Got a cite in which "purification" is actually used?

Unfortunately for the pope he no longer has a monopoly on the Christian brand. I am sure the next protestant missionary that approaches these indians will get a polite possibly even a friendly response.

You don't link the article. I assume you are referring to this one:

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN14287992

In it, I don't see a quote from the Pope using the term "purification." The only quote is the "silent longing" quote above. One speaker attributes this view to the Pope, but it's not at all clear that he is quoting. Did the Pope say this? Your post implies that he said it in his response to the letter of protest. Did he?

Here's a quote from that address:

"Yet what did the acceptance of the Christian faith mean for the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean? For them, it meant knowing and welcoming Christ, the unknown God whom their ancestors were seeking, without realizing it, in their rich religious traditions. Christ is the Saviour for whom they were silently longing. It also meant that they received, in the waters of Baptism, the divine life that made them children of God by adoption; moreover, they received the Holy Spirit who came to make their cultures fruitful, purifying them and developing the numerous seeds that the incarnate Word had planted in them, thereby guiding them along the paths of the Gospel. In effect, the proclamation of Jesus and of his Gospel did not at any point involve an alienation of the pre-Columbus cultures, nor was it the imposition of a foreign culture. Authentic cultures are not closed in upon themselves, nor are they set in stone at a particular point in history, but they are open, or better still, they are seeking an encounter with other cultures, hoping to reach universality through encounter and dialogue with other ways of life and with elements that can lead to a new synthesis, in which the diversity of expressions is always respected as well as the diversity of their particular cultural embodiment.

Ultimately, it is only the truth that can bring unity, and the proof of this is love. That is why Christ, being in truth the incarnate Logos, "love to the end", is not alien to any culture, nor to any person; on the contrary, the response that he seeks in the heart of cultures is what gives them their ultimate identity, uniting humanity and at the same time respecting the wealth of diversity, opening people everywhere to growth in genuine humanity, in authentic progress. The Word of God, in becoming flesh in Jesus Christ, also became history and culture.

The Utopia of going back to breathe life into the pre-Columbus religions, separating them from Christ and from the universal Church, would not be a step forward: indeed, it would be a step back. In reality, it would be a retreat towards a stage in history anchored in the past."

from this Web site:

www.zenit.org/english

I have to say, once you accept the idea that the natives had been 'silently longing' for jesus, it does make the Book Of Mormon appear more plausible.
(oh, and don't forget that the jews had been silently longing for someone to force them to convert so that they didn't have to take the responsibility)

bartolomeo de las casas had a bit to say about that 'silent longing' thingy, in valladolid, an about 1525, iirc...
/

While I don't think Benedict XVI's remarks adequately address the historical problem of forced conversions, etc., I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that "Benedict described the forced conversions and massacres of Brazil's native peoples by European conquerors as their "purification."

He was speaking at a higher level of abstraction than that, and, as far as I can tell, didn't have those particular events in mind.

David,
it seems to me that either he DID specifically mean those particular events (obviously editted for content), or he meant conversions which took place after said events, once the culture was already crushed.
Given that the latter occured because of the former, how could he exclude those events?

It would be bizarre for me to make a speech about how I helped you with an injury you had sustained, and not mention that I caused that injury (or, say, had my goons cause it)

Hi David,

I can never figure out what this Pope has in "mind"

All I know is that he so often has his foot in his mouth.

Most of the time it would be better for Benedict XVI to stay in Rome blessing crowds.

Benedict is going to end up being as bad for the Catholic Church as Bush has been for the Republicans.

"Benedict described the forced conversions and massacres of Brazil's native peoples by European conquerors as their 'purification.'"

Heh. Once a Hitler Youth, always a Hitler Youth.

Just as George W. Bush has caused serious damage to the American nation, Pope Benedict XVI has caused serious damage to the Roman Catholic church. In both cases, their successors are going to have a hell of a time fixing the mess they've been stuck with.

