Saturday, December 17, 2011

Online Catholic Encyclopedia-Heaven and the Beatific Vision


Home > Catholic Encyclopedia > H > Heaven

Heaven

This subject will be treated under seven headings:

I. Name and Place of Heaven;
II. Existence of Heaven;
III. Supernatural Character of Heaven and the Beatific Vision;
IV. Eternity of Heaven and Impeccability of the Blessed;
V. Essential Beatitude;
VI. Accidental Beatitude;
VII. Attributes of Beatitude.

Name and place of heaven

The name of Heaven

Heaven (Anglo-Saxon heofon, O.S. hevan and himil, originally himin) corresponds to the Gothic himin-s. Both heaven and himil are formed from himin by a regular change of consonants: heaven, by changing m before n into v; and himil, by changing n of the unaccented ending into l. Some derive heaven from the root ham, "to cover" (cf. the Gothic ham-ôn and the German Hem-d). According to this derivationheaven would be conceived as the roof of the world. Others trace a connection between himin (heaven) and home; according to this view, which seems to be the more probable, heaven would be the abode of the Godhead. The Latin coelum (koilon, a vault) is derived by many from the root of celare "to cover, to conceal" (coelum, "ceiling" "roof of the world"). Others, however think it is connected with the Germanichimin. The Greek ouranos is probably derived from the root var, which also connotes the idea of covering. The Hebrew name for heaven is thought to be derived from a word meaning "on high"; accordingly, heaven would designate the upper region of the world.
In the Holy Bible the term heaven denotes, in the first place, the blue firmament, or the region of the clouds that pass along the sky. Genesis 1:20, speaks of the birds "under the firmament of heaven". In other passages it denotes the region of the stars that shine in the sky. Furthermore heaven is spoken of as the dwelling of God; for, although God is omnipresent, He manifests Himself in a special manner in the light and grandeur of the firmament. Heaven also is the abode of the angels; for they are constantly with God and see His face. With God inheaven are likewise the souls of the just (2 Corinthians 5:1; Matthew 5:3, 12). In Ephesians 4:8 sq., we are told that Christ conducted toheaven the patriarchs who had been in limbo (limbus patrum). Thus the term heaven has come to designate both the happiness and the abode of just in the next life. The present article treats as heaven in this sense only.
In Holy Scripture it is called:

The location of Heaven

Where is heaven, the dwelling of God and the blessed?
Some are of opinion that heaven is everywhere, as God is everywhere. According to this view the blessed can move about freely in every part of the universe, and still remain with God and see everywhere. Everywhere, too, they remain with Christ (in His sacred Humanity) and with the saints and the angels. For, according to the advocates of this opinion, the spatial distances of this world must no longer impede the mutual intercourse of blessed.
In general, however, theologians deem more appropriate that there should be a special and glorious abode, in which the blessed have their peculiar home and where they usually abide, even though they be free to go about in this world. For the surroundings in the midst of which the blessed have their dwelling must be in accordance with their happy state; and the internal union of charity which joins them in affection must find its outward expression in community of habitation. At the end of the world, the earth together with the celestial bodies will begloriously transformed into a part of the dwelling-place of the blessed (Revelation 21). Hence there seems to be no sufficient reason for attributing a metaphorical sense to those numerous utterances of the Bible which suggest a definite dwelling-place of the blessed.Theologians, therefore, generally hold that the heaven of the blessed is a special place with definite limits. Naturally, this place is held to exist, not within the earth, but, in accordance with the expressions of Scripture, without and beyond its limits. All further details regarding its locality are quite uncertain. The Church has decided nothing on this subject.

Existence of heaven

There is a heaven, i.e., God will bestow happiness and the richest gifts on all those who depart this life free from original sin and personal mortal sin, and who are, consequently, in the state of justice and friendship with God. Concerning the purification of those just souls who depart in venial sin or who are still subject to temporal punishment for sin, see PURGATORY. On the lot of those who die free from personalsin, but infected with original sin, see LIMBO (limbus pervulorum). On the immediate beginning of eternal happiness after death, or eventually, after the passage through purgatory, see PARTICULAR JUDGMENT. The existence of heaven is, of course, denied by atheists,materialists, and pantheists of all centuries as well as by those rationalists who teach that the soul perishes with the body — in short, by all who deny the existence of God or the immortality of the soul. But, for the rest, if we abstract from the specific quality and the supernaturalcharacter of heaven, the doctrine has never met with any opposition worthy of note. Even mere reason can prove the existence of heaven or of the happy state of the just in the next life.
We shall give a brief outline of the principal arguments. From these we shall, at the same time, see that the bliss of heaven is eternal and consists primarily in the possession of God, and that heaven presupposes a condition of perfect happiness, in which every wish of the heart finds adequate satisfaction.
  • God made all things for His objective honour and glory. Every creature was to manifest His Divine perfections by becoming a likeness ofGod, each according to its capacity. But man is capable of becoming in the greatest and most perfect manner a likeness of God, when he knows and loves His infinite perfections with a knowledge and love analogous to God's own love and knowledge. Therefore man iscreated to know God and to love Him. Moreover, this knowledge and love is to be eternal; for such is man's capability and his calling, because his soul is immortal. Lastly, to know God and to love Him is the noblest occupation of the human mind, and consequently also its supreme happiness. Therefore man is created for eternal happiness; and he will infallibly attain it hereafter, unless, by sin, he renders himself unworthy of so high a destiny.
  • God made all things for His formal glory, which consists in the knowledge and love shown Him by rational creatures. Irrational creatures cannot give formal glory to God directly, but they should assist rational creatures in doing so. This they can do by manifesting God'sperfections and by rendering other services; whilst rational creatures should, by their own personal knowledge and love of God, refer and direct all creatures to Him as their last end. Therefore every intelligent creature in general, and man in particular, is destined toknow and love God for ever, though he may forfeit eternal happiness by sin.
  • God, in his infinite justice and holiness, must give virtue its due reward. But, as experience teaches, the virtuous do not obtain a sufficient reward here; hence they will be recompensed hereafter, and the reward must be everlasting, since the soul is immortal. Nor can it be supposed that the soul in the next life must merit her continuance in happiness by a continued series of combats; for this would be repugnant to all the tendencies and desires of human nature.
  • God, in His wisdom, must set on the moral law a sanction, sufficiently appropriate and efficacious. But, unless each man is rewarded according to the measure of his good works, such a sanction could not be said to exist. Mere infliction of punishment for sin would be insufficient. In any case, reward for good deeds is the best means of inspiring zeal for virtue. Nature itself teaches us to reward virtuein others whenever we can, and to hope for a reward of our own good actions from the Supreme Ruler of the universe. That reward, not being given here, will be given hereafter.
  • God has implanted in the heart of man a love of virtue and a love of happiness; consequently, God, because of His wisdom, must by rewarding virtue establish perfect harmony between these two tendencies. But such a harmony is not established in this life; therefore it will be brought about in the next.
  • Every man has an innate desire for perfect beatitude. Experience proves this. The sight of the imperfect goods of earth naturally leads us to form the conception of a happiness so perfect as to satisfy all the desires of our heart. But we cannot conceive such a state without desiring it. Therefore we are destined for a happiness that is perfect and, for that very reason, eternal; and it will be ours, unless we forfeit it by sin. A natural tendency without an object is incompatible both with nature and with the Creator's goodness. The arguments thus far advanced prove the existence of heaven as a state of perfect happiness.
  • We are born for higher things, for the possession of God. This earth can satisfy no man, least of all the wise. "Vanity of vanities", says the Scripture (Ecclesiastes 1:1); and St. Augustine exclaimed: "Thou hast made us for Thyself (O God) and our heart is troubled till it rests in Thee."
  • We are created for wisdom, for a possession of truth perfect in its kind. Our mental faculties and the aspirations of our nature giveproof of this. But the scanty knowledge, that we can acquire on earth stands in no proportion to the capabilities of our soul. We shall possess truth in higher perfection hereafter.
  • God made us for holiness, for a complete and final triumph over passion and for the perfect and secure possession of virtue. Our natural aptitudes and desires bear witness to this. But this happy goal is not reached on earth, but in the next life.
  • We are created for love and friendship, for indissoluble union with our friends. At the grave of those we love our heart longs for a future reunion. This cry of nature is no delusion. A joyful and everlasting reunion awaits the just man beyond the grave.
  • It is the conviction of all peoples that there is a heaven in which the just will rejoice in the next life. But, in the fundamental questions of our being and our destiny, a conviction, so unanimous and universal, cannot be erroneous. Otherwise this world and the order of this world would remain an utter enigma to intelligent creatures, who ought to know at least the necessary means for reaching their appointed end.
  • Very few deny the existence of heaven; and these few are practically all atheists and epicureans. But surely it cannot be that all the rest have erred, and an isolated class of men such as these are not the true guides in the most fundamental questions of our being. Forapostasy from God and His law cannot be the key to wisdom.
Revelation also proclaims the existence of heaven. This we have already seen in the preceding section from the many names by which theBible designates heaven; and from the texts of Scripture, still to be quoted on the nature and peculiar conditions of heaven.

