Contradicting teachings?

[Mike_from_NJ]

He’s talking about Christians who follow Jewish practices, thinking them to be efficacious. He says it explicitly. Not sure how much clearer it can get than that.

If I go on and on about a football team who I say plays dirty, and make it very clear that I’m talking about him, and then finish by saying, “Bengals? Dirty!”… then I’m betting you’d understand that I’m talking about that one bunch of guys, and not every Cincinnati player who’s ever worn the uniform.

Yet, you seem to want to claim exactly the opposite for Eugene. Why?

Why? Because I know that “all” doesn’t have the same meaning as “some”. Your example involves hyperbole. The person is painting with an overly broad brush to denegrate the Bengals organization in general (which really should consider finding someone other than Marvin Lewis at this point).

The Church wasn’t speaking hyperbolically, but instead teaching what it feels/felt is true.

You’re getting it backward, though: he’s talking about Catholics who later decide to follow a non-Catholic way.

And I assert that, throughout the document, Eugene is – quite explicitly! – identifying who he’s talking about! And, to ignore the “exceptions and qualifications” earlier in the Bull is “to ignore what the words really say” – that is, the words that lead up to the sentence in question!

“Quite explicitly”? Let’s see what the text actually says:

It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.

Who is not going to have eternal life?
All pagans, all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics.
Who is going to the everlasting fire?
All pagans, all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics.
How does someone who fits into one of these categories make it to eternal life instead of everlasting fire?
Joining the Catholic Church.
Is there any other way?
No.
Does the text in any way indicate that the people who have this fate only consists of those who have left the Church?
Absolutely not. All means all, not some.

I know the bread and butter of apologetics is “the text says that but it really means this”. I simply won’t engage in that.

Have you ever seen the movie “My Cousin Vinny”? Cute comedy from the 80s or 90s. The police are interrogating Ralph Macchio’s character for a crime he didn’t commit. He keeps telling them that he didn’t do it, over and over. When they say, “you killed him!” he says, in a NY-kinda-way, “I killed him?” (Expression of surprise) “I killed him?” … and bam! They haul him away and charge him with murder. That’s what you’re doing here. Ignoring all the context, and all the explicit explanation in the document, you’re focusing in one one statement – which flows from that context – and, taking it as if it stands devoid of context, you’re attempting to make it say something it’s not saying. Sorry.

In the example you gave the officer confused an interrogative statement. In the Bull the language is written clearly as it was meant to teach and to declare a position of the Church. It says only Catholics and that non-Catholics will definitely go the Hell. You want it to say something different, but that means adding to the text because the Church centuries later has had a change in teaching. You want to say we’ve always been at war with Eastasia and never at war with Eurasia, but the text tells a different story.

Except that this isn’t what’s going on here. Let’s pick an example that fits the situation better. Suppose you’ve been tapped to give a talk at a high school. You stand up there and tell them, “if the police catch you with even a trace of alcohol on your breath, they’re going to arrest you!”

Is that true for the audience to whom you’re speaking? Absolutely – they’re minors.

Is that true for all people who have alcohol on their breath? Nope.

That’s the problem here: Eugene is speaking about subsets – and those subsets of people fit the definition that give rise to the label – and what he’s saying about those subsets holds true.

In this example the speaker is addressing the audience directly (with the term “you”). In the part I quoted and parsed it describes groups of people as both not getting eternal life and doomed to everlasting fire. Are heretics all former Catholics? Well, some are. The same could be said for some schismatics. Jews and pagans? Close to none. It’s not limiting the fate to those who have left the Church or who consider still considered themselves Catholic but disagreed with the Church. No, it’s describing a bright line between those who are outside of the Church for any reason.

Actually, that’s not the quote: you’re adding to what he said. So, this is your interpretation, not his words.

The words are right there. I know that all doesn’t mean some.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

OK, I’ll give you a choice: either pay my salary for a month, and I’ll go research all of them… or pick one more, and we’ll discuss it. It’s really telling, if your best counter is “well… maybe not those two or three… but maybe some other two or three?”

Actually that’s not accurate at all. I’ve shown your errors (repeatedly) with Eugene and Pelagius has that kind of if-you-squint-the-right-way it kinda sorta makes sense but withers when considering the actions of the Church toward non-Catholics during that time.