Whatever the pope "had on his mind" when he gave this speech, the effect of it is a joke.

Reading his speech, you'd think the history of European exploration amounted to the Teletubbies landing in Sao Paulo and sending unicorns and pixies out to the natives, who happily embraced Tinky Winky, and everyone got along forver and lived happily ever after. And it all worked out because, even though they didn't know it, all of the natives really wanted to believe in Tinky Winky, as did their parents and grandparents.

Somehow, I think the story is a little different.

Is this what we get from a German pope? That colonization at the end of a bayonette and cross was not only accepted, but "longed for" by native people? Yikes - - what's he going to say about Luther?

I am not a Christian, but I think this criticism of the Pope is off base.

The Pope believes the Catholic religion is true. This NECESSARILY ENTAILS a belief that non-Catholic religions are false.

Our system of pluralism - where people of different beliefs agree not to kill each other over those different beliefs - seems to have confused some of you into adopting a "mental pluralism" where it's possible to believe that Catholicism is true while not believing that the pre-Columbian religions of Latin America were false. News flash: That is not, in fact, possible.

The Catholic Church is a massive organization. Benedict has all the diplomatic resources that are available to the executive of large developed nations. Benedict himself has considerable skills: he was able to rise through the ranks of a large organization and become its elected executive.

If Benedict said "In effect, the proclamation of Jesus and of his Gospel did not at any point involve an alienation of the pre-Columbus cultures, nor was it the imposition of a foreign culture." then we can expect that he meant what he said.

Those who have attempted to excuse Benedict's statements (I'm referring more to representatives in the popular press rather than commenters here) on other cultures or other issues by saying that he is not speaking clearly are being either disingenuous or credulous. He says exactly what he means.

If David's post is the source of Ann Friedman's claims about the Pope, then she's really worked very, very hard to prize that out of what he said.

Which is kind of bewildering since Panzerpapen provides plenty of other material for denunciation purposes.

Basically, what he said is Curia boilerplate, been saying approximately the same thing for god-knows how long, to justify their humble submission to the cranky brown masses in Latin America. It doesn't deal with what happened, it deals with what should have been.

That is the Church's traditional approach to these questions and problems.

Blind, deaf and dumb it may be, and yes, this attitude is shrinking the Church world wide, but the Pope is not justifying genocide, he is not calling forced conversion "purification," and he is not insisting that western culture is superior.

Though that may be what he believes...

Fluufy,
You might be able to make an arguement for that (though I find that this level of certainty never leads anywhere good), but you are missing the real point.

Popey is completely ignoring the fact that his religion came in with a sword and a steamroller.
It was, in fact, an inquisition, a bloodbath.

Thats not saying "I'm right, and you are wrong", thats saying "I'm right, so eat hot lead"

Moleboy:

My reading of this dispute is that the Pope was asked to intervene on behalf of an aboriginal culture, and his answer was essentially, "Well, your aboriginal culture was dominated my demonic religions, so why ask ME of all people to help it?"

I think personally that both religions are bunk - but I don't expect the titular head of one to stand up for the truth and value of the other.

Fluufy
Here, try this for a parallel example.
You and I are running against each other for President.
Now, I KNOW that, if you win, it will mean disaster for America.
So, right before the first debate, I kidnap your wife and send you a video
of me torturing her.
You then drop out.
Years later, we meet and you ask me to give you a job in my administration.
I say, "Sorry, I can't do that. I can't hire someone who was afraid to face me in a debate."

I wonder how Pope Benedict XVI would react if a Muslim leader were to describe the Islamification of the Middle East as a "purification" of its culture, and that Muhammad was the prophet for whom the Christians of the Middle East were "silently longing."

Khalil Nmeir- that's irrelevant. Religion doesn't work that way. Look, one of the Pope's fundamental assumptions is that his religion is right, his god exists, other religions are wrong, and their god's don't exist, or at worst, are demonic influences.

