BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?

Subject: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 12:53 PM

There is a strong movement to have Queen Isabella, she of the Spanish Inquisition, beatified.

I'm Jewish, not a Catholic, but to me, it would be a travesty to have her declared a saint.

Here's a story about the movement.

http://www.jta.org/story.asp?id=030425-isab

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 01:14 PM

The following link may make it easier to find this story: Global news service of the Jewish people
I feel this thread is probably a troll, and so will make no further comment after this one.

Why should the Roman Catholics (I'm an Anglican) take any note of Jewish wishes with regard to canonisation? If this system was used in the past, Christ would not have been recognised as the Messiah.
Allow the Roman Catholic church make its own decisions about the rights and wrongs of this matter.

Fin

Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 01:29 PM

Queen Isabella is best known for her dealings with that crazyman, Colombo, but she saw that the last of the Moors and the Jews were turfed out, forced to convert, or killed. This wrecked much of the business and trade in Spain, only balanced by the wealth of the "Indies" brought in from the Americas in the 1500s.

In Columbia, and perhaps other countries in South America, she is remembered through the word "isabelline," meaning gray, because legend has it that, for religious reasons, she never changed her undergarments.

The Catholic hierarchy in Spain for a long time pursued a semi-independent course. One could speculate that her beatification is aimed at firmly sealing the union with Rome.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Sorcha
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 02:01 PM

So that's why grey Doberman Pinschers are called Isabella! My Factoid for the day.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 02:17 PM

Nigel, why do you think this thread is a troll. I'm simply someone who feels that "sainthood" and the very evil Spanish Inquisition are incompatible. Objecting to sainthood for such aperson, even by a non-Catholic, even by a Jew, is not trolling.

I made my comment and provided a source for further reading on the subject. That does not make me a troll.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: MMario
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 02:20 PM

Wasn't the Inquisition a branch and function of the church, rather then the state? I suspect Isabella had little or nothing to do with either the establishment or function of the inquisition

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 03:41 PM

I suspect, MMario, that you have had little or nothing to do with the study of history.

You might want to start your study by reading this primer http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/64.htm from a Christian website.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 03:43 PM

The Inquisition, by definition, had no jurisdiction over anyone other than Christians. Any Jews they persecuted were individuals who had converted to Catholicism, normally referred to as "New Christians" or conversos, and who were still engaging in "Judaicizing," a term that was very inclusive and included washing too often.

The request for establishment of an Inquisition that was sent to Rome in 1478 was signed by both Ferdinand and Isabella, as co-monarchs, and Ferdinand is credited with the responsibility for spreading it beyond Castille itself.

The expulsion of the Jews and the Moors in 1492 was intended to make Spain a totally Christian nation, and to free the Spanish from the influence of non-Catholics.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: MMario
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 03:59 PM

Hi guest of 3:41 - to qoute the site you pointed at:

The beginning of the Inquisition is generally credited to the reign of Ferdinand V and Isabella. In truth, it began before that time, and carried on long after Ferdinand and Isabella passed away.

Now - if the Inquisition started before Isabella - she couldn't have founded it, now could she?

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: MMario
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 04:02 PM

crap - screwed my HTML - bold should end after 'time', italics after 'away.'

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 04:09 PM

This website has some excellent info plus many links to cites: Wikipedia...there were more than just Jews who were victims of the Inquisitions. Christians who didn't agree in with the Church in their beliefs; uppity women; Muslems; homosexuals...all were included.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Amos
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 04:13 PM

The woman is clearly about as qualified for sainthood as Hilklary Clinton. Whaddya think?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: MMario
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 04:16 PM

i'd put them about equal for sainthood, yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 04:23 PM

Amos-I would have to disagree. As far as I know, Hillary Clinton is no more reprehensible than most modern politicians, who I do not consider quite as immoral as someone complicit in the destruction of a number of cultures, both within her own nation (the Sephardic Jews and Moors) and her colonies.

artbrooks-The expulsion of Jews and Moors de facto put everyone in the country under the authority of the Inquisition.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: MMario
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 04:26 PM

According to seveal sites I've perused today Isabella was against the explotation of the indigines in her overseas possessions.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 04:34 PM

During the reign of Henry IV, anarchy almost prevailed in Spain. Jews gained power and influence, even to the point where they might compel their debtors th renounce the Christian religion. The power of the Marranos (baptized Jews) and the Moriscos (baptized Moors) increased and they began to practice their old religions in secret. The Catholic kings consulted Pope Sixtus IV, and he issued a bull on Nov. 1, 1478. It was instituted in Spain by royal decree on Sept. 17, 1780. Torquemada was made Inquisitor General in 1483.
There were actions against non-Christians for many years, as Christian conquerers moved further south, but this was not part of the Inquisition.

