Anne Catherine Emmerich and Racism

[JimR-OCDS]

Its purely speculative in assuming Katherine Emmerich was writing about a race of people we have in the world today.

Her dream was, as all dream revelations, loaded with symbolism. What she saw had more to do with the soul's of the sinners, not their race and she could only describe what she saw, according to her own ability.

Jim

 

[DarkNLovely]

Are you all KIDDING ME?!?!?!? How could you not question the sincerity of somebody who even thinks or dreams that way? And while the writings you provided may say that the RCC views all equally, it does not say that it rejects The Curse of Ham ideology, which apparently Miss-future-saint was quite familiar with. I don't get it. I read things by certain black "leaders" like Nation of Islam and other black nationalist groups that claim to be of God and loving and blah, blah, blah, but somehow I am able to figure out that God would not use, much less beatify, someone who even suggested that whites are a race of devils and are all going to hell or whatever sorry theology they come up with, just because they may have had good things to say in other areas. So this is the church Jesus Christ established? I guess I'm on my merry way to hell then.

 

[Rhamiel]

DnL, Anne Catherine Emmerich was a product of her time, the curse of Ham was a popular idea back then. She is not totaly to blame for her wrong ideas, this was the early 1800's a lot of people had wrong ideas about race, that does not mean that none of them were good christians.

 

[JoabAnias]

DnL, remember who burned witches.



As early as 873 A. D. (DS 668) Pope John VIII (to the princes of Sardinia) taught:

• There is one thing about which we should give you a paternal admonition, and unless you emend, you incur a great sin, and for this reason, you will not increase gain, as you hope, but guilt. ... many in your area, being taken captive by pagans, are sold and are bought by your people and held under the yoke of slavery. It is evident that it is religious duty and holy, as becomes Christians, that when your people have bought them from the Greeks themselves, for the love of Christ they set them free, and receive gain not from men, but from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Hence we exhort you and in fatherly love command that when you redeem some captives from them, for the salvation of your soul, you let them go free. In the Middle Ages slavery, properly so called, no longer existed in Christian countries; it had been replaced by serfdom, an intermediate condition in which a man enjoyed all his personal rights except the right to leave the land he cultivated and the right to freely dispose of his property. Serfdom soon disappeared in Catholic countries, to last longer only where the Protestant Reformation prevailed.
  {Catholic Encyclopedia}

Luther (later in life), e.g., stated:

• Sheep, cattle, men-servants, and maid-servants were all possessions to be sold as it pleased their masters. It were a good thing were it still so. For else no man may compel nor tame the servile folk. {cited in Will Durant, The Reformation, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1957, p. 449}

The Catholic Church unhesitatingly condemned racial slavery as soon as it began. In 1435, six decades before Columbus sailed, Pope Eugene IV condemned the enslavement of the black natives of the Canary Islands, and ordered their European masters to manumit the enslaved within 15 days, under pain of excommunication. In 1537, Pope Paul III condemned the enslavement of West Indian and South American natives, and explicitly attributed that evil, "unheard of before now," to "the enemy of the human race," Satan.


In May 1537 (DS 1495) Pope Paul III wrote to the Archbishop of Toledo:

• It has come to our ears. . . that Charles [V] the [Holy] Roman Emperor ... to repress those who, eager for gain have an inhuman attitude to the human race, has prohibited by public edict that anyone should presume to reduce to slavery the Western or Southern Indians. ... we give orders that. . . to all and each one of any dignity whatsoever ... you give strict orders under penalty of automatic excommunication ... that they must not in any way presume to reduce the Indians we mentioned into slavery ...

Papal condemnations of slavery were repeated by Popes Gregory XIV (1591), Urban VIII (1639), Innocent XI (1686), Benedict XIV (1741), and Piux VII (1815). In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI wrote,

• We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort... that no one in the future dare to bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples.