Supernatural character of heaven and the beatific vision

(1) In heaven the just will see God by direct intuition, clearly and distinctly. Here on earth we have no immediate perception of God; we see Him but indirectly in the mirror of creation. We get our first and direct knowledge from creatures, and then, by reasoning from these, we ascend to a knowledge of God according to the imperfect likeness which creatures bear to their Creator. But in doing so we proceed to a large extent by way of negation, i.e., by removing from the Divine Being the imperfections proper to creatures. In heaven, however, no creature will stand between God and the soul. He himself will be the immediate object of its vision. Scripture and theology tell us that the blessed see God face to face. And because this vision is immediate and direct, it is also exceedingly clear and distinct. Ontologists assert that we perceive God directly in this life, though our knowledge of Him is vague and obscure; but a vision of the Divine Essence, immediate yet vague and obscure, implies a contradiction. The blessed see God, not merely according to the measure of His likeness imperfectly reflected in creation, but they see Him as He is, after the manner of His own Being. That the blessed see God is a dogma of faith, expresslydefined by Benedict XII (1336):
We define that the souls of all the saints in heaven have seen and do see the Divine Essence by direct intuition and face to face [visione intuitivâ et etiam faciali], in such wise that nothing created intervenes as an object of vision, but the Divine Essence presents itself to their immediate gaze, unveiled, clearly and openly; moreover, that in this vision they enjoy the Divine Essence, and that, in virtue of this vision and this enjoyment, they are truly blessed and possess eternal life and eternal rest" (Denzinger, Enchiridion, ed. 10, n. 530--old edition, n, 456; cf. nn. 693, 1084, 1458 old, nn. 588, 868).
The Scriptural argument is based especially on 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 (cf. Matthew 18:10; 1 John 3:2; 2 Corinthians 5:6-8, etc.). The argument from tradition is carried out in detail by Petavius ("De. theol. dogm.", I, i, VII, c. 7). Several Fathers, who seemingly contradict thisdoctrine, in reality maintain it; they merely teach that the bodily eye cannot see God, or that the blessed do not fully comprehend God, or that the soul cannot see God with its natural powers in this life (cf. Francisco Suárez, "De Deo", l. II, c. 7, n. 17).
(2) It is of faith that the beatific vision is supernatural, that it transcends the powers and claims of created nature, of angels as well as ofmen. The opposite doctrine of the Beghards and Beguines was condemned (1311) by the Council of Vienne (Denz., n. 475 — old, n. 403), and likewise a similar error of Baius by Pius V (Denz., n. 1003 — old, n. 883). The Vatican Council expressly declared that man has been elevated by God to a supernatural end (Denz., n. 1786 — old, n. 1635; cf. nn. 1808, 1671 — old, nn. 1655, 1527). In this connection we must also mention the condemnation of the Ontologists, and in particular of Rosmini, who held that an immediate but indeterminate perception of God is essential to the human intellect and the beginning of all human knowledge (Denz., nn. 1659, 1927 — old, nn. 1516, 1772).
That the vision of God is supernatural can also be shown from the supernatural character of sanctifying grace (Denz., n. 1021 — old, n. 901); for, if the preparation for that vision is supernatural. Even unaided reason recognizes that the immediate vision of God, even if it be at all possible, can never be natural for a creature. For it is manifest that every created mind first perceives its own self and creatures similar to itself by which it is surrounded, and from these it rises to a knowledge of God as the source of their being and their last end. Hence its natural knowledge of God is necessarily mediate and analogous; since it forms its ideas and judgments about God after the imperfect likeness which its own self and its surroundings bear to Him. Such is the only means nature offers for acquiring a knowledge of God, and more than this is not due to any created intellect; consequently, the second and essentially higher way of seeing God by intuitive vision can but be agratuitous gift of Divine goodness.
These considerations prove, not merely that the immediate vision of God exceeds the natural claims of all creatures in actual existence; but they also prove against Ripalda, Becaenus, and others (Recently also Morlias), that God cannot create any spirit which would, by virtue of itsnature, be entitled to the intuitive vision of the Divine Essence. Therefore, as theologians express it, no created substance is of its naturesupernatural; however, the Church has given no decision on this matter. Cf. Palmieri, "De Deo creante et elevante" (Rome, 1878), thes. 39; Morlais, "Le Surnaturel absolu", in "Revue du Clergé Français", XXXI (1902), 464 sqq., and, for the opposite view, Bellamy, "La question du Surnaturel absolu", ibid., XXXV (1903), 419 sqq. St. Thomas seems to teach (I.12.1) that man has a natural desire for the beatific vision. Elsewhere, however, he frequently insists on the supernatural character of that vision (e.g. III.9.2 ad 3um). Hence in the former place he obviously supposes that man knows from revelation both the possibility of the beatific vision and his destiny to enjoy it. On this supposition it is indeed quite natural for man to have so strong a desire for that vision, that any inferior kind of beatitude can no longer duly satisfy him.
(3) To enable it to see God, the intellect of the blessed is supernaturally perfected by the light of glory (lumen gloriae). This was defined by the Council of Vienne in 1311 (Denz., n. 475; old, n. 403); and it is also evident from the supernatural character of the beatific vision. For thebeatific vision transcends the natural powers of the intellect; therefore, to see God the intellect stands in need of some supernaturalstrength, not merely transient, but permanent as the vision itself. This permanent invigoration is called the "light of glory", because it enables the souls in glory to see God with their intellect, just as material light enables our bodily eyes to see corporeal objects.
On the nature of the light of glory the Church has decided nothing. Theologians have elaborated various theories about it, which, however, need not be examined in detail. According to the view commonly and perhaps most reasonably held, the light of glory is a quality Divinely infused into the soul and similar to sanctifying grace, the virtue of faith, and the other supernatural virtues in the souls of the just (cf.Franzelin, "De Deo uno", 3rd ed., Rome, 1883, thes. 16). It is controverted among theologians whether or not a mental image, be it a species expressa or a species impressa, is required for the beatific vision. But by many this is regarded as largely a controversy about the appropriateness of the term, rather than about the matter itself. The more common and probably more correct view denies the presence of any image in the strict sense of the word, because no created image can represent God as He is (cf. Mazzella, "De Deo creante", 3rd ed., Rome, 1892, disp. IV, a. 7, sec. 1). The beatific vision is obviously a created act inherent in the soul, and not, as a few of the oldertheologians thought, the uncreated act of God's own intellect communicated to the soul. For, "as seeing and knowing are immanent vital actions, the soul can see or know God by its own activity only, and not through any activity exerted by some other intellect. Cf. Gutherlet, "Das lumen gloriae" in "Pastor bonus", XIV (1901), 297 sqq.
