"Nuns Blast Catholic Church's 'Doctrine Of Discovery' That Justified Indigenous Oppression"

[abucs]

your highlighted passage says that Guam natives murdered Christian missionaries if someone accused them of cheating or if they were publicly scolded and then speaks of Spanish retaliation to the violence. How you get from this to the Spanish committing near genocide hundreds of miles away in the Philippines is unintelligible.

Likewise a quote that is supposed to refute the fact that Philippino’s universally embraced the Church only mentions that there were unspecified abuses by the clergy. There are abuses in each and every form of government and in each and every institution on the face of the earth.

Again how you get from here to the Spaniards committing near genocide is any ones guess.

I am probably going to stop corresponding now because it is clear that you have no intelligible case and are ceasing to make any sense.

Even your own links argue against you, as do the overwhelming number of your happy countrymen from GenSan in the south to the Ilocanos of the north.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

How you get from this to the Spanish committing near genocide hundreds of miles away in the Philippines unintelligible.

Nowhere near as unintelligible as you ignoring the historical fact of the Spanish frailocracy.

There are abuses in each and every form of government on the face of the earth.

And yet many Catholics dream of this generation being more Catholic than the modern incarnation. Talk about a slap in the wrist. When you turn a blind eye this badly, it’s no wonder sex abuse cases get covered up so easily.

I am going to stop corresponding now because it is clear that you have no intelligible case and are ceasing to make any sense.

Even your own links argue against you.

On the contrary! I have the entirety of Philippine history, one you which demonstrated both ignorance if not outright denied, on my side! Would you like me to mail you a copy of my college history book? Then again, people like you would only decry it revisionist history even though it’s what’s been taught in this country well past the 60s.

Think the Japanese were bad? Their raping and pillaging will never compare with 300 years of Spanish colonial rule.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Here’s but a taste of what my highschool education always teaches about the frailocracy. No cover-ups. No foreign bias in favor of a colonizer. Plain old facts about the supposedly ‘Catholic’ Spaniards of the time:

As mentioned in the introduction, Rizal wanted to expose the system of frailocracy in the Philippines in order to ask for reforms. With this goal in mind, he used religion as one of the central themes in the Noli. Religion played a central role in the lives of the characters and the friars were the driving force responsible for the conflicts depicted int he novel.

1. The System of Frailocracy

The first few chapters of the Noli serve to acquaint the reader with the extensive power of the religious orders in the Philippines. In a conversation between two priests, two laymen, and an officer during Capitan Tiago’s party, Father Damaso, a Franciscan exclaims:

I say that when a priest throws the corpse of a heretic out of the parish cemetery, no one, not the King himself, has the right to meddle, and even less to impose penalties (Rizal, 8)

Such a statement only goes to show the friar’s hubris in announcing to an audience that even the King has no power to overrule his judgment.

Read more here if any you are actually interested in learning about what actual Philippine history teaches about the oh-so-holy colonizers.

May I also recommend that you read this blog. Whether or not I agree completely with the view expressed here is irrelevant. The fact remains I am friends with many a student, teacher, and co-worker who thinks along these lines. Don’t believe anyone who just spent a few years flying across the country actually knows everything there is about the struggling influence the Church holds here.

 

[glendab]

Hello Lost.

Here’s but a taste of what my highschool education always teaches about the frailocracy. No cover-ups. No foreign bias in favor of a colonizer. Plain old facts about the supposedly ‘Catholic’ Spaniards of the time:

Read more here if any you are actually interested in learning about what actual Philippine history teaches about the oh-so-holy colonizers.

May I also recommend that you read this blog. Whether or not I agree completely with the view expressed here is irrelevant. The fact remains I am friends with many a student, teacher, and co-worker who thinks along these lines. Don’t believe anyone who just spent a few years flying across the country actually knows everything there is about the struggling influence the Church holds here.

While I kinda admire your zeal for historical outrages, both civil and religious, misusing them to hold a contrary opinion hostile to the Church is not only unwise, but unfair. The Church is the spotless Bride of the unblemished Lamb and has not any sin in her! There are people who have sinned who are Church members. Judas Iscariot sat and ate with the Lord and the Apostles for all of the three years of the Lords’ public ministry and the founding of the Church. The point being betrayal and sin are part and parcel of the walk with God even unto death. This doesn’t mean it is condoned or even tolerated, it is simply expected. The Church is a Body made up of human beings and human beings make mistakes an sin, some egregiously so. You are right to be outraged over sin, but careful where you let that outrage take you. if you come to Church on Sunday and expect everyone to be a Saint while in your presence, you will constantly be disappointed. The Church isn’t a hotel for Saints, but a hospital for sinners. Join the club. We are all sinners.

Glenda

 

[Tomdstone]

Hello Tom.

Yes. True. And today there are women who come to the Rectory to cook, clean and do all the house chores and don’t get paid a cent or even recognized by most. Slaves no but certainly servants.

Glenda

These women volunteers are free to come and go and are not used as mistresses. Slaves were tied down with chains and transported on ships from Africa to America. They were bought and sold and held at gunpoint. Many young black African women were used by the white slavemaster as mistresses.