No: what the Church is doing is faithfully following its mandate. Those who are Catholic, and then leave the Church, have placed their eternal reward in grave peril. They have, as it were, dehumanized themselves. The Church’s goal isn’t to revel in their misery, but to make them aware of the very serious consequences of their actions, and invite them to come back to the practice of the faith.

In some cases that request to come back came under penalty of burning. Worst invitation ever!

For those who never believed in the Catholic faith or never were a member of the Catholic Church, there is no “dehumanizing.” We – like all Christians – believe in evangelization. But, the Catholic Church – unlike a few Christian denominations – doesn’t teach that, if you’re not a Catholic, you’re going to hell. Somehow, that un-Christian teaching gets laid at the feet of all Christians, and it’s just not accurate.

So when the Church told the Europeans to not enslave those people of the Canary Islands specifically who were baptised, it wasn’t dehumanizing those who would not be baptised? Is this too an invitation into the fatih?

Do me a favor and pick one. After Thanksgiving, I’ll take a look at it and then post here…

Well, the OP didn’t limit it to one, but I think contra 6 would make for an interesting discussion.

Thanks! Happy Thanksgiving!

Thank you very much. Mine was nice. I hope yours was too!

 

[PRmerger]

This is a very interesting conversation. I was reading through the Bull myself, when I came across a passage that seemed to imply the contradiction you guys were discussing.

Gorgias, before going onto another contradiction, could you explain how we’re to interpret this? I believe in the authority of the Catholic Church, so I want to make sense of it.

I’m curious–what is it that you believe regarding Jesus’ words in John 14:6?

For is not this, merely an articulation of that? ^^

It firmly believes, professes and preaches that never was anyone, conceived by a man and a woman, liberated from the devil’s dominion except by faith in our lord Jesus Christ, the mediator between God and humanity, who was conceived without sin, was born and died.

 

[Frankenfurter]

This thread has some making claims that the church did not accept salvation for non-Christians up until the present time. But this is not true since Christ himself made it clear that those who never knew of him were sinless.

Christ himself said (John 15)

*20Remember the word that I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master. If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you as well; if they kept My word, they will keep yours as well. 21But they will treat you like this on account of My name, because they do not know the One who sent Me. 22If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin.

23Whoever hates Me hates My Father as well. 24If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have seen and hated both Me and My Father. *

So Christ is telling us that the Jews, and others who did not know him, were not spoken to, or did not see his works, are not guilty of sin.

The sin he is concerned with is with regards to people who were given the truth of who Christ is and hated him.

The ancient documents quoted by the OP are clearly describing the same type of sin. Namely, those branches of the church that have come to know Christ, were spoken to, saw works, but rejected him. The reason this is the concern is because of what Christ told us.

While some interpret these documents as proof that the church dehumanized non-Christians, another interpretation is that they describe a body of Christ trying to keep itself from falling into the sin that Christ warned about. The later interpretation seems correct to me since it is consistent with the church writings, history, and the words of Christ. The documents themselves are clearly written to describe the unification of beliefs between far flung early churches so that the church as a whole should not fall into the sin of which Christ warned.

Interpreting the documents as a description of a church that dehumanizes people who happen to not be Christian, is in direct conflict with the reality that the church has always been the refuge for sinners, for slaves, for the persecuted, for those who have humility of heart and wish to seek refuge.

If the church were to allow itself to fall into the sin that Christ warned about, then the church would no longer be able to carry on Christ’s mission on earth - to save sinners. It had and has the right to protect itself. But it is, in these documents, describing how it protects itself from sins from within - namely from those who have heard and seen the truth of Christ and hated it.

 

[Gorgias]

Sorry… been busy the last week or two…

Why? Because I know that “all” doesn’t have the same meaning as “some”.

When you’re speaking to a particular audience, you say “all”, meaning “all of you to whom I’m talking”. In that case, it means “all” of your audience, who also happens to be “some” of the people alive in the world. It really doesn’t get any simpler than that.

Who is not going to have eternal life?
All pagans, all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics.
Who is going to the everlasting fire?
All pagans, all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics.
How does someone who fits into one of these categories make it to eternal life instead of everlasting fire?
Joining the Catholic Church.