(4) Theologians distinguish the primary and the secondary object of the beatific vision. The primary object is God Himself as He is. The blessed see the Divine Essence by direct intuition, and, because of the absolute simplicity of God, they necessarily see all His perfections and all the persons of the Trinity. Moreover, since they see that God can create countless imitations of His Essence, the entire domain of possible creatures lies open to their view, though indeterminately and in general. For the actual decrees of God are not necessarily an object of thatvision, except in as afar as God pleases to manifest them. Therefore finite things are not necessarily seen by the blessed, even if they are an actual object of God's will. Still less are they a necessary object of vision as long as they are mere possible objects of the Divine will. Consequently the blessed have a distinct knowledge of individual possible things only in so far as God wishes to grant this knowledge. Thus, ifGod so willed, a blessed soul might see the Divine Essence without seeing in it the possibility of any individual creature in particular. But in fact, there is always connected with the beatific vision a knowledge of various things external to God, of the possible as well as of theactual. All these things, taken collectively, constitute the secondary object of the beatific vision.
The blessed soul sees these secondary objects in God either directly (formaliter), or in as far as God is their cause (causaliter). It sees inGod directly whatever the beatific vision discloses to its immediate gaze without the aid of any created mental image (species impressa). InGod, as in their cause, the soul sees all those things which it perceives with the aid of a created mental image, a mode of perception granted by God as a natural complement of the beatific vision. The number of objects seen directly in God cannot be increased unless the beatific vision itself be intensified; but the number of things seen in God as their cause may be greater of smaller, or it may very without any corresponding change in the vision itself.
The secondary object of the beatific vision comprises everything the blessed may have a reasonable interest in knowing. It includes, in the first place, all the mysteries which the soul believed while on earth. Moreover, the blessed see each other and rejoice in the company of those whom death separated from them. The veneration paid them on earth and the prayers addressed to them are also known to the blessed. All that we have said on the secondary object of the beatific vision is the common and reliable teaching of theologians. In recent times (Holy Office, 14 Dec., 1887) Rosmini was condemned because he taught that the blessed do not see God Himself, but only His relations to creatures (Denz., 1928-1930 — old, 1773-75). In the earlier ages we find Gregory the Great ("Moral.", l. XVIII, c. liv, n. 90, in P.L., LXXVI, XCIII) combating the error of a few who maintained that the blessed to not see God, but only a brilliant light streaming forth from Him. Also in the Middle Ages there are traces of this error (cf. Franzelin, "De Deo uno", 2nd ed., thes. 15, p. 192).
(5) Although the blessed see God, they do not comprehend Him, because God is absolutely incomprehensible to every created intellect, and He cannot grant to any creature the power of comprehending Him as He comprehends Himself. Francisco Suárez rightly calls this a revealedtruth ("De Deo", l. II, c. v, n. 6); for the Fourth Council of the Lateran and the Vatican Council enumerated incomprehensibility among the absolute attributes of God (Denz., nn. 428, 1782 — old nn. 355, 1631). The Fathers defend this truth against Eunomius, an Arian, who asserted that we comprehend God fully even in this life. The blessed comprehend God neither intensively nor extensively — not intensively, because their vision has not that infinite clearness with which God is knowable and with which He knows Himself, nor extensively, because their vision does not actually and clearly extend to everything that God sees in His Essence. For they cannot by a single act of their intellectrepresent every possible creature individually, clearly, and distinctly, as God does; such an act would be infinite, and an infinite act is incompatible with the nature of a created and finite intellect. The blessed see the Godhead in its entirety, but only with a limited clearness of vision (Deum totum sed non totaliter). They see the Godhead in its entirety, because they see all the perfections of God and all the Personsof the Trinity; and yet their vision is limited, because it has neither the infinite clearness that corresponds to the Divine perfections, nor does it extend to everything that actually is, or may still become, an object of God's free decrees. Hence it follows that one blessed soul may seeGod more perfectly than another, and that the beatific vision admits of various degrees.
(6) The beatific vision is a mystery. Of course reason cannot prove the impossibility of such a vision. For why should God, in His omnipotence, be unable to draw so near and adapt Himself so fully to our intellect, that the soul may, as it were, directly feel Him and lay hold of Him and look on Him and become entirely immersed in Him? On the other hand, we cannot prove absolutely that this is possible; for the beatific visionlies beyond the natural destiny of our intellect, and it is so extraordinary a mode of perception that we cannot clearly understand either the fact or the manner of its possibility.
(7) From what has been thus far said it is clear that there is a twofold beatitude: the natural and the supernatural. As we have seen, man is by nature entitled to beatitude, provided he does not forfeit it by his own fault. We have also seen that beatitude is eternal and that it consists in the possession of God, for creatures cannot truly satisfy man. Again, as we have shown, the soul is to possess God by knowledgeand love. But the knowledge to which man is entitled by nature is not an immediate vision, but an analogous perception of God in the mirror of creation, still a very perfect knowledge which really satisfies the heart. Hence the beatitude to which alone we have a natural claim consists in that perfect analogous knowledge and in the love corresponding to that knowledge. This natural beatitude is the lowest kind offelicity which God, in His goodness and wisdom, can grant to sinless man. But, instead of an analogous knowledge of His Essence He may grant to the blessed a direct intuition which includes all the excellence of natural beatitude and surpasses it beyond measure. It is this higher kind of beatitude that it has pleased God to grant us. And by granting it He not merely satisfies our natural desire for happiness but He satisfies it in superabundance.

