Nonviolence seems to be a major theme in the movie, The
Mission. It is a means of priest to interact with the local Native Americans as
well as an approach that appeases both parties. The Native Americans learn from
the missionaries while the priests learn and repent through working with the
Native Americans.
Another theme in the movie is just war. This movie is during
the time period in which the Spanish were taking over the Americas. Was the
capture of the Native Americans just? Just war in the Catholic Church has
guidelines that go as followed: war can only be waged for a just reason and not
for punishment or the mere sake of war, one injustice suffered by one party
must greatly outweigh the other, the war must be waged by a public authority,
the evil being committed by one party must be less than that of war, a last
resort and the sole purpose of the war must be the only flaw corrected in the
opposing society. Then in war there are other requirements: the attacks may
only be waged on combatants, action may only be taken when necessary, prisoners
of war must be treated justly and advantage should not be taken of the
prisoners.
The Spanish settlers did not seem to have a just cause for
capturing and attacking the Native Americas, nor did they treat them fairly, however
early settlers seems to be highly affiliated with the Catholic Church as seen
in the parade. How did they justify the war they waged on the Native Americans?
Was the attack on the Native Americans justified? What do you believe were
requirements for the settlers to wage war on the Native Americans? Why do you
think the Native Americans accepted the priests so readily when they had
witnessed and experienced what the settlers were capable of?
Throughout the movie thus far there are also symbols such as
Mendoza carrying the bag up the hill as his own personal cross just as Jesus
did. What other symbols have you noticed at this point in the movie? What do
you think the message of the filmmaker is through these symbols? Do they serve
as parallels to Christianity and, if so, how?
-Caitlin Twomey and Haley Finn
I believe that the message of the filmmaker through the religious symbols, such as Mendoza carrying the heavy bundle up the falls, is to show how even a common person and not only Jesus can show their dedication to a person (in Jesus's case to God) or to a cause (in Mendoza's case his redemption) through suffering. Just as Jesus suffered by carrying his own cross to his crucifixion, Mendoza suffered by carrying the bundle, but the difference is that Mendoza was not killed once he made it up the falls while Jesus died on the cross. I think the importance in this is that the filmmaker may want to show how a person can work hard to earn redemption and if they truly repent for their wrongdoings and feel within themselves a sense of forgiveness, then they can eventually reach some level of happiness in life.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you entirely and think that the filmmaker was portraying redemption and how happiness can be reached.
DeleteIn The Mission, the two main characters Rodrigo and Gabriel have two different approaches to the issue of violence. Gabriel feels that violence is never to be used, even if there is a cause for it. Rodrigo goes by a modified version of the idea of "just war", meaning that when innocent people are being attacked, violence can be used. I think The Mission is trying to portray that violence does not work as the answer to injustice, resistance, or dispute.
ReplyDeleteChrist's love is symbolized in the mission set up by Father Gabriel. The bag and ropes that Rodrigo has to carry are his sins. The act of the natives cutting the ropes off of Rodrigo's back is a symbol of redemption and forgiveness.
I really like what Lindsay said about the filmmaker portraying ideas through the religious symbols. Mendoza's punishment particularly struck me as being like Christ bearing the cross. We all have our own crosses to bear. I think the whole idea of nonviolence resistance is taking the crosses that we have to bear in our stride. We are not called to be violent towards other humans. We are called to take up our cross with Christ. He is there with us in our suffering. I think the mission set up by Father Gabriel is the perfect way to accept others: instead of being violent, he reached out to other people. I think that we are called to bear our crosses with each other instead of being violent against each other.
