Missionary killed by world's most unaccessable tribes


I was away from this forum for some period and rejoined today.Hope I get some light in this advent period.
Don’t know whether this matter which happened a week ago came up here.An American Missionary was killed by a tribe who live in an Indian island completely cutoff from the world.They really live in a stone age and won’t allow outsiders to enter the island.Will kill with arrows.Indian govt.also want them to be left alone.
Sad.I feel it is a crime against humanity to let them live an animal life.The missionary who dared to go there in an attempt to show them the light of our Saviour, inspite of extremely hostile situation deserves to be praised though many say that he should not have tried to disturb their way of life. Attached is a news cutting.


There’s already been a thread about this, just FYI.


There have been about three threads on this already.


Sorry,I did not notice .


You really must consider one things VERY important before mailing this statement.

This tribe live out of contact without outside since always. They are not immunised with out deseases.
Do you want a genocide ? Really?
I am not joking at all. It happened on history. Carraibean indians have Been extincted with plagues imported by europeans.

CCC Saïd that people who cannot access to gospel may bé or Can bé saved.


“Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence” (CCC 405, emphasis added).

The same Catechism which you cite also recognizes that ignorance is not something which gives a person a “get out of jail free card”; while invincible ignorance certain does exist, we must recognize that ignorance is not, in itself, a good. Ignorance is a consequence of the Fall, and a privation; receiving the one true faith is certainly a greater good than remaining ignorant, even if being granted the priceless gift of faith also comes with its own responsibilities. While the spread of disease is a legitimate concern, it regards only the natural good of these uncontacted peoples, which is subordinate to the supernatural good of their souls.


Thanks for the reference of the Cathechism.

But my point stay the same. We cannot, in the name of the prapagation of the faith, and counter the ignorence of the Gospel, go to evanzelised a _first people _(yes, like Native americans) who live apart of the contenporany world, distroyed their way of life, and more shortly killed them and extincted their lineage from the Earth forever, by contamination with imnunized desease.

What good does it will done? None.

In what aspect this existence of these people make you some harm?

I can understand the motive of the missionary, but it was like a suicide expedition, and it’s better that he cannot have contact. He perfectly knew that what he had done is illegal. He had a bad judgment.


Is not the solemn duty to evangelize and bring the faith to all nations more important than preserving merely human cultures? As for diseases, there are definitely ways, especially with today’s advanced skills and technology, to prevent an epidemic from occurring. We cannot use these excuses to shirk from the duty to bring the faith of Christ to others. As Lumen Gentium clearly states, Our Lord is the “light of nations”, and we have an obligation to “[proclaim] the Gospel to every creature”, and “to bring the light of Christ to all men”. Our Lord said to bring the faith to all the nations, without adding qualifiers, without excluding certain groups of people. Even these remote peoples have the right to hear the Gospel, and thus we have a duty to give it to them. I agree that the young man was misguided in certain respects, but ultimately, he had the right idea, recognizing that the supernatural good of these people’s souls is infinitely more important than their natural human health. After all, even the word “supernatural” itself indicates that it is above what is merely natural.


We can apply this Lumen Gentium idea to many situations in our world. People that may be evangelized are many. No need to find some people who are inaccessible.

I think that our pope does not think that we have a duty to evengelized this first people.

As for the spread of a desease, I don’t think that we can prevent the people, or at least some people to die. It seems impossible. Learn the lessons from the history. There is no reason to take the risk to kill 50% of the population to try to evangelized the other.
This people have suffered from the past too. It explained their refusal of any contact. They are protected by the Indian State. (and we are not Indians, so it’s none of our business).

We cannot impose our faith to the others. We don’t have the same language, the same way of life, the same way of thinking. All the time we do it with a first people, they were very badly impact (see native Americans, Aborigine of Autralia, and the now extincted Aborigines of Tasmania).
Then, to export an occidental way of life should be a pre requirement to any evanzelisation. Does this people want that? Obviousely no.


I’m getting the impression that you seem to think that natural life on earth is more valuable than supernatural life in heaven. This is contrary to Catholic sensibilities, and finds its root in the error of theological liberalism, which places the natural above the supernatural. Do you know what the supreme law of the Church is?


