catholic take on shamans.. what do you think

[lamoka]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13750a.htm :gagged:

[Rick]

Can't find much argument with it, except parts of the "criticism"...

Interesting link, thanks for posting it.

[Philosophia]

I happen to like that encyclopedia. The article was pretty interesting and maybe correct. _inabox_

[Agaliha]

I happen to like that encyclopedia. The article was pretty interesting and maybe correct. _inabox_

Me too. Believe it or not they are correct about many things!
At first I thought it'd be biased, but not so much. At least the articles I've read.
Some are more Catholic POV (like say in the entry "faith") but that makes sense.
They don't seem to lie or make crap up. Though they can criticize things that aren't of their beliefs, but it's no different that a Pagan encyclopedia or book that criticizes Christian beliefs/practices. *shrug*
Just because it's a Catholic encyclopedia doesn't make it bad. :wtf:
Re: the article-- doesn't look weird to me. They do have the criticism, but who cares, just pass over that.

And a thought-- would this fit better in Paths: Shamanism :huh:
Any one of us guides could move it...

[Agaliha]

PS: If you look at at articles Bibliography you'll see that are article seems to be based off a well rounded group of sources. I don't know all these titles, but many look to be anthropolopical and historical-- the Journal of American Folklore, American Anthropologist, the Golden Bough, etc. So before judging an article perhaps look at it's sources. This seems better than some on Wikipedia! Just saying.


D'HARLEZ, La religion nationale des Tartares orientaux in Académie royale des sciences, des lettres et des beaux-arts de Belgique, XL (1887); ACHELIS, Abriss der vergleichenden Religionswissenschaft (Leipzig 1904); TYLOR, Primitive Culture (3rd Amer. ed., New York, 1889); FRAZER, Golden Bough (London, 1900); Jesuit Relations, ed. THWAITES (Cleveland, 1896-1901); MÜLLER, Contributions to the Science of Mythology (London, 1897); LANG, Myth Ritual and Religion (London, 1887); ABERCROMBY, Preand Proto-historic Finns (London, 1898); KEANE, The World's Peoples (New York; 1908); FURLONG, The Faiths of Man (London, 1906); SIEROSZEWSKI in Revue de l'hist. des religions, XLVI; VAN GENNEP in Revue de l'hist. des religions, XLVII; STADLING in Contemporary Review (Jan. 1901); DIXON in Journal of American Folklore (Jan., 1908); American Anthropologist, I, IV.

[lamoka]

Absolutely, move it if you need to.. :)

[Agaliha]

Absolutely, move it if you need to.. :)

Alrighty. Moving :)

[David19]

Cool article, thanks for the link, and I agree with Agaliha, it seems very scholarly, in that they don't just make stuff up (like you might get on some evangelical sites or even Pagan sites).

[wolfjan1]

Boy, those Catholics have an answer for EVERYTHING, Don't they?

[Simply Puzzled]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13750a.htm \:gagged:

Well, obviously it has a Catholic slant. The overwhelming use of the terms savage and primitive show the bias against it inherent in the article. It also shows the spirits as many evil, rather than what they are, mainly neutral.

The real problem comes in the criticisms:


(a) The reasons which prove Animism to be false destroy the basis on which Shamanism rests.

They fail to elaborate on the reasons. For example, if I get ill, a Catholic priest might tell me it was God's will. A shaman might tell me it was a spirit attacking me. Which is more rational?


(b) Shamanism takes for granted the theory that fear is the origin of religion. De La Saussaye holds that the concept of God cannot arise exclusively from fear produced by certain biological phenomena. Robertson Smith teaches that from the earliest times, religion, distinct from magic and secrecy, addresses itself to kindred and friendly beings, and that it is not with a vague fear of unknown powers but with a loving reverence for known Gods that religion in the true sense of the word began (Religion of the Semites, 2nd ed., p. 54). Tiele says "worship even in its most primitive form always contains an element of veneration" and calls sorcery "a disease of religion" (Science of Religion, II, 136, 141).

Well, shamanism in a not a religion, and it does not revolve around gods so the arguments are rather incomprehensible. However, shamanism does revolve around a positive relationship with the spirits, whom the shamans takes as partners, friends and even lovers. Besides, I don't exactly think the Catholics have room to criticize another belief system for being built on fear.