No: it’s rejoining the Church. He’s been directing his discussion to those who have left. For these – all of them – a return to the Church is necessary for salvation.

For your case to hold, we have to pretend that this isn’t one sentence of a reasonably long discussion. We have to pretend that there’s no context here. There is context, and the only way you can argue the point you’re arguing is to ignore the context as if it doesn’t exist.

Does the text in any way indicate that the people who have this fate only consists of those who have left the Church?
Absolutely not.

Throughout the document? Absolutely.

All means all, not some.

Again, context. All of the folks I’m writing to at the moment (i.e., Mike) fail to see that context matters. ‘All’ means “everyone I’m addressing”.

I know the bread and butter of apologetics is “the text says that but it really means this”. I simply won’t engage in that.

That’s kinda funny… 'cause that’s exactly what you’ve been doing, in an “anti-Catholic apologetic” context.

In this example the speaker is addressing the audience directly (with the term “you”).

Are we even still talking about Eugenius’ Bull of Union with the Copts? There’s no direct address used there – the term “you” doesn’t show up (unless you count the quotation from Scripture).

In the part I quoted and parsed it describes groups of people as both not getting eternal life and doomed to everlasting fire. Are heretics all former Catholics? Well, some are. The same could be said for some schismatics. Jews and pagans? Close to none.

You’re forgetting the Judaizers… whom Eugenius explicitly described in the document.

It’s not limiting the fate to those who have left the Church or who consider still considered themselves Catholic but disagreed with the Church. No, it’s describing a bright line between those who are outside of the Church for any reason.

That’s your interpretation of the document. Unsurprisingly, since the exercise here is to show that the Church has changed her doctrine over the years, there’s a disparity between your interpretation and what the Church really teaches. That’s like attempting to prove a dog is a cat, and then concluding, “see! it doesn’t meow! Therefore, not all cats meow!!!”

 

[Gorgias]

So when the Church told the Europeans to not enslave those people of the Canary Islands specifically who were baptised, it wasn’t dehumanizing those who would not be baptised? Is this too an invitation into the fatih?

OK… Contra 6 will have to wait a little; you’ve spun this example just a bit too unfairly to be ignored…

Eugene makes a few claims:

• inhabitants of the Canary Islands (and other islands) had been baptized
• some Christians took captive some of these inhabitants of the islands
• in some cases, they took baptized Christians. In other cases, they took people, promising them baptism if they went back with them to their ships (and from there, as it turned out, slavery abroad).

Eugene condemns this practice. Therefore, he makes a few decrees:

• He commands all Christians to cease taking slaves. Period. (“We… exhort… one and all… that they themselves desist from the aforementioned deeds [and] cause those subject to them to desist from them.”)
• He commands all Christians (without exception) to release all slaves that have been taken from the Canary Islands.
• He threatens excommunication to those who do not release these slaves and to those who continue to enslave the populace of the Canary Islands.

Pretty cut and dry. And yet, does this “dehumanize” the unbaptized of the Canary Islands? I think not. After all, Eugene is speaking to a particular practice; apparently, it was Christians (and those who wished to become Christians) who were being enslaved. Therefore, his remedy is to abolish the practice: all who were taken were to be freed.

It wasn’t that some were to be freed and others allowed to remain enslaved; it wasn’t that Christians got a free pass and others were out of luck. Rather, “all and each of the faithful … [are to] restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands, and made captives.”

This bull wasn’t his first writing on the topic; earlier, he had prohibited the slave trade there, but Eugene found it necessary to write again (and, in fact, still a third time). To spin the situation, by making it seem that Eugene is extending protection to only a few of those who were enslaved, is to mischaracterize the situation.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

When you’re speaking to a particular audience, you say “all”, meaning “all of you to whom I’m talking”. In that case, it means “all” of your audience, who also happens to be “some” of the people alive in the world. It really doesn’t get any simpler than that.

It’s simple in the way that when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail. Everything is nice and simple that way. When you’re confronted with words that speak plainly, it makes things nice and simple by declaring they simply mean something else.

When someone in political party A is on TV to an audience of people in favor of political party B, he or she is not saying that only those who’ve moved from party A to party B have erred or are mistaken.

