The Law And Missionary Work

[Amppax]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1304992270' post='2239409']
I think war to protect those "made glorious with the name of Christ" is a good and noble thing. I stand with the Tradition and Magesterium of the Church in that regard.
[/quote]

well it seemed like you were advocating that if people didn't peacefully convert, we should go in there, jihad-style, and force them... that seemed a little iffy to me, maybe that's just me (but i don't think it is)

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1304987671' post='2239366']
, or that St. Francis went on them as a priest, not condemning but encouraging them, that is meaningless and not really to be considered as example by which to live our life. I mean as Catholics we aren't supposed to look to the saints as examples by which to form our lives are we?[/quote]

First a minor correction: St. Francis of Assisi was ordained a deacon (for preaching purposes), but never a priest. He considered holy orders to be a bit too...much...for the little brothers.

St. Francis went on the crusades for the sole purpose of achieving martyrdom. He certainly went peaceably, and his message impressed the sultan so much that he was given permission to preach in Muslim lands, essentially. So...I'm not sure he's a good example of the conversion-by-the-sword mentality.

Also, while it is true that many people in the Church supported the Crusades at the time, the Eastern Church wasn't exactly a big fan of the endeavor. The description of the Crusaders provided by Anna Comnena isn't exactly...favorable. The Western Europeans were viewed as barbarians by both Constantinople and the Arab world.

The support for the Crusades in the West was at least in part justified because of the predilection of the Christian powers to fight each other constantly. The logic that they would be better off fighting the infidels might hold up theologically, but it hardly applies to most modern nations. Europe isn't exactly composed of Christian city states in a state of constant warfare at the moment. 'Stop killing each other and fight an actual enemy for once' isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.....

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1304992418' post='2239410']
well it seemed like you were advocating that if people didn't peacefully convert, we should go in there, jihad-style, and force them... that seemed a little iffy to me, maybe that's just me (but i don't think it is)
[/quote]


I never said anything of the sort.... go back and reread. However, if they are kiling people who are peacefully preaching the Gospel, and they are doing this repeatedly then I think we indeed should be there.... Crusade style.


I am painfully aware that we will not be, because we have not had the guts to raise arms in defense of anythig since 1870. Well except the Irish, but that was as much nationalism as religious zeal.

That we wllnot be, does not meanwe should not be,or that to do so would wrong.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1304993518' post='2239420']
I never said anything of the sort.... go back and reread. However, if they are kiling people who are peacefully preaching the Gospel, and they are doing this repeatedly then I think we indeed should be there.... Crusade style.


I am painfully aware that we will not be, because we have not had the guts to raise arms in defense of anythig since 1870. Well except the Irish, but that was as much nationalism as religious zeal.

That we wllnot be, does not meanwe should not be,or that to do so would wrong.
[/quote]


Well i would agree that we should protect people, but i don't think going in crusade style would be the way to do it

And sorry to misrepresent what you said, but that is just what it sounded like to me.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Amppax

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1304993275' post='2239417']
First a minor correction: St. Francis of Assisi was ordained a deacon (for preaching purposes), but never a priest. He considered holy orders to be a bit too...much...for the little brothers.

St. Francis went on the crusades for the sole purpose of achieving martyrdom. He certainly went peaceably, and his message impressed the sultan so much that he was given permission to preach in Muslim lands, essentially. So...I'm not sure he's a good example of the conversion-by-the-sword mentality.

Also, while it is true that many people in the Church supported the Crusades at the time, the Eastern Church wasn't exactly a big fan of the endeavor. The description of the Crusaders provided by Anna Comnena isn't exactly...favorable. The Western Europeans were viewed as barbarians by both Constantinople and the Arab world.

The support for the Crusades in the West was at least in part justified because of the predilection of the Christian powers to fight each other constantly. The logic that they would be better off fighting the infidels might hold up theologically, but it hardly applies to most modern nations. Europe isn't exactly composed of Christian city states in a state of constant warfare at the moment. 'Stop killing each other and fight an actual enemy for once' isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.....
[/quote]


He certianly did go in support the Crusade, his message impressed the Sultan, but it was not because it was so peaceful, it was after he was captured iafter a Crusader defeat and he was held for ransom, it was only then that he preached to the Sultan and was released, he was NEVER granted permission to preach in Moslem lands....never.

Its funny you should say that since it was the easternchurch that had asked for it,its true the Emperor would have prefered Mercenaries, the Byzantines never liked to do their own fighting, and certianly didn't like all of these guys who intended to Save the Holy City. Such people were not likely to obey orders, and agree to truces the Emperor worked out. On that score he was right, it was a problem for the Eastern Emperor.

City states? the west was hardly made up of city states... and Urban II 's call is not the only one. As I said 4th lateran and Lyon I come to mind, and certianly they were not concerned with the petty waring of petty nobles by the 13th century.


And I guess its how you lookat things.. I have always thought Anna Comnenas discription was quite favorable. The fact that those in Constantinople thoughthem barbarians, means nothing, they thought everyone barbarians. And the arabs, well concidering the arab behavior in Spain.. .that is laughable.

[MithLuin]

So to get back on topic....

If Ecuador and Brazil passed a law saying 'leave the natives alone', then if missionaries go in and get killed, it would seem reasonable to suspect that the gov'ts will [i]not[/i] go in guns blazing. So at the very least, it's a statement of their take on this issue of retaliation.

If the US would retaliate, it would be because of what was done to American citizens, not because they were missionaries.

If the question is...what do I do...