So the Pope says that it was good in the long term for an indigenous culture to be colonized, brutally, and converted to his faith. If a muslim leader were to say the exact same thing about the islamification of the christian middle east, the Pope would see absolutely no parallel: in his comment, he was defending an imperialism that imposed the One True Faith on people who needed to believe in it or else burn in the fires of hell. In the muslim leader's comment, the muslim leader would be (from the Pope's perspective) defending an imperialism that imposed a satan-influenced false religion on people, possibly damning them for eternity.

The fact that these are identical from the perspective of an objective third party that doesn't believe in either religion is not going to affect the Pope's view. That's not how religion works.

Moleboy -

I think part of the issue here may be that I formed my opinion of this dispute in response to the first Reuters article yesterday, that started with the lede:

"Outraged Indian leaders in Brazil said on Monday they were offended by Pope Benedict's "arrogant and disrespectful" comments that the Roman Catholic Church had purified them and a revival of their religions would be a backward step."

- and which contained the quote:

'"It's arrogant and disrespectful to consider our cultural heritage secondary to theirs," said Jecinaldo Satere Mawe, chief coordinator of the Amazon Indian group Coiab.'

That would tend to place the disagreement pretty firmly in the realm of "Should the Pope think Catholicism is better than pre-Columbian Indian religions?"

This Prospect post is focusing more on the "silently longing" part of the statement, which is in fact a little dopey but quite in keeping with the Church's view that all of humanity is longing for salvation, including those who have never heard the gospel. It's bunk, but it's internally consistent bunk.

Indeed Peter P. It's like the old saying:

You can take the boy out of Nazi Germany...

Fluffy
As I said before, you are certainly right in that regard.
I've been focusing on the other bit about how wonderous the conversion was.
I agree with you that its nuts to expect the Pope to say anything other than his church is the one true truth filled with truthiness.
;)

the pope was referring to the arrival of christianity, not the genocidal conquest.

the two are not exactly the same, you know...

thus one of the moderating forces controlling the rapacious conquerors were the priests. have you heard of de las casas?

as for "silent longing"--the fact is, the Indians did convert, not always by force, and became the most devout Catholics in the world...
often using the religion against their conquerors--because christianity can do that...

bottom line: latin america is now entirely christian, if not all catholic any more.

i'm sure the christians there wouldn't be pleased to hear a bunch of white liberals in North American talking about the religion they love as "genocide" and "murder" and "colonialism"

would I deny any of these things? of course not.

but there is a new form of colonlialism in affect when you skeptics, utterly ignorant of christianity, start mocking the religion of the colored people you purport to be defending.

It is not in TAP's interest just to become another source of bullshit uncritically accepted talking points.

Let's stay reality based here Ann.

they received the Holy Spirit who came to make their cultures fruitful, purifying them

That said, the bit about how

the proclamation of Jesus and of his Gospel did not at any point involve an alienation of the pre-Columbus cultures, nor was it the imposition of a foreign culture

An interesting counterpoint to Pope Ratzi's mouth-foot is that Christianity seems to have been incorporated into some indigenous religious traditions, as another expression of those beliefs rather than as an alternative belief system: a situation which (arguably persisted until at least the late 1980s.

Are all religious leaders stone cold crazy? It seems all in the USA are and this isn't the first stupid thing this Pope has said. It may be a hold over from his propagandized Hitler Youth days. Worse, his flock will go AMEN! Pitiful

Man, either him or his translater just keeps stuffing those papal slippers in his mouth! That bit of the address was the most condescending bit of drivel I have espied in my whole puff.

I could see him, giving that blather out to a crowd in Latin America, thinking he's just drowning 'em in honey, while the crowd becomes more and more dismayed and enraged.

"The Utopia of going back to breathe life into the pre-Columbus religions, separating them from Christ and from the universal Church, would not be a step forward: indeed, it would be a step back. In reality, it would be a retreat towards a stage in history anchored in the past."

This from the Church which cults all over the Saints.

