Fundamentalism and Atheism

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWBetts
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Catholic apologetics of this rabbi notwwithstanding, the sum of your two posts are one long red herring. They don’t dispute a single fact I presented (notice I didn’t discuss WWII whatsoever, and I never said that there weren’t some popes who were kinder to Jews compared to others, there clearly were).

Nonetheless, while this rabbi may take comfort in the fact that there was an occasional pope who didn’t treat Jews horribly, I’m looking at the totality of the circumstances (mistreatment of Jews only being one of those circumstances); and pointing to a pattern of misconduct. Segregation of Jews, forcing them to live in ghettos, and compelling them to wear identifying armbands, were things the Catholic Church did long before the Third Reich (and not a single fact you’ve presented disputes that).

How your rabbi interprets the facts, in light of what he might view as counter-balancing factors (I suppose he believes the kindness of some popes, and the occasional willingness of the church to help Jews, mitigates its poor conduct and assaults on Jews in other areas and during other periods), is a matter of opinion.

If it were a secular government I’d say it’s perfectly acceptable to let it off the hook (assuming the then existing leadership has been deposed, and it’s generations later); and I suspect that’s the standard this rabbi is applying. If, however, the misconduct is judged against the churches own standard that it sets for itself (infallibility); then it’s clearly more difficult to defend.
 
"During the 1430s, the Spanish colonized the Canary Islands and began to enslave the native population. This was not serfdom but true slavery of the sort that Christians and Moors had long practiced upon one another’s captives in Spain. When word of these actions reached Pope Eugene IV (1431 to 1447), he issued a bull, Sicut dudum. The pope did not mince words. Under threat of excommunication he gave everyone involved fifteen days from receipt of his bull "to restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands…These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money. Pope Pius II (1458 to 1464) and Pope Sixtus IV (1471 to 1484) followed with additional bulls condemning enslavement of the Canary Islanders, which, obviously, had continued. What this episode displays is the weakness of papal authority at this time, not the indifference of the Church to the sin of slavery.

With the successful Spanish and Portuguese invasions of the New World, enslavement of the native peoples and the importation of Africans ensued, and some slavers offered the rationale that this was not in violation of Christian morality, as these were not “rational creatures” entitled to liberty but were a species of animals and therefore legitimately subject to human exploitation. This theological subterfuge by slave-traders was artfully used by Norman F. Cantor to indict Catholicism: “The church accepted slavery…in sixteenth-century Spain, Christians were still arguing over whether black slaves had souls or were animal creations of the Lord.” Cantor gave no hint that Rome repeatedly denounced New World slavery as grounds for excommunication.

But that is precisely what Pope Paul III (1534 to 1549) had to say about the matter. Although a member of a Roman ecclesiastical family, and something of a libertine in his early years (he was made a cardinal at twenty-five but did not accept ordination until he was fifty), Paul turned out to be a very effective and pious pope who fully recognized the moral significance of Protestantism and initiated the Counter-Reformation. His magnificent bull against New World slavery (as well as similar bulls by other popes) was somehow “lost” from the historical record until very recently. I believe this was due to the extreme Protestant biases of historians, who may also have been scornful of the pope’s predicating his attack on the assumption that Satan was the cause of slavery:

[Satan,] the enemy of the human race, who always opposes all good men so that the race may perish, has thought up a way, unheard of before now, by which he might impede the saving word of God from being preached to the nations. He has stirred up some of his allies who, desiring to satisfy their own avarice, are presuming to assert far and wide that the Indians of the West and the South who have come to our notice in these times be reduced to our service like brute animals, under the pretext that they are lacking in the Catholic faith. And they reduce them to slavery, treating them with afflictions they would scarcely use with brute animals.

Therefore, We…noting that the Indians themselves indeed are true men…by our Apostolic Authority decree and declare by these present letters that the same Indians and all other peoples—eventhough they are outside the faith…should not be deprived of their liberty or their other possessions…and are not to be reduced to slavery, and that whatever happens to the contrary is to be considered null and void. (My italics)

In a second bull on slavery, Paul imposed the penalty of excommunication on anyone, regardless of their "dignity, state, condition, or grade…who in any way may presume to reduce said Indians to slavery or despoil them of their goods."

christianitytoday.com/ct/…0.html?start=2
 
"But nothing happened. Soon, in addition to the brutal exploitation of the Indians, Spanish and Portuguese slave ships began to sail between Africa and the New World. And just as overseas Catholic missionaries had aroused Rome to condemn the enslavement of Indians, similar appeals were filed concerning imported black slaves. On April 22, 1639, Pope Urban VIII (1623 to 1644), at the request of the Jesuits of Paraguay, issued a bull Commissum nobis reaffirming the ruling by “our predecessor Paul III” that those who reduced others to slavery were subject to excommunication. Eventually, the Congregation of the Holy Office (the Roman Inquisition) even took up the matter. On March 20, 1686, it ruled in the form of questions and answers:

It is asked:

Whether it is permitted to capture by force and deceit Blacks and other natives who have harmed no one?