In fact, if we go over that entire session from February 4th, 1442 the picture is quite clear. Now I know with regard to apologetics the word “context” is used to add to a story to make it fit a desired narrative (e.g. trying to make Biblical slavery look like “Song of the South”) but here the context is the whole session and what message it’s trying to relay. For the most part it follows the pattern of the Church believes this, some other group believes that, therefore that group is anathema. Repeatedly it refers to whole groups and the errors the Church sees in them. It’s not singling out those people who have left the Church to follow another group, but all those in that group.
Session11:

Hence it condemns Sabellius, who confused the persons and altogether removed their real distinction. It condemns the Arians, the Eunomians and the Macedonians who say that only the Father is true God and place the Son and the holy Spirit in the order of creatures. It also condemns any others who make degrees or inequalities in the Trinity.

It doesn’t condemn those who were Catholic then moved on to one of these groups. A person born and raised as an Arian is just as condemnded as one who left the Church. Later on it condemns those who hold a different position regarding the nature of Christ.

For your case to hold, we have to pretend that this isn’t one sentence of a reasonably long discussion. We have to pretend that there’s no context here. There is context, and the only way you can argue the point you’re arguing is to ignore the context as if it doesn’t exist.

As I’ve demonstrated I’m using context quite properly Context is not a magic word. Taking into context not only the words in the session, but also the attitude of the Church toward those who disagreed with it (as exmplified in the many quotes in the link from the original post).

Throughout the document? Absolutely.

If you could point out specific examples, that would be greatly appreciated.

That’s kinda funny… 'cause that’s exactly what you’ve been doing, in an “anti-Catholic apologetic” context.

Who is adding to the words written? Not me

Earlier in the thread you suggested I read Sullivan’s “Salvation Outside the Church”. Are there specific passages in specific documents that it references?

You’re forgetting the Judaizers… whom Eugenius explicitly described in the document.

Yes, he mentioned them just below where he tells people of the Church (everyone, not just those who left the church) to not associate with Jews. Don’t eat with them. Don’t hire them. Don’t let them get degrees or hold public office. Make sure they wear special garments so that everyone knows they’re Jews.

I’m not sure what you’re point is other than to demonstrate that Eugene utterly despised Jews. And that’s not just people who left the Church to become Jews, but Jews as a whole. It’s pretty clear that’s a big reason why Eugene hates Judaizers.

We can expand on that. He didn’t hate any of the specific people or groups he mentioned just because they used to be with the Chruch and then left. He hated everybody outside the Church, period.

If a person says X is right and Y is wrong, then that person can be against another for practicing or endorsing Y. For example, if a person is against same-sex marriage he will be against someone who supports it. It makes no difference if that supporter used to be against it at one time.

That’s your interpretation of the document. Unsurprisingly, since the exercise here is to show that the Church has changed her doctrine over the years, there’s a disparity between your interpretation and what the Church really teaches. That’s like attempting to prove a dog is a cat, and then concluding, “see! it doesn’t meow! Therefore, not all cats meow!!!”

Let’s see what examples of the Church always having had this doctrine in the past you can show, and then we can make a proper assessment.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

OK… Contra 6 will have to wait a little; you’ve spun this example just a bit too unfairly to be ignored…

I eagerly anticipate how you will try to show contra 6 is not a change in practice as well as squaring it with the fanciful notion that the Church had always believed that one could achieve eternal life outside it.

As far as unfairness…

Eugene makes a few claims:
inhabitants of the Canary Islands (and other islands) had been baptized
some Christians took captive some of these inhabitants of the islands
in some cases, they took baptized Christians. In other cases, they took people, promising them baptism if they went back with them to their ships (and from there, as it turned out, slavery abroad).

Eugene condemns this practice. Therefore, he makes a few decrees:
He commands all Christians to cease taking slaves. Period. (“We… exhort… one and all… that they themselves desist from the aforementioned deeds [and] cause those subject to them to desist from them.”)
He commands all Christians (without exception) to release all slaves that have been taken from the Canary Islands.
He threatens excommunication to those who do not release these slaves and to those who continue to enslave the populace of the Canary Islands.