Eternity of heaven and impeccability of the blessed

It is a dogma of faith that the happiness of the blessed is everlasting. This truth is clearly contained in the Holy Bible (see Section I); it is daily professed by the Church in the Apostles' Creed (credo . . . vitam aeternam), and it has been repeatedly defined by the Church, especially by Benedict XII (cf. Section III). Even reason, as we have seen, can demonstrate it. And surely, if the blessed knew that theirhappiness was ever to come to an end, this knowledge alone would prevent their happiness from being perfect.
In this matter Origen fell into error; for in several passages of his works he seems to incline to the opinion that rational creatures never reach a permanent final state (status termini), but that they remain forever capable of falling away from God and losing their beatitude and of always returning to Him again.
The blessed are confirmed in good; they can no longer commit even the slightest venial sin; every wish of their heart is inspired by the purestlove of God. That is, beyond doubt, Catholic doctrine. Moreover this impossibility of sinning is physical. The blessed have no longer the power of choosing to do evil actions; they cannot but love God; they are merely free to show that love by one good action in preference to another. But whilst the impeccability of the blessed appears to be unanimously held by theologians, there is a diversity of opinion as to itscause. According to some, its proximate cause consists in this that God absolutely withholds from the blessed His co-operation to any sinfulconsent. The beatific vision does not, they argue, of its very nature exclude sin directly and absolutely; because God may still displease the blessed soul in various ways, e.g., by refusing a higher degree to beatitude, or by letting persons whom that soul loves die in sin and sentencing them to eternal torment. Moreover, when great sufferings and arduous duties accompany the beatific vision, as was the case in the human nature of Christ on earth, then at least the possibility of sin is not directly and absolutely excluded.
The ultimate cause of impeccability is the freedom from sin or the state of grace in which at his death man passes into the final state (status termini), i.e. into a state of unchangeable attitude of mind and will. For it is quite in consonance with the nature of that state that Godshould offer only such co-operation as corresponds to the mental attitude man chose for himself on earth. For this reason also the souls inpurgatory, although they do not see God, are still utterly incapable of sin. The beatific vision itself may be called a remote cause of impeccability; for by granting so wondrous a token of His love, God may be said to undertake the obligation of guarding from all sin those whom He so highly favours, whether by refusing all co-operation to evil acts or in some other manner. Besides, even if the clear vision of God, most worthy of their love, does not render the blessed physically unable, it certainly renders them less liable, to sin.
Impeccability, as explained by the representatives of this opinion, is not, properly speaking, extrinsic, as is often wrongly asserted; but it is rather intrinsic, because it is strictly due to the final state of blessedness and especially to the beatific vision. This is substantially the opinion of the Scotists, likewise of many others, especially in recent times. Nevertheless the Thomists, and with them the greater number oftheologians, maintain that the beatific vision of its very nature directly excludes the possibility of sin. For no creature can have a clearintuitive view of the Supreme Good without being by that very fact alone irresistibly drawn to love it efficaciously and to fulfil for its sake even the most arduous duties without the least repugnance. The Church has left this matter undecided. The present writer rather inclines to the opinion of the Scotists because of its bearing on the question of the liberty of Christ. (See HELL under the heading Impenitence of the Damned.)

Essential beatitude

We distinguish objective and subjective beatitude. Objective beatitude is that good, the possession of which makes us happy; subjective beatitude is the possession of that good. The essence of objective beatitude, or the essential object of beatitude is God alone. For the possession of God assures us also the possession of every other good we may desire; moreover, everything else is so immeasurably inferior toGod that its possession can only be looked upon as something accidental to beatitude. Finally, that all else is of minor importance for beatitude is evident from the fact that nothing save God alone is capable of satisfying man. Accordingly the essence of subjective beatitude is the possession of God, and it consists in the acts of vision, love, and joy. The blessed love God with a twofold love; with the love of complacency, by which they love God for His own sake, and secondly with the love less properly so called, by which they love Him as the source of their happiness (amor concupiscentiae). In consonance with this twofold love the blessed have a twofold joy; firstly, the joy oflove in the strict sense of the word, by which they rejoice over the infinite beatitude which they see in God Himself, precisely because it is the happiness of God whom they love, and secondly, the joy springing from love in a wider sense, by which they rejoice in God because He is the source of their own supreme happiness. These five acts constitute the essence of (subjective) beatitude, or in more precise terms, its physical essence. In this theologians agree.
Here theologians go a step farther and inquire whether among those five acts of the blessed there is one act, or a combination of several acts, which constitutes the essence of beatitude in a stricter sense, i.e. its metaphysical essence in contradistinction to its physicalessence. In general their answer is affirmative; but in assigning the metaphysical essence their opinions diverge. The present writer prefers the opinion of St. Thomas, who holds that the metaphysical essence consists in the vision alone. For, as we have just seen, the acts of loveand joy are merely a kind of secondary attributes of the vision; and this remains true, whether love and joy result directly from the vision, as the Thomists hold, or whether the beatific vision by its very nature calls for confirmation in love and God's efficacious protection against sin.

Accidental beatitude

Besides the essential object of beatitude the souls in heaven enjoy many blessings accidental to beatitude. We shall mention only a few:
  • In heaven there is not the least pain or sadness; for every aspiration of nature must be finally realized. The will of the blessed is in perfect harmony with the Divine will; they feel displeasure at the sins of men, but without experiencing any real pain.
  • They delight greatly in the company of Christ, the angels, and the saints, and in the reunion with so many who were dear to them on earth.
  • After the resurrection the union of the soul with the glorified body will be a special source of joy for the blessed.
  • They derive great pleasure from the contemplation of all those things, both created and possible, which, as we have shown, they see in God, at least indirectly as in the cause. And, in particular, after the last judgment the new heaven and the new earth will afford them manifold enjoyment. (See GENERAL JUDGMENT.)
  • The blessed rejoice over sanctifying grace and the supernatural virtues that adorn their soul; and any sacramental character they may have also adds to their bliss.
  • Very special joys are granted to the martyrs, doctors, and virgins, a special proof of victories won in time of trial (Revelation 7:11 sq.;Daniel 12:3; Revelation 14:3 sq.). Hence theologians speak of three particular crowns, aureolas, or glorioles, by which these three classes of blessed souls are accidentally honoured beyond the rest. Aureola is a diminutive of aurea, i.e. aurea corona (golden crown). (Cf. St. Thomas, Supp:96.)
Since eternal happiness is metaphorically called a marriage of the soul with Christ, theologians also speak of the bridal endowments of the blessed. They distinguish seven of these gifts, four of which belong to the glorified body — light, impassibility, agility, subtility (seeRESURRECTION); and three to the soul — vision, possession, enjoyment (visio, comprehensio, fruitio). Yet in the explanation given by thetheologians of the three gifts of the soul we find but little conformity. We may identify the gift of vision with the habit of the light of glory, the gift of possession with the habit of that love in a wider sense which has found in God the fulfilment of its desires, and the gift of enjoyment we may identify with the habit of love properly so called (halitus caritatis) which rejoices to be with God; in this view these three infused habits would he considered simply as ornaments to beautify the soul. (Cf. St. Thomas, Supp:95)

