D
Darryl_B
Guest
I don’t think that answers the question, though it could very well be the perfect way to disguise a schism of personalities.
- Status
T
Tomdstone
Guest
But the papal legates in 1054 did.
A
Abu
Guest
Face the reality of Christ’s Church leading the emancipation:
In Ephesians 6:5, 8, Paul is often quoted eagerly by Tomdstone, but very seldom ver. 9: “Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no, partiality with Him.” This equality before God encouraged the early Church to convert slaves – former slaves became Popes Pius I and Callistus I. With the demise of the Roman empire, the embrace of those in slavery continued and only ordination to the priesthood was denied.
Priests urged owners to free their slaves, and by the seventh century there was considerable evidence of unions of free men and female slaves. In 649 Clovis II, king of the Franks, married his British slave Clotilda. After his death, Clotilda campaigned to halt the slave trade and to redeem those in slavery. On her death she was declared a saint by the Church.
By the ninth century Charlemagne opposed slavery and the pope and many influential clerics strove for the freedom of slaves. During the eleventh century both St Wulfstan and St Anselm campaigned to remove the last vestiges of slavery from most of Christendom.
All need to acquaint themselves with the facts so that they can bear true witness, and not false witness.
There existed the practice of various types of slavery before the 15th century. However, it was not until the 15th century, and with growing frequency from the 16th to the 19th centuries, that racial slavery as we know it became a major problem. It is this form of servitude that is called to mind when we think today of the institution of slavery, and is the type which was to prevail in parts of the New World for over four centuries.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
But were the Masters required to free their slaves, or just to treat their slaves with kindness?
If at one time Masters were told to treat their slaves with kindness, but at another time they were told that slavery was immoral and that they must free their slaves, would that not be a change?
A
Abu
Guest
See #32:
“We have seen categorically the reality of the Church’s fight against slavery, with emancipated slaves becoming Popes in the 2nd and 3rd centuries…”
See #42:
“Priests urged owners to free their slaves, and by the seventh century there was considerable evidence of unions of free men and female slaves. In 649 Clovis II, king of the Franks, married his British slave Clotilda. After his death, Clotilda campaigned to halt the slave trade and to redeem those in slavery. On her death she was declared a saint by the Church.
“By the ninth century Charlemagne opposed slavery and the pope and many influential clerics strove for the freedom of slaves. During the eleventh century both St Wulfstan and St Anselm campaigned to remove the last vestiges of slavery from most of Christendom.”
A
Abu
Guest
Get the reality on Christ’s Church and Her Teaching which, when followed, moves mountains.
See #42:
“Priests urged owners to free their slaves, and by the seventh century there was considerable evidence of unions of free men and female slaves. In 649 Clovis II, king of the Franks, married his British slave Clotilda. After his death, Clotilda campaigned to halt the slave trade and to redeem those in slavery. On her death she was declared a saint by the Church.”
Thus:
‘With slaves fully recognised as human and Christian, priests began to urge owners to free their slaves as an “infinitely commendable act” that helped ensure their own salvation.’ The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 29; Reference: Slavery and Serfdom in the Middle Ages, Marc Bloch, Berkeley Univ. Cal. Press, 1975, p 14].
T
Tomdstone
Guest
To say that some priests in the middle ages wanted slaves to be free seems to be a change from the teaching at the time of St. Paul where slaves were told to obey their masters in everything?
Further, if it was official Catholic policy that slaves were to be free at the time of the US civil war, how come Roman Catholic priests were selling slaves in 1838 and why were they not excommunicated for selling people as slaves?
D
Darryl_B
Guest
Cum Sicuti 1591
Commissum Nobis 1639
Immensa Pastorum 1741
In Supremo 1839
Commissum Nobis 1639
Immensa Pastorum 1741
In Supremo 1839
T
Tomdstone
Guest
How do you explain the Motu proprio, November 9, 1548, of Pope Paul III?
