The Holy Eucharist: the Metaphorical Cannibalism of the Body of Jesus Christ Justified.

Vincent Agoe
Summer 2010
July 1st, 2010
The Holy Eucharist: The Metaphorical Cannibalism of the Body of Jesus Christ Justified. “Sanctify them by your Holy Spirit to be for your people the Body and Blood of your Son, the holy food and drink of new and unending life in him. Sanctify us also that we may faithfully receive this holy Sacrament, and serve you in unity, constancy, and peace; and at the last day bring us with all your saints into the joy of your eternal kingdom” (The Episcopal Church 363). This phrase is a phrase spoken in every Episcopal Church every Sunday during the Holy Eucharist otherwise known as the Holy Communion where Christians participate in the ingestion of the “Body” and “Blood” of Jesus Christ. The Christian Faith, by denying that the ingestion of the “Body” and “Blood” of Jesus Christ is an act of metaphorical cannibalism, used the defamation of the rituals of indigenous cultures as acts of cannibalism to attract members to the Christian churches, retain already existing members, and obtain land from the new found cultures of the New World. This ritual of participating in the communion of the “Body” and “Blood” of Jesus Christ is a ritual which has existed in the Christian Faith for many years, but yet is considered by the Christian church as an act nowhere near cannibalism. However, there are cultures in the world which participate in rituals similar to the Holy Eucharist, for example, the Aztec culture of the Americas. Christians, however, upon realizing that the Aztecs participated in the physical ingestion of the human body, were eager to label the Aztecs as cannibals when, in reality, the ritualistic “cannibalism” was clearly similar to the Holy Eucharist. The ritualistic “cannibalism” of the Aztecs was similar to the Holy Eucharist of the Christians because both communities engage in these rituals in order to attain a sort of closeness towards a higher deity. “Human sacrifices, cannibalism, and the behavior of Aztec warriors can all be attributed to and explained by motivational factors, such as religion…” (Ortiz de Montellano, 616). As explained by Ortiz de Montellano, ancient Aztec cannibalism could be attributed in many cases to religion much like the Holy Eucharist being an act of faith in attaining a relationship with Jesus Christ. The Christian belief in attaining a closer relationship with a higher being is shared with the Aztecs. For the Aztecs, “Sacrificial victims were believed to have become sacred. Eating their flesh was the act of eating the god itself. This communion with superior beings was an aspect of Aztec religion…Communion in conjunction with a belief (which some Christian religions practice), is no different in symbolism to the actions of the Aztecs in consuming what they considered to be the flesh of the gods” (Ortiz de Montellano 615). The similarity between the Aztec religion and the Christian religion concerning the issue of cannibalism, either metaphorically or physically is clearly defined in this statement. However, Columbus, for example, upon reaching the New World saw tribes such as the Carib tribe Columbus discovered on his first voyage, which participated in cannibalism, and immediately labeled these tribes as savages who had a strong interest in consuming human flesh. Columbus even went to the extent of claiming that the Caribs were a tribe that hunted the other tribes for human flesh. This claim however, did not bear any proof because the source of Columbus’s conjecture was the Native Americans. Columbus’s speculation runs into trouble because he bases his judgment on hearsay from people whose language he can barely understand. In addition to this setback, Columbus also uses the aid of a translator who is not fully accurate. He also bases his judgment on the physical body structure of the Caribs which is said to look deformed by the narrator in the journal of Columbus’ Second Voyage. Upon assessing the journal of Columbus’s First Voyage, it is noticeable that the judgment of the Caribs as cannibals, mainly by the Europeans, solidified the trust of the other native tribes in the Europeans as protectors. Columbus, even later on, accepts the supposition of the natives that Columbus and his crew are men from heaven. The view of the natives that Columbus and his crew are from heaven strengthens their faith in these new found “protectors”. Consequently, the European effort to convert the natives to Christianity became easier. Also, since the natives trusted the Europeans, acquisition of land and resources from the natives became easier for the Europeans. If the natives were willing to trade their gold for the beads the Europeans had, then acquisition of land by the Europeans from the natives should not be a hard task. The natives saw the Europeans as friends, but the Europeans had a different agenda in mind. For example, at the time of the Spanish encounter with the Aztecs in Mexico, “The political climate in Spain in the latter half of the 16th C. swung in favor of those who wanted to exploit the Indians as cheap labor. In order to justify this, it was necessary to consider them savage brutes and not brothers under God” (Keen, 69-95). In assessment of the above stated claim, the labeling of the natives as cannibals became easier. The Europeans already had the thought of categorizing this new found culture as savage brutes, and therefore a proper assessment of why the natives participated in cannibalism was not relevant. The only judgment was that the natives were uncivilized, and therefore did not deserve the land and resources that they had. The “Christian” judgment of the natives of the New World was that they were uncivilized cannibals who