ReplyDeleteThere was a conversation in the beginning of the movie between a local official and Mendoza after Mendoza has raided the village where Father Gabriel is visiting for slaves that I think answers the question why this native people accepted the will of the church. The official discussed how music is taking over the peoples up the waterfall and around the country by storm. The natives had probably never communicated with any Spaniards/ white men because of their continuous attacks to take them for slaves. They must have been shocked when they heard this universal language of music for the first time from these foreigners. Music is truly awe-inspiring and especially the piece that is used throughout this movie. They had a way to connect with this group of white foreigners for the first time, and this group of foreigners, led by Father Gabriel, was not there to hurt them! The message of Christianity that Gabriel brought to them is very compelling in general, especially when the natives are also being persecuted like Jesus.
ReplyDeleteThe music is definitely a symbolic piece throughout the movie and it does break the tension between the settlers and the Natives. The peaceful way seems to truly get through to the Natives a way violence never could.
DeleteI think everyone watching the movie The Mission was a little surprised at the point just after Father Gabriel, Rodrigo, and the others made it up the waterfall. Surely the natives recognize Rodrigo as the one who terrorized them, killed some, and captured others, yet they are the ones who cut off his burden right at the point I expected them to slit his throat. As Meagan said, this is a remarkable symbol of forgiveness.
ReplyDeleteThe apparent paradox of that time is the Church being a large influence in the lives of the people, yet the prevalence of killing or capturing of the native peoples. I don’t think everyone of that time period really did fully accept the capture and enslavement of the native people as just. It is quite likely that the average person didn’t think about it in that way, and just accepted it as the way things were, even if they weren’t particularly happy about it. In The Mission the priests clearly disapproved and verbally said as much, but they didn’t actually do anything about it. Even the people around the town didn’t look approvingly when Rodrigo brought the captives there.
In response to the question: "Why do you think the Native Americans accepted the priests so readily when they had witnessed and experienced what the settlers were capable of?"
ReplyDeleteWell, for the natives living up in the mountains, they may not have been really introduced to the Spaniards yet. The Spaniards may have heard about them through other villages, or they may have had some brief encounters, but I doubt that any serious skirmishes between the two cultures. So when Jeremy Irons comes up, they were much more curious than wary. And after he gains their trust and Rodrigo comes in, the natives instinctively run to Irons, meaning that they can separate good white men from bad white men, as it were.
For the townspeople living at the base of the mountain, there were buildings and a brick road, so I assume that the current generation of natives living there were not attacked/tortured/abused in their lifetimes. Heck, the town may be made up of Mestizos, for all we know! Even if they were abused, you adapt. It's a survival instinct, which explains how the natives who were captured by Rodrigo adapt so easily to a life of slavery.
To be honest, I don't think the Just War Theory applies to this movie; oh it's the background and setting alright, but it's not the main focus (so far). The main focus is the transformation of Rodrigo, who's going to go from Slave-Trader/ Brother-Killer to Defender of the Natives. I imagine Rodrigo will likely meet another man who's out to enslave the Natives, and he'll have to prove that he really has changed. But hey, that's just my guess.
In any case, to answer the Just War Question, the Spaniards are enslaving the Natives to make a profit, under the guise of Christianization.
I agree with Schultz that Father Gabriel brings out the aspects of Christianity that were best to relate to the Native Americans, particularly acceptance, forgiveness, non-judgement, love, and non-violence.
ReplyDeleteI think Meagan puts it best by saying that Gabriel and Rodrigo show the two sides of war. Father Gabriel always chooses non-violence, while Rodrigo thinks it is acceptable when necessary and provoked.
As we have only watched half of the movie and haven't fully seen how it relates to just war and nonviolence, I personally would rather not discuss it. Rather, I would like to go a little into the reading. Haley and Caitlin discuss several important points of just war theory but one component which they did not bring up was one of the criteria that is meant to determine if lethal force may be used, that is number 5: Probability of Success. It states: "arms may not be used in futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success." This criteria really struck me and I think that I disagree with it. If a cause is just then it seems to me that the probability of success should not matter. One should try for what is right even if there is overwhelming chance of failure. I know there are arguments against this, in that if the cause is futile then trying will do no good and it would be better not to risk one's own life and to, perhaps, take others, but nevertheless, I think war would still be just even if the odds are overwhelming.