Pretty cut and dry. And yet, does this “dehumanize” the unbaptized of the Canary Islands? I think not. After all, Eugene is speaking to a particular practice; apparently, it was Christians (and those who wished to become Christians) who were being enslaved. Therefore, his remedy is to abolish the practice: all who were taken were to be freed.

It wasn’t that some were to be freed and others allowed to remain enslaved; it wasn’t that Christians got a free pass and others were out of luck. Rather, “all and each of the faithful … [are to] restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands, and made captives.”

This bull wasn’t his first writing on the topic; earlier, he had prohibited the slave trade there, but Eugene found it necessary to write again (and, in fact, still a third time). To spin the situation, by making it seem that Eugene is extending protection to only a few of those who were enslaved, is to mischaracterize the situation.

I must admit being somewhat flabbergasted at this.

You’re saying – with what I assume is a straight face – that the unbaptized of the Canary Islands weren’t dehumanized because the pope was upset that some of the baptized were being enslaved along with the unbaptized? According to the Church there were no problems with the enslavement of the unbaptized. Only when the two groups of Canary Islands citizen were treated equally did the pope step in. Slavery is wrong. Full stop! To allow it is to dehumanize its victims no matter what religion the victim has and no matter what others were also victims. That should be abundantly clear.

And read what the bull says again. Heck, you quoted it. “We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters…” You are incorrect when you claimed that all Canary Islands citizens were to be taken out of slavery. On the contrary, the bull itself says it was those citizen who were also Christians."

But wait, there’s more! You’re not telling the whole story. A year later Eugene had another bull that allowed King Duarte of Portugal to conquer unconverted parts of the Canary Islands. In short, he capitulated. On top of that his successor, Nicholas V, in trying to settle a dispute between Portugal and Spain as to who had the rights to the islands told Portugal via Romanus Pontifex that they could:
Romanus Pontifex:

granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso – to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit – by having secured the said faculty, the said King Alfonso, or, by his authority, the aforesaid infante, justly and lawfully has acquired and possessed, and doth possess, these islands, lands, harbors, and seas, and they do of right belong and pertain to the said King Alfonso and his successors, nor without special license from King Alfonso and his successors themselves has any other even of the faithful of Christ been entitled hitherto, nor is he by any means now entitled lawfully to meddle therewith

That’s not all. Pope Sixtus IV issued a papal bull a few years later reiterrating that Christian citizens of the Canary Islands could not be enslaved while non-Christian citizens were free game.

One might go so far as to say they were dehumanized for not having the right beliefs.

 

[Gorgias]

I must admit being somewhat flabbergasted at this.

Clearly. It’s because you’re reading into the story some ‘facts’ that aren’t there.

You’re saying – with what I assume is a straight face – that the unbaptized of the Canary Islands weren’t dehumanized because the pope was upset that some of the baptized were being enslaved along with the unbaptized? According to the Church there were no problems with the enslavement of the unbaptized. Only when the two groups of Canary Islands citizen were treated equally did the pope step in.

Can you show where there were ‘two groups’ being enslaved? From what I’ve read, it was new converts (or convert-wannabes) who were being targeted, not non-Christians.

Slavery is wrong. Full stop!

Hence Eugene’s statement: "“We… exhort… one and all… that they themselves desist from the aforementioned deeds [and] cause those subject to them to desist from them.”

Not “stop taking Christian slaves, but keep on taking non-Christian slaves”; not “please start taking non-Christian slaves”, but “desist from [taking slaves].” Full stop.

And read what the bull says again. Heck, you quoted it. “We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters…”

Take a deep breath, please, and re-read what you posted here. This sentence is talking to the Christians who enslaved Canary Islanders, and telling them to cut it out already. Look at the full sentence again:

We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands, and made captives since the time of their capture, and who have been made subject to slavery.

See? He’s telling the slaveholders to release all their slaves.

But wait, there’s more! You’re not telling the whole story. A year later Eugene had another bull that allowed King Duarte of Portugal to conquer unconverted parts of the Canary Islands. In short, he capitulated. On top of that his successor, Nicholas V, in trying to settle a dispute between Portugal and Spain as to who had the rights to the islands told Portugal via Romanus Pontifex that they could:

Actually, the phrase is “perpetual servitude.” I’ve read assertions that, in the feudal context of the day, that meant “make them your vassals.”

