Catholic Church historical colonies persecution of Native Americans

[Thorolfr]

The origin of the topic was about that. What are you talking about? People who falsely believe that each side doing horrible things at times must be mutually exclusive to just one parent worth debating with.

Instead of saying “…the violent natives the Spanish encountered…,” Phil should have said, “…the violent natives the violent Spanish encountered…”

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

I agree. Esp when regarding the violent natives the Spanish encountered, who practice human sacrifice.

But the Spanish weren’t violent at all. They were sooo peaceful

Come on. OF COURSE THE SPANISH WERE VIOLENT!!! It was the end of middle ages after all.

I NEVER said they were all peaceful. Of course they were some bad Spanish, including the ones who smeared Christoper Columbus’s reputation because he was a Secular Franciscan & Italian.

However, put yourself in their situation, without modern communications. What would you have done if you were witnessing societies who were committing human sacrifice? The GOOD Spanish we compelled to end the natives’ evil religions which included human sacrifice as a major part.

 

[Thorolfr]

Finally, I object to the “backsliding” comment because the Spanish secular govt was equally harsh on all heretics. Heresy was a crime in the Spanish empire. Whether they were Mayan/Incan/Aztec converts, Jewish converts, or protestants: all heretics were treated the same as heresy was a crime against the Crown.

So you would rather that I say “heretical Mayans” instead of “backsliding Mayans”?

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

Finally, I object to the “backsliding” comment because the Spanish secular govt was equally harsh on all heretics. Heresy was a crime in the Spanish empire. Whether they were Mayan/Incan/Aztec converts, Jewish converts, or protestants: all heretics were treated the same as heresy was a crime against the Crown.

So you would rather that I say “heretical Mayans” instead of “backsliding Mayans”?

Come on. A “backsliding Mayan” was a Mayan that was participating in native customs & rituals that were considered heresy.

I prefer the term “heretical native” because it was not a matter of using native clothing, sports, food, art, jewelry, etc… The issue was heretical beliefs.

For example: the Spanish NEVER attempted to stop the Aztecs from using their timilas. But they did stop them from practicing a religion that included human sacrifice.

 

[Thorolfr]

However, put yourself in their situation, without modern communications. What you have done if you were witnessing societies who were committing human sacrifice? The GOOD Spanish we compelled to end the native’s evil religions which included human sacrifice as a major part.

So, your position is that the Spanish would have been very peaceful and would have left the Aztecs and the Mayans and the Incas alone and wouldn’t have tried to conquer them if they hadn’t practiced human sacrifice? And the Spanish wouldn’t have considered their religion evil and wouldn’t have tried to convert them if there had been no human sacrifice?

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

However, put yourself in their situation, without modern communications. What you have done if you were witnessing societies who were committing human sacrifice? The GOOD Spanish we compelled to end the native’s evil religions which included human sacrifice as a major part.

So, your position is that the Spanish would have been very peaceful and would have left the Aztecs and the Mayans and the Incas alone and wouldn’t have tried to conquer them if they hadn’t practiced human sacrifice? And the Spanish wouldn’t have considered their religion evil and wouldn’t have tried to convert them if there had been no human sacrifice?

No. I’m not God. I don’t know what the Spanish would have done if the Aztecs, Mayans and Incas all didn’t practice human sacrifice.

When I say the “good Spanish,” I’m referring to individuals, not the empire. When I say the “corrupt Spanish,” I’m also referring to individuals, not the empire.

You have to remember, that many elites in Aztec, Mayan & Inca society encouraged & assisted the Spanish in over throwing their rulers.

Also, disease destroyed what was left of their societies too. The Spanish did everything they could to help the native peoples with the measles, small pox, etc. But most natives had little natural immunity. So perhaps the Spanish still would have taken over simply due to disease.

But let’s also remember, the Aztec, Mayan & Inca didn’t even have the wheel. The technology their civilizations once possessed was gone before the Spanish landed in 1492.

The GOOD Spanish colonists felt taking over was best for the natives due to their lack of technology & their human sacrifices. If there was no human sacrifice, perhaps the GOOD Spanish people still would have still supported taking over due to the technology differences. Or perhaps, may be not? I’m not God, so I don’t know.

However, regardless, I’m sure the CORRUPT Spanish would have promoted the same methods.

 

[Thorolfr]

Oh, that again. Yes, I had all those “Paul really hated women” discussions in college with non-Catholics too. Again…putting the statements in their historical context and situational context of what was going on helps a lot, but you’ve demonstrated that you don’t seem to be interested in that type of thinking and just want to keep pointing to Awful Things in the Bible.