Attributes of beatitude

There are various degrees of beatitude in heaven corresponding to the various degrees of merit. This is a dogma of faith, defined by theCouncil of Florence (Denz., n. 693 — old, n. 588). The Bible teaches this truth in very many passages (e.g., wherever it speaks of eternalhappiness as a reward), and the Fathers defend it against the heretical attacks of Jovinian. It is true that, according to Matthew 20:1-16, each labourer receives a penny; but by this comparison Christ merely teaches that, although the Gospel was preached to the Jews first, yet in the Kingdom of Heaven there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, and that no one will receive a greater reward merely because of being a son of Judah. The various degrees of beatitude are not limited to the accidental blessings, but they are found first and foremost in the beatific vision itself. For, as we have already pointed out, the vision, too, admits of degrees. These essential degrees of beatitude are, asFrancisco Suárez rightly observes ("De beat.", d. xi, s. 3, n. 5), that threefold fruit Christ distinguishes when He says that the word of Godbears fruit in some thirty, in some sixty, in some a hundredfold (Matthew 13:23). And it is by a mere accommodation of the text that St. Thomas (Supp:96, aa. 2 sqq.) and other theologians apply this text to the different degrees in the accidental beatitude merited by marriedpersons, widows, and virgins.
The happiness of heaven is essentially unchangeable; still it admits of some accidental changes. Thus we may suppose that the blessed experience special joy when they receive greater veneration from men on earth. In particular, a certain growth in knowledge by experience is not excluded; for instance, as time goes on, new free actions of men may become known to the blessed, or personal observation and experience may throw a new light on things already known. And after the last judgment accidental beatitude will receive some increase from the union of soul and body, and from the sight of the new heaven and the earth.




About this page

APA citation. Hontheim, J. (1910). Heaven. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved December 17, 2011 from New Advent:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm
MLA citation. Hontheim, Joseph. "Heaven." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 17 Dec. 2011.
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is feedback732 at newadvent.org. (To help fight spam, this address might change occasionally.) Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.

Copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Posted by at

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Web Surfing--Christianity and Genocide


SECTIONS
Americas, Africa, Asia & The Pacific > Page 1 2 3 4 5

Americas, Africa, Asia and the Pacific

"The [Catholic] Spaniards in Mexico and Peru used to baptize Indian infants and then immediately dash their brains out; by this means they secured that these infants went to heaven."
-- Bertrand Russell
In the 15th century and onwards, Christians discovered new lands full of unbelievers, and they did to the Africians and to the American Indians exactly what they did to the European unbeliever, but there was one difference. Christian artwork had depicted Satan and his demons as black. Not suprisingly Christians decided that Africans and Indians were a lot closer to Satan than white skinned Europeans, and they (Christians) acted accordingly to protect themselves from the "pollution" of contact with dark skinned people.

People should avail themselves and read Historian, Forrest. G. Woods' Book "The Arrogance of Faith" for an in depth exploration of the Christian origins of Racism, Slavery, and Segregation.
Link
Christian civilization, by virtue of its exclusivist heresy and monotheism, became the self-justifying destroyer of all non-Christian culture.
From: Canadian Holocaust.
By 1570 the Inquisition had established independent tribunals in Peru and the city of Mexico for the purpose of "freeing the land, which has become contaminated by Jews and heretics." Natives who did not convert to Christianity were burned like any other heretic. The Inquisition spread as far as Goa, India, where in the late 16th and early 17th centuries it took no less than 3,800 lives.

Even without the formal Inquisition present, missionary behavior clearly illustrated the belief in the supremacy of a single image of God, not in the supremacy of one all-encompassing divinity. If the image of God venerated in a foreign land was not Christian, it was simply not divine. Portuguese missionaries in the Far East destroyed pagodas, forced scholars to hide their religious manuscripts, and suppressed older customs. Mayan scribes in Central America wrote:
Before the coming of the Spaniards, there was no robbery or violence. The Spanish invasion was the beginning of tribute, the beginning of church dues, the beginning of strife.
In 1614 the Shogun of Japan, Iyeyazu, accused the missionaries of "wanting to change the government of the country and make themselves masters of the soil."
-- The Dark Side of Christian History, Helen Ellerbe
See the book: Teurer Segen - Christliche Mission und Kolonialismus by Gert von Paczensky ("Costly blessing - Christian Mission and Colonialism")

Americas

In the first few decades since 1492, it was thought that Indians did not have souls because they were "animals" in human form. Therefore, it was believed they could be hunted down like animals, which they were. It was only in 1530 CE that the Pope declared that the Indians were human. Having established their humanity, it was decided that they must be inducted into Christianity. As the Indians were unwilling, this was accomplished by force. Though the change in their status from animal to human might appear to be an improvement, in reality, little changed in their plight.
Unfortunately for the Indians, with the arrival of Christians would come the intolerance for their indigenous ways of life:
The Indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As
"they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell."
What happened to his people was described by an eyewitness:
"The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties ... They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles... then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive." [SH72]
-- American Holocaust, by D.Stannard
Link at The Christian Heritage
When Columbus landed in America in 1492, he mistook it for India and called the native inhabitants "Indians." It was his avowed aim to
"convert the heathen Indians to our Holy Faith"
that warranted the enslaving and exporting of thousands of Native Americans. That such treatment resulted in complete genocide did not matter as much as that these natives had been given the opportunity of everlasting life through their exposure to Christianity. The same sort of thinking also gave Westerners license to rape women.
-- The Dark Side of Christian History, by Helen Ellerbe
A total of maybe more than 150 million Indians (of both Americas) were destroyed in the period of 1500 to 1900, as an average two thirds by smallpox and other epidemics, that leavessome 50 million killed directly by violence, bad treatment and slavery.
In many countries, such as Brazil, and Guatemala, this continues even today.
Link

In the Christians' own words

American Holocaust, by D. Stannard:
On his first voyage he [Christopher Columbus] described the natives as follows:
"The people of this island and of all other islands which I have found and seen, ... all go naked, ... they ... are so artless and free with all they possess, that no one would believe it without having seen it. Of anything they have, if you ask them for it, they never say no; rather they invite the person to share it, and show as much love as if they were giving their hearts..."
-- Christopher Columbus
Link
In return, Columbus and his men would teach them the Christian way - Columbus read to them in Spanish from the Requerimiento:
I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter into your country and shall make war against you in all ways and manners that we can, and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and of Their Highnesses. We shall take you and your wives and children, and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of them...
-- Christopher Columbus [devout Christian] to Native Americans, 1492
At virtually every landing on Columbus' second voyage his troops went ashore and killed indiscriminately whatever animals and birds and natives they encountered, "looting and destroying all they found," as Columbus' son Fernando put it.
Link, which has far more disturbing eye-witness descriptions of what the devoutly Christian Columbus and his men did to the Indians (referencing American Holocaust by D.E. Stannard):
As one eyewitness recalls:
"Once the Indians were in the woods, the next step was to form squadrons and pursue them, and whenever the Spaniards found them, they pitilessly slaughtered everyone like sheep in the corral. ... So they would cut an Indian's hands and leave them dangling by a shred of skin and they would send him on saying 'Go now, spread the news to your chiefs.'...
Some Christians encounter an Indian woman, who was carrying in her arms a child at suck; and since the dog they had with them was hungry, they tore the child from the mother's arms and flung it still living to the dog, who proceeded to devour it before the mother's eyes..."
On one occasion in Cuba they
"began to rip open their bellies, to cut and kill those lambs - men, women, children, and old folk, all of whom were seated, off guard, and frightened."
After all, the Indians were only infidels,
"naturally lazy and vicious, ... idolatrous, libidinous, and commit sodomy."
In less than a decade after Columbus' first landing the native population of the island of Hispaniola - thousands and thousands of people - had dropped by a third to a half. Before the next century ended, the population of Cuba and many other Caribbean islands had been virtually exterminated.
In spite of this, people today celebrate Columbus Day in honour of this murderer who was also an admitted rapist:
In his own words, Columbus described how he himself "took [his] pleasure" with a native woman after whipping her "soundly" with a piece of rope.
-- The Dark Side of Christian History, Helen Ellerbe


