Christopher Columbus

[Mike_from_NJ]

Here’s paragraph 2 from Sicut Dudum not included in the article:

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

The phrase “a promise of safety” is most telling. To be baptized meant one was supposed to be immune from being enslaved. To put it another way, the natives were told they ought to strongly consider getting baptized or else the Church simply would not be able to stop the Portuguese from taking them from their homes. That’s textbook blackmail. It’s no different than a mob enforcer telling a business they’d better pay protection money or there’s nothing they can do to keep Big Louie from roughing them up.

The last part is also telling. The pope is lamenting that those who promised to become baptized were taking that back. That makes sense since why submit to blackmail if they’re going to get the punishment anyway?

Thus, the unjust slavery that had begun in the newly found territories was condemned, condemned as soon as it was discovered, and condemned in the strongest of terms.

If you could, just keep a mental note about the use of the word “unjust” here. I’ll get back to it in a bit.

I’m not going to quote what the article says about Sublimis Deus, as I’ve said the bull – were it not rescinded – was a good call to abolish slavery. But as I’ve shown you multiple times now they did rescind it because they chose submitting to Spain in lieu of standing for what was right.

Finally, In Supremo Apostolatus. I give credit to the article that it notes both that the bull specifically lists that it’s against “unjust” slavery and that there were Catholics in America who said that the bull only denounced the slave trade. For the former, it’s interesting that in the first translation to English “injuste” to “unjust” was included, but in a later translation the word was purposefully left out. For the latter, I happen to like this paper which analyzed Pope Gregory’s anti-modern anti-industrial stance points to Gregory being against the slave trade but not slavery. What speaks the loudest is silence. In my job I’m sometimes required to pass down info from my boss to other people in my department. If I fail to pass on that info or do so incorrectly I’ll hear it from my boss. When the Council of Baltimore concluded that the bull was solely against the slave trade I haven’t found a peep from the pope or Magisterium telling the council that they misinterpreted the bull.