So who was more "enlightened"?: the slave-holding, Unitarian Thomas Jefferson, or the Catholic Church (popes) of 873, 1435, and 1537? Once again, the truth is far different from the myth. One can blame the early Protestants, perhaps (and this might explain the late maintenance of the evil in the Baptist / Methodist / Presbyterian Bible Belt South), but an argument against the Catholic Church falls flat.

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/dialogue-reflections-on-crusades.html

 

[Rhamiel]

Joab, no reason to make this a C vs. P type thread, DnL is understandable bothered by some of the things she has read here, no reason to become defensive, lets just expalin this a little better

 

[JoabAnias]

Joab, no reason to make this a C vs. P type thread, DnL is understandable bothered by some of the things she has read here, no reason to become defensive, lets just expalin this a little better

I'm not defensive brother, but the factual quote provided (not my words) does clear some things up I think. The Church is often bashed for actions of non-members. The explanations of the beatification process are misunderstood here as well. If facts don't help then its beyond me how to reach such a sensitivity. I have spent all my life working side beside people of all races and I have found some of them to be as racist or more so than the white Judeo Christians as well. I do not condone it in any form or from anyone. Recent elections not negligible.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Are you all KIDDING ME?!?!?!? How could you not question the sincerity of somebody who even thinks or dreams that way?

but that's the thing, I'm not sure if she did mean it that way, or if she was speaking symbolically or if it's a mistranslation or out of context or something. Until I know what it was that she was trying to say (which might be never) I'm not going to make a judgement on her character.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Papal condemnations of slavery were repeated by Popes Gregory XIV (1591), Urban VIII (1639), Innocent XI (1686), Benedict XIV (1741), and Piux VII (1815). In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI wrote,

• We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort... that no one in the future dare to bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples.

yup..

 

[DarkNLovely]

DnL, remember who burned witches.




As early as 873 A. D. (DS 668) Pope John VIII (to the princes of Sardinia) taught:

• There is one thing about which we should give you a paternal admonition, and unless you emend, you incur a great sin, and for this reason, you will not increase gain, as you hope, but guilt. ... many in your area, being taken captive by pagans, are sold and are bought by your people and held under the yoke of slavery. It is evident that it is religious duty and holy, as becomes Christians, that when your people have bought them from the Greeks themselves, for the love of Christ they set them free, and receive gain not from men, but from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Hence we exhort you and in fatherly love command that when you redeem some captives from them, for the salvation of your soul, you let them go free. In the Middle Ages slavery, properly so called, no longer existed in Christian countries; it had been replaced by serfdom, an intermediate condition in which a man enjoyed all his personal rights except the right to leave the land he cultivated and the right to freely dispose of his property. Serfdom soon disappeared in Catholic countries, to last longer only where the Protestant Reformation prevailed.
  {Catholic Encyclopedia}

Luther (later in life), e.g., stated:

• Sheep, cattle, men-servants, and maid-servants were all possessions to be sold as it pleased their masters. It were a good thing were it still so. For else no man may compel nor tame the servile folk. {cited in Will Durant, The Reformation, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1957, p. 449}

The Catholic Church unhesitatingly condemned racial slavery as soon as it began. In 1435, six decades before Columbus sailed, Pope Eugene IV condemned the enslavement of the black natives of the Canary Islands, and ordered their European masters to manumit the enslaved within 15 days, under pain of excommunication. In 1537, Pope Paul III condemned the enslavement of West Indian and South American natives, and explicitly attributed that evil, "unheard of before now," to "the enemy of the human race," Satan.



In May 1537 (DS 1495) Pope Paul III wrote to the Archbishop of Toledo:

• It has come to our ears. . . that Charles [V] the [Holy] Roman Emperor ... to repress those who, eager for gain have an inhuman attitude to the human race, has prohibited by public edict that anyone should presume to reduce to slavery the Western or Southern Indians. ... we give orders that. . . to all and each one of any dignity whatsoever ... you give strict orders under penalty of automatic excommunication ... that they must not in any way presume to reduce the Indians we mentioned into slavery ...

