Anne Catherine Emmerich and Racism

[Fish and Bread]

This is from Anne Catherine Emmerich's accounts of one of her visions:

I saw the curse pronounced by Noah upon Ham moving toward the latter like a black cloud and obscuring him. His skin lost its whiteness, he grew darker. His sin was the sin of sacrilege, the sin of one who would forcibly enter the Ark of the Covenant. I saw a most corrupt race descend from Ham and sink deeper and deeper in darkness. I see that the black, idolatrous, stupid nations are the descendants of Ham. Their color is due, not to the rays of the sun, but to the dark source whence those degraded races sprang.

Was she really beatified? Didn't anyone stop and examine her writings in-depth first? Is the site where I found this misquoting her writings in some way?

Here is the source for the quote:

http://www.all-jesus.com/scriptures/bible1-4.htm#04

 

[DarkNLovely]

This is from Anne Catherine Emmerich's accounts of one of her visions:

Was she really beatified? Didn't anyone stop and examine her writings in-depth first? Is the site where I found this misquoting her writings in some way?

Here is the source for the quote:

http://www.all-jesus.com/scriptures/bible1-4.htm#04

 

[Rhamiel]

i dunno, I will have to look into it,
um... not to sound mean, but with the exception of Ethiopia and a little bit of Egypt, most of africa was muslim or pagan, the arab parts are still 80%+ Muslim and it was the horrible horrible horrible colonialism that got missonarias into Africa.

 

[QuantaCura]

For what it is worth, she says this next:

It would be impossible for me to say how I beheld the nations increasing and extending and, in many different ways, falling into darkness and corruption. But with all that, many luminous rays streamed forth from them and sought the light.

And as someone mentioned, idolatry and animism, for whatever reason, have had a strong hold on much of Africa (although, there may be more monotheism in Africa than much of Europe now!).

I don't think she hated all black people or thought they were animals or exlcuded from redemption, etc. as the racists of her day did, I see it as a simple woman's attempt to explain why particular peoples seemed to her to be disproportionately afflicted with the spirit of idolatry or religious darkness, rather than statements made out of malice.

Anyway, being a good anthropologist is not criteria for beatification.

 

[JoabAnias]

This is from Anne Catherine Emmerich's accounts of one of her visions:

Was she really beatified? Didn't anyone stop and examine her writings in-depth first? Is the site where I found this misquoting her writings in some way?

Here is the source for the quote:

http://www.all-jesus.com/scriptures/bible1-4.htm#04

"Their color is due, not to the rays of the sun,"

We would know from science that this does not refer to melatonin and thus skin color.

I believe she was talking in a spiritual sense. I.e.: the soul and not skin color at all. It's illogical to think from this that a darkened soul translates into skin color or visa v even though that could have been the case for Ham or then again it may have been metaphorical for him as well. We have no way of knowing either.

None of Emmerich's statements are to be taken literally.

 

[QuantaCura]

"Their color is due, not to the rays of the sun,"

We would know from science that this does not refer to melatonin and thus skin color.

I believe she was talking in a spiritual sense. I.e.: the soul and not skin color at all. It's illogical to think from this that a darkened soul translates into skin color or visa v even though that could have been the case for Ham or then again it may have been metaphorical for him as well. We have no way of knowing either.

None of Emmerich's statements are to be taken literally.

That's a good point too.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

yea the way it's written (not sure what she meant) that's not something I'd believe.

I think maybe it would be good to remember that - people are not made Saints or beatified because they got everything right.. but rather just how they lived their life, if they demonstrated 'heroic virtue', and of course - the miracles of intercession.

St Thomas Aquinas was brilliant but he also taught that the soul enters the body 40 days after conception. We know that's not right. He was influenced by Aristotle. btw, read this story perhaps it's true that now that he's in Heaven he's making amends for that error. http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=30600

another thing to remember is that Anne Catherine Emmerich was just writing down what she saw, she wasn't really writing her opinions. It might be that some things she saw she misinterpreted, or that some parts of her visions were not from God while others were. Or, maybe we just totally misunderstood the quote and it's not really clear. We don't really know.. best just leave it up to God.

 

[QuantaCura]

another thing to remember is that Anne Catherine Emmerich was just writing down what she saw, she wasn't really writing her opinions. It might be that some things she saw she misinterpreted, or that some parts of her visions were not from God while others were. Or, maybe we just totally misunderstood the quote and it's not really clear. We don't really know.. best just leave it up to God.

I know in one of her other books she even gives the "disclaimer" that she is not dictating in ecstasy, but simply explaining it how she remembers and that some may be part of her own meditation and not supernatural itself.

 

[Radagast]

... with the exception of Ethiopia and a little bit of Egypt, most of africa was muslim or pagan...