ReplyDeleteI think Dan brings up an important point. The Probability of Success clause pretty much says that even if something is wrong but you don't have a chance of winning, then you shouldn't even try. I think that contradicts Just Cause.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of what we've watched in the movie thus far, I don't think that just war and non-violence applies to the movie at all. What the Spaniards are doing is not war, but rather acts of violence. The ideas brought up in just war and non-violence may apply to the natives if they retaliate, but the ideas are impertinent to the Spaniards.
I agree the Spaniards are attacking rather than fighting. The battle waged appears unjust and the missionaries have a way of associating that required no violence at all, just acceptance.
DeleteIn addition to the aforementioned symbols, I kind of related Roderigo's crime to the story of Cain and Abel due to the brotherly relationship and acts motivated by jealousy and passion. Just a thought. I think this movie (so far) has advocated a great deal of humility on Roderigo's behalf, which I feel is also an important Christian element.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to just war, I'd have to agree with Sam; there is no war between the Spaniards and the natives. What the Spaniards were doing to the natives was at the time socially acceptable, though not morally in accordance with Christianity.
The relation to the story of Cain and Abel was a great parallel and I do believe that the filmmaker was getting at that aspect of jealousy and then redemption.
DeleteHey this is Brendan, just so there is no confusion. The Just War theory, in my opinion, is so specific on the subject of the grounds and the intentions of the combatants that it overlooks how intrinsically human any war actually is. Politically, even the most recent wars in human history defy even the secular rules of the Geneva convention that Congress hasn't declared war since World War II. War even now is changing, and it leaves the Just War theory out of date. How can you justify your intentions when even women and children are taking up arms as insurgents against your country? No war is just, and certainly not the Spanish wars against the natives in the movie. There is a caveat, however. Putting the Just War theory aside, humanity itself is not built to sustain peace. As admittedly flawed creatures, people will continue to fight wars on the basis of political power, civil rights, religion, and self-defense. Standing at the wrong end of the barrel of a gun holds deadlier implications than a theologian or politician can drum up. Justifying war, as with justifying all violence, holds people to a lower standard. War changes the rules to the point where it's either kill or be killed, and that is the essence of bestial action: survival of the fittest. Yes, sometimes it is necessary, but it is not ever justified. War will always be, and peace is an illusion. It's in our nature.
ReplyDeleteDiscussing the movie, the symbolism is obvious and a bit heavy handed, but then again it is a Christian movie made for such an audience (and there is nothing wrong with that :P). As my classmates have mentioned before, the dead-weight penance is similar to Christ's words to "take up your cross," and Rodrigo symbolizes the archetypal Everyman. Ok, not everyone has killed their brother (thank god, I couldn't live without my brothers), but his sins are symbolic of all sin and everyone's sins. Yet his job as a slave trader was legitimately accepted at the time and wasn't even condemned by the Church until the Second Vatican Council (look it up). During Rodrigo's time, the Church had enforced a ban on the enslavement of Catholic people and people living in Catholic colonies, so Rodrigo was not crossing any boundaries at the time (although he did ignore the ban even when he was told the natives had converted). What I find interesting is that what convinces Rodrigo of his errors is living among the natives, and he stumbles on what I would call his conversion to the Catholic faith, because he is handed a Bible and he takes up his reading of it with a voraciousness of someone in starvation. I believe that is the crucial message of the story, that everyone needs to go through their own conversion (as Rodrigo is the Everyman).
I think the justification for waging cultural wars against the natives was the fact that they were considered to be "barbaric." Essentially animals a few spots below the common man. They were unwashed, worshiped false gods, and many natives engaged in, what we consider, cruel sacrifice and rituals. Therefore, what else were the Spanish to do then wipe out this awful race or to make them Christians to become better people (I am only saying this from the perspective of the Spanish, these are not my own beliefs). Those who could be converted certainly weren't killed outright, but those who refused and showed force, were, according to just war theory, the aggressors and were allowed to be killed or taken as slaves.
