Christopher Columbus

[Mike_from_NJ]

OK, provide proof the Church rescinded them.

Well, you claimed the Wikipedia article on Sublimis Deus was accurate, and that same article specifically statues that the executing brief for the bull was annulled.

There are several articles which specifically states that Pastore Officium was annulled, but I’m not seeing any that indicates Sublimis Deus remained in force. Do you know of any? As an example of the articles I mention check this one out, Regarding this bull and the brief:

In May-June 1537 Paul issued three documents, the bulls “Sublimus Dei” (also known as Unigenitus and Veritas ipsa), “Altituda divini consolii” along with “Pastorale officium”, the latter the brief for the execution of “Sublimus Dei”. “Altituda divini consolii” was essentially a bull to settle a difference between the Franciscans and Dominicans over baptism, but “Sublimus Dei” is described by Prein (2008) as the “Magna Carta” for Indian human rights in its declaration that the Indians were human beings and they were not to be robbed of their freedom or possessions. “Pastorale officium” declared automatic excommunication for anyone who failed to abide by the new ruling. Stogre (1992) notes that “Sublimus Dei” is not present in Denzinger, the authoritative compendium of official teachings of the Catholic Church, and that the executing brief for it (“Pastorale officium”) was annulled the following year in “Non Indecens Videtur”. Davis (1988) asserts it was annulled due to a dispute with the Spanish crown. The Council of The West Indies and the Crown concluded that the documents broke their patronato rights and the Pope withdrew them, though they continued to circulate and be quoted by La Casas and others who supported Indian rights.
According to Falkowski (2002) “Sublimus Dei” had the effect of revoking the bull of Alexander VI “Inter Caetera” but still leaving the colonizers the duty of converting the native people. Prein (2008) observes the difficulty in reconciling these decrees with “Inter Caetra”.
Father Gustavo Gutierrez describes “Sublimus Dei” as the most important papal document relating to the condition of native Indians and that it was addressed to all Christians. Maxwell (1975) notes that the bull did not change the traditional teaching that the enslavement of Indians was permissible if they were considered “enemies of Christendom” as this would be considered by the Church as a “just war”. He further argues that the Indian nations had every right to self-defense.

Re: your other post to FiveLinden, I appreciate you noted that Sicut Dudum condemned only slavery to other Christians. It says the natives of the Canary Islands were reneging on their vows to become baptized as the “promise of safety” from being enslaved wasn’t being honored. But what does this say about the Church and slavery? Imagine a place that banned rape only against women of one race or religion. That ban would show the place isn’t against rape in general just against harm to people within their selective subgroup.

 

[twf]

And sadly, the Taino people were wiped off the face of the earth, mostly due to European diseased. Yes, some of their bloodlines survive, intermingled with modern peoples, but they no longer exist as a distinct people.

 

[FiveLinden]

In 1435 Pope Eugene IV condemned slavery , of other Christians, in Sicut Dudum; furthermore, he explicitly forbade the enslavement of the Guanches. Pope Pius II and Pope Sixtus IV also condemned the enslavement of Christians.

So none of these Popes, as you claimed, actually condemned slavery?

 

[Petra202]

Great information and it makes me want to do more research… Thanks!

 

[Anrakyr]

We need to keep Christopher Columbus in the context of the era he lived in, and not judge him with a 21st Century mindset.

He spent time in jail for what he did.
So that doesn’t fly.

If 8 year olds can remember how to breed the perfect pokemon…
If 8 year olds are getting ready for first communion and learning Transubstantiation…
If 8 year olds are doing long division…

Then they can understand racism, greed, European expansion and high middle age morality.

 

[Anrakyr]

Do you know how you spot a petty ignore? They make a big production out of telling you you’re ignored.

 

[BornInMarch]

That might have been unpreventable considering the Europeans understanding of disease in that era. Germ theory hadn’t been developed yet, after all, and the idea that someone could be a carrier of a disease without showing symptoms themselves would have been an alien concept.

 

[BornInMarch]

He spent time in jail for what he did.
So that doesn’t fly.

The man who brought charges against Columbus wanted to replace him as Governor of Hispaniola, and after getting that post he did all the things he accused Columbus of doing. As for Columbus and his brothers, while they were jailed for a time the charges were dropped and Spain funded another expedition from them.

It would be a mistake to treat the arrest of Columbus as evidence of his wrongdoing, or to take the charges against him at face-value.

 

[Anrakyr]

It would be a mistake to treat the arrest of Columbus as evidence of his wrongdoing

I’m not saying its evidence of wrongdoing. We know what he did was wrong so the evidence is secondary at this point. The point was “back then was different” which doesn’t fly because you can be arrested and charged for that behavior. There was a concept of evil for that crime.

Now wether those crimes get prosicuted successfully is an entirely differant subject.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Columbus was jailed in Spain for acts during his governorship in Hispaniola, not for brutality of natives only, but Spaniards as well. However, the issue was more complex than understood and King Ferdinand granted Columbus a full pardon and even financed his 4th and final voyage.

Those were brutal times and no one answers today for the Carib Tribe practice of cannibalism and especially liking roasting and eating babies.