I just hope you that this question you ask me is a general one, and has nothing to do with the first topic, which is the evangelization of this first people.

Sorry, because if it is the case, this should go to nowhere. They will be dead before being Christians. I am sure that we have no duty to them. I think your view seems much more rooted in supremacy theory than in catholic theology (at least in actual one).

I am certainely not always 100% correct in catholic doctrine, but no, I don’t considered myself a theological liberal.


That’s funny because we discuss of this same news with my husband yesterday.

And he accused me of the opposite of what you said me. That I am a religious fanactic, and stupid on this question. He waited a clear condamnation from me to what this American (yes, only an American can do that…)missionary had done!


I am getting to the root of the principles involved; the specific issue, namely, the evangelization of people who belong to uncontacted tribes, simply touches upon the practical application of these principles. So in that sense, yes, it is a general question: what is more important, natural life or supernatural life?

My “view” is simply the teaching of Our Lord, Jesus Christ: “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” (Matt. 28:19-20).

When the Apostles went on missions, did they do so out of love for souls, or out of a desire to show themselves to be a superior group? As Christians, we have been given the priceless gift of faith, and these privileges come with responsibility. We cannot deny anyone their rights, and in this case, we cannot deny a group of people the right to hear the Gospel.

I didn’t say you were.


That’s a hard issue, because if we learn history, we have to aknowledge that when a first people is uprooted, and turn to occidental life, even with the help of christians missions, It don’t end very well. Some good come, and some saints too, but some very bad too. (people who stop to multiply, death, abused, alcohol, miserable life, social, moral and familial misery…)


We charitably bring people toward the truth. We don’t commit acts of terrorism like certain radical groups, but it would be an error to say that we should only pursue missionary activity only if we can be absolutely sure that the people want it. By not giving the truth to avoid giving offense, we demonstrate empty charity for our neighbor. It’s not a matter of us making the decisions for others; it’s that Our Lord Himself has “made this decision”, out of His infinite love, desiring that all men enter into the heavenly kingdom.

Any misery in this temporal world would be preferable to allowing souls to perish due to our own reluctance to fulfill our duties. We will have to answer to God for that.


We have to face it, many, people who live in extreme misery, which is often liked with moral misery are very far away to the faith. They can believe in God, but will not be a catholic who live according the catholic principles. Their live is much more complicated to they don’t have the priviledge to take care of their actions in a Godly way in many circonstances.


Yes, we must give support to people in these circumstances, but refusing to proclaim the Gospel would be a terrible start to providing this support.

All things considered, this has been a very interesting discussion, though unfortunately I find myself obliged to focus my attention to other matters for the time being. In the meantime, the search function tells me that there was a discussion on this very recently, which may guide you in your considerations:

God bless!


Their free will is to remain inclusive from the world, they have that right.

The missionary is a martyr, God Bless him for his sacrifice.

That said this native population does not have immunizations so it’s very risky exposing them to diseases. But hey, we all have to die eventually so the missionary probably thought I will bring them Christ. Given the natives also have free will this might be a contested thing, I don’t know


The simple fact is that they live exactly an animal life.No merit in the contention that outside contact will make them prone to deceases because who knows whether they are not now suffering from easily curable deceases and are already perishing? No true christians can say that they should be allowed to live(and die!) alone without knowing about our Lord,because such christians are yet to understand the fundamental purpose of creation of man on earth vis a vis animals.Pray that God give wisdom and discernment to those opposing the attempts to evangelise these tribes.
What the bold Missionary wrote last is quite relevant.Extrat of the news in this regard reproduced below:

“Lord, is this island Satan’s last stronghold where none have heard or even had the chance to hear your name?” he wrote in a diary of his last days provided to The Washington Post by his mother.


Placing souls in danger of eternal damnation through negligence is even less charitable. As I’ve reiterated many times already, the supernatural exceeds the natural in importance. We ought to take more care of our souls than our earthly bodies, and likewise, the supreme law of the Church is saving souls, which is a higher purpose than simply saving the natural lives of human beings, however laudable the latter may be.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.