Confirmatio Statutorum populi Romani super restitutione servorum in Urbe
“… By reason of our pastoral office, … and nevertheless, as a greater precaution [we decree] that each and every person of either sex, whether Roman or non- Roman, whether secular or clerical, and no matter of what dignity, status, degree, order or condition they be, may freely and lawfully buy and sell publicly any slaves whatsoever of either sex, and make contracts about them as is accustomed to be done in other places, and publicly hold them as slaves and make use of their work, and compel them to do the work assigned to them. And with Apostolic authority, by the tenor of these present documents, we enact and decree in perpetuity that slaves who flee to the Capitol and appeal for their liberty shall in no wise be freed from the bondage of their servitude, but that notwithstanding their flight and appeal of this sort they shall be returned in slavery to their owners, and*if it seems proper they shall be punished as runaways; and we very strictly forbid our beloved sons who for the time being are conservatori of the said city to presume by their authority to emancipate the aforesaid slaves - who flee as previously described and appeal for their liberty - from the bondage of their slavery, irrespective of whether they were made Christians after enslavement, or whether they were born in slavery even from Christian slave parents according to the provisions of the common law …"
A
Abu
Guest
The continuous calumny and misrepresentation against the papacy exposes the misinformation imbibed from anti-Catholic sources and the inability to face reality.
It is a fact that the Magisterium also condemned from the beginning the colonial slavery that developed in the newly discovered lands.
**
Fr Joel Panzer:**
“The pontifical decree known as *The Sublime God *has indeed had an exalted role in the cause of social justice in the New World. Recently, authors such as Gustavo Gutierrez [liberation theologian] have noted this fact: 'The bull of Pope Paul III, *Sublimis Deus *(June 2, 1537), is regarded as the most important papal pronouncement on the human condition of the Indians.’ It is, moreover, addressed to all of the Christian faithful in the world, and not to a particular bishop in one area, thereby not limiting its significance, but universalizing it.”
“Eugene IV and Paul III did not hesitate to condemn the forced servitude of Blacks and Indians, and they did so once such practices became known to the Holy See. Their teaching was continued by Gregory XIV in 1591 and by Urban VIII in 1639.”
See: ***The Popes And Slavery: Setting The Record Straight *
Fr. Joel S. Panzer
**ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM
Sixty years before Columbus “discovered” the New World, Pope Eugene IV condemned the enslavement of peoples in the newly colonized Canary Islands. His bull *Sicut Dudum *(1435) rebuked European enslavers and commanded that “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 [the] 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.”
A century later, Pope Paul III applied the same principle to the newly encountered inhabitants of the West and South Indies in the bull *Sublimis Deus *(1537). Therein he described the enslavers as allies of the devil and declared attempts to justify such slavery “null and void.” Accompanying the bull was another document, Pastorale Officium, which attached a *latae sententiae *excommunication remittable only by the pope himself for those who attempted to enslave the Indians or steal their goods.
In fact Pope Paul III issued three decrees against New World slavery, but these were ignored by historians until recently.
It should be noted that Isobella of Spain faithful to the Church’s rules, decreed that Columbus’s New World natives were subjects of the Spanish crown and therefore could not be enslaved. Most of Columbus’ slaves were freed and ordered returned to the New World.
**The Neff Review
This review was originally published by Christianity Today online.
FOR THE GLORY OF GOD by Rodney Stark
Friday, August 1, 2003
neffreview.blogspot.com.au/2003/07/for-glory-of-god-by-rodney-stark.html
“Although the Counter-Reformation Pope Paul III issued three condemnations, he was so weak politically that his pronouncements could not be read in Spanish territory without the king’s permission. So it was that the economic engines of Spain and Portugal, and not church teaching, determined the course of slavery in the West Indies and Brazil.”
It is a fact that the Magisterium also condemned from the beginning the colonial slavery that developed in the newly discovered lands.
**
Fr Joel Panzer:**
“The pontifical decree known as *The Sublime God *has indeed had an exalted role in the cause of social justice in the New World. Recently, authors such as Gustavo Gutierrez [liberation theologian] have noted this fact: 'The bull of Pope Paul III, *Sublimis Deus *(June 2, 1537), is regarded as the most important papal pronouncement on the human condition of the Indians.’ It is, moreover, addressed to all of the Christian faithful in the world, and not to a particular bishop in one area, thereby not limiting its significance, but universalizing it.”
“Eugene IV and Paul III did not hesitate to condemn the forced servitude of Blacks and Indians, and they did so once such practices became known to the Holy See. Their teaching was continued by Gregory XIV in 1591 and by Urban VIII in 1639.”
See: ***The Popes And Slavery: Setting The Record Straight *
Fr. Joel S. Panzer
**ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM
Sixty years before Columbus “discovered” the New World, Pope Eugene IV condemned the enslavement of peoples in the newly colonized Canary Islands. His bull *Sicut Dudum *(1435) rebuked European enslavers and commanded that “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 [the] 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.”