needed spiritual saving from their “sins” when the acts of cannibalism by these tribes could have been justified as acts performed in order to obtain a closer relationship with the higher deities of their tribes. For the Christians to deny that the Holy Eucharist had anything to do with cannibalism, the labeling of the natives as cannibals, and the notion of “saving them” from a path of wrong doing became an easier task. The assessment of the natives as cannibals also gave the European Christians valid reason to appropriate the lands of the natives because the natives did not deserve land as beautiful as the land they lived on. Christians themselves have engaged in acts of physical cannibalism, but in times past have been able to “justify” their indulgence in cannibalism as acts that served a holy cause. This linking of Christian physical cannibalism as an act with holy purpose has often justified the deeds whereas, the same acts performed in ancient Aztec society with the same intention – serving a holy purpose -- were clearly and immediately labeled as acts of cannibalism. One such act of Christian physical cannibalism was the eating of the natives at Ma’arra (today the Syrian town Ma‘arrat al-Numan) during the Crusades in 1098. However, many scholars have justified this act of cannibalism as “perhaps as a way of coping with what they had done, perhaps in earnest aggression, some crusaders—and then chroniclers, reluctantly—understood the cannibalism as an act of holy war: not necessarily as a colonial gesture, but truly as an aspect of the crusade enterprise” (Rubenstein 15). This act of cannibalism occurred when the Christians laid siege upon city of Ma’arra. Yet again, an act of Christian cannibalism is justified. The natives of Ma’arra themselves, as shown by history were not cannibals. The soldiers who laid siege upon the city brought cannibalism into the city. Along with participating in the Holy Eucharist, these soldiers also participated in physical cannibalism, both acts which were justified as acts of holiness. The claim by the Christians was that the acts of physical cannibalism engaged in while residing in Ma’arra were acts to survive and not “colonial gestures”. It is impossible to believe that the eating of the natives of Ma’arra could not have a hint of colonial gesture behind it. Not only was the town taken under siege by the Christians in the name of the Crusades but also, the townspeople were being eaten. If the Christians needed to survive, they had dead comrades whom they could have consumed without the guilt of killing but rather, the Christian soldiers chose to eat the townspeople and spare their own dead comrades. A desperate need to survive should not have included both the consumption of the Christian comrades and the natives not just the natives of Ma’arra. However, “chroniclers stress that the crusaders ate only Muslims—when there would have been, presumably, many dead Franks, and possibly Armenian and Syrian Christians, to choose from. That decision alone indicates that the crusaders and their storytellers inscribed a meaning onto these acts beyond the simple need to survive” (Rubenstein 5). From this quote we notice that, instead of the Christians labeling the natives as cannibals and taking their resources from them, the Christians themselves become the cannibals and are still able to acquire the land and resources of the natives. In this scenario, the natives become the Muslims who are eaten by the Christians and whose possessions are taken away once they are dead all under the pretext of a “justified” holy war. Indeed, the Christians were waging a holy war on the Muslims during the time of the Crusades. However, like many chroniclers have said, there were many bodies to choose from, for example, the Armenian and Syrian Christians. These bodies were not eaten though, perhaps, because the Christians considered the Armenians and Syrian Christians as “brothers” and therefore respected these bodies enough not to consume them. The Muslims, on the other hand, who were not “brothers’ were easily consumed as “meat” and their possessions possibly exploited. When considering the issue of the Holy Eucharist, we find that “the sixteenth–century Protestant interpretation of communion…relegated the Eucharist to the purely symbolic, an outward sign indicative of an inner faith. Protestant rhetoric alienated the more literal Catholic interpretation as bloodthirsty and grotesque, orienting the reformer position as the only Christian alternative to cannibalism.4 Catholics also uneasily recognized a kinship between the sacrament and ritual cannibalism. Spanish Jesuit missionary José de Acosta (1539–1600), for example, referred to the victims of Aztec sacrifices, and the cannibalism they implied, as “hosts” (Edens 6-7). This referral to the Catholic uneasiness in relation to the Holy Eucharist and ritual cannibalism is possibly in relation to the idea that the Christian Faith is rooted partially on the Holy Eucharist and the acceptance of the Holy Eucharist as a cannibalistic act breaks down the foundation of the Church itself. To accept that the Christian Faith is in no way different than the Aztec ritualistic cannibalism raises the question of “why should I be a Christian when in retrospect, I am also a cannibal.” The term “host” is also used in Christianity to refer to the “Body” and “Blood” of Jesus Christ. This similarity is strikingly odd for Christians because two different religions share the same word “host” but yet the Aztecs use the word to refer to their cannibalism as seen by Christians. The Christians also use the word to refer to the substance with which they engage in their ritualistic cannibalism. The only difference between the Christian faith and the Aztec