 

[dmar198]

AFAIK, secular humanists believe that ethical principles may be discovered through reason, experience and scientific inquiry, and so as people become educated in its methodology, they will be concerned with fulfillment, growth and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general and avoid immoral choices.

I’ve heard secular humanists make similar remarks before, but I’d like to see a logical attempt to defend their claims against arguments like the ones made by Peter Kreeft. I see a logical problem arising when a moral conundrum happens to a secular humanist.

A person can sometimes benefit materially from doing evil, with no personal expectation of a comparable loss. At least not in this life. Secular humanists may say that if you study their system, you will find that doing evil does not fulfill you, but I think they are wrong for many reasons. One of them is, I don’t think we are capable of fulfillment if atheism is true, because I think it just makes us a bag of chemicals with no inner meaning.

What do you think?

 

[Tomdstone]

I’ve heard secular humanists make similar remarks before, but I’d like to see a logical attempt to defend their claims against arguments like the ones made by Peter Kreeft. I see a logical problem arising when a moral conundrum happens to a secular humanist.

A person can sometimes benefit materially from doing evil, with no personal expectation of a comparable loss. At least not in this life. Secular humanists may say that if you study their system, you will find that doing evil does not fulfill you, but I think they are wrong for many reasons. One of them is, I don’t think we are capable of fulfillment if atheism is true, because I think it just makes us a bag of chemicals with no inner meaning.

What do you think?

I think that there are secular humanists who lead moral lives for a variety of reasons. Also, the American criminal justice system is aware of many Christians who do not. Actually, I read that the American penitentiaries have some of the most fervent believers out there.

 

[dmar198]

I think that there are secular humanists who lead moral lives for a variety of reasons.

Could you give an example of a secular humanist reason to lead a moral life? If I understand secular humanism correctly, it all comes down to, “Because I want to.” And how does that help a man do the right thing even when he doesn’t want to?

 

[Tomdstone]

Could you give an example of a secular humanist reason to lead a moral life? If I understand secular humanism correctly, it all comes down to, “Because I want to.” And how does that help a man do the right thing even when he doesn’t want to?

He understands that there are bad consequences to bad decisions. Similar to Buddhist thought.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

You are right to be outraged over sin, but careful where you let that outrage take you. if you come to Church on Sunday and expect everyone to be a Saint while in your presence, you will constantly be disappointed. The Church isn’t a hotel for Saints, but a hospital for sinners. Join the club. We are all sinners.

What outrages me is not that everyone is a sinner. Being lapsed myself, I even take pride in my own sinfulness. I just find rather telling that I’m the one being branded as the reprobate. Me and my generation have to constantly put up with the labels that conservative Catholics put on oh-so-satanic modern culture.

And yet, when I show to everyone the devils that stood on the pulpits in the 17th century, all I get is silence.

I repeat: I am sick of being labelled as part of the degenerate generation when the generation that conquered and oppressed my ancestors were just as vile. It seems the image of the pious conquistador has become a golden calf for some Catholics.

 

[Jack007]

And yet, when I show to everyone the devils that stood on the pulpits in the 17th century, all I get is silence.

What? Devils stood on pulpits in the 17th century? Could you give proof? i know that you are speaking figuratively, not literally.

 

[dmar198]

He understands that there are bad consequences to bad decisions. Similar to Buddhist thought.

That sounds like consequentialism to me, rather than secular humanism. But in consequentialism, I still see logical problems. One is, if the reason you don’t want to do an action is because the consequences are bad for you personally, then that would seem to allow for any action where you think the consequences are good for you personally.

And, if the consequentialist says that the consequences are bad for other people, and he doesn’t want to hurt other people, then I think that is just an example of my claim that secularist morality always comes down to what the secularist wants. If he wants to hurt other people, and can get away with it, why not?

I don’t see how justice is a real thing, if atheism is true. The good often suffer, the bad often do well, in this life. But, according to atheism, there is no next life where things are rectified. What is to stop the atheist from robbing and stealing, so long as he is careful? If the State is supposed to stop him, what about when the State is evil, as in Nazism? What logical reason could an atheist have for opposing the Nazi state, when cooperation benefits him materially?

It’s a lot of questions, but do you see why, from this perspective, I think religion is necessary to have a rational basis for morality? And do you think that’s reasonable?

 

[Tomdstone]

That sounds like consequentialism to me, rather than secular humanism. But in consequentialism, I still see logical problems. One is, if the reason you don’t want to do an action is because the consequences are bad for you personally, then that would seem to allow for any action where you think the consequences are good for you personally.

And, if the consequentialist says that the consequences are bad for other people, and he doesn’t want to hurt other people, then I think that is just an example of my claim that secularist morality always comes down to what the secularist wants. If he wants to hurt other people, and can get away with it, why not?

I don’t see how justice is a real thing, if atheism is true. The good often suffer, the bad often do well, in this life. But, according to atheism, there is no next life where things are rectified. What is to stop the atheist from robbing and stealing, so long as he is careful? If the State is supposed to stop him, what about when the State is evil, as in Nazism? What logical reason could an atheist have for opposing the Nazi state, when cooperation benefits him materially?