A century later, Pope Paul III applied the same principle to the newly encountered inhabitants of the West and South Indies in the bull *Sublimis Deus *(1537). Therein he described the enslavers as allies of the devil and declared attempts to justify such slavery “null and void.” Accompanying the bull was another document, Pastorale Officium, which attached a *latae sententiae *excommunication remittable only by the pope himself for those who attempted to enslave the Indians or steal their goods.
In fact Pope Paul III issued three decrees against New World slavery, but these were ignored by historians until recently.
It should be noted that Isobella of Spain faithful to the Church’s rules, decreed that Columbus’s New World natives were subjects of the Spanish crown and therefore could not be enslaved. Most of Columbus’ slaves were freed and ordered returned to the New World.
**The Neff Review
This review was originally published by Christianity Today online.
FOR THE GLORY OF GOD by Rodney Stark
Friday, August 1, 2003
neffreview.blogspot.com.au/2003/07/for-glory-of-god-by-rodney-stark.html
“Although the Counter-Reformation Pope Paul III issued three condemnations, he was so weak politically that his pronouncements could not be read in Spanish territory without the king’s permission. So it was that the economic engines of Spain and Portugal, and not church teaching, determined the course of slavery in the West Indies and Brazil.”
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Why is it calumny to quote what the Holy Father Pope Paul III wrote in Motu proprio, November 9, 1548 ?
“each and every person of either sex, whether Roman or non- Roman, whether secular or clerical, and no matter of what dignity, status, degree, order or condition they be, may freely and lawfully buy and sell publicly any slaves whatsoever of either sex, and make contracts about them as is accustomed to be done in other places, and publicly hold them as slaves and make use of their work, and compel them to do the work assigned to them. And with Apostolic authority, by the tenor of these present documents, we enact and decree in perpetuity that slaves who flee to the Capitol and appeal for their liberty shall in no wise be freed from the bondage of their servitude, but that notwithstanding their flight and appeal of this sort they shall be returned in slavery to their owners, and*if it seems proper they shall be punished as runaways; and we very strictly forbid our beloved sons who for the time being are conservatori of the said city to presume by their authority to emancipate the aforesaid slaves - who flee as previously described and appeal for their liberty - from the bondage of their slavery, irrespective of whether they were made Christians after enslavement, or whether they were born in slavery even from Christian slave parents according to the provisions of the common law …”
As I read it I think that the Holy Father is quite clear.
And as I mentioned before, I think that this teaching has changed.
A
Abu
Guest
In fact, “in 1537, Pope Paul III issued three decrees against New World slavery, but these were ignored by historians until recently.” The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 201].
The continued omission to publish the author and source of a statement is another sign of dubious information.
The continued omission to publish the author and source of a statement is another sign of dubious information.
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
Tomdstone, Tomdstone, when will you actually look into these things yourself?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
And how would I do that except by reading books by Roman Catholic priests such as Stogre, Michael, S.J, That the World May Believe: The Development of Papal Social Thought on Aboriginal Rights, Médiaspaul, 1992, ISBN 2-?89039-549-9?
E
Expatreprocedit
Guest
I’m out of time this morning, but let me briefly answer your question with a question (which might help you develop a hermeneutic for reading papal documents): to whom is Boniface writing? What was the particular controversy which gave rise to the writing of Unam sanctam? Who is it that Boniface was railing against who was failing to be subject to him? What else is in the context of the entire bull (whose last line is what you’ve quoted, to the exclusion of the entire rest of the bull) that you should quote in context here?
Answer these questions, and you’ll know what Boniface is talking about. Hint: it’s not what you’re implying he’s talking about.
- Boniface was writing to the whole world.
- It was Phillip the Fair’s attempt to tax clergy, but the statement itself, and actually the whole Bull itself, extends much more broadly than that particular controversy. Just because that controversy was the occasion for the Bull does no mean the Bull has no meaning beyond it. This tactic reminds me of what pro-gay marriage advocates like to do when cited to Christ’s language about marriage in Matthew 19: “ah yes, but the specific question was about divorce”.
- Actually he specifically mentions “the Greeks”.
- The context of the Bull makes it clear that Boniface is talking about anyone, Phillip the Fair, Greeks, etc. who refuse to be “subject” to him.
E
Expatreprocedit
Guest
- Status