An interesting relic of the pre-Ferdinand-Isabella times is the large place of worship in Toledo that was shared by both Muslims and Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 05:18 PM

In 1492, Queen Isabella made it a crime to be Jewish and remain in Spain.

Today's Sephardic Jews are the descendants of the Jews of the expelled Jews of Spain.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 05:22 PM

Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Amos
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 05:36 PM

YEah -- on the other hand Hillary never got to be Queen....


A

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: SINSULL
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 05:42 PM

Actually Art, the history books agree that King Ferdinand gave into the wishes of the queen. None of the "simple" explanations above cover all the reasons for the Inquisition.

Yes Moors and Jews were forced to become Christians or leave but there was little or no religious education available and so they literally did not know some of the prayers that were proof of their Chritianity. At least some of the discrimination was based on a hatred of the more financially successful non-Christians.

Accusations could be made anonymously leading to the arrest of the accused who was kept in prison without legal council for as long as the court decided. Torture was used to extract confessions and huge burnings were staged - a last ditch effort to get the heretic to admit to his crime and avoid death by fire. BUT...they had to supply the names of others and possibly implicate family members.

Wish I had unpacked my history section. I have at least five studies of the period. One even claims that an "infatada" (SP) or burning took place in the what is now Virginia.

As to Queen Isabella's sainthood...supposedly religious furvor guided her. There is a series of tests for sainthood which if she passes qualify her. No more strange than excommunicating a man for saying that the sun is the center of our solar system and maintaining the excommunication into the 20th century.

Can't imagine that this will go over well with Jews or Arabs.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: SINSULL
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 05:47 PM

DOH!!!! Auto de fa.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 05:48 PM

Actually, I pulled that out of J.H. Elliott's, Imperial Spain, which was sitting on my desk.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 05:56 PM

She'll be no worse than St Olaf, patron saint of Norway, nor as few others, I should imagine...

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 06:02 PM

I understand that John Paul II has named more saints than any other pope in history. Maybe he WILL name Hillary a saint.
I'd say her chances are about even with Isabella's.

I disagree with the Pope on a number of issues, but I think he has quite good and quite sensitive in the area of international diplomacy. While I doubt that Isabella will be named a saint, there seems to be no good accomplished in suppressing or even opposing the movement that wants to have her named a saint.

We have a similar problem in the State of California. We have a perfectly good rotunda in the state capitol building, that would be wonderful for official gatherings and such. However, some Italians and Spaniards donated a huge statue of Ferdinand, Isabella, and Columbus. Somehow, they got it placed right in the center of the capitol rotunda. Lots of people think it's silly to have the statue there, but there it stays. We don't have any Jewish or Arab protests against the statue. Here, it's the Native Americans who have been protesting the statue for twenty years.

Isabella died about five hundred years ago. I think that by this time, it doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference whether she's canonized or cast in marble, or whatever. From a perspective five hundred years old, can anybody have a valid perspective on her? I doubt that she was a demon - and I doubt that she was a saint.

-Joe Offer, lifelong Catholic-

(by the way, I think I was mentioned as a candidate for canonization in another thread. The trolls really like me.)

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 06:11 PM

As to Queen Isabella's sainthood...supposedly religious furvor guided her.

OK, I get it- kinda like them pesky Islamic Fundamentalists. Guess we better set about canonizing Bin Ladin.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: SINSULL
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 06:12 PM

Queens had a similar problem. Thousands were spent to make a statue of some Queen for whom the borough was named. She, I think, traded in slaves. I don't know how the furor was settled. But somewhere there is one big mother of an ugly statue of one big mother of an ugly woman.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: SINSULL
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 06:17 PM

Simple statement, Greg. I am not a practicing Roman Catholic and have my own ideas about her motives.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 06:22 PM

Didn't mean to pick on ya, Sinsull, its just that the "religious fervor defense" always gets my back up- as if it should excuse any abomination.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: SINSULL
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 06:28 PM

Well, maybe I will really stick my neck out here and ask how many have studied the lives of saints? People who hear voices, see things no one else sees, methodically abuse their bodies or refuse to bathe, grow hysterical beards to avoid marriage...HMMM.