Answer: no.

Whether it is permitted to buy, sell or make contracts in their respect Blacks or other natives who have harmed no one and been made captives by force of deceit?

Answer: no.

Whether the possessors of Blacks and other natives who have harmed no one and been captured by force or deceit, are not held to set them free?

Answer: yes.

Whether the captors, buyers and possessors of Blacks and other natives who have harmed no one and who have been captured by force or deceit are not held to make compensation to them?

Answer: yes.

Nothing ambiguous here. The problem wasn’t that the Church failed to condemn slavery; it was that few heard and most of them did not listen. In this era, popes had little or no influence over the Spanish and the Portuguese since at that time the Spanish ruled most of Italy; in 1527, under the leadership of Charles V, they had even sacked Rome. If the pope had little influence in Spain or Portugal, he had next to none in their New World colonies, except indirectly through the work of the religious orders. In fact, it was illegal even to publish papal decrees “in the Spanish colonial possessions without royal consent,” and the king also appointed all of the bishops.

Nevertheless, Urban VIII’s bull was read in public by the Jesuits in Rio de Janeiro, with the result that rioters attacked the local Jesuit college and injured a number of priests. In Santos a mob trampled the Jesuit vicar-general when he tried to publish the bull, and the Jesuits were expelled from Sao Paulo when word spread of their involvement in obtaining the bull. Even so, knowledge of the antislavery bulls and the later ruling of the Inquisition against slavery was generally limited to the clergy, especially the religious orders, and thereby had limited public impact.

Of course, the Spanish and the Portuguese were not the only slavers in the New World. And even had they been published far and wide, papal bulls had no moral force among the British and the Dutch. Thus it must be noted that the introduction of slavery into the New World did not prompt any leading Dutch or English Protestants to denounce it.

However, even though the papal bulls against slavery were hushed up in the New World, the antislavery views of the Church did have a significantly moderating effect in the Catholic Americas by means of the Code Noir and Código Negro Español . In both cases, the Church took the lead in their formulation and enforcement, thereby demonstrating its fundamental opposition to slavery by trying to ensure “the rights of the slave and his material welfare,” and by imposing “obligations on the slave owners, limiting their control over the slave.” As Eugene Genovese put it: “Catholicism made a profound difference in the lives of the slaves. [It] imparted to Brazilian and Spanish American slave societies an ethos…of genuine spiritual power.”

christianitytoday.com/ct/…0.html?start=3
 
josie_L said:
Excuse me, papal bulls, I only noticed one bull that you provided (although you’ve been apparently spreading a lot of bull from the looks of it ;)) , furthermore, the slavery for which that bull was dealing with is more than likely title slavery (not chattel slavery), here’s some helpful information:
Click to expand...
There were, I believe, two bulls endorsing slavery (at least, maybe three). So yes my expression in the plural was proper. But I’m glad you said this, because you illustrate Catholic apologetics in a nutshell, the church always gets off on a technicality.

Indeed when a leader signs a writ authorizing human beings to be burned alive, and endorses the enslavement of other human beings, there’s no way we can call those actions good; all you can hope to do is find a loop hole. If the church were a criminal defendant, sure, fine (bad job prosecutor), but it’s not. It’s an organization that continues to exist and continues in its blatent disregard for common decency. Moreover, to say the slavery endorsed by the bulls in question was limited to title slavery (or any weakened form of slavery like endentured servitude) is just absurd.

The level of stupidity is just astonishing.
 
bridgeforsale said:
The Catholic apologetics of this rabbi notwwithstanding, the sum of your two posts are one long red herring. They don’t dispute a single fact I presented (notice I didn’t discuss WWII whatsoever, and I never said that there weren’t some popes who were kinder to Jews compared to others, there clearly were).

Nonetheless, while this rabbi may take comfort in the fact that there was an occasional pope who didn’t treat Jews horribly, I’m looking at the totality of the circumstances (mistreatment of Jews only being one of those circumstances); and pointing to a pattern of misconduct. Segregation of Jews, forcing them to live in ghettos, and compelling them to wear identifying armbands, were things the Catholic Church did long before the Third Reich (and not a single fact you’ve presented disputes that).