St. Thomas Aquinas read Paul and understood from him that women are inferior to men. Reading 1 Corinthians 11:10, "man was not created for the sake of woman, but woman was created for the sake of man,” he reasoned that when one thing exists for the sake of another, it is inferior to that other. Reading 1 Corinthians 11:3, "man is the head of woman,” and Ephesians 5:22, "a husband is the head of his wife,” St. Thomas reasoned that men are meant to rule and that this is because of their intellectual superiority.

Now, I guess that St. Thomas Aquinas wasn’t as sophisticated as what we are now and didn’t understand anything about “putting the statements in their historical context and situational context”. But nowadays, some of us can interpret away the things in Scripture that we don’t like and bring up the issue of “historical context”. We can say, for example, that Paul didn’t really think that women are inferior to men like most of the other men in his time and even if he did, well, we have to understand that he was just a man of his times. But we don’t have to still believe that women are inferior to men. But when it comes to things that some of us do like, it can be insisted that those things must still be followed and still apply. And we can still claim that every word of Scripture is divinely inspired. That way, we can have our cake and eat it, too.

 

[Thorolfr]

But let’s also remember, the Aztec, Mayan & Inca didn’t even have the wheel. The technology their civilizations once possessed was gone before the Spanish landed in 1492.

Do you think that the Aztecs and Mayans and Incas were happier after they were conquered because then they at least had the wheel? If people from our own time had discovered a lost tribe, would it be reasonable to conquer them so that they could then have the Internet, and color TVs and smart phones?

 

[phil19034]

Do you think that the Aztecs and Mayans and Incas were happier after they were conquered because then they at least had the wheel?

I would say, some were and some were not.

If people from our own time had discovered a lost tribe, would it be reasonable to conquer them so that they could then have the Internet, and color TVs and smart phones?

No, it would not be reasonable to conquer them just so they would have Internet, TV and smart phones.

However, I’m going to flip this around on you just like I did on another poster earlier in this thread. What if the lost tribe was committing human sacrifice? And not just one or two here and there, but mass human sacrifice of innocent women and children at a rate similar to the Mayans & Inca?

If the discovered lost tribe was committing human sacrifice would you be OK standing by doing nothing? Or would be willing to over though their govt after diplomacy fails; esp when members of their society are asking you to help?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I’m familiar with Immensa Pastorum, and I agree with you it’s a rebuking of slavery – albeit only natives of the Americas. It would be more appropriate if I’d said “The first time the Church really made a strong statement against slavery as a whole was In Supremo Apostolatus in the 19th century.” I do have to do some reading and research on some of the other bulls you’ve presented, so thank you for that.

One bull you mentioned that I am already acutely aware of is Sicut Dudum. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Using Sicut Dudum to defend the Church’s position on slavery would be like using Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle to defend the meatpacking industry. Before that was Creator Omnium, which made it clear that there was a penalty for enslaving Christians. Imagine a state passed a law making it illegal to assault women of only certain nationality or race instead of all women. Surely that makes clear those women not listed in the law are given no such protection.

The key to Sicut Dudum is in the second section:

1. Some of these people were already baptized; others were even at times tricked and deceived by the promise of Baptism, having been made a promise of safety that was not kept. They have deprived the natives of the property, or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery, sold them to other persons, and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them, because of which very many of those remaining on said islands, and condemning such slavery, have remained involved in their former errors, having drawn back their intention to receive Baptism, thus offending the majesty of God, putting their souls in danger, and causing no little harm to the Christian religion

We see that the pope is unhappy, not because of the people in general being enslaved, but that A. People were enslaved after either being baptized or after promising to become baptized, B. That the baptisms came with a promise of safety that was not kept, C. Some natives of the Canary Islands have withdrawn their intention to be baptized or practicing their earlier faith because there was no point in becoming baptized if it offered no protection, D. That this was causing harm to Christianity.

It’s an interesting phrase, a “promise of safety”. It’s not unlike “protection” offered by neighborhood toughs to avoid being roughed up by those same toughs.

If that wasn’t clear enough, after complaints by King Duarte of Portugal, it was amended to make quite clear that the Portuguese were to have free reign acquiring slaves so long as they didn’t take Christians.

There have been those within the Church who have spoken out against slavery, but as a whole the voice of the Church can best be described as mixed. Also, your examples only go back to the 15th century – ignoring those documents like Dum Diversas which specifically allows for the enslavement of all non-Christians with no limit to time or space. If we go back further we see more documents like the Fourth Council of Toledo and the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon which also sees no problem in enslaving non-Christians.