That’s not all. Pope Sixtus IV issued a papal bull a few years later reiterrating that Christian citizens of the Canary Islands could not be enslaved while non-Christian citizens were free game.

So, in other words, your real problem is with Sixtus, although it’s fun to take potshots at Eugene while you’re at it?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

By asking if there really were two groups of slaves, are you suggesting that those entering the Canary Islands (mostly the Portuguese) only were enslaving Christians? So these slave traders would come upon some of the natives and they would purposely let the non-Christians go but take the Christians? The issue was that these enslavers were indiscriminately taking the locals to feed the demand for slaves. The Church was upset because among those taken were Christians. We know this through several documents.

One such document that hasn’t been brought up yet is Creator Omnium. It was released a year before Sicut Dudum and as summarized in this article historian Richard Raiswell noted that “Eugene excommunicated anyone who enslaved newly converted Christians but no protection was offered to those who declined to become a Christian.”

Two interesting things come from that. First, every one of these documents makes the distinction of enslaving Christians. In the famous case of “Loving V Virginia” the anti-miscegination law in question forbade marriage between someone who was white and someone who wasn’t. In the Supreme Court’s ruling they noted how only those interracial marriages that involved a white person were illegal. The distinction made in the original law revealed a bias. Put another way, if I start a town and I make it illegal only to rape married women then, by the disctinction I’ve made, I’m allowing the rape of single women. By stating, over and over and over again, that enslaving Christians is wrong and not uttering a word against enslaving non-Christians it’s clear that which upset Eugene was not the slavery but that subset of enslaved he wished to protect.

The second interesting thing is the word “protection”. Sicut Dudum doesn’t use that word specifically, but it breaks it down nicely:
Sicut Dudum:

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.

We see where the people of the Canary Islands were promised safety in return for being baptized. No baptism, no assurance of safety. To get back to the word “protection” there is a usage that fits quite well here. When the mob shakes down local business owners for protection money they too offer safety for a price. The Church could have told the kings of Spain and Portugal that it was morally wrong to enslave people – especially just for not being the preferred religion. The Church does so now with absolutely no hesitation, but it went out of its way to kowtow to these nations by working with them and by stating repeatedly that the only restrictions are not enslaving Christians. Thankfully the Church is in no way in favor of such now, but it just goes to show the paradigm shift from its earlier practices (which is the point of this thread regarding contradictng teachings).

As far as who was being released, all slaves or just Christian slaves, it’s interesting that you would make that distinction since you claimed, “From what I’ve read, it was new converts (or convert-wannabes) who were being targeted, not non-Christians.” So which is it? Are you now suggesting that there were non-Christian slaves? This article (page 5) for example says that it was Christian slaves that were returned. It’s almost a moot point because prior to Sicut Dudum (e.g. Creator Omnium) the Church made it clear that non-Christians could be enslaved. The Church made clear in Sicut Dudum itself that the protection against being enslaved was only for those who chose to be Christian. And for some time after Sicut Dudum (e.g. Regimini Gregis as well as the bull Eugene issued on 15 September 1436) that the punishment of excommunication was only for those enslaving Christians and there was no punishment for enslaving non-Christians.

And regarding whether I’m displeased with Sixtus IV and not Eugene, I’m displeased by both. As I’ve shown Eugene made it clear that he was only looking out for the well-being of Christians and worked in conjunction with the King of Portugal to give his acceptance to the enslavement of those who wouldn’t become baptized under duress. Sixtus simple restate that immoral point and thus should be denigrated as well.

The reason I go back to talking about slavery so often is because in discussing it, especially when on the side of those who supported it, one comes to a crossroads regarding integrity. It’s important when confronted with the heaps of evidence that a defender not undercut what really occurred. These documents and the people who wrote them weren’t outliers. These weren’t stragglers set apart from the norm. This was systemic for centuries. What happened weren’t just events, but atrocities. When reaching that crossroads in such discussions will the person attempt to defend that which is indefensible? Will that person call good that which is evil?

No, Tom Sawyer. I’ll leave the white washing all to you.

 

[Michael_Francis]

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/closed-1.gif
Closed due to failing charity.