Well, I agree that you can certainly break laws and face the consequences of your actions. But in this case, it would be important to understand [i]why[/i] the law is there. The threat of infectious disease decimating a population that has never been exposed to what we would consider 'common' pathogens before is real. Is that really what the law is about? Or is it meant to keep logging companies away from certain tracts of land? I mean, you'd have to know a good bit about the big picture.

And as the story of Nate Saint and Jim Elliott made clear...death to the missionaries is certainly a potential outcome as well.

[Don John of Austria]

I'm also not real keen on the idea that Francis was that interested in martyrdom, rather he insisted many times that the Saracen should be converted and attempted on multiple occasions to reach them to preach the Gospel, that he was not particluarly looking to be martyred rather than being willing to accept it is witnessed by the fact that he left Egypt after being released, rather than going from place to place preachig, which would have gotten him martyred quite quickly.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1304995392' post='2239438']
So to get back on topic....

If Ecuador and Brazil passed a law saying 'leave the natives alone', then if missionaries go in and get killed, it would seem reasonable to suspect that the gov'ts will [i]not[/i] go in guns blazing. So at the very least, it's a statement of their take on this issue of retaliation.

If the US would retaliate, it would be because of what was done to American citizens, not because they were missionaries.

If the question is...what do I do...

Well, I agree that you can certainly break laws and face the consequences of your actions. But in this case, it would be important to understand [i]why[/i] the law is there. The threat of infectious disease decimating a population that has never been exposed to what we would consider 'common' pathogens before is real. Is that really what the law is about? Or is it meant to keep logging companies away from certain tracts of land? I mean, you'd have to know a good bit about the big picture.

And as the story of Nate Saint and Jim Elliott made clear...death to the missionaries is certainly a potential outcome as well.
[/quote]


They claimit is exclusivly to protect the natives from infection,and to maintain their cultural distinctiveness... If missionaries were killed going into them I am sure there would be no censure of any kind... it is obvious that there is no desire to have anyone relate to these people, so if you do and you get killed I don't think the governmetns of that place would care one wit. andthe US government does not protect itscitizens in foriegn lands, so that isn;t an issue.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I hereby agree with anything and everything that Aloysius might post in this thread, [i]ipso facto[/i].

[Don John of Austria]

is aloyisus still around, I haven't seen him.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1304996774' post='2239453']
is aloyisus still around, I haven't seen him.
[/quote]

yep, he is... at least as of a couple of days ago

[Don John of Austria]

Good!

[cmaD2006]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1304978780' post='2239287']
Oh please.... who would you have tell the history , the losers, yeah thats going to be accurate. Unfortuantely Earth is not Krynn, we do not hav an immortal omnisent chronicler to record everything from an obective point of view.


Yes and the spanish were very okay about saying exactly what happened, including many things we would call atrocities, but they thought they were right, so they didn't hold back.

The skull racks, the butchered bones of the eaten and thier own art, as well as the histories of other groups tell the story quite well, if you perfer archeology to history.

The Aztec culture was evil, they killed people, and ate them, they ritualized warfare so that they would have a steady supply of sacrifices, and for those sacrifices that had to be willing.... well they new how to make you an offer you couldn't refuse.

They were unabashedly evil, why is that so hard for people to accept.
[/quote]


And the spanish were ok with enslaving the indigenous peoples as well ...

I have a very hard time saying that they were unabashedly evil when we weren't there to judge that and are relying on what we have been told. Have you tried reading some of their writings? Or some of their historical documents.

I'm saying that to point blank say that they were evil is really judgemental. I completely disagree. There are always two sides of the story.


.... and I run away ... and I run away before my temper flares

Edited May 10, 2011 by cmariadiaz

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1304995808' post='2239442']
I'm also not real keen on the idea that Francis was that interested in martyrdom, rather he insisted many times that the Saracen should be converted and attempted on multiple occasions to reach them to preach the Gospel, that he was not particluarly looking to be martyred rather than being willing to accept it is witnessed by the fact that he left Egypt after being released, rather than going from place to place preachig, which would have gotten him martyred quite quickly.
[/quote]

Here's what Thomas of Celano, his first biographer, had to say about it:

[quote]In the thirteenth year of his conversion, Francis proceeded to Syria, for great and deadly battles between Christians and pagans were going on there every day. Francis, who was traveling with a companion, was not afraid to present himself before the sultan of the Saracens. But who can say with what constancy of mind he stood before him, with what strength of spirit he spoke, with what eloquence and assurance he answered those who insulted the Christian law? Before he was brought before the sultan he was captured by soldiers, insulted, and beaten with a lash; yet he was not afraid, was not terrified by the threats of torture, and did not grow pale when threatened with death. And though he was reproached by many who were opposed in mind and hostile in spirit, he was very honorably received by the sultan. Trying to bend Francis' spirit toward the wealth of this world, he honored him as much as he could and gave him many presents; yet when he saw that Francis despised such things as if they were dung, he was filled with the greatest admiration and regarded Francis as different from all others. He was moved by Francis' words and listened to him willingly. In all these things the Lord did not fulfill [b]Francis' desire for martyrdom,[/b] since he was reserving for him the prerogative of a singular grace.[/quote]

Now certainly you can debate what Francis was about, but Thomas of Celano, at least, thought his main motivation in seeking out Saracens was the desire to become a martyr, and mentions this several times in the Life.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1304998041' post='2239470']
Here's what Thomas of Celano, his first biographer, had to say about it:



Now certainly you can debate what Francis was about, but Thomas of Celano, at least, thought his main motivation in seeking out Saracens was the desire to become a martyr, and mentions this several times in the Life.
[/quote]


Lets agree that Francis was more than willing to be martyred but was not interested in it to the point that he was willing to force the issue, he was content to do what was right and accept Gods will on the matter.