Also, Columbus was Italian and his Spanish crew and peer captains in Spain, resented him. Cooperation with Columbus wasn’t always obeyed.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

From 1435 to 1890, we have numerous bulls and encyclicals from several popes written to many bishops and the whole Christian faithful condemning both slavery and the slave trade. The very existence of these many papal teachings during this particular period of history is a strong indication that from the viewpoint of the Magisterium, there must have developed a moral problem of a different sort than any previously encountered. In this article I will address three—from many more—of the responses of the papal Magisterium to the widespread enslavement that accompanied the Age of Discovery and beyond.

The Popes and Slavery: Setting the Record Straight | EWTN

 

[BornInMarch]

He wasn’t arrested because anyone thought his tenure as governor was bad enough to warrant punishment, it was because someone much worse wanted to usurp his post as governor.

 

[Anrakyr]

Those were brutal times and no one answers today for the Carib Tribe practice of cannibalism and especially liking roasting and eating babies.

We aren’t talking about the tribes, we are talking about a man who butchered an entire race. Who was catholic and knew better.

Why because he couldn’t do math?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

No Columbus did not butcher an entire race.

The majority of Native Americans died from diseases they had no immunity from.

 

[Anrakyr]

No Columbus did not butcher an entire race.

Out of the estimated 300,000 people in Hispaniola; half-killed themselves rather than be enslaved. The rest were sent to Spain or were hunted down. 50 years later all damage is done there were only a few hundred left.

That wasn’t a disease that was an outright slaughter.

 

[BornInMarch]

We aren’t talking about the tribes, we are talking about a man who butchered an entire race.

You make it sound like Columbus single-handedly killed every Native American who died of unnatural causes between 1492 and 1900. Moreover he didn’t butcher the Taino People either; most died from disease and while a large amount died from Spanish cruelty that was mostly done without his permission or approval. In fact, after he was removed from the Governorship it got worse.

Out of the estimated 300,000 people in Hispaniola; half-killed themselves rather than be enslaved.

So there were 150,000 suicides? I highly doubt that.

 

[Raxus]

Has it? Evidence for this?

You know, you’ve got two hands and a brain and a computer. You can find that sort of information pretty easily on your own.

There’s a term that’s coming into vogue for what you’re doing here, and it’s called “Sea-lioning”.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

FiveLinden:

Has it? Evidence for this?

You know, you’ve got two hands and a brain and a computer. You can find that sort of information pretty easily on your own.

There’s a term that’s coming into vogue for what you’re doing here, and it’s called “Sea-lioning”.

To be fair, the evidence so far that @JimR-OCDS has presented to back up that claim I’ve shown to have no merit. He cited Sublimis Deus, which was rescinded a year after it was enacted, and Jim admits that Sicut Dudum only was against the enslavement of Christians (thus not being evidence against slavery as a whole). The same could also be said for Regimini Gregis and Creator Omnium.

Unless Jim has new proof that differs from his discredited examples then @FiveLinden is correct to ask for specific information from Jim to back up Jim’s claim.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I did before, but here is a better explanation. Try reading the entire article.

From 1435 to 1890, we have numerous bulls and encyclicals from several popes written to many bishops and the whole Christian faithful condemning both slavery and the slave trade. The very existence of these many papal teachings during this particular period of history is a strong indication that from the viewpoint of the Magisterium, there must have developed a moral problem of a different sort than any previously encountered. In this article I will address three—from many more—of the responses of the papal Magisterium to the widespread enslavement that accompanied the Age of Discovery and beyond.

Eugene IV: , 1435

On January 13, 1435, Eugene IV issued from Florence the bull . Sent to Bishop Ferdinand, located at Rubicon on the island of Lanzarote, this bull condemned the enslavement of the black natives of the newly colonized Canary Islands off the coast of Africa. The Pope stated that after being converted to the faith or promised baptism, many of the inhabitants were taken from their homes and enslaved:

“They have deprived the natives of their 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… Therefore We … exhort, through the sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ shed for their sins, one and all, temporal princes, lords, captains, armed men, barons, soldiers, nobles, communities and all others of every kind among the Christian faithful of whatever state, grade or condition, that they themselves desist from the aforementioned deeds, cause those subject to them to desist from them, and restrain them rigorously. And no less do We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their pristine liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands … who have been made subject to slavery (). These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money.”

The Popes and Slavery: Setting the Record Straight | EWTN

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

When did the Church condemn this slavery? If it was not until 1890, or even 1965, then a great shadow has indeed been cast upon the Magisterium. If, however, it can be shown that the Magisterium condemned from the beginning the colonial slavery that developed in the newly discovered lands, then it may be necessary for some historians and others to revise their opinions of that teaching office, and of the Catholic Church as well.

This is a strange take assuming the fact that the Magisterium was not against slavery for over a dozen centuries isn’t itself a great shadow.

From 1435 to 1890, we have numerous bulls and encyclicals from several popes written to many bishops and the whole Christian faithful condemning both slavery and the slave trade.

As I have shown and will show again this is simply untrue. Yes, in several bulls (including Creator Omnium and Regimini Gregis) the Church denounced enslaved Christians, but that in no way is it condemning slavery as a whole or the slave trade.

…[Sicut Dudum] condemned the enslavement of the black natives of the newly colonized Canary Islands off the coast of Africa. The Pope stated that after being converted to the faith or promised baptism, many of the inhabitants were taken from their homes and enslaved:

The first sentence is not accurate. The correct statement should be that the bull condemned only the enslavement of the natives of the Canary Islands that were baptized or promised to become baptized. Again, being against just enslaving people in your certain group is not a condemnation of slavery as a whole in the slightest.