ReplyDeleteObviously, a key theme of Mendoza's carrying the bundle up the mountain was redemption. He felt he was unforgivable and incapable of redeeming himself or being redeemed. You could see the tears of joy and release he felt when the burden was cut and he was freed. However, it is interesting to note Father Gabriel didn't easily relieve him of the penance. He said he couldn't because Mendoza didn't think he was forgiven. This shows that forgiveness is not just someone telling you you have been forgiven, but there is a personal element in it. You have to give up your pride of thinking you are unforgivable or not worthy and allow redemption. You can choose to have that grace enter into your life, or you can reject it. The same is true with God's mercy and love, and His invitation into a personal and intimate relationship with you.
ReplyDeleteIn the same stream as Lindsay and Rhodes, I agree with the symbolism of the bundle. Mendoza felt guilty for the crime he had committed. He thought that he would never be forgiven and that he would never be worthy of the forgiveness. Carrying the bundle was a form of self punishment. It was a means by which Mendoza was able to forgive himself, to let himself be forgiven.
DeleteRelating this to the passion of Christ is very interesting because in the case of Christ, the burden was not self-inflicted. Christ did not carry the cross because he needed to be forgiven but rather the human race needed to be forgiven. HIs carrying of the cross was firstly the way by which humanity was saved. But, relating it to Mendoza, Christ carrying the cross was an innocent man carrying the weight and the punishment of all of the sins of humanity. By doing so he allows humanity to realize that they have been forgiven and that they do not have to carry the weight of their sins because it has been carried for them.
concerning symbolism, i agree with schultz that the music piece "Gabriel's Oboe" does allow for an integration of the two cultures. Music by its nature transcends conflict and time and it is for this reason that the Spaniards come to initially accept the jesuit priest. The beauty that resonates from the instrument calls them to a dialogue and therefore requires them to place their concerns aside as they are faced with the sublime reality that we are finite beings, as is commonly the case when we encounter such beauty.
ReplyDeleteThat's curious that you say people recognize that they are finite beings when they encounter beauty. When I encounter beauty, I realize my infinite desire for beauty. After the song ended, I wanted more. I always want more beauty. I suppose that, when I encounter something beautiful, I realize that I have a limited access to beauty, in that I can not experience enough beauty to satisfy me. In this way, I realize that I am finite because I have a limited ability to have my desire fulfilled.
DeleteMusic is a very integral part of the acceptance of others as pointed out within the movie. What I think could also be noted is that the Spaniards could be attacking the Native Americans in order that they (the Spaniards) could civilize the Natives. Though this is undoubtedly a false statement, because the Native Americans who were captured were bound into slavery, cultures could make the case that these attacks were not meant to harm other cultures but try to instill other foreign values into differing lifestyles. Numerous times within history cultures have been attacking native peoples of other areas not only for mere territorial conquest but also so that they could "educate" the masses in other ways of living and education. War can be a mere umbrella term for this oppression but a just war in and of itself is a novel concept.
ReplyDeleteWhat seems evident to me from what I know about wars both in recent and ancient times is that aggression often begins because of fear. The truth is that Mendoza kills the natives because there is some perceived difference between them that makes him afraid. This is true in the case of racial aggression and many other forms of violence. This fact can help us understand why the just war theory exists and what constitutes a just cause For instance, perceived fear as opposed to an actual threat cannot justify aggression.
ReplyDeleteI think that the key component of the non-violence movement is forgiveness in the face of extraordinary conflict. The beautiful example of the native people forgiving Mendoza for kidnapping and selling their own, shows how deeply this impacts the whole community. The contrast between the way in which Mendoza waged violence against these people and the way they turned to him with forgiveness and acceptance speaks for itself. While the non-violence theory is clearly the most ideal form of conflict resolution, it tends to be also highly impractical. As we saw when Mendoza stabbed his brother, people are ruled by their passions, and one of the strongest of these is the desire for vengeance, which leads to war and violence.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to think about the Just War Theory and to compare it to the New Evangelization. They're really similar. In both, actions speak loudly--in the New Evangelization, Church leaders call upon the faithful to live out their Christian lives in a way recognizable as Christian. This and the Just War theory can run hand in hand. Non-violence and true love for neighbor are extremely important in both.