Now I will go hide and wait.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 06:29 PM

I've read some hagiography, but haven't done any indepth studies.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 06:35 PM

... People
who hear voices, see things no one else sees, methodically abuse their bodies or refuse to bathe, grow hysterical beards to avoid marriage...

Hagiography? Sounds more like abnormal psych. They can medicate for these symptoms now...

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Amos
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 06:45 PM

Wel, there's a number of Mudcatters who might qualify by those criteria -- /**bg**

A

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: SINSULL
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 07:02 PM

Well, we have already nominated Joe Offer for sainthood. St. Joe of the Mud, maybe?

As some of you know, I was long ago canonized as St. SINS of the Capslock or some such fool thing. I hear voices, occasionally go without a Saturday AM shower, occasionally sport a hair or two on my chin, see the humor in a funeral, and torture myself with Medium pantihose refusing to acknowledge the existence of the dreaded Queen Size.

Which brings us back to Isabella. Sorry for the drift.
M.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: NicoleC
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 07:13 PM

It should also be noted that Queen Isabella was very intelligent, very successful as a ruler, extremely well educated, and raised at least one daughter who was as intelligent and well-educated as herself -- Catherine of Aragon.

It's kind of silly to decide someone was a terrible person because they held opinions that were not only reflective of their time, but demanded by their faith. Jews were believed to be the murders of Christ, to be carriers of the Black Death, and "everyone knew" they sacrificed Christians and drank their blood.

Nor was she the only medieval ruler who practiced mass explusions. Thousands of Jews were expeled from England in the 1290s. They went to France. In 1394, the Jews were expelled from France... and they all moved to Spain.

It's easy to look back in revulsion, but villifying a woman for being exactly what the times demanded she be is rather shallow and petty. What will people 500 years from now think of our attitudes and behavior? Does that mean we are evil people?

But since no one is proposing she performed miracles nor did she die a martyr's death, it seems unlikely that she'll be canonized.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 07:18 PM

NicoleC: As I understand it, canonisation does not require the candidate to have perfomed miracles, but that miracles may be attributed to intercessions (prayers) to the proposed saint.

IMHO Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: SINSULL
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 07:18 PM

Actually, three miracles are required for canonization. I have not read what if any have been atributed to her. Anyone know?

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: NicoleC
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 07:26 PM

A quick Google(tm) revealed several web pages attributing miracles to Isaella by praying to her. For what that's worth. None, it seems, have been accepted by the Vatican (yet.)

One such here, although it's hardly unbiased:
http://www.ncregister.com/Register_News/walther-isabella.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Amos
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 07:34 PM

Ya know, Nicole, you're right -- as usual. I was measuring the picture with my own hippocket handy-dandy rollup tape measure. Actually, come to think of it, I don't care who the Pope wants to coat in plaster and put up on a pedastal in the Vatican -- it's their business. I just wish other folks would stop dumping those hollow K-Mart-quality plaster garden gnomes in the Rose Garden!!! And the oval Office!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: SINSULL
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 07:36 PM

http://www.queenisabel.com/isabelhistory_main.html

Fascinating stuff including a history of her life, the study done re: canonization, and "Favors" which may or may not be miracles. There is some discussion of her expulsion of the Jews and the Inquisition...minimal.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 08:59 PM

Sinsull, your remarks about Queens Borough looked like they might cause me a sleepless night wondering where the name came from. Finally found this:
"In 1683, 19 years after the capture of New Netherlands, England divided the New York Crown Colony into 12 counties. Queens emerged as a vast territory. ...The origin of the borough's name is disputed, but the leading theory holds that its namesake was Queen Catherine, the 17th century Portuguese princess who married England's Charles II.
Queens' farm produce fed the burgeoning populations of Manhattan and Brooklyn....."
Queens was absorbed into NY in 1898.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 09:49 PM

It's kind of silly to decide someone was a terrible person because they held opinions that were not only reflective of their time, but demanded by their faith...

Right you are! The excesses of presentism aside, Hitler, Elizabeth I, Cromwell, Joe McCarthy, Mitchell Palmer, Bishop Cranmer, "Bull" Connor, Ian Paisley and _____ (insert name of any crazed religious bigot you wish)- all wonderful, charming folks, unjustly and cruelly misunderstood and persecuted by historians thru the ages.

This sort of sophistry can be dangerous- when not simply amusing.