When taught the mysteries of our religion, they [the Indians] say that these things may suit Castilians, but not them, and they do not wish to change their customs... I may therefore affirm that God has never created a race more full of vice and composed without the least mixture of kindness or culture... The Indians are more stupid than asses, and refuse to improve in anything.
-- Tomás Ortiz, Dominican monk, early 16th century
Arthur Barlowe, one of the first Christians ever to set foot on Virginia soil, described the natives he encountered in 1584 as follows:
"...we were entertained with all love and kindness and with as much bounty, ...as they could possibly devise. We found the people most gentle loving, and faithfull, void of all guile and treason ...a more kind and loving people there cannot be found in the world, as farre as we have hitherto had triall." [SH227]
Indeed it could not be more obvious, the natives were badly in need of better, Christian morals. Thus it is only natural the Christian welfare executioners described the way these same Indians were taught the said better, Christian morals:
"...we burnt, and spoyled their corne, and Towne, all the people beeing fledde." [SH227]
[SH] D.E.Stannard, American Holocaust. Columbus and the conquest of the New World, New York/Oxford 1992.
From: The Christian Heritage
Stolen Continents, by R.Wright:
When the Christians were exhausted from war, God saw fit to send the Indians smallpox.
-- Francisco de Aguilar, 1525
Link
In later times, the Christians, tired of seeing how many more Indians there were left to murder, would devise an easier method of execution. Having noticed how the Indians were not resistant to the disease, the Christians would purposefully spread the smallpox by giving Indians infected sheets which were previously used by smallpox patients. The contamination spread like wildfire among the Indians and felled millions.
These are the pivotal letters:
  • Colonel Henry Bouquet to General Amherst, dated 13 July 1763, suggests in a postscript the distribution of blankets to "inocculate the Indians";
  • Amherst to Bouquet, dated 16 July 1763, approves this plan in a postscript and suggests as well as "to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race." (This postcript spans two pages.)


    • These letters also discuss the use of dogs to hunt the Indians, the so-called "Spaniard's Method," which Amherst approves in principle, but says he cannot implement because there are not enough dogs. In a letter dated 26 July 1763, Bouquet acknowledges Amherst's approval and writes, "all your Directions will be observed."
    Historian Francis Parkman, in his book The Conspiracy of Pontiac and the Indian War after the Conquest of Canada [Boston: Little, Brown, 1886] refers to a postscript in an earlier letter from Amherst to Bouquet wondering whether smallpox could not be spread among the Indians:
    Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them. [Vol. II, p. 39 (6th edition)]
    From: Jeffrey Amherst and Smallpox Blankets
    Out of our regard to them we gave them [the Indians] two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect.
    -- from the Journal of William Trent
    Link
    Today, many Christian conservatives try to skirt around the issue of the wilfull introduction of smallpox by repeatedly reassessing the statements of the perpetrators, until they conclude that it was all accidental and unintentional.
    From The Christian Heritage, citing American Holocaust:
    Reverend Solomon Stoddard, one of New England's most esteemed religious leaders, in
    "1703 formally proposed to the Massachusetts Governor that the colonists be given the financial wherewithal to purchase and train large packs of dogs 'to hunt Indians as they do bears'."
    Massacre of Sand Creek, Colorado 11/29/1864. Colonel John Chivington, a former Methodist minister and still elder in the church ("I long to be wading in gore") had a Cheyenne village of about 600, mostly women and children, gunned down despite the chiefs' waving with a white flag: 400-500 killed. From an eye-witness account:
    "There were some thirty or forty squaws collected in a hole for protection; they sent out a little girl about six years old with a white flag on a stick; she had not proceeded but a few steps when she was shot and killed. All the squaws in that hole were afterwards killed ..."
    Methodist minister Colonel John Chivington's policy was to "kill and scalp all little and big" because "nits make lice."
    Link
    The Christian Hall of Shame at The Christian Heritage has a section on Andrew Jackson, Protestant, President of the United States (1828 - 1837) and Cherokee murderer

    Inquisition, slavery, and theft of land in the Americas


    The Church, particularly in South America, supported the enslavement of native inhabitants and the theft of native lands. A 1493 papal Bull justified declaring war on any natives in South America who refused to adhere to Christianity.
    -- The Dark Side of Christian History, by Helen Ellerbe
    The Inquisition was not limited to Europe, as Spaniards brought it to the Americas and used it to punish the native inhabitants. Through the 1500s, 879 heresy trials were recorded in Mexico alone. Thus, other than people, the Inquisition was one of Europe's first exports to the Americas. Church leaders supported the suppression, enslavement and murder of native inhabitants - a 1493 papal Bull justfied declaring war on all non-Christian natives in the Americas. Jurist Encisco wrote in 1509:
    The king has every right to send his men to the Indies to demand their territory from these idolaters because he had received it from the pope. If the Indians refuse, he may quite legally fight them, kill them and enslave them, just as Joshua enslaved the inhabitants of the country of Canaan.
    Link
    With this, the Papal Bull declared that the church under king Ferdinand was entitled to all land in South America.
    The Inquisition remained active until 1834, especially in Central and South America, where "heathen" natives were tortured and burned for crimes against the true faith, such as, "not believing in it".Mayan scribes in Central America wrote,
    "Before the coming of the Spaniards, there was no robbery or violence. The Spanish invasion was the beginning of tribute, the beginning of church dues, and the beginning of strife."

