Is the book of Leviticus legitimate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
whyeyeman said:
Are you not a Catholic?
Click to expand...
Putting aside where you might stand on the “once Catholic always Catholic” concept, no, I am not a Catholic. I was raised Catholic.

Where I stand is moot on the question of whether slavery is wrong or not. All it takes is the consider the feelings of those enslaved to know that it is wrong.
 
Hey Mike,

Of course you’re right, slavery is as wrong as wrong can possibly be and the church condems it.

Don’t let whyeyeman pull you into the desert, when he doesnt agree with someone he asks if you’re really catholic and says there’s no room for argument as his opinions are church teachings.

I hope these people wont make you doubt our great faith, here’s a good article you may enjoy reading about the subject:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/popslave.htm
 
Le_Bonvivant said:
Hey Mike,

Of course you’re right, slavery is as wrong as wrong can possibly be and the church condems it.

Don’t let whyeyeman pull you into the desert, when he doesnt agree with someone he asks if you’re really catholic and says there’s no room for argument as his opinions are church teachings.

I hope these people wont make you doubt our great faith, here’s a good article you may enjoy reading about the subject:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/popslave.htm
Click to expand...
Le_Bonvivant, thank you for the warning. I do have to disagree with you in part when you say the Church condemns slavery. I would say the Church at this time condemns it, but in the past that was not the case. I’ve seen the article you quoted before and I have 5 specific issues with it:
  1. Father Panzer properly quotes Sicut Dudum, but then tries to draw a conclusion that ignores in part what he quoted. Sicut Dudum notes that the pope was disturbed by natives of the Canary Islands who either had been baptized or promised to be baptized being taken away as slaves. There were two bulls, Creator Omnium and Regimini Gregis, which plainly said it was wrong to enslave baptized Christians, but offered no support for those who wouold not convert. There is a word to describe threatening someone with harm if they won’t do what you want them to do: blackmail. Pope Eugene IV’s problem wasn’t the enslavement of people, but that the enslavement of native Christians would cause others not bother converting if it would not offer protection from being enslaved.
  2. Father Panzer points to Sublimus Deus as evidence that the Church was against slavery. What he seems to leave out (and considering its importance I would have to assume it was on purpose) was that from pressure by Charles V the Church removed any and all penalties (including excommunication) for violating any of the items in that bull, thus rendering it worthless.
(cont’d in next post)
 
  1. Father Panzer points to In Supremo and how it was misunderstood. The pro-slavery contingent interpreted the bull as being solely against the slave trade, but not against the continued owning and breeding of slaves. I know from my job that sometimes people are tasked with passing on instructions from my bosses to the people in my group. If one of those people misinterpret those instructions, then the bosses make doubly sure that the understanding is corrected. What we don’t see is anything from the Church saying that In Supremo was being misunderstood and that it was meant to abolish slavery as a whole. One other minor item on this bull initially contained the word “injuste” or unjustly when talking about enslaving natives and black people, as though sometimes slavery is just. A translation over a century later took out that word even though “injuste” is certainly in the bull.
  2. The article doesn’t even mention Dum Diversas, despite the fact that it clearly allows for the total enslavement of any and all non-believers. Apologists will sometimes claim it was only for the Saracens, the bull clearly states it allows for any Saracens, pagans, and other unbelievers to be treated as such. There is no limit when it comes to time or place, nor peace or war.
  3. The article doesn’t mention that the Church has used language associated with infallibility when it comes to allowing slavery. The Ecumenical Councils are considered by the Church to be infallible when it comes to faith and morals. The Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon listed several local earlier councils as law, including the Council/Synod of Gangra. The Council of Gangra said that anyone encouraging a slave to flee his or her master would be anathema (excommunicated). If I can find it I’ll post a link to a Catholic.com article which says that if a bull uses the term anathema then it probably can be considered infallible.
 
That’s not slavery. There is a bright line between being a criminal or prisoner of war and being bought, sold, or born into slavery.

Getting back on Leviticus, the passage that you say is still moral (Leviticus 25:44) specifically describes the purchasing of slaves from neighboring nations. Why is that moral, and does it remain moral if done today?
 
No. The circumstances are not the same. Every country in the world was pagan except Israel back then. Hence why I asked about punishment for crimes.

Also, notice that in the verse it says “You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly”. Today, under the new covenant, the entire world is “Israel”.
 
whyeyeman said:
Slavery is not inherently wrong, no.
Click to expand...
I would note that this is your personal opinion and is NOT Church teaching on the matter of slavery.
Just in case somebody wandering past reading this is going to get the mistaken impression that the Church today embraces slavery.
 