Faith is that the Christians justify their ritualistic cannibalism as not being an act of cannibalism at all and then refer to the Aztec practices as acts of cannibalism. The strategic technique of the Christians in labeling the Aztecs as the “Other” group in turn works to strengthen the position of the Christian church as the authoritative figure in this issue. This theme of the alienation of the “Other”, defined in this case as the Native Americans, in order to justify one’s actions is a device that Columbus employed in order to attain land from the Native Americans. Columbus’ referral to the Carib tribe that he encounters in the New World as cannibals, during his First and Second Voyages, immediately alienates this tribe as the Other. Columbus does acquire most of his information from the natives, but his acceptance of these facts solidifies the idea that the Caribs are indeed cannibals. This tactic wins Columbus the trust of the natives which allows him to continue his plan of first, acquiring land in the New World, and then possibly, converting the natives into Christians. The natives’ belief that Columbus and his crew were messengers from heaven also helped his effort in gaining the trust of the natives. Since Columbus and his crew are from heaven, then if Columbus says that the Caribs must be cannibals, then the Caribs must be cannibals. Columbus alienates the Caribs in order to gain the land he might need from the natives sooner or later. He strategically divides up the ethnic groups in order to acquire their land. To achieve this undertaking, Columbus preys on the fears of the Caribs by the Native American Columbus first encounters upon his arrival to the New World. The way Columbus’ alienation of the Caribs in order to gain the trust of the rest of the native tribes is the same way Christianity is able to maintain its membership and the strength of its doctrine. The assurance from Christianity that the ingestion of the “Body” and “Blood” of Jesus Christ is not an act of metaphorical cannibalism acts as bond between Christians and their faith. Also, the acceptance of the larger Christian body that the rituals of the Aztec are acts of cannibalism draws more members to Christianity because of the assurance that these members will not be cannibals. The metaphorical assurance of the Christian church that newly converted Christian Natives would not be labeled as cannibals led to the Christian acquisition of lands in not only the New World but also places that the Christians visited during the Crusades. Particularly in the New World, this issue arose when the Christians tried to convert the Native Americans. Scholar Richard E. Greenleaf notes that “the perplexing problem of enforcing orthodoxy among the recently converted Indians was linked with the debate over whether or not the Indian was a rational human being who had the capacity to comprehend the Roman Catholic faith” (3). In this statement, it is noticeable that the main problem was if the Indians were rational human beings. This question could only have arisen by the Christian supposition that the Indians were cannibals and therefore unable to act rationally. The Indians, nevertheless, participated in a rationally devised structure of worship where the act of cannibalism was used as an act of communion to attain a closer relationship with their gods. This structure is clear evidence that the Indians indeed were rational people who had the capacity to be able to understand the orthodoxy of the Roman Catholic faith. However, the Europeans declined to accept this fact because then their attempt to convert these so-called irrational human beings would not have been clearly justified. Also, the Europeans’ effort to coax the Indians into understanding the orthodoxy of the Roman Catholic Faith would allow the acquisition of land to be easier because the Christians could refer to specific instances in the Holy Bible which speak of generosity, love and family. However, as stated before, if the Europeans had accepted the idea that perhaps, the Native Americans could be rational human beings then there would be no reason to convert the Native Americans and therefore the major goal of the Europeans, acquiring land in the New World in an attempt to establish imperialism, would be a failed idea with no foundation. Instead of the Roman Catholic Church being open to the idea that these newly-encountered human beings could be rational people who deserved proper negotiation approaches, the Church decided to take a different approach. The approach taken by the Church was the easier way. The Church simply had to deem these newly-found natives as not worthy to be members because of their incapacity to act rationally. Thus the Church could employ its own techniques in converting these natives without facing questioning because their subjects were irrational human beings who participated in cannibalism. In conclusion, the Christian faith’s constant denial that the Holy Eucharist could be referred to as an act of metaphorical cannibalism has strengthened the Christian faith in times past and in the present. The Christian labeling of rituals such as the Aztec ritual as cannibalism strengthened the eventual membership of the Christian faith. The subtle acts of assurance that new members of the Christian faith can participate in the Holy Eucharist without being referred to as cannibals in any way allows the Christian community to practice metaphorical cannibalism without being questioned by any of the Christian followers because the communion of the Christian Faith is not as barbaric or perhaps acts of the “other” as rituals of other cultures when in reality, both rituals are the same and only differ because one is metaphorical and the other one physical.