    Catholic fathers of the mission of San Francisco burned many Indian "witches" before the tribes were sufficiently subdued to accept God's Word.
    Henry Charles Lea said,
    "An inquisitor seems to have been regarded as a necessary portion of the missionary outfit."
    Link
    Columbus planted a cross wherever he went, vowing to "do all the mischief that we can" to natives who refused to convert. The Christians brought with them skills of torture that had been refined on their own people in Europe for hundreds of years.
    Link

    Some statistics on the death toll in South and Central America

    Native Peoples section at Victims of the Christian Faith references American Holocaust, D.Stannard:
    On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population (Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant natural resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000 dead.
    The surviving Indians fell victim to rape, murder, enslavement and Spanish raids.
    Also from the Native Peoples section:
    "[The] island's population of about eight million people at the time of Columbus's arrival in 1492 already had declined by a third to a half before the year 1496 was out."
    Eventually all the island's natives were exterminated, so the Spaniards were "forced" to import slaves from other caribbean islands, who soon suffered the same fate. Thus
    "the Caribbean's millions of native people [were] thereby effectively liquidated in barely a quarter of a century".
    "In less than the normal lifetime of a single human being, an entire culture of millions of people, thousands of years resident in their homeland, had been exterminated."
    "And then the Spanish turned their attention to the mainland of Mexico and Central America. The slaughter had barely begun. The exquisite city of Tenochtitlán [Mexico city] was next."
    Cortez, Pizarro, De Soto and hundreds of other Spanish conquistadors likewise sacked southern and mesoamerican civilizations in the name of Christ (De Soto also sacked Florida).
    "When the 16th century ended, some 200,000 Spaniards had moved to the Americas. By that time probably more than 60,000,000 natives were dead."
    Christianity was responsible for the genocide of 60 million Indians there by the end of the 16th century alone, whom the Christian perpetrators believed they were saving for Christ.

    Some statistics on the death toll of the Indian Nations of North America

    Once again referencing D. Stannard's American Holocaust, the section titled Native Peoples states:
    To summarize:
    • Before the arrival of the English, the western Abenaki people in New Hampshire and Vermont had numbered 12,000. Less than half a century later about 250 remained alive - a destruction rate of 98%.
    • The Pocumtuck people had numbered more than 18,000, fifty years later they were down to 920 - 95% destroyed.
    • The Quiripi-Unquachog people had numbered about 30,000, fifty years later they were down to 1500 - 95% destroyed.
    • The Massachusetts people had numbered at least 44,000, fifty years later barely 6000 were alive - 81% destroyed.
    These are only a few examples of the multitude of tribes living before Christian colonists set their foot on the New World. All this was before the smallpox epidemics of 1677 and 1678 had occurred. And the carnage was not over then.
    All the above was only the beginning of the European colonization, it was before the frontier age actually had begun.
    The Frontier Age is the one popularised as that of 'cowboys and Indians' and known for the many massacres inflicted on the Indians by the cavalry.

    Christianity leads to destruction of libraries and temples - again

    Zumarraga, the first bishop of Mexico, is known for sending the contents of the Mayans' Texcoco Library up in flames - because they were "the Devil's work". In 1531, this Christian bishop wrote how he had personally destroyed 500 temples and 20,000 Mayan idols.
    In 1562, bishop Diego de Landa, burnt down Yucatan's grand library. Though a tiny proportion of their valuable literature was preserved from the mad Christian fires by the Mayans, bishop de Landa has left us his odious writing:
    "We found a large number of their books of these letters, and because they did not have anything in which there was not superstition and falsehoods of the devil, we burned them all, which they felt very sorry for and which caused them grief."
    -- Relación de las cosas de Yucatán "The Relating of Yucatan Things" by Fray Diego de Landa
    Christianity through the zeal of its dedicated followers has wiped out much of South America's indigenous civilisation. Because of it, we will know never know the full extent of their ancestors' written, artistic and architectural legacy.

    About the peoples marked for Christian extermination

    Though the Christians raped and tortured the Indian women, it was noted that the Native Americans did not do the same:
  • "I don't remember to have heard an instance of these savages offering to violate the chastity of any of the fair sex who had fallen into their hands." wrote the anonymous author of A Narrative of the Capture of Certain Americans at Westmoreland (1780)
  • Another anonymous writer, narrator of the battles of Trenton and Princeton, stated that British abuse of women had been "far Worse in this Respect than an Indian War, for I Never heard nor read of their Ravishing of Women ..."
  • Mary Rowlandson said of her own captivity: "I have been in the midst of roaring Lions, and Savage Bears, that feared neither God, nor Man, nor the Devil ... and yet not one of them ever offered the least abuse of unchastity to me in word or action."
  • William Apess (Pequot) asked in the 1800s, "Where, in the records of Indian barbarity, can we point to a violated female"?
  • Even Brigadier General James Clinton of the Continental Army said to his soldiers in 1779, as he sent them off to destroy the Iroquois nation, "Bad as the savages are, they never violate the chastity of any women, their prisoners."
    • Link, warning: cites a few of the copious gruesome instances of Christians raping Indian women.

    It is especially telling that while almost no Indians voluntarily lived among the colonists, the number of whites who ran off to live with the natives was a problem often remarked upon. Historian James Axtell has concluded that the whites who chose to remain among the natives
    "...stayed because they found Indian life to possess a strong sense of community, abundant love, and uncommon integrity - values that the European colonists also honored... But Indian life was attractive for other values - for social equality, mobility, adventure, and as two adult converts acknowledged, 'the most perfect freedom, the ease of living, [and] the absence of those cares and corroding solicitudes which so often prevail with us.'"
    -- The Invasion Within, J.Axtell
    After a century and a half of permanent British settlement in North America, even Benjamin Franklin joined numerous earlier commentators lamenting that
    "...when an Indian child has been brought up among us, taught our language and habituated to our Customs, yet if he goes to see his relations and make one Indian Ramble with them, there is no perswading them ever to return. [But] when white persons of either sex have been taken prisoners young by the Indians, and lived a while among them, tho' ransomed by their Friends, and treated with all imaginable tenderness to prevail with them to stay among the English, yet in a Short time they become disgusted with our manner of life, and the care and pains that are necessary to support it, and take the first good Opportunity of escaping again into the Woods, from whence there is no reclaiming them."
    -- The Invasion Within, J.Axtell
    Likewise in regard to the education of children early European visitors such as Jesuit missionaries inevitaby marvelled at the both successful and gentle methods that were used by the Native parents to guide their children to both dignity, self-control and prideful independence. The French Jesuit Pierre de Charlevoix for example traveled through what is now New York, Michigan and Eastern Canada, and remarked:
    [While] "fathers and mothers neglect nothing in order to inspire their children with certain principles of honour ... they take care always to communicate their instructions ... in an indirect manner."
    Some of the Indians, he added,
    "... do begin to chastise their children, but this happens only among those that are Christians, or such as are settled in the colony..."
    But apart from such disturbing exceptions the Indian methods of child education prevailed, and the results were evident, for example, in a report on the Huron's councils by Father Jean de Brebeuf during the summer of 1636. One of the most
    "... remarkable things... is their great prudence and moderation of speech,"
    and exactly this was what also had impressed Charlevoix:
    "It must be acknowledged, that proceedings are carried on in these assemblies with a wisdom and a coolness, and a knowledge of affairs, and I may add generally with a probity, which would have done honour to the areopagus of Athens, or to the Senate of Rome..." [SH30]
    [AI] J.Axtell, The Invasion Within, New York 1985
    [SH] D.E. Stannard, American Holocaust. Columbus and the conquest of the New World, New York/Oxford 1992.
    From: Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? at The Christian Heritage.
    Compare the treatment of children by the Indians with the treatment European children suffered under Christianity.
    The same page quotes historians on how these people shared with the settlers all that they had. One of these:
    "Indeed, Morgan later notes, 'the Indians could have done the English in simply by deserting them.' [MA40]
    They did not desert them, and in that act they sealed their fate.
    The same was true throughout the Americas: Indian openness and generosity were met with European stealth and greed. ...
    -- American Holocaust. Columbus and the conquest of the New World, D.E. Stannard
    [MA] E.S.Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom, New York 1975.
    Link at the The Christian Heritage