(c) Shamanism is not a religion. The religious priest beseeches the favour of the gods; the shaman is believed to be able to compel and command them to do his will. Hence de La Saussaye regards Shamanism not as a name for a principal form of religion but for important phenomena and tendencies of Animism.

So they argue that it doesn't meet the standards of a real religion, and then argue it isn't even a religion to begin with? Sigh.

[MariThorn]

It was a good article, but then most of the Encyclopedia's articles are very good. And its a Catholic source, so it will be Catholic in outlook. However, it is not overly prejudicial, and is very scholarly.

In regards to a Catholic priest saying it was God's will that your sick, I have yet to encounter that. They would administer the sacrament of healing, and then would pray that you be healed. Unlike evangelicals, who will say that it is the devil or punishment for some sin you have committed. Some Catholics do believe that the suffering we endure on Earth allows us to suffer with Christ on the cross. I don't particularly believe that, but each to their own. That particular belief is not a Tradition of the Church, but a tradition. (tradition is a belief that the people take hold of, but that is not sanctioned per se by the Church itself.)

I am curious as to why you, Simply Puzzled, feel that Catholicism is built on fear? You can answer here or in a private im.

In regards to the real religion thing, I disagree. (Part of why I'm a witch :P) REligion in itself is a bending of reality to control it. Whether through worship or magic. So while there may be a priest who performs the ceremonies etc, the shaman is needed as the magician or bender. To me, praying to a saint to intercede on my behalf to God is the same as going to a shaman and asking them to perform something on my behalf. But hey :D

[Agaliha]

Well, obviously it has a Catholic slant. The overwhelming use of the terms savage and primitive show the bias against it inherent in the article. It also shows the spirits as many evil, rather than what they are, mainly neutral.


Or could it be that they're using old sources, which often had that outlook on things? Anthropology was very different back then. I've seen old textbooks on the subjects and they use primitive, savage and other such words. Hell, I've even seen some racial slurs (which were okay then, but not now). They were from the 1800s and 1900s.

Look at the sources again, I posted them above (and here now):
Look at all the dates. I've bolded them.

D'HARLEZ, La religion nationale des Tartares orientaux in Académie royale des sciences, des lettres et des beaux-arts de Belgique, XL (1887); ACHELIS, Abriss der vergleichenden Religionswissenschaft (Leipzig 1904); TYLOR, Primitive Culture (3rd Amer. ed., New York, 1889); FRAZER, Golden Bough (London, 1900); Jesuit Relations, ed. THWAITES (Cleveland, 1896-1901); MÜLLER, Contributions to the Science of Mythology (London, 1897); LANG, Myth Ritual and Religion (London, 1887); ABERCROMBY, Preand Proto-historic Finns (London, 1898); KEANE, The World's Peoples (New York; 1908); FURLONG, The Faiths of Man (London, 1906); SIEROSZEWSKI in Revue de l'hist. des religions, XLVI; VAN GENNEP in Revue de l'hist. des religions, XLVII; STADLING in Contemporary Review (Jan. 1901); DIXON in Journal of American Folklore (Jan., 1908); American Anthropologist, I, IV.


Most of those sources are of an anthropological view, not necessarly Catholic or even religious.

I was wondering why they were using such old sources when I searched and found this:


The Catholic Encyclopedia, also referred to today as the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, is an English-language encyclopedia published by The Encyclopedia Press. The first volume appeared in March 1907 and it was completed in April 1914. It was designed to give "authoritative information on the entire cycle of Catholic interests, action and doctrine".


It too is an old book. They've just published it on the internet.

The preface for this book, seen here Preface (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_%281913%29/Encyclopedia_preface) , matches the preface for the NewAdvent one. So NewAdvent is indeed the 1913 version.

Perhaps it's not that it's Catholic that uses terms like savage and primitive, but that it's old.

Back then many people in anthropology had a very slanted view of things and small parts of that article reflect that.

Personally I would use this article, but not as a main source. I'd find other more modern articles and sources for the body of my research, but I see now harm is one looking to this as well. People (not just Catholics) that use it for their only source might not think to look for more info and clarify things (too bad, relying on only one source isn't always good either), but many people will.