Kei said:
Leviticus is entirely legitimate as part of the Jewish Torah and the Canon of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
For Catholics, it’s “legitimate” in the sense that it’s part of the Canon and illustrates a part of Bible history.
We obviously don’t follow the rules in Leviticus.
Jesus created a new covenant superseding these old rules. We follow the 10 Commandments, plus the two commandments (love God and love your neighbor) set forth by Jesus.

Leviticus may have provided a historical basis for some of the Church teachings today as interpreted by the Magisterium; however, us following whatever rule the Magisterium has developed based on Jesus’ teachings and in view of these historical bases, is not the same as us following the rule in Leviticus.
 
I don’t think the church would ever state such, but it’s the logical conclusion of other church teachings. The church teaches that the morality found in the old law will always be true. Slavery is endorsed in the old law (albeit under very different circumstances) so it therefore must not be inherently immoral.

And of course I’m not pro-slavery and I don’t want to give the impression that the church is.
 
Last edited:
Of course, but rather than superseding I would say fulfilled.

We are in the New Covenant, hence the New Testament.
 
You can say “fulfilled” if you prefer that word.
I prefer “superseded” in terms of Catholics today not being concerned with eating pork or wearing linsey-woolsey shirts or worrying about the ritual uncleanness of a woman’s menstrual periods.

In legal terms, when you get a new law, it supersedes the old law. The old law is no longer in force. The new law is. The new law may contain provisions that were copied over from the old law, or were somehow based on the old law but are expressed differently. Leviticus is a series of laws, therefore I think of its being superseded in a legal sense.

To me, this is a rather important point, because a lot of people who are not very smart about Christianity point to Leviticus and its laws that made sense at the time, but do not make much sense today, as an example of how the whole Bible and Christianity in general is out of whack and should not be followed. There’s also an unfortunate tendency for some Christians, including Catholics, to cherry-pick certain laws out of Leviticus and hold them up as example, while conveniently ignoring the many laws in there we don’t bother with any more. Therefore, it should be made very clear that Catholics do not go around following Leviticus. If there is something in Leviticus that is relevant for today, it is presented to us in a new form by the Magisterium.
 
Last edited:
Christ Jesus fulfilled the Old Law and in then created the New Covenant.
I suppose saying superseded makes sense if you mean simply the law
 
Kei said:
I suppose saying superseded makes sense if you mean simply the law
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s my point.

Jesus “fulfilled” the old law, meaning that for those of us who accept him, we no longer have to turn to that old law. It’s been fulfilled. Contract is done. It’s history.

Jesus made a new covenant with us, a new contract as it were, and that is the one we follow. I don’t get up in the morning and flip through the Old Testament looking for what God wants me to do. Some Christians who are not Catholics unfortunately do just that.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Yes, that’s my point.

Jesus “fulfilled” the old law, meaning that for those of us who accept him, we no longer have to turn to that old law. It’s been fulfilled. Contract is done. It’s history.
Click to expand...
do we keep the divine laws and moral laws of the old covenant? I’m assuming ceremonial laws are the ones that Christ fulfilled. Am I correct?
 
Joe1 said:
do we keep the divine laws and moral laws of the old covenant? I’m assuming ceremonial laws are the ones that Christ fulfilled. Am I correct?
Click to expand...
We keep the 10 Commandments (Jesus said “Keep the commandments”) and the two great commandments Jesus gave us about loving the Lord Our God above all things and loving our neighbor as ourself.

If you want any nuance beyond that, you open the Catechism and do what it says, or you ask a priest. It would be folly for some Catholic to start thumbing around in the Bible figuring out what’s a divine law and a moral law vs. a ceremonial law. It’s pretty obvious that the Ten Commandments are moral laws (as just about every society has laws that restrict killing and stealing etc.) but beyond that, things get real murky real fast.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
We keep the 10 Commandments (Jesus said “Keep the commandments”) and the two great commandments Jesus gave us about loving the Lord Our God above all things and loving our neighbor as ourself.
Click to expand...
Ok. So when a friend of mine says that we don’t follow the Levitical law against Homosexual acts, I could reply that Homosexual acts are adultery because it’s sexually immoral and outside the sacrament of marriage?
 
You could say that, and you could also say that the Catholic Church teaches that such acts are objectively disordered because they believe that sex should only be between a man and a woman in marriage who are open to procreation.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
You could say that
Click to expand...
Wait, but isn’t adultery between a married person and someone’s husband/wife or a married person and an unmarried man/woman?

If both people are unmarried can adultery still be used?
 
Last edited:
The living Magisterium of the Church absolutely condemns all forms of slavery. Your personal interpretation of popes and councils of ancient past not withstanding. Pope Francis explicitly addressed this recently and used the phrase development of doctrine…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top