Is colonization itself sinful?

  • Thread starter Thread starter angell1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
yes, I agree that is a strange argument, though it seems like the Spanish fought the least with the mayans, at least initialy, later conquisadors were a different matter
 
thanks for the clarification, it’s so hard to dfind unbiased sources these days.

are you familiar with the pope’s papal bulls, dum diversas and romanus pontifex, that deals more with Africa, but people tend to bring those up too, as the pope endorsing conquest and slavery
 
Here is a thread on dum diversas
40.png
Is Dum Diversas real? Apologetics
Cody, you are judging from a distance of many centuries from the events and without any real historical basis or insight into what was going on at this time. You judge a man’s soul to be evil - would Christ have done that? You are falling into the trap of anachronistic projection - using the triumphant fruits of current Christian mores to judge a time that was extremely barbaric and where life was cheap. In these days slavery was the NORM all over the planet as was serving in the military o…
Click to expand...
I will have to come back to Romanus Pontifex later

Plus, here an article regarding slavery: Did the Church Ever Support Slavery? | Catholic Answers
 
One could say they exist because of premarital sex and so it must not be wrong? It’s not only a question of treating the people you are colonizing as equal. You also take their land and their homes and take control and treat them like second class citizens in their own homeland. At least that is what happened in the past
 
yeah, I had already read those, but I mean, if something is immoral now, wasn’t it in the past also? I do know, generally, people say this was partly due to muslim invasion and the response to that, but it’s not very clear.

I guess that’s the problem with papal bulls, we dont’ always have the context, or what they are a response to.
 
angell1 said:
yeah, I had already read those, but I mean, if something is immoral now, wasn’t it in the past also?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, because words change. The word “slavery” and “slave” has changed since the American slave trade. Example:
  • when prisoners today are put to work, cleaning up the road, making license plates, cleaning a park, etc.; we do not call them slaves anymore. But in ancient times & before the American Slave trade, people would have considered prisoners doing work to be slaves.
The word “slave” was used to more broad. An indentured servants was considered a slave, until approx the 1700s

Throughout the ancient world “slavery” was used as a form of prison for criminals and POWs (esp POWs). HOWEVER, they always has the ability to earn their freedom.

The Church never condoned slavery, but recognized that it was a fact of life. While the Church never condoned slavery, they also condemned people convincing slaves to revolt, escape, etc. NOT because they supported the slave masters, but because it was dangerous for slaves.

What made the American Slavery situation worse was the fact that people were considered to slaves purely based on their looks. Not because they were prisoners.
I guess that’s the problem with papal bulls, we dont’ always have the context, or what they are a response to.
Click to expand...
correct.
 
it can all get very confusing. especially wne people attack the church with it. though to be far, perhaps the popes in the 1500s did not ealize how far their bulls would be taken.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top