On a slightly tangential note, I just finished watching "Deliver Us From Evil," the documentary about pedophilia in the Catholic Church. At the end of the movie it says that Pope Benedict was being investigated for his role in covering up the scandal, but that Bush granted the Pope immunity. I had never heard of this. Was it widely reported? If not, why not? Sounds like a huge story...

Infallible means fallible?

"welcoming Christ, the unknown God whom their ancestors were seeking, without realizing it, in their rich religious traditions. Christ is the Saviour for whom they were silently longing. ... the proclamation of Jesus and of his Gospel did not at any point involve an alienation of the ... cultures"

Sounds so Spanish Inquisition.

What's strange is that you think you're giving an accurate account of the story.

Since you've already distorted and misrepresented his remarks in your original post, why not give us a link to your updated quotation? Here's one. You might note that it's not baptism, but the Holy Spirit that (the Pope thinks) came to purify them.

You don't have to condone the "murder, enslavement, and forced conversion" of indigenous peoples to believe, as the Pope does, that Christianity is superior to indigenous religions and that a revival of indigenous religions would be a step away from the truth. Indeed, I would certainly hope that the Pope believes both of those things.

It's not hard to get these details right, but it looks like Tapped would rather get it wrong. Intentionally misrepresenting the Pope's position (while intentionally misquoting him, to boot) is an easier way to harangue anyone who believes that one religion is superior to any others. It's just not intellectually honest.

Well I certainly support western cultural imperialism in some matters such as FGM... I'm sure Adele does as well.

The Nazi Pope and his Brownshits in the Vatican are desroying the Church. they are neither Cathloic nor Christian but hateful control freaks preserving their corrupt clerial rule.

I have to say that the ignorance and close-mindedness of the comments in this thread, and the post above it, are mind-boggling.

Do you people even care to know what form of Christianity is professed by the Pope?

Do you think that all Christians are like the fundamentalists in America?

Do you care that the people of Latin America BELIEVE in Jesus Christ, and not in the pre-Columbian religions?

Again, do you think that a Latin American Christian would be more offended by the Pope, or by YOU, blithely equating the Latin American religion of today--Christianity--with genocide and murder?

Do you really think that Latin Americans of today are too STUPID to distinguish between the religion they love and the terrible crimes they were subjected to by the conquerors?

This thread is a joke, this post is a joke.

Colonialism takes many forms. ONE is the ignorant dismissal of Latin American Christianity.

Why do you think 150,000 people came out to see the Pope yesterday? Because they're suicidal and want to celebrate the murderous conquest?

Or because they're grateful to God that the murderers of the 16th century, DESPITE THEMSELVES, brought Christianity to Latin America?

By the way, it's not coincidental that the Vatican has continuously denounced neo-liberal free trade, which destroys Latin American lives, with much more vigor and interest than we North Atlantic liberals.

It was Clinton, and not John Paul II, who inflicted NAFTA on those benighted brown-skinned worshippers of Jesus.

Well, I see that anti-Catholic bigotry and anti-German bigotry is alive and well at the 'Merican Prospect, so much so that you'll twist any words out of the Pope's mouth to fit your bigoted preconceptions.

Hint for the racist dumbasses: when the Pope referred to "purifying" he meant in the spiritual sense, not as a euphemism for genocide.

Adele,

you say:

"My intention was to convey the pope's message as it was perceived by the Indians (and me), not to suggest that he had said verbatim that the genocide of the Indians amounted to their purification."

Then why attribute to Benedict XVI the horrible intention of approving of genocide and forced conversions?

Audience reaction isn't always a reliable indicator of what the speaker's (or writer's) intentions are.

It is much more plausible, based upon what was said, to argue that Benedict's statements fail to adequately address the issue of genocide and forced conversions.

An objective reading of Benedict’s remarks -– not that the vast majority of people here have any interest in that -- would show he was merely denying the claim that "welcoming Christ" is in any way a denial of Indian culture (or for that matter, Chinese, or Arab or American culture). The day the Pope stops believing that is the day he ought to step down from office and stop pretending he’s a Christian.