Works Cited List:

Primary Article:

➢ Cummins, John. The Voyage of Christopher Columbus. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992)

Secondary Articles:

➢ Bynum, Caroline W. The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, 200-1336 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995).

➢ Edens, Jocelyn. Creating, Consuming and Spitting Out Images of the Cannibal. (Massachusetts: Hampshire College, 2010)

➢ Greenleaf, Richard E. “Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico:” The Americas, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 351-376 (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press on behalf of Academy of American Franciscan History, Jan., 1994)

➢ Rubenstein, Jay. Cannibals and Crusaders. 31: 525-552 (North Carolina: Duke University Press, French Historical Studies, 2008)

➢ Stent, Gunther S. “Paradoxes of Free Will”: Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, Vol. 92, No. 6, pp. i-iii+v-ix+xi-xii+1-261+263-273+275-284. (Pennsylvania: American Philosophical Society, 2002)

➢ The Episcopal Church. Book of Common Prayer, 1979 Edition. (USA: Oxford University Press, 2000)

Cited: List: Primary Article: ➢ Cummins, John. The Voyage of Christopher Columbus. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992) Secondary Articles: ➢ Bynum, Caroline W. The Resurrection of the Body in Western Christianity, 200-1336 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995). ➢ Edens, Jocelyn. Creating, Consuming and Spitting Out Images of the Cannibal. (Massachusetts: Hampshire College, 2010) ➢ Greenleaf, Richard E. “Persistence of Native Values: The Inquisition and the Indians of Colonial Mexico:” The Americas, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 351-376 (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press on behalf of Academy of American Franciscan History, Jan., 1994) ➢ Rubenstein, Jay. Cannibals and Crusaders. 31: 525-552 (North Carolina: Duke University Press, French Historical Studies, 2008) ➢ Stent, Gunther S. “Paradoxes of Free Will”: Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, Vol. 92, No. 6, pp. i-iii+v-ix+xi-xii+1-261+263-273+275-284. (Pennsylvania: American Philosophical Society, 2002) ➢ The Episcopal Church. Book of Common Prayer, 1979 Edition. (USA: Oxford University Press, 2000)