What about St Augustine?

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I know in one of her other books she even gives the "disclaimer" that she is not dictating in ecstasy, but simply explaining it how she remembers and that some may be part of her own meditation and not supernatural itself.

that is a good point too

these sorts of experiences are really complex; it's not like you're taken back in time and witnessing everything.. it's more like you're experiencing parts of it, visions can be mixed in with meditation, as you said.. it's not like watching a movie. All this might affect a person's memory of the event. And the Saints are not infallible, they're human and can make mistakes. (although much of what they said is good and true)

 

[DarkNLovely]

Amazing. No offense, but I honestly can not believe that ya'll are defending that. That's horrible.

 

[JoabAnias]

Amazing. No offense, but I honestly can not believe that ya'll are defending that. That's horrible.

What is being defended?

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Amazing. No offense, but I honestly can not believe that ya'll are defending that. That's horrible.

I'm not defending it I'm just saying that maybe it means something else, and the quote is out of context, or maybe she saw something else but misunderstood etc. Of course it could also be that it's just as it appears, and that would be pretty sad. But we don't know for sure. That's all we're saying.

If we said that the racist interpretation is true, that would be defending it.. I don't think anyone here would believe such a thing though!

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Of course, if I ever found out that it actually means that, I wouldn't support or defend it

 

[Maggie893]

The writings of the saints are never determined to be infallible. Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich was brought into the canonization process due to her incredible ability to live a holy life united in her suffering with Jesus. That she did not write politically correct works is really of no consequence. The Church only looks at the writings of visionaries to ensure that they don't contradict Church teaching and that they don't show a heretical bent. That is not to say the Church agrees with her writings as historical, scientific or even spiritually truthful. It just means that the Church doesn't teach on the matter in anyway that could be contrary to her writings. Before judging any writings you should read them in their entirety and in conjunction with the teaching of the Church and scripture.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Private revelation is optional to believe.. it's not required to agree with it to be a Catholic only the dogmas of the Church are required.

 

[DarkNLovely]

The writings of the saints are never determined to be infallible. Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich was brought into the canonization process due to her incredible ability to live a holy life united in her suffering with Jesus. That she did not write politically correct works is really of no consequence. The Church only looks at the writings of visionaries to ensure that they don't contradict Church teaching and that they don't show a heretical bent. That is not to say the Church agrees with her writings as historical, scientific or even spiritually truthful. It just means that the Church doesn't teach on the matter in anyway that could be contrary to her writings. Before judging any writings you should read them in their entirety and in conjunction with the teaching of the Church and scripture.

So,........the Catholic Church doesn't teach that we are black because we are evil and sinful,........but it dosen't teach that we aren't either? What a defense!

As far as reading it in it's entierty, that's about all I can stomach. As far as her living a holy life united in her sufferings with Christ, let me tell you something some one who had to deal with a church-going, Bible beliving, righteous in everybodys eyes mother who hated her black son-in-law, told me; you can not truly have Christ and hate. One pushes the other out.

Question everything.

1 John 4

 

[JoabAnias]

but it dosen't teach that we aren't either?

Yes it does:

CCC 1935 The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it:

Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

So,........the Catholic Church doesn't teach that we are black because we are evil and sinful,........but it dosen't teach that we aren't either? What a defense!

As far as reading it in it's entierty, that's about all I can stomach. As far as her living a holy life united in her sufferings with Christ, let me tell you something some one who had to deal with a church-going, Bible beliving, righteous in everybodys eyes mother who hated her black son-in-law, told me; you can not truly have Christ and hate. One pushes the other out.

Question everything.

1 John 4

No, the Church teaches that all people were made by God and all have dignity as human beings, of whatever race or nationality.

We know that God created people of different races, and that makes sense because if you look around the world you can see that He likes variety and not just creating the same type of thing. Each person looks unique and also has a unique soul.

I agree with you that it doesn't matter how "devout" one is if they have hatred in their heart. But we don't know if Emmerich hated or not. That's something God alone knows. Because we don't know if she meant those words that way, or if it's a mistranslation or something. Just leave it up to God sis. If she was racist, let's hope that's something she repented of, and I think it's helpful to keep in mind two things: she was probably raised with these ideas, and - we all have stupid biases about people that we have to get rid of. Maybe not something so serious as racism but still biases that prevent us from loving others as God loves them. And one last point: I'm sure that now, Anne Emmerich no longer has these ideas (if she ever did) and is perfected and totally sanctified in Heaven. That's one great thing about Heaven - God perfects everyone who goes there and takes away all their misconceptions.

 

[Rhamiel]

no one is defending what she said about the african races, we are just not calling for her "excommunication"
she has lots of good writings about Purgatory, the Trinity and a warrning for the Church