How your rabbi interprets the facts, in light of what he might view as counter-balancing factors (I suppose he believes the kindness of some popes, and the occasional willingness of the church to help Jews, mitigates its poor conduct and assaults on Jews in other areas and during other periods), is a matter of opinion.

If it were a secular government I’d say it’s perfectly acceptable to let it off the hook (assuming the then existing leadership has been deposed, and it’s generations later); and I suspect that’s the standard this rabbi is applying. If, however, the misconduct is judged against the churches own standard that it sets for itself (infallibility); then it’s clearly more difficult to defend.
Click to expand...
The book actually deals with all the things you stated, moreover, might I remind you that the arm bands were to distinguish Jews from Christians while out and about in society (they were not allowed to intermarry), i.e., it did not hold the sinister qualities that you impute solely because you now anachronistically read into history what the Nazis have done to the Jews (based on their Darwinian/eugenics/Aryan ideology) onto the Church.

p.s. AND NO IT IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION FOR THAT BOOK USES AS ITS BASIS GOOD HISTORICAL RESEARCH FROM BOTH JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN/ SECULAR SOURCES.
 
josie_L said:
Now compare this to Nicolo Machiavelli (an atheist) who presaged the arrival of the modern state with his short book “The Prince”.
Click to expand...
It’s remarkable that you can’t see how absurd this logic is. Atheists, agnostics, or whomever aren’t an organized church. I believe in thousands of things, relevant to this discussion, I merely don’t believe in one thing (your religion); and I’m sure I disagree with Machiavelli on virtually everything. Nonetheless, you’ve nominated this medieval man our pope (because you’re juxtaposing your narrow, religionist/Catholic, worldview on us) :confused:
 
bridgeforsale said:
There were, I believe, two bulls endorsing slavery (at least, maybe three). So yes my expression in the plural was proper. But I’m glad you said this, because you illustrate Catholic apologetics in a nutshell, the church always gets off on a technicality.
Click to expand...
There are only two bulls both from the same Pope. And neither one, endorsed chattel slavery.
The level of stupidity is just astonishing.
Click to expand...
You’re mother should have spanked you when you were a child (or more, if she already did), that way you might have learned to mind your manners.
 
bridgeforsale said:
It’s remarkable that you can’t see how absurd this logic is. Atheists, agnostics, or whomever aren’t an organized church. I believe in thousands of things, relevant to this discussion, I merely don’t believe in one thing (your religion); and I’m sure I disagree with Machiavelli on virtually everything. Nonetheless, you’ve nominated this medieval man our pope (because you’re juxtaposing your narrow, religionist/Catholic, worldview on us) :confused:
Click to expand...
Buddy, I don’t care a whit whether you don’t believe in my religion, furthermore, it is you who has come here to denigrate our faith and not the other way around.

p.s. I don’t impose my views on anyone but that doesn’t mean I won’t use my rights, just like everyone else does, to change/ameliorate society.
 
josie_L said:
There are only two bulls both from the same Pope. And neither one, endorsed chattel slavery.
Click to expand...
Hmmm … nope, wrong again:

*Dum Diversas is a papal bull issued on June 18, 1452 by Pope Nicholas V, that is credited by some with “ushering in the West African slave trade.”[1] It authorized Afonso V of Portugal to conquer Saracens and pagans and consign them to indefinite slavery.[2] Pope Calixtus III reiterated the bull in 1456 with Etsi cuncti, renewed by Pope Sixtus IV in 1481 and Pope Leo X in 1514 with Precelse denotionis. The concept of the consignment of exclusive spheres of influence to certain nation states was extended to the Americas in 1493 by Pope Alexander VI with Inter caetera.[3][4][5][6]

Issued one year before the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, the bull may have been intended to begin another crusade against the Ottoman Empire.[4] Nicholas V’s nephew, Loukas Notaras, was Megas Doux of the Byzantine Empire.[7] Some historians view these bulls together as extending the theological legacy of Pope Urban II’s Crusades to justify European colonization and expansionism,[4] accommodating “both the marketplace and the yearnings of the Christian soul.”[8] Dum Diversas was essentially “geographically unlimited” in its application, perhaps the most important papal act relating to Portuguese colonization.[9]

Dum Diversas provided:

“ "We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property …] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery.[3] *