Puts me in mind of the old Kingston Trio intro:

"Frank and Jesse James were a product of their environment. They were sent out into the woods by their parents to forage for berries, truffles, rutabagas, roots of all sorts. Put yourself in their place. You'd have been mean too! "

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Apr 03 - 11:33 PM

Well, Greg, I think you take it too far. We all have our prejudices and ignorances, even in this enlightened age. Every age has its cruelties. If we all lived in the Southerrn United States in the 19th Century, chance are that the vast majority of us would have consider black people inferior, or even inhuman. We may have even made innocent remarks that this enlightened age would think to be horribly prejudiced. If we did not actively participate in the cruelty of our age, I think we could be considered to be good people.

The people you list fit into their era, but they were cruel people of their own accord.

Here's an interesting entry from Fr. Richard McBrien's Harper-Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism:

Isabella of Castile, 1451—1504, queen of Spain from 1474 who, with her husband Ferdinand of Aragon, created a unified Catholic Spain. The last Muslim state fell in 1492. In that same year all Jews were required to convert or emigrate. The Muslims were placed under the same requirement in 1502. Isabella was deeply religious and drove the reform of the Spanish Church under Ximénez de Cisneros, employing the Spanish Inquisition as an important weapon for political and religious unity. Isabella commissioned Columbus and was committed to the conquest and evangelization of the New World.
Her zeal and accompanying intolerance have made attempts at canonization in the 1990s controversial.

The Office of the Holy Inquisition was the doctrinal tribunal of the Roman Catholic Church, and was in existence from the 12th century or earlier until the mid-20th century. The Spanish Inquisition was a separate entity, inaugurated under Ferdinand and Isabella. There were times that the Roman Inquisition used torture and other cruel methods, but not to the extent used by the Spanish Inquisition. As far as I can tell, only religious penalties were levied after the end of the 16th century. I gather that for most of its history, it was just a church court.
Oh, I'd also like to note that the Pope at the time of Ferdinand and Isabella was Alexander VI, probably the most notorious pope who ever lived. He was the father of Lucretia Borgia.
I don't think McBrien would recommend Isabella for sainthood.
Neither would I, but I don't think I'd get concerned until she is seriously considered for sainthood - and that hasn't happened.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 12:09 AM

Joe, would it make a difference anywhere in the church if it were to happen? It might spur some protests, sure, but is there any group of adherents who would be affected in some way? Would it be perceived as a slap in the face by Muslims, or Jews, because of her negative side? Would it affect the organization in some way?

Enquiring minds et cetera --- thanks,


A

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 02:37 AM

Well, we liberal Catholics tend to be embarrassed by some of the people John Paul names as saints. For a person to be named a saint, some miracle has to take place through their intercession. Since Catholic liberals are uneasy about the idea of miracles, this also puts us at a disadvantage. I think of sunsets and waterfalls as miracles, but the Pope won't let them serve to qualify my candidates for sainthood.

Saints are supposed to be people who have led an exemplary life, people who can serve as an inspiration to others. Some saints seem to gather almost a cult following, and that makes us liberals really nervous.

My three candidates for sainthood are Pope John XXIII, Cardinal Joe Bernadin of Chicago, and my grandma.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: greg stephens
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 03:01 AM

We have an arrangement, me and the Pope: he doesnt tell me what to do, and I dont tell him. He make can make Isabella a saint if he wants, I'm very relaxed about that.
   This morning, I made Leadbelly and Spike Jones saints.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 10:11 AM

Well, Joe, I have to admit that I'd agree with you on John XXIII.

I don't know your grandma.    :>)

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 10:38 AM

I'm with Greg. I'd add Woody, possibly, but not Jack Elliot or Bob Dylan.

The Temple of the Golden Curve is motivating to elect Dolly, but I'm refusing to ratify it. I'm hoping she'll hold it against me.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 11:25 AM

That was then, this is now.

Such arguments are iffy at best, but even granting that judging Isabella in the light of contemporary thinking is anachronistic, you should clearly distinguish two different possible events:
1) The canonization of Queen Isabella by the Roman Catholic church of the 16th century.
2) The canonization of Queen Isabella by the Roman Catholic Church of the 21st century.

It's one thing to have anti-Semitism "endorsed" by the church of the 16th century; a time when anti-Semitism was de rigueur. It's something else again to have it endorsed by the 21st century church; a church that would have us believe it has put anti-Semitism behind.

