you think it would be fair to argue that the contemporary world has in fact negated the "western civilization" created by the church..cause as you know probably more better than me, is that the church created international law and that law was about balancing rights....but I think that you know where - basically - I am going with my statements...

Bruce