Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 June 6

= June 6 =

John Williams (missionary)
Is John Williams (missionary) officially considered a martyr? He is often called the "martyr missionary of Polynesia" since he was killed by cannibals he was trying to spread Chrisitianity to the New Hebrides.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you think makes someone "officially" a martyr? If such a standard can be established, then the question can be answered, but I doubt that any such official standard exists. There are martyrologies, but they're generally not considered to be exhaustive, so the lack of presence on such a list does not preclude one being a martyr. That said, our article on martyr is worth referencing: the article notes some general characteristics of martyrs, including "the hero foresees action by opponents to harm him or her, because of his or her commitment to the cause" and "opponents kill the hero because of his or her commitment to the cause". In the case of Williams, it's not clear that this narrow definition holds -- was he killed by locals because he was preaching Christ (martyr), or simply because he wasn't a local (murder victim)? On the other hand, you've noted that he's often referred to as a martyr.  That's frequently as official as it ever gets, particularly for Protestants. &mdash; Lomn 00:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Catholic Encyclopedia has a long entry on martyrs. Of course, Williams, being a schismatic, may not qualify under their user terms. μηδείς (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, in the Catholic Church, there is a procedure for declaring somebody a martyr, which our article Christian martyrs doesn't really explain, but it starts with a diocesan inquiry according to this article. The Anglicans have a less formal system, but do nominate and recognise martyrs. The more Protestant churches (whom Medeis chooses to call "schismatics", which I hope was a joke) have a different view of saints and martyrs, so although he may be referred to as a martyr, (ie one who dies for their faith), he would not be listed and allocated a commemorative date in the calender, as might be the case if he were a Catholic. Alansplodge (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, from the perspective of the Catholic Encyclopedia (which Medeis was citing in her response), "Protestant" would equate to "schismatic" -- in fact, their article notes that "heretics and schismatics put to death as Christians were denied the title" -- so I don't think there's any need for drama over that one. &mdash; Lomn 14:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Hopefully, it was an old edition and things have moved forward a bit now. Alansplodge (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A bit? Sure. But standard Roman Catholic doctrine still contends that Protestants aren't actually part of the Church, and that Orthodox churches have their own issues as well. Benedict XVI's "The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood" notes: "Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined." That's still a significant distinction from "not heresy", and "schismatic" would certainly still be an applicable term. &mdash; Lomn 18:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, in as much as Protestants do not belong to the Catholic Church, which is an organisation, but who really disagrees with that? The word "church" has a lot of specific meanings in Catholic teaching. Protestants who have been validly Baptised are considered Baptised into the mystical body of the Church, but in imperfect Communion with it. See 836-838 in the Catechism: Bear in mind that the Catechism is written to be read by people who study theology, to aid them in writing more accessible books that nonetheless remain orthodox: it often uses quite technical language, which can be misinterpreted (especially if you don't read the whole thing). But I think this section is relatively clear. 86.163.0.30 (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And just to be extra clear: the words "schismatic" and "heretic" are usually used of groups and individuals who break of. The Catholic Church actually makes a distinction between belonging to a group which split off long before your time, and you yourself splitting off. It's pretty clear that most of those currently in Protestant communities did not split off, themselves. So, Martin Luther was a schismatic, but a modern Lutheran is not necessarily. 86.163.0.30 (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It reminds me of the joke about the man who went to heaven and asked what was behind the high wall topped with barbed wire. "Shhh" whispered the angel, "it's the Catholics - they think they're the only ones here!" Alansplodge (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's typical British anti-Catholic bigotry: both unfunny and untrue.μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's quite funny in the right context. And it's a good joke for a comedian's repertoire because one can replace "Catholics" with whoever you want to make fun of. In fact, it's really making fun of all religions who teach the "Join us and you will be saved" philosophy. As for being British, I'd need to see a source for that. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there's funny, unreal, funny--and there's funny, real, sad. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I certainly didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition! And yes, it's sad that any religion is increasing its following. 03:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't want the Easter Bunny to die, or Santa Claus to commit suicide. I want my niebles to understand allusions to Jonah, and Job, and Peter and Abel and Moses and Mary and Herod and Christ.  My nephew just celebrated his first communion.  As a gift I bought him the Lego version of Shelob's lair.  Out of his Grandparents and aunts and parents and uncles, two practice Catholicism, and another is an actual believer.  I am an atheist, but I embrace cultural catholicism in the same way I embrace Greece and Rome, and am unhappy with stoning and burqahs and iconoclasm and whitewashing and caesaropapism or erastianism.  It is a matter of cultural inheritance.  Even to laugh at Monty Python requires the existence of the Catholic Church.  μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The House Of Pride And Other Tales Of Hawaii
Is Jack London's tale "Koolau the Leper" in his book The House Of Pride And Other Tales Of Hawaii a fictional account or semi-fictional account?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We have an article on the Leper War on Kauaʻi also known as the Koolau Rebellion which mentions Jack London's story. Rmhermen (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes there was a Koolau but the style of London's work makes it's semi-fictionalized.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)