Also, relativism has many good points and can be quite tempting, but you must be careful with "then and now" arguments because they open up a Pandora's box of implications. If you're willing to "excuse" the anti-Semitism of long ago and far away, how about the slavery of not so long ago and far away? How about the holocaust? Segregation? If slavery was OK once upon a time, can you imagine a time and set of circumstances when it would again be OK?

Finally,
granted human beings are extremely complex, mutli-faceted, etc. etc. Like everyone else Isabella had her good points and her bad points. Blah blah blah. Sainthood is not supposed to be about giving it your best shot. It is about (to quote the Catholic Encyclopedia) "the exercise of heroic virtue". It is not the least bit heroic to exemplify the thinking of your time.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: NicoleC
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 01:41 PM

Well, Russ, you make good points. I'm not saying Isabella qualifies for sainthood -- since I don't believe in saints anyway, I don't really have an opinion.

My point was some of the villifying and trashing of Isabella going on here. As beings of the 21st century, we can only make moral decisions based on today's code of behavior. Making such moral judgements on a woman who lived 500 years ago is ridiculous. 500 years from now, we're going to be rapicious barbarians because we drove horribly polluting vehicles known as "cars." Does that make us evil? Or does it make us products of our historical era?

Examples like Hitler are utterly ridiculous. Few people during Hitler's era thought it was normal to slaughter 19 million people, 6 million of them Jews. If it were "normal," Hitler wouldn't have been the first to try to do it. Whereas in Isabella's time, complete submission in all things religious to the ordained priesthood was absolutely required and considered totally normal. Obeying the religious directives of Torquemada (her confessor) TO HER was simply being a pious Catholic, on par with praying and giving alms to the poor.

It's not that we must judge her based on her own time, it's that we aren't equipped to judge her at all. We can only look back and be thankful that those kinds of attitudes are no longer in practice TODAY, and wish it didn't happen that way.

Just as 500 years from now, our descendants will be thankful that OUR corruption and "evil" is a thing of the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 02:00 PM

Well, Russ, I have a degree in theology from a Catholic seminary, and I've studied Catholic politics and issues all my life. I don't think that Isabella will be canonized. Spain is a hotbed of Catholic traditionalism, and the move to canonize Isabella seems to be something supported only by Spanish traditionalists. While John Paul II has given the Spanish traditionalists (especially Opus Dei) more support than I think he should, I can't see where the canonization of Isabella would accomplish anything that would be of advantage to the Church. I would expect the Pope to speak favoprably of Isabella so as not to offend the Spanish traditionalists - but naming her a saint would be going too far. check http://www.queenisabel.com for information in her favor. This site is apparently maintained by Miles Jesu (Soldiers of Jesus), a very conservative religious order. Also check the entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia - but note that it was published in 1910.

The Catholic Church has certainly named saints in the past for political reasons, and politics is certainly involved to an extent in the current process of canonization* - but I think that John Paul's saints have consistently been quite exemplary (albeit conservative). There have been allegations of antisemitism levied in the current canonization processes for Popes Pius IX and Pius XII. Father Junipero Serra, founder of the California Missions, is getting a lot of flak in his canonization process because of his participation in the subjugation of Native Americans. I think all three have a good chance of becoming saints. The Piuses were popes, and that stacks the deck in their favor. Pius IX campaigned against the heresy of "modernism," a catch-all phrase that included a laundry list of everything that constituted a challenge to his power. There's also a complicated story of how he had a boy confiscated from his Jewish parents because the boy had been baptized and therefore shouldn't be raised by nonbelievers. Pius XII seems to have been a truly good person, but he was Pope at a time when the world had a right to expect the Pope to make a heroic stand against Hitler and Mussolini - and Pius XII didn't have the kind of heroism needed for that. Serra rode side-by-side with Spanish conquistadors who used Serra's missions to subjugate the natives of California - but Serra was an admirable person and there is no indication that he was anything but humane in his treatment of everyone. If I were Pope, I'd canonize Serra despite the bad press he's received lately, but not the other two. Click here for information on the two Piuses, which I think is a bit extreme in its opposition.

I really do think my grandma qualifies for sainthood, although I have to say that Grandma often made ethnic comments that were a bit embarrassing to me. Grandma was a product of her time, and was very much aware of everyone's ethnicity. She'd be likely to say, "They're Jewish, you know, but they're really very nice." By the time she died in Detroit in 1982, Grandma was the only person living in her neighborhood who wasn't black. and yes, she made comments about black people that made me uneasy, but all the neighbors loved her and she loved all of them. She was a simple woman who was always completely full of joy and love. She wasn't politically correct, but I still think she qualifies for sainthood.