In any case, making such a claim is not at all the same as contending that Christianity wasn’t delivered to the Indians alongside rape, chauvinism, and subjugation in general. Papal documents on that point, dating back to Bartolomeo de las Casas' appeals, are already a matter of public record.

Context: The University Professor Pope is making his typically abstract comments about his religion to a group of Christians.

Comment: A clear advocacy of the religion that most of his audience believe in and, notwithstanding the media reports and many comments in here, they really are smart enough to know what the Pope is talking about.

Reaction: A disingenuous response by people obviously prejudiced toward Catholicism and Germans. In their patronising remarks attacking the Pope supposedly to advocate the rights of the Pope's audience there is even a strong unfavourable racial stereotyping evident. They also show a disrespect for Jewish people.

My general comment:

The cradle of Christianity was the Middle East. Europe was converted. Christianity commenced as a Jewish sect however significant it was to the development of modern day Europe (or Brazil). To say that a people's past is not incompatible with Christianity could equally be applied to Europe. The only difference is that there is less material for anti-Catholicism because Europe wasn't converted after an invasion (none relevant anyway). If people want to stoop to great depths to thinly disguise bigotry at least get the facts right.

I am disgusted by the bigotry expressed against Catholics, Germans, and those dismissed as "brown skinned" who supposedly lack the ability to understand the obvious thrust of the Pope's comments.

Certainly there are Pope haters, anti-Catholics, and others in Brazil who will use the Pope's speech as an excuse to advance their cause as there are worldwide. But neither they nor a disingenuous misinterpretation of the thrust of the Pope's words excuse such appaling bigotry as has been expressed in response to the Pope's speech.

Further, what does it take to have bigots recognise their poisonous attitudes. Someone pointing out that the Pope's audience are Christians? The accumulation of comments relating to other Catholic beliefs on priesthood and abortion, intellectually dishonest twisting of Pope's comments, relating the Pope to negative (and outdated)stereotypes of people from his country of origin, disingenuous innuendos that the Pope should not claim his religion is correct, name calling, labels obviously intended to elicit association to events as far back the Middle Ages to vilify the Catholic religion, and shoddy comparisons should scream to readers that there is strong evidence of bigotry. Does the failure to see anything wrong with this demonstrate the depth of filthy bigotry?

Comments requiring mention for the reasons given below are:

"I wonder how Pope Benedict XVI would react if a Muslim leader were to describe the Islamification of the Middle East as a "purification" of its culture, and that Muhammad was the prophet for whom the Christians of the Middle East were "silently longing."

"The Nazi Pope and his Brownshits in the Vatican are desroying the Church. they are neither Cathloic nor Christian but hateful control freaks preserving their corrupt clerial rule"

The former is one of many straw men directed toward the Pope. Most of the others are based on racist themes or simply misrepresenting what he was saying. However that one was not subsequently addressed. I take the opportunity to note that a reasonable comparison would instead be a Muslim leader addressing people in the Middle East of the Muslim faith and discussing purification. The Pope had a Chrisian audience. The fact that the usage of purification is misrepresented has already been addressed.

The latter comment is remarkable. It contains many elements all quite extreme. Societies change. We now look back at racial bigotry and historians quote examples like that to show how distasteful it can get. I wonder if that particular quote will become historical in the future. It certainly provides an extreme example that could be used in relation to discussion of bigotry directed toward either Germans or Catholics.

Finally, (I believe it is an objective reaction not reflecting the fact that part of my recent ancestory is Jewish but either way) how appalling to use innuendos of the holocaust as rhetorical support for bigotry. That is totally distasteful.

Finally, I hope that I live to see the day when people aren't continually seizing excuses to express venomous hatred toward particular groups. People in here seem to consider it a fun sport but it can have very negative consequences. Why can't we move on? Bigotry doesn't go away it just shifts target.