It’s a lot of questions, but do you see why, from this perspective, I think religion is necessary to have a rational basis for morality? And do you think that’s reasonable?

Religion is helpful in preserving morality, but not always as is seen with the slave trade where clergy held slaves and where the Bible commands slaves to obey their masters. A secular humanist would say that slavery is wrong since it is contrary to their belief that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives.

 

[Jack007]

Religion is helpful in preserving morality, but not always as is seen with the slave trade where clergy held slaves and where the Bible commands slaves to obey their masters. A secular humanist would say that slavery is wrong since it is contrary to their belief that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives.

the modern ring abiout slavery, the ill treatment, is not true in all cases.

see philemon in the bible.

 

[dmar198]

Religion is helpful in preserving morality, but not always as is seen with the slave trade where clergy held slaves and where the Bible commands slaves to obey their masters.

I think the Bible’s message on slavery is pretty good. I think it forbids the enslavement of free persons and condemns treating slaves as unequals. The Catholic Church has always done the same. What do you think? Do you think the examples you gave show otherwise?

A secular humanist would say that slavery is wrong since it is contrary to their belief that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives.

What rational basis does the secular humanist have for thinking that human beings have rights?

 

[Tomdstone]

I think the Bible’s message on slavery is pretty good.
I think it forbids the enslavement of free persons and condemns treating slaves as unequals.

How do you explain Ephesians 6:5 or Colossians 3:22. Or, “When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.” (Exodus 21:20-21}. This does not sound pretty good to me, especially if you were the female slave being brutally struck with the rod and you survived for two days, but were maimed for life.
On the other hand, the secular humanist says that slavery is wrong.

 

[Tomdstone]

I think it forbids the enslavement of free persons and condemns treating slaves as unequals. The Catholic Church has always done the same.

Please see the papal bull Dum Diversas issued on 18 June 1452 by Pope Nicholas V. It authorized Afonso V of Portugal to conquer Saracens and pagans and consign them to perpetual slavery. In other words, if you were a “pagan” woman (or man) , you could be enslaved by the white European males. The secular humanist would be opposed to enslavement of women (and men) by the white European male, regardless of their religious affiliation.

 

[glendab]

Hello Lost.

What outrages me is not that everyone is a sinner. Being lapsed myself, I even take pride in my own sinfulness. I just find rather telling that I’m the one being branded as the reprobate. Me and my generation have to constantly put up with the labels that conservative Catholics put on oh-so-satanic modern culture.

And yet, when I show to everyone the devils that stood on the pulpits in the 17th century, all I get is silence.

I repeat: I am sick of being labelled as part of the degenerate generation when the generation that conquered and oppressed my ancestors were just as vile. It seems the image of the pious conquistador has become a golden calf for some Catholics.

I once read somewhere that most miseries are self-generated and the labels we think are our are ours by our own thinking. This makes sense to me. We label ourselves and then find others who affirm our labels and so, read from the same script all our lives. Jesus calls us to think outside the boxes and little prisons we construct for ourselves. In Christ you are freed, live like a freed woman in Christ who though He was God took **the form of a slave **and being born in the likeness of men was obedient even unto death, death on a Cross!

Also keep in mind the slavery to sin you just left behind to “revert.” Your personal Exodus is underway, so hang on for dear life. Life gets lifey and there are bumps in the road. But you ARE headed fro the Promised Land as long as you don’t return to the slavery to sin you left behind. And here’s a clue for you: if the study of human psychology is revealed in the Old Testament at all, there will come a time when you too, like the Israelites who longed for the melons and leeks of Egypt, complained against Moses and God for being in a desert wasteland and longed not only for the fruits of sin, but the slavery that was it’s cost. It will happen - bank on it.

Glenda

 

[Jack007]

Please see the papal bull Dum Diversas issued on 18 June 1452 by Pope Nicholas V. It authorized Afonso V of Portugal to conquer Saracens and pagans and consign them to perpetual slavery. In other words, if you were a “pagan” woman (or man) , you could be enslaved by the white European males. The secular humanist would be opposed to enslavement of women (and men) by the white European male, regardless of their religious affiliation.

what a later pope says has more authority. see this link
and this

 

[marymary1975]

First of all, the “Discovery Doctrine” is a US legal principle. You blame Chief Justice John Marshall for it, if you must.

Second, it was about a real estate property claim called Johnson v M’Intosh. It dealt with the history of various English and US land charters, and the local Piankeshaw tribe wasn’t even involved in the case. It affected US law about Indian lands, and it didn’t have anything to do with Catholic canon law, papal bulls, or anything related to it. Marshall was dealing with US law and English common law. That’s it.

It’s lately been fashionable for the US Episcopalian institutional church (which keeps shutting down and stealing Episcopalian Indian church properties on reservations, btw) to decry the US Discovery Doctrine, and the non-nuns are just jumping on the bandwagon. (Albeit not by stealing Indian Catholic churches on reservations, so they’re ahead of the Episcopalians there.)

^^^^ this! Right on point! Besides that woman being a radical feminist it appears that she is not well versed in history