When Joe Bernadin (1928-1996) was Archbishop of Cincinnati, he was named head of the National Council of Catholic Bishops. Shortly after that, a young man dying of AIDS raised allegations that Bernadin had molested him years earlier. The allegations were disproved, and Bernadin met with the young man and did what he could to ease the man's death. Later, Bernadin became Archbishop of Chicago and was named Cardinal. He did a lot to bring a humane side to the church's opposition to abortion, contending that humans should respect life by working to eliminate abortion, capital punishment, warfare and nuclear weapons, and poverty. He also organized a "common ground" campaign to try to bring reconciliation between liberals and conservatives in the Catholic Church. After he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, he devoted himself to ministering to cancer patients. Click here for a PBS report on Bernadin's death.
Bernadin should have been Pope, but I'll settle for sainthood.

-Joe Offer-


*Rome isn't the only church that names saints for political reasons - click here for information about the canonization of Czar Nicholas II by the Russian Orthodox Church.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 03:29 PM

If it were "normal," Hitler wouldn't have been the first to try to do it

Hitler the first in history to practice genocide? I don't think so.
Time for a history refresher course.


Obeying the religious directives of Torquemada (her
confessor) TO HER was simply being a pious Catholic

And Berkowitz obeying the directives of his black Labrador was---
What? It was the OK thing to do TO HIM.

in Isabella's time, complete submission in all things religious to the ordained priesthood was absolutely required and considered totally normal...

Only to Catholics- a small segment of the people in the world.

It's not that we must judge her based on her own time, it's that we aren't equipped to judge her at all.>

Absolute Nonsense! Unless we're all a-historical moral bankrupts. Relativism carried to the point of absurdity!

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 03:52 PM

Today I made Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz saints. And if the Pope doesn't back me on this, he's got som 'splainin' to do...

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 04:09 PM

"If I were Pope" - that'll be the day, Joe! All it would take would be a miracle, and maybe Father Junipero Serra could organise one...

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: NicoleC
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 05:09 PM

Greg, you are assuming that you and ALL of your attitudes are not only the pinnacle of ethincs and morality, but that society will never change again in such a way that disagrees with you. What arrogance, to claim moral superiority by virtue of one's own moral beliefs.

Personally, I too, believe that the human race is continuing to progress and behave in a better way than in the past. But if you and your attitudes were around 500 years ago, you would be condemned for aiding and abetting those Jewish murdering, blood-drinking, witches, who killed your savior. Because they KNEW how evil Jews were. To do otherwise was to betray God.

That's how silly black and white constructs of bad and good are. That kind of simplistic view of the world leaves no room for the idea that you might be wrong, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 05:29 PM

Greg:

It is very easy to scorn a belief from outside it.

And all you have to speak from, and all you are scorning, is a set of beliefs which define the world.

Of COURSE your beliefs are more enlightened than Torquemada-era beliefs were. Look how much more information they embrace, for one thing. On the other hand, information tends to flower and appear within those sets of beliefs that call for it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 06:44 PM

Amos, the only belief I'm scorning is the one that says "Because I think that someone or something speaks directly to me and tells me what to do and that it is right and moral, it must therefore be right and moral."

I also scorn those that would defend this conceit or delusion, be it today or 500 years ago.

Nicole, please don't you 'assume' to tell me what I think. I'm only assuming from the evidence of your somewhat tortured arguments that you're confused. You certainly don't have to go back to the 15th Century to find folks who believe those Jewish murdering, blood-drinking, witches ... killed [their] savior. Because they KNEW how evil Jews were. To do otherwise was to betray God. Check any fundamentalist bible-belt congregation- they're still with us, still mouthing this shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: NicoleC
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 07:01 PM

Check any fundamentalist bible-belt congregation- they're still with us, still mouthing this shit.

Of course they are, Greg. Wish it weren't true. But by declaring someone immoral by virtue of your own moral sense, you are doing exactly the same thing they are -- defining your personal beliefs as the criteria by whom others are judged. If it's wrong for the fundamentalists, why is it right for you?

Unless we're all a-historical moral bankrupts.
Whose morals?