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dum_Diversas
You’re mother should have spanked you when you were a child (or more, if she already did), that way you might have learned to mind your manners.
Click to expand...
oooo … witty
 
bridgeforsale said:
For instance, you might think the Catholic position on abortion (one of its hallmark issues) has been set in stone for the last 2,000 years, but this just isn’t true. St. Augustine didn’t believe a soul could enter an “unformed” body (following after the Greek principal). Pope Innocent III used the term “animated” (occurring significantly after conception, describing when a fetus becomes a “person” within the context of the biblical proscription on murder). The requirement of “quickening” (when the mother could feel the fetus moving around) was also used in the church (a popular notion around the 12th century period). The modern church view toward abortion wasn’t shaped until the late 19th, early 20th century (in decrees issued in 1884, 1886, 1917, and finally 1983).
Click to expand...
As was already mentioned by CW Betts, the Catholic Church always maintained a moral position against abortion (didache) because the Church has never denied the humanity of the child present in the womb (when the soul entered the body is another theological matter altogether), i.e., the Church believed that as members of the human race they were deserving of life.
 
bridgeforsale said:
Hmmm … nope, wrong again:

Dum Diversas is a papal bull issued on June 18, 1452 by Pope Nicholas V, that is credited by some with “ushering in the West African slave trade.”[1] It authorized Afonso V of Portugal to conquer Saracens and pagans and consign them to indefinite slavery.[2] Pope Calixtus III reiterated the bull in 1456 with Etsi cuncti, renewed by Pope Sixtus IV in 1481 and Pope Leo X in 1514 with Precelse denotionis. The concept of the consignment of exclusive spheres of influence to certain nation states was extended to the Americas in 1493 by Pope Alexander VI with Inter caetera.[3][4][5][6]

From your precious wiki:

In the 15th century, some of the Popes legitimized slavery, at least as a result of war[100]. In 1452 Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas, which granted Afonso V of Portugal the right to reduce any “Saracens, pagans and any other unbelievers” to hereditary slavery. **The approval of slavery under these conditions was reaffirmed and extended in his Romanus Pontifex bull of 1455. **

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_and_religion

Now read the following and put it into context:

"The Magisterium condemned unjust enslavement early on, but it also recognized what is known as “just title slavery.” That included forced servitude of prisoners of war and criminals, and voluntary servitude of indentured servants, forms of servitude mentioned at the outset of this article. But chattel slavery as practiced in the United States and elsewhere differed in kind, not merely degree, from just title slavery. For it made a claim on the slave as property and enslaved people who were not criminals or prisoners of war. **By focusing on just title servitude, critics unfairly neglect the vigorous papal denunciations of chattel slavery. **

Historians critical of the papacy on this matter often make that same argument. But papal teaching condemned both the slave trade and chattel slavery itself (leaving aside “just title” servitude, which wasn’t at issue).

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp
Click to expand...
 
josie_L said:
As was already mentioned by CW Betts, the Catholic Church always maintained a moral position against abortion (didache) because the Church has never denied the humanity of the child present in the womb (when the soul entered the body is another theological matter altogether), i.e., the Church believed that as members of the human race they were deserving of life.
Click to expand...
Let’s try this again (I wish I could send this in audio, I would speak very slowly and use the most rudimentary words). Regardless of what the Didache said, I quoted past popes, saints, etc. As far as I know the Didache (notwithstanding its historical importance) is not official doctrine. I ascribe more weight to what past popes and saints (particularly since it was the likes of Augustine) said on the subject. But look, if you thought the church told you to jump off a bridge, you would jump (so there’s really no point to all this) :confused:
 
josie_L said:
From your precious wiki:

In the 15th century, some of the Popes legitimized slavery, at least as a result of war[100]. In 1452 Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas, which granted Afonso V of Portugal the right to reduce any “Saracens, pagans and any other unbelievers” to hereditary slavery. **The approval of slavery under these conditions was reaffirmed and extended in his Romanus Pontifex bull of 1455. **

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_and_religion

Now read the following and put it into context:

"The Magisterium condemned unjust enslavement early on, but it also recognized what is known as “just title slavery.” That included forced servitude of prisoners of war and criminals, and voluntary servitude of indentured servants, forms of servitude mentioned at the outset of this article. But chattel slavery as practiced in the United States and elsewhere differed in kind, not merely degree, from just title slavery. For it made a claim on the slave as property and enslaved people who were not criminals or prisoners of war. **By focusing on just title servitude, critics unfairly neglect the vigorous papal denunciations of chattel slavery. **

Historians critical of the papacy on this matter often make that same argument. But papal teaching condemned both the slave trade and chattel slavery itself (leaving aside “just title” servitude, which wasn’t at issue).

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp
Click to expand...
This is disgusting. You’re now reduced to being an apologetic for slavery; and trying to find a loop hole for the proclamations of your past popes (that had horrific consequences). You should try watching the movie Amistad one day, and see what the consequences were of your former popes actions. Let me post the words of the papal bull again:

We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property …] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery.

To think the pope didn’t really know what the crown of Spain had in mind, or what the likely result of this sort of grant of authority would be, is something only a gullible idiot could believe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top