Papal condemnations of slavery were repeated by Popes Gregory XIV (1591), Urban VIII (1639), Innocent XI (1686), Benedict XIV (1741), and Piux VII (1815). In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI wrote,

• We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort... that no one in the future dare to bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples.

So who was more "enlightened"?: the slave-holding, Unitarian Thomas Jefferson, or the Catholic Church (popes) of 873, 1435, and 1537? Once again, the truth is far different from the myth. One can blame the early Protestants, perhaps (and this might explain the late maintenance of the evil in the Baptist / Methodist / Presbyterian Bible Belt South), but an argument against the Catholic Church falls flat.

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/dialogue-reflections-on-crusades.html

You really should listen to Rhamiel. I said nothing about slavery or why Protestants or better than Catholics and I just don't know what page you are on right now. What I am saying is that all your little facts up there prove nothing. Your church still profited from slavery and is full of contridiction as far as what it says as far as race and equality and what it does. Please stop going on tangents and more than that get a dose of reality. What is wrong with you? I didn't even bring this crap up? You're so fired up you are not even making sense. It's also funny how you are so great at defending RCC on it's positions on slavery, but it's all a big joke considering other abuses and not so nice things done by the RCC against, oh I don't know Protestants and Jews and even other Catholics. But yeah, ok applause for slavery-hating Popes.

This obviously is not going to profit any of us, so I'm off to go join my fellow heretics as we dance round the Lake of Fire before we jump in! Ta-Ta!

 

[Rhamiel]

DnL, Anne Catherine Emmerich was a product of her time, the curse of Ham was a popular idea back then. She is not totaly to blame for her wrong ideas, this was the early 1800's a lot of people had wrong ideas about race, that does not mean that none of them were good christians.

any thoughts on what i said here?

 

[Michie]

any thoughts on what i said here?

I agree.

This is sort of the approach I was talking about reading the Bible or anything outside of our time.

Although I find her thoughts abhorrent on this issue I have to agree.


There are all sorts of things people did, said & thought within their time that we find ridiculous today.

But we cannot judge them by todays standards. We just have to try to understand them in their context.

Jesus does not judge us by our correctness. He judges our hearts & intent based on our understanding.

Nobody can do that but Him.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

well here are my thoughts in a sentence...

it's pretty horrible yes but the Saints aren't totally perfect and they ARE a product of their time. (and Anne Emmerich isn't a Saint so that's even more applicable to her)

just like we are a product of our time.

who knows what we would have been like if we were taught racism all our childhood?

I also don't understand being angry at the Church here.. the Church doesn't support racism, in fact has spoken against it, and there are Catholics all around the world who are different races and nationalities. When a person is beatified it DOESN'T mean that their writings are 100% true. Neither does the Church teach their writings as dogma.

 

[JoabAnias]

You really should listen to Rhamiel. I said nothing about slavery or why Protestants or better than Catholics and I just don't know what page you are on right now. What I am saying is that all your little facts up there prove nothing. Your church still profited from slavery and is full of contridiction as far as what it says as far as race and equality and what it does. Please stop going on tangents and more than that get a dose of reality. What is wrong with you? I didn't even bring this crap up? You're so fired up you are not even making sense. It's also funny how you are so great at defending RCC on it's positions on slavery, but it's all a big joke considering other abuses and not so nice things done by the RCC against, oh I don't know Protestants and Jews and even other Catholics. But yeah, ok applause for slavery-hating Popes.

This obviously is not going to profit any of us, so I'm off to go join my fellow heretics as we dance round the Lake of Fire before we jump in! Ta-Ta!

The facts do prove something. They prove the Church has never supported discrimination of any kind.

You did bring this up with your incredulity that we sould even speak to the issue without condemning Emmerich as you "feel" we should.

That was merely a knee jerk reaction to what you may very possibly only mistakenly think Emmerich meant.

Seems you played the racism card here so really have no cause to be snide and if you don't want to let facts profit you then you already have your mind made up not to.