I am not confused; rather I don't have the temerity to believe that I have all the right answers. In the end, all that we can do is try to act to the best of our consciences, even if that means trying to stop those whom we think are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 07:48 PM

NicoleC,

Well said, but....I'm not sure I'm willing to concede yet that "we aren't equipped to judge [Isabella] at all".

OK. Hitler died and WWII ended 58 years ago. 58 years and more after the fact, people face prosecution for their deeds during WWII.

So do you think that we ARE equipped to judge surviving Nazis and their collaborators? If you think so then what's the cut-off? If Isabella escapes moral censure because of something like a statute of limitations, then where do you draw the temporal line? If we should not judge acts more than x years old, what's x?

Joe,
I'm not Catholic, but I don't have problems with the political side of canonization. It might not be a bad thing, however, if it worked both ways. If people have been named saints in the past for political reasons. it wouldn't be the worst of all worlds if people were NOT named saints these days for political reasons.

Father Serra would be a case in point. I'm not a native American either, but I am not completely comfortable with the idea that Serra was "an admirable person" if he in fact "rode side-by-with Spanish conquistadors." He presumably saw first-hand what was going on. It couldn't have been pretty. I can imagine dismay in some quarters at his canonization. By the way, who's pushing for it?

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: NicoleC
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 08:38 PM

So do you think that we ARE equipped to judge surviving Nazis and their collaborators? If you think so then what's the cut-off? If Isabella escapes moral censure because of something like a statute of limitations, then where do you draw the temporal line? If we should not judge acts more than x years old, what's x?

Interesting question, although I think the example doesn't do the question justice. In your example, we are talking about prosecuting people who are still alive for crimes committed, at least in part, against other people who are still alive.

On a more fundamental level, the question is really, "When does one human has the right to judge another's actions?" As humans, we develop societies with laws and codes of behavior, and expect individuals to live by those commonly agreed to laws or else pay the consequences. One example is the "crime" of murder. Almost every human society today holds this as generally wrong (excepting instances in which we condone it, like self-defense). But BIOLOGICALLY speaking, it isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Most of us have had this code of behavior so deeply ingrained that we can't fundamentally conceive of it being any different way, even if we understand it in a theoretical sense. And it wasn't just thousands of years ago that this was the case. A couple of centuries ago it wasn't morally wrong to kill a black person, unless they happened to be someone else's property -- and then it wasn't murder, it was destruction of property.

Can we say Og the Caveman was bad because he murdered another caveman to feed his children? Not really. He wasn't acting in a way that anyone at the time would have considered wrong, he was responding to his biological imperative. Within his social framework, Og was the good guy for protecting his progeny. But we CAN look back and judge his social framework as morally primitive compared to our own.

In the case of Hitler et al, we are talking about actions which were so repulsive to many others, that he was overthrown at the cost of many lives, even from those who weren't explicitly threatened by him, like the US. Hitler is an easy case -- we can judge him within his own social framework and he STILL he comes out as a bad guy.

So I don't think you can define the question in terms of x number years. Maybe it can be defined in terms of social evolution, but that's as slippery of a slope when it comes to the scale of right and wrong. And social evolution in what? Women's rights? Race relations? Concepts of justice?

When we look as Isabella, we see a woman whose actions did not necessarily always agree with what we think of today as right and wrong. But we see a woman who behaved in an exemplary fashion within her own cultural frameworked AND supported many radical ideas which were not common to her time, but (to our way of thinking) are more morally advanced. Like her stance against slavery, which was far ahead of her time.

People and the societies that mold them are both complex and sometimes contradictory creations.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 08:49 PM

Nicole- but apparently you do have the temerity to believe that its possible to excuse any atrocity as long as it's committed "within [one's] own cultural framework". This is relativism carried past the point of absurdity. As in:

A couple of centuries ago it wasn't morally wrong to kill a black person

Utter nonsense. And dangerous nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 09:16 PM

Well, Russ - there are those who think that it was morally wrong for Europeans to settle in the Americas. If it truly was morally wrong, then I suppose Serra shouldn't be considered for sainthood.
I don't hold that view. I think that Europeans did much that was harmful and immoral when they came here - but I cannot agree that the very fact of their settlement was wrong.

Serra built missions in California and did much to help the natives. I have yet to see any evidence that anything he did was oppressive.