ReplyDeleteI think Just War theory and the principle of non violence demand more from people when dealing with conflict. In the event of conflict, it can sometimes be easy to deal with it by means of force. In the Mission, Mendoza kills his brother instead of forgiving him or even taking the time to talk to him. Non violence means that opponents have to really determine what the root of the problem is and attempt as best as they can to find a solution to that problem in a peaceful way. At times it is easier and probably preferred to just use means of violence, but non violence calls on people to connect and try to understand the situation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with David that fear of differences cannot qualify as an actual threat under the just war theory. If anything, war on the part of the Native Americans may have been a just war. The Native Americans were being attacked and their land was being taken away from them. Indeed, for them war was likely a last resort. How else were they to protect themselves and keep themselves from being enslaved by the Europeans? What wrongs had they done against the Europeans?
ReplyDeleteI do think that an important part of the just war theory is a focus on nonviolence which ultimately stems from forgiveness. This is visible within the guarani culture when the natives forgive Mendoza for his wrongdoings against them.
I do not think that the part we saw on Monday portrayed any of the ideas of just war or non-violent resistance. Wednesday's part develops what will be the resistance of the Jesuits against the Church greatly guided and controlled by the state. For these men, it is a difficult decision to go against their authority because they have vowed obedience to the order and the church. They feel that the cause of the mission- Christ's commandment to baptize the World in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit - is greater than their existence in the Church and Society of Jesus. In their disobedience to the cardinal, they are interpreting the teachings and commands of Christ in their life and defending the poor and vulnerable from the greedy and evil. This is right and just.
ReplyDeleteI think that, as previously mentioned by several people, Fr. Gabriel and Rodrigo show the two most important aspects of the movie: non-violence or reasonable use of force. I think that it's important to mention that these two men were completely different, except for the fact that they were both Jesuit priest. Then again, Rodrigo was previoulsy a mercenary, killing the Guarani indians as his 'career'. By lugging all of his armor and weapons up the side of the cliffs, to the Guarani mission, Rodrigo fully repents of the injustices and violent crimes that he committed against the natives. To show his increased disgust for his past lifestyle, it's only obvious that Rodrigo would be willing to give up his vows of obedience in order to protect the lives that he once, so willingly, treated carelessly. Fr. Gabriel, trying to really embody the aspects of a Christian priest, is left with no choice but to try and really direct non-violence among the members of his group. I think he was right in his decision, however, I agree also with the decision of Rodrigo and the other brothers to defend the Guarani. I think that their cause was legal and moral, to fight for these people was right and just and should not be condemned.
ReplyDeleteI think the film portrays a critical divide in modern Christianity, that is, between force used as deterrence and self-preservation, or pacifism. These two beliefs are espoused by Father Rodrigo and Father Gabriel respectively. The modern world has to choose what kind of world will emerge once the Soviet Union melts away (the film was made in 1986). I think Rodrigo's penance was an allusion to the conversion of St. Ignatius, the founder of the Jesuit Order. The bundle of weapons and armor obviously represent a life of soldiering, and all the cruel traits that went along with it. After Rodrigo is set free, he cries tears of joy and feels no regret in leaving behind that heavy bundle. He derives joy from the mere fact that he works for the greater glory of God. Concerning Just War, the Spaniards (or any European nation) did not have the right to rampantly expand onto Native land, for empire building is clearly unjust and the presence of missions near European settlements were crucial in that the clergymen living there were the only ones voicing an opinion calling for leniency and cooperation with the natives.
ReplyDelete