To bring up other scandals as non sequined points which are as easily explainable just to prove this one only shows ones true colors which are the same human condition that we all suffer from. Yes, even non-racists and racists alike.

You have profited from slavery yourself. If it had been up to the Church that would never have happened but who listened to the Church? Then or now? Very few. I know the truth is hard to hear sometimes and even harder to accept when the former is the case. Still, the facts are facts whether one will admit them or chooses to ignore them while preferring their own emotions and appetites.

So, you can see a tangent taken by me to make a point but not one taken by yourself? I can readily admit I may have over-reacted but not without seeing erroneous sanctimony first or without you taking a good look in a mirror.

My tangent is a result of being surrounded by anti-catholic attacks and I can be sorry for it if that's what is making me overly defensive. So that would be whats wrong with me. Thanks for making more attacks by the way. If they would stop I would be much less defensive huh? Attacks in violation of the guidelines of OBOB I might add that should be reported but instead this reply needs to be said.

What is your tangent from? From being a victim of discrimination? Do you think you are the only one ever victimized by discrimination or that skin color is the only form of discrimination? Hardly.

If your tangent is one to attack the Church or accuse its members or who the Church has beatified of racism in OBOB its not going to fly.

I truly am sorry your offended by what Emmerich said, I really am.

The OP has no small responsibility in posting it with the intent to criticize and should be ashamed of himself for that. Some people will blame God himself for their lot in life.

I am sorry for many things other people do or have done which I have no responsibility for as well like voting for someone with an immoral ideology based on nothing more than gender or race.

I do not go around getting in their face in their forum and whining or crying about their Churches to them because of it any more than I would blame their skin tone for their actions. That would be as ridiculous as it sounds.

If I did so, I would be no less bigoted than they are but nevertheless facts are facts. If you want to blame someone for what Emmerich said and fail to understand it for what it is then blame her, the times, or the injustices done through discrimination but if as a result of discrimination one becomes anti-Catholic, homophobic, or returns any other form of discrimination because of it then they are making the same exact mistake racism does.

Not so easy to be free of hypocrisy is it?

 

[Maggie893]

Your church still profited from slavery and is full of contridiction as far as what it says as far as race and equality and what it does.

Right, I totally see what your saying.

I too can completely ignore reality like this:

http://www.africanamericans.com/BlackSaints.htm

Check it out. If you still want to be the "persecuted black girl in the Catholic forum" have at it but realize that you are alone in that understanding of the Catholic Church.

The difference between a man who faces death for the sake of an idea and an imitator who goes in search of martyrdom is that whilst the former expresses his idea most fully in death it is the strange feeling of bitterness which comes from failure that the latter really enjoys; the former rejoices in his victory, the latter in his suffering. - Kierkegaard

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Cardinal Arinze

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Arinze

 

[Fish and Bread]

The OP has no small responsibility in posting it with the intent to criticize and should be ashamed of himself for that.

The main thing that bothers me about this thread is that an African-American poster here is being slammed for understandably disagreeing with remarks that at least appear on the surface of things to be racist (Whatever their true intent). I'm really shocked and appalled that that's going on. I really didn't think anyone would use this as a launching pad for that sort of thing. I think Dark N Lovely is owed an apology. Of course, that is just my personal opinion.

When a revered figure, in religious writings, says something that appears to be horribly racist, I think it's valid to put it out there and ask folks what the deal is, and if that's really what she meant. I tried to ask the questions in a fairly neutral way. I don't think we can just ignore this kind of thing -- if it's racism, we should condemn it and learn from the past to avoid future racist incidents, and if it was meant to refer to something other than race, then it is valuable to bring it up so that folks know what was really intended.

I don't think this is at all an inappropriate question for a forum like this, though I am disturbed by some of the things that have happened in the thread since I posted it, as I mentioned above.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I'm sorry D&L if I've hurt you in any way if so, please forgive me. I'm not racist at all and I didn't mean to sound like I support that sort of thing. I was just afraid that people would jump to conclusions when it's not entirely clear what Emmerich meant.