Who's backing Serra for sainthood? Well, there are a number of groups, particularly the Serra Club and the Knights of Columbus.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 10:31 PM

If there were a bunch of conquistadores riding into my village, I think I'd have a better chance, if Junipero Serra was riding with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 03 - 11:53 PM

Greg:

I dunno about "excuse" -- but certainly it is easy enough to forgive. A hundred years ago and more, it was perfectly normal, for example, to declare a war and mobilize armies in blood conquest purely for political gain. Kings and Popes did it all the time. We have evolved very different standards today, and we mostly frown on wholesale slaughter undertaken on a unilateral basis.

Your views about the goodness and badness of harming people make it seem clear cut and morally unquestionable -- but where do you draw these standards from? Do you think they are based on an objective standard of some kind? Not that I disagree with your standards, necessarily, myself. But Nicole is making an important point. Even Genghis Khan looked pretty good to his fellow Mongols. We'd label him as a psycho! A significant percentage of the people in the United States in this century think nothing of the mowing down of thousands of citizens of a foreign country in what they have calculated to be a "just" cause. More -- they insist on it!

They are more than happy to ignore thousands of dead bodies stacking up in the heartland of Africa.

Where do those standards come from?

A

A

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Metchosin
Date: 30 Apr 03 - 12:42 AM

Amos, when you mentioned Genghis Khan, the first thing that popped into my mind, was that he was one of the first to win battles with the concept of Shock and Awe. Seems to me he took a number of places around the Danube with those tactics. (Seems to me some people also painted themselves blue and played really weird horns that had the same affect as well). *BG* ....same old, same old.......

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: NicoleC
Date: 30 Apr 03 - 01:47 AM

A couple of centuries ago it wasn't morally wrong to kill a black person

Utter nonsense. And dangerous nonsense.

Not to people then. The concept of "murder" didn't extend to such "inferior" beings then.

Greg, I daresay I share the same moral framework you do, because I was brought up in it just like you. I share your repugnance for a worldview which allows enslaving and murdering poeple because of their skin color or religious belief. But you fail to acknowledge the crux of the matter, which is that there is no concise definition of MORALITY.

While I don't expect you to be able to answer this question without a circular reference, you might give it some thought:

What makes your concept of morality superior to anyone else's?

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Apr 03 - 02:02 AM

that he (Ghengis Kahn) was one of the first to win battles with the concept of Shock and Awe.

And that segued into the group known as Shaka Kahn!**BG**

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Apr 03 - 08:46 AM

Nicole, you're still confused and making blanket generalizations that cannot be supported.

Not to people then. The concept of "murder" didn't extend to such "inferior" beings then.

Which "people"? White christian Europeans? ALL white, christian europeans? Africans? Native Americans? Arabs? A small segment of the world population may indeed have held the view you state view, but it was hardly universal.

Please- you have no idea whatsoever about "my moral framework" or where or how I was brought up- all that is beside the point. The question is not "my personal concept of morality"- its about cultural and moral relativism run amok.

Amos:
it was
perfectly normal... to declare a war and mobilize armies ... purely for political gain... We have evolved very different standards today

Sure we have. Especially considering Grenada, the Falklands, Gulf Wars I & II, etc. But I suppose you'd maintain I have no business making "moral judgements" about these as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Amos
Date: 30 Apr 03 - 10:17 AM

GReg:

I would never even try, let alone maintain, such a position. Who do you think I am?

My only point, which you seem not to address, is that you cannot assess another's morality without understanding the framework in which they were operating.

My point isn't that you make moral judgements -- we all do, and we do the best we can. But where those judgements come from -- what assumptions about the world they are based on -- is not something that should be left uninspected or left out of the account.

Isabella committed what look like atrocities to me, or condoned them. I think naming her a saint is about as ridiculous as anything I ever heard of. But I have to acknowledge Nicole's point: Isabella and her husband were raised with a completely different body of ignorance than the one that I live with. That makes a lot of difference.

A

A

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Amos
Date: 30 Apr 03 - 10:25 AM

COMPREHENSION

The eye sees only what the mind
is prepared to comprehend.

       Henri L. Bergson

Subject: RE: BS: Queen Isabella: a saint?
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Apr 03 - 10:35 AM

Amos, we seem to be talking at cross purposes.

My only point, which you seem not to address, is that you cannot assess another's morality without understanding the framework in which they were operating.

I didn't think it needed addressing- because, in this at least, I agree with you 100%. I never meant to imply otherwise.

I also agree with what you call Nicole's point AS YOU STATE IT, but only that far. I cannot agree with some of the wilder assertions & tenuous conclusions she seems to derive from it.

Best, Greg