Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Joseph's avatar

With all due respect to Archbishop Argüello, who seems to be well-intentioned at the very least (and who may well have a better understanding of the situation than came through in the interview), but I don't think that "things were different 500 years ago" is a sufficient answer for the question of Isabella's treatment of Jews and Muslims, as it doesn't so much acknowledge the problem as try to bury it in the passage of time. I'd rather see an earnest debate about it (which admittedly might already be happening unbeknownst to us), and even the possibility of acknowledging that this was a fault or failure on Isabella's part. After all, the saints, though holy, are human and could make mistakes, and it's good to acknowledge this--lest we fall into the trap of seeing them all as Übermenschen who never sinned or struggled in this life.

All the same, I appreciate the Pillar letting us hear from Archbishop Argüello. Since the late Cardinal Lustigier is unfortunately unavailable for comment, would it be possible to hear from someone else (preferably within the Church) who opposes or has reservations about Isabella's cause? I think it could be worthwhile.

Expand full comment
Fr. Brian John Zuelke, O.P.'s avatar

I have a few concerns with all this. First, I think a VERY high bar must be set for the canonization of civic rulers. I don't think it's insignificant that Constantine and his mother Helena were canonized by the Orthodox but not by the Latins. I think the Western tradition rightfully has more of a skepticism with regards to the sanctity of rulers.

Second, I wonder what is behind this push within the Spanish Church. I've been informed by others who know better than I that the more devoted strains of Catholicism in Spain are infused with monarchical restorationism, the same attitudes that inspired support for Franco among Spanish Catholics. (BTW, while I don't subscribe to simplistic narratives about Franco, his legacy is for sure problematic and mostly a blot on the Church's history.)

Third, to my knowledge, casting Isabella as an active instigator of human rights protections seems quite dubious. I've studied the history of Spanish protections of native peoples, and the lionshare of the effort was exerted by Domincans during the period: Francisco De Vittoria, Bartolomeo De Las Casas, and many others. That the Spanish crown came around to supporting protections was ultimately due to responding to their prophetic preaching, not something that the Crown cared to inquire about too much until it was brought to their attention. Was Isabella authentically motivated to then support such protections? Of course, but the way it's talked about in the article misrepresents the order of cause and effect by neglecting the other actors involved and focusing only on her.

Really, canonize Bartolomeo De Las Casas first, then we can talk about the role of the Spanish Crown, IMHO.

Expand full comment
12 more comments...
Latest

No posts