Then why don’t we all confess and kill ourselves to be saved?
That’s the logic for death penalty also.
A nation has a right to refuse entry to outsiders, and this island is effectively a sovereign nation under the protection of India’s navy. A nation further has an absolute right to refuse missionaries that do not belong to the true faith, the Catholic Church.
The man who was killed was an adventure seeking, faith-alone Evangelical. He was not sponsored by any church, and certainly not the Catholic Church.
He was killed on his second visit, after the being injured on his attempt the day before. Jesus tells us to shake the dust off our feet when a village refuses an Apostle. His second visit was foolish.
The Indian government does not neglect them; they had attempted contact for decades, and were rebuffed at every attempt. In a generation, they may attempt contact again. The current population, however, has refused contact, and harrassing them further would be counter productive.
Catholic missionaries has always laerned local customs and taugh the faith through the lens of what is already good and holy in a culture. Saint Paul, for instance, pointed out the Shrine of the Unknown God in Athens as a way of showing them their understanding of religion was incomplete.
The “missionary” who was killed had no respect or understanding of local customs. He did not even speak the language, and illegally entered there territory with no support from lawful authorities.
The tribe on the island had no way of knowing his intentions. They do know, however, that outsiders had dominated and exploited neighboring islands for centuries, and had no reason to trust some random guy who paddled in from a commercial fishing boat.
The simple truth is that a true missionary was not killed. A foolish trespasser was killed after illegally crossing their borders.
Do you think every non-Christian (or every non-Catholic, which would include the missionary) is per se damned to hell?
I agree with your analysis overall, but just for the sake being charitable to this guys memory, it sounds like his heart was in the right place even if his attempts were misguided.
I hate to say this but it was a bad decision and completely unreasonable to contact a tribe that has had no contact with the real world. People have been killed before. They don’t like strangers.
Having said that i am sure the missionary had good intentions and i am sure he deserves our prayers.
Non-ignorance is superior to ignorance (ignorance is not bliss), but since we know better than our ancestors and understand things such as germ theory, and also the social ills and exploitation that easily come with contact with Neolithic societies, there is a moral obligation to approach these cultures in a way that is safe.
I’m not sure how your question has anything to do with the topic at hand, or how this can logically follow what I presented. Suicide is a grave sin, contrary to both natural law and divine positive law, so we cannot simply say we should all go to confession, and then kill ourselves, expecting to go straight to heaven.
It is true that an argument in support of the State’s right to use capital punishment should it be necessary is the fact that it can have a purgatorial effect on the criminal, because the function of punishment is to restore order to the soul. However, this does not in any way relate to the ludicrous proposition about killing ourselves and being saved. In addition, this thread is not on capital punishment, and so I think we should refrain from derailing it. Please refer to the article I linked in another thread for more information.
Not all non-Catholics go to hell, not all Catholics go to heaven, and the fact remains that the vast majority of men are not saved; Our Lord Himself states in unequivocal terms that the gate is narrow. While I accept the teaching of baptism of desire, we cannot presume that the vast majority of non-Catholics are invincibly ignorant. It is still infinitely greater to bring souls into the maternal embrace of the holy Mother Church, even if invincible ignorance is a legitimate possibility. So while as a Catholic, I give my assent of the will to the dogma “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”, I do not adhere to the heretical Feeneyite misinterpretation of this dogma.
If we’re going to have a civilized discussion, as the forum guidelines stipulate, then please refrain from blowing things out of proportion in an attempt to misrepresent my position and thereby make it look ridiculous.
It should be very clear by now that throughout the discussion I have been speaking of principle, and not of practice. In principle, all Catholics have the most solemn duty and obligation to bring the true faith to all nations. In practice, this can take many different forms. Some are called to be missionaries, and travel land and sea, bringing souls into the one true Church, but not everyone is called to this particular form of missionary work. God gives each person his vocation for a reason, the salvation of souls.
In short, the fact that I am not right now getting on a boat to sail to North Sentinel Island does not prove any part of your point in any way, shape, or form. Not have I ever endorsed the method attempted by this non-Catholic “missionary”, which was imprudent and misguided in quite a few ways. However, while he made poor decisions in practice, in principle, he had the right idea about the need for conversion.
“…the salvation of souls, which must always be the supreme law in the Church, is to be kept before one’s eyes” (1983 CIC, c. 1752). If we truly love God and our neighbor, then we should desire what God desires for our neighbor, namely, the salvation of his soul. To refuse to bring him to the faith under the pretext of potential harm to merely natural goods is empty charity, and in fact, we would be violating his right to hear the Gospel.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.