 

[theCardinalbird]

I’m familiar with Immensa Pastorum, and I agree with you it’s a rebuking of slavery – albeit only natives of the Americas. It would be more appropriate if I’d said “The first time the Church really made a strong statement against slavery as a whole was In Supremo Apostolatus in the 19th century.” I do have to do some reading and research on some of the other bulls you’ve presented, so thank you for that.

No problem. I was just confused as to what you were saying before

Dum Diversas which specifically allows for the enslavement of all non-Christians with no limit to time or space

I’ll be doing research on this

like the Fourth Council of Toledo and the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon which also sees no problem in enslaving non-Christians.

and this

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

We’ve both given each other reading assignments

Just so you know for the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, there were several councils that took place beforehand but were not official. In the document from Chalcedon they listed some of those councils saying they should be treated as law. One of those councils was the Council of Gangra in 340. Canon 3 of that council said

"If any one shall teach a slave, under pretext of piety, to despise his master and to run away from his service, and not to serve his own master with good-will and all honour, let him be anathema. "

My understanding is that the Church considers that which is written in the Ecumenical Councils to be infallible:

“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).

 

[theCardinalbird]

We’ve both given each other reading assignments

It seems we have

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

If you think EWTN is a hotbed of “moral relativism”, then we’re really not living on the same planet.

I find apologists are the first to denounce moral relativism and the first to employ it in defense of their deity.

I’d be curious to know if you follow all the rules in Leviticus, Deuteronomy etc then.
I proposed a context where parts of the OT can be understood In Context of their time, but you’re not interested. As far as I’m concerned, you and Thorolf are behaving as if you were sola scriptura and interpreting the Bible yourself,

The Church itself teaches that all Scripture is true in one sense or another. When it says that there is no punishment for killing a slave so long as he or she doesn’t die the same day because that slave is property, I’m being told that this is true. When you look at surrounding passage (i.e. use the context of the chapter) it’s all meant to be taken quite literally because it’s all tort. When we look at the situation the Hebrews were in when they got these directives from God (i.e. the historical context) you’ll see that none of the people had owned slaves nor had any of their ancestors for 430 years.

and I’m not really interested in that kind of discussion (you could start a thread in Sacred Scripture, better place for it IMHO) so I am leaving the thread now because if I stayed here I’d just be repeating myself 50 times. Bye.

I’m sorry to see you go, but I truly believe that if you considered the Bible’s position and the Church’s multifaceted position throughout the millennia that you may see points of some concern that seem to support slaver in some ways. Either way, thank you and goodbye.

 

[tad]

I’ve been revisiting this topic on my own and ran into this article.
https://www.cacatholic.org/californ...rocess-mission-indians-18-month-project-aimed

 

[Sarcelle]

There is a reason why the Bible cautioned against vengeance.

Taking vengeance against a wrongdoer will also include a lot of collateral damage punishing the innocent even more so than the wrongdoer.

Note that I am talking about vengeance and not justice.

 

[Escabrosa]

I image it had a lot to do with protecting family and friends. This is from family history documents:

“Isaac was a hardy specimen of backwoods manhood, made more vigorous by the stirring duties of scout in the Revolutionary war, and a daring fighter in the later Indian troubles. He lived a strenuous life, and reared a family of thirteen, who grew to manhood and womanhood and become the heads of flourishing families.”

 

[mjm076]

At my old Catholic High School in Canada, there were lots of posters etc. set up for “Orange Shirt Day” which is meant to educate Canadian students on Residential Schools here in Canada, which have been mentioned in this thread.

I’m going to ask a very controversial question: Has the education on Residential Schools in Canada descended into anti-Catholic propaganda?

I understand that it is important to educate students in Catholic schools on the evils visited on the Indigenous peoples in Canada through physical, sexual and emotional abuse in Residential Schools (and it should be taught), but I would love to see just as much effort teaching the rest of the history of the Catholic Church in Canada, even if that means making Indigenous people uncomfortable by talking about the North American Martyrs.

These are Catholic Schools: their focus should be imparting the faith to their students, not stirring up anti-Catholicism in their hearts!

 

[niceatheist]

And part of their noble quest to was to take the Inca Queen, try to rape her, and when she resisted, they killed her. I guess that was part of bringing Christ to the natives, through terror and attrocity.

 

[niceatheist]

Not all the natives the Spanish encountered practiced human sacrifice. In fact the earliest alliances in Mexico were between neighbors of the Aztecs that were pretty darned tired of being culled for human sacrifices. The Spanish held a vast New World Empire from California to Tierra del Fuego, and more than just human sacrificing religious groups made up the pre-Columbian populations.