    The egalitarian nature of Native societies did not escape the notice of the colonizers. It was a scandal in the colonies that a number of white people chose to live among Indian people while virtually no Indians voluntarily chose to live among the colonists. According to J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur,
    "Thousands of Europeans are Indians, and we have no example of even one of these Aborigines having from choice become Europeans!"
    Link. De Crevecoeur confused "European" for "Christian". Of course these thousands of Europeans could not relinquish their ethnic origins which are biological. They abandoned Christianity to adopt the pre-Christian ways of the indigenous Indians, while the Indians never voluntarily became Christian, which De Crevecoeur wrongly described as "European".
    Richard Hill has argued that the equal status accorded to women in Native societies "fueled some [white] men's hatred towards Indians. After all, they now had to worry about their prized possession being happier with savage Indians than with them."
    Link, once again confusing European/white and Christian. The fact that many European men, women and children preferred to live in traditional, unconverted Indian society, shows that the attraction lay in the humaneness of the pre-Christian Indians and their ways.

    Perhaps one of the most common associations made with the congregations of northeastern cultures concerns their sophisticated political systems and their formal networks of international alliances, such as the Five Nation Confederacy of the Iroquois League, founded some time between the tenth and the fifteenth century, long before Columbus, and composed of the independent Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca peoples. In the early eighteenth century the Tuscarora were admitted to the League as the Sixth Nation. Many writers, both historians and anthropologists, have argued that the League was a model for the United States Constitution, although some controversy remains. The debate focuses largely on the extent of Iroquois influence on Euro-American political thought, however, since no one denies there was an influence.

    As J.N.B.Hewitt of the Smithsonian Institution admitted more than fifty years ago:
    Some of the ideas incorporated in the League of the Five Nations were far too radical even for the most advanced of the framers of the American Constitution. Nearly a century and a half would elapse before the white men could reconcile themselves to woman suffrage, which was fundamental in the Indian government. They have not yet arrived at the point of abolishing capital punishment, which the Iroquois had accomplished by a very simple legal device. And child welfare legislation, prominent in the Iroquois scheme of things, had to wait for a century or more before the white men were ready to adopt it. [TU28f]
    -- The United States Constitution and the Iroquois League, E.Tooker
    But as another historian points out, referring to this quote, to limit the
    description of female power among the Iroquois to the achievement of "woman suffrage," ... is to not even begin to convey the reality of women's role in Iroquois society. As the Constitution of the Five Nations firmly declared: "The lineal descent of the people of the Five Nations shall run in the female line. Women shall be considered the progenitors of the Nation. They shall own the land and the soil. Men and women shall follow the status of the mother." [SH29]
    -- American Holocaust, D.E. Stannard
    From: Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? at The Christian Heritage, which has far more on this topic.
    The site suggests the book Indian Givers by Jack M. Weatherford for further reading.

    The Californian Indians

    California
    THIS is what happened in California a little more than a century ago, in the Spanish missions...
    [T]he Puritan minister John Robinson had complained to Plymouth's William Bradford that although a group of massacred Indians no doubt "deserved" to be killed, "Oh, how happy a thing had it been, if you had converted some before you killed any!" [Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, 374f]That was probably the only thing the New England Puritans and California's Spanish Catholics would have agreed upon. So, using armed Spanish troops, to capture Indians and herd them into the mission stockades, the Spanish padres did their best to convert the natives before they killed them.
    And kill them they did... At the mission of Nuestra Señora de Loreto, reported the Franciscan chronicler Father Francisco Paloú, during the first three years of Franciscan rule 76 children and adults were baptized, while 131 were buried... The same held true at others, from the mission of Santa Rosaliá de Mulegé, with 48 baptisms and 113 deaths, to the mission of San Ignacio, with 115 baptisms and 293 deaths - all within the same initial three year period.
    For some missions, such as those of San José del Cabo and Santiago de las Coras, no baptism or death statistics were reported, because there were so few survivors [...] that there was no reason for counting [...] And what was done was simply that they brought more natives in, under military force of arms.
    In short, the missions were furnaces of death that sustained their Indian population levels for as long as they did only by driving more and more natives into their confines to compensate for the huge numbers who were being killed once they got there. [...] Thus for example, one survey of life and death in an early Arizona mission has turned up statistics showing that at one time an astonishing 93 percent of the children born within its walls died before the age of ten - and yet the mission's total population did not drastically decline. [SH136f]
    There were various ways in which the mission Indians died. [...] The personal living space for Indians in the missions averaged about seven feet by two feet per person for unmarried captives, who were locked at night into sex-segregated common rooms that contained a single open pit for a toilet. It was perhaps a bit more space than was allotted a captive African in the hold of a slave ship sailing the Middle Passage. [...] Of course, the mission Indians also worked like slaves in the padres' agricultural fields, but they did so with far less than half the caloric intake, on average, commonly provided a black slave in Mississippi, Alabama, or Georgia. [SH138]
    As one French visitor commented in the early nineteenth century, after inspecting life in the missions, the relationship between the priest and his flock "would ... be different only in name if a slaveholder kept them for labor and rented them out at will ..." But, we know now, he would have fed them better. [SH139]
    ...
    There was, of course, good reason for the Indians to fear the consequences of running away and being caught:
    Some of the run-away men were tied on sticks and beaten with straps. One chief was taken out to the open field and a young calf which had just died was skinned and the chief was sewed into the skin while it was yet warm. He was kept tied to a stake all day, but he died soon and they kept his corpse tied up.[SH142]

    The padres were also concerned about the continuing catastrophic decline in the number of babies born to their neophyte charges...
    ...a first-hand account of what happened at mission Santa Cruz when a holy and ascetic padre named Ramon Olbés came to the conclusion that one particular married couple was behaving with excessive sexual inhibition, thereby depriving him of another child to enslave and another soul to offer up to Christ:
    [narrates how the padres lewdly inspected the reproductive organs of the man and then the woman]
    At this point the woman resisted the padre's attempted forced inspection; for that impertinence she received fifty lashes, was "shackled, and locked in the nunnery." He then gave her a wooden doll and ordered her to carry it with her, "like a recently born child," wherever she went. [SH141]
    From: Mission: Possible - Genocide as a Profession at The Christian Heritage,
    where [SH] refers to D.E. Stannard, American Holocaust. Columbus and the Conquest of the New World, New York: Oxford University 1992.The method that was employed by the Catholics of Spain in capturing Indians to convert them, is repeated by Protestant missions today. See the section on how The New Tribes Mission and others operate manhunts to capture remaining non-Christian Indians for conversion.
    See also:
    Posted by at