Harsh View of Columbus Reveals Anti-Catholic Bias, Critics Charge

Mainline Protestant leaders talk about “invasion,” “oppression” and “genocide” and call for repentance and reconciliation.

Roman Catholic groups plunge ahead with plans for “commemoration” and talk of “evangelization.”

The occasion for the divergent rhetoric is the 500th anniversary next year of the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Americas.

And increasingly, some Catholic critics are complaining that anti-Catholicism is the effect, if not the intent, of perspectives that paint the historic event with a black brush.

If the earlier myth of Columbus as heroic adventurer was unduly rosy, the new one is overly dark, say the critics, who contend that denigration of the explorer reveals an anti-Western bias in general and an anti-Catholic bias in particular.

In particular, critics say that a statement issued last year by the National Council of Churches has set an unduly negative tone.

To make Columbus a scapegoat for all the evils of the Western world is as one-sided as whitewashing him as a national saint, the critics complain.

Among those crying foul is Russell Shaw of Washington, spokesman for the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization.

Shaw argues that there is a “ghost at work” behind the anti-Columbus crusade, the ghost of 17th-Century Puritanism.

The council, a New York-based ecumenical organization representing 32 Protestant and Eastern Orthodox bodies, urged in its resolution that the Columbus anniversary generate reflection and repentance rather than celebration in light of mistreatment of American Indians and destruction of their way of life by European conquerors.

The statement cited “invasion, genocide, slavery and ‘ecocide’ (destruction of nature)” as the outcome of Columbus’ journey and charged that the church has, by and large, “accompanied and legitimized this conquest and exploitation.”

Columbus, as an agent of Catholic Spain, represented the Catholic Church, the only Christian church in Western Europe in 1492. The journey that led him to the Americas happened about three decades before Martin Luther’s criticism of the Catholic Church resulted in schism.

Shaw contends that strident denunciations of Columbus are an updated version of Puritan anti-Catholic propaganda of the 16th and 17th centuries, which targeted Spaniards as “the bad guys.”

Then, as now, Reformation-era tales of Spanish cruelty toward natives in the Americas fed anti-Catholic fervor and, in the 17th Century, served to give Great Britain permission to establish its own colonies in the Americas, according to Shaw.

The Knights have an obvious stake in preserving credibility for Columbus, although Shaw is quick to point out that credibility need not mean canonization.

“We are all for repentance and reconciliation,” as well as a realistic view of the ways that good and evil are intertwined in most human endeavor, he said. “But unfortunately, if you engage in too much of this Columbus-bashing, the effect is not going to be to promote reconciliation, but to dredge up religious conflicts and foster further divisions.”

The Rev. Joan B. Campbell, general secretary of the National Council of Churches, acknowledged in an interview that she is aware of the perception that anti-Catholicism had fueled the council’s statement.

“My response is always that it is not our intent to be anti-Catholic, but if we are heard that way, we have to be sensitive,” she said.

The liberal council, long a target of conservative Protestant groups, has sought in recent years to strengthen its ties with the Catholic Church, which is not a member.

Campbell added, “I don’t consider the statement on Columbus to be one of our stronger ones.” The goal, she said, had been primarily to point out “the problematic nature of talking about the anniversary as a celebration.”

Indeed, some groups have begun substituting the words commemoration or observance for celebration.

Robert Royal, vice president for research for the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank in Washington, praised careful language, as well as “legitimate debates” over historic realities. But he, like Shaw, complained that positive aspects of American history are being swept aside.

The critics “are right when they say that Columbus’ arrival brought about a vast shift,” he said. But part of it was to bring agricultural methods that have allowed America to help feed the world, he said.

Royal added that much of the rhetoric also ignores abuses of human rights in some Indian cultures.

“An almost naive belief in the noble savage seems to have taken over the National Council of Churches,” he said.