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

[dmar198]

How do you explain Ephesians 6:5 or Colossians 3:22.

Do you think those verses suggest that it is okay to enslave a free person or that it is okay to treat a slave as an inferior? I think those passages suggest the opposite. For example, Ephesians 6:8-9 says, “[W]hatever good any one does, he will receive the same again from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. 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.”

That suggests to me that God does not favor the master above the slave, and the master should imitate that. What does it suggest to you?

I think the context of Colossians 3:22 also teaches the equality of slave and master: “Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.” Colossians 3:11. What do you think of that?

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.

It doesn’t sound good to me either. I think the Old Testament makes it clear that some actions are morally evil and will be judged by God, even though the Mosaic law doesn’t punish them. Therefore, I think something can be forbidden by the Old Testament because it is against the eternal law of God even if the Mosaic law doesn’t punish it, and I think the verse you cited is a perfect example. Other passages in the Old Testament forbid treating your slaves as unequals, but the Mosaic law doesn’t punish the violation of that standard in this instance. Do you think that is reasonable?

I also think the Old Testament specifically teaches that slaves should be treated as equals in Job 31:13-15 – “If I have rejected the cause of my manservant or my maidservant, when they brought a complaint against me; what then shall I do when God rises up? When he makes inquiry, what shall I answer him? Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?”

What do you think of that passage?

On the other hand, the secular humanist says that slavery is wrong.

Earlier you said that attitude is based on the secular humanist belief that human beings have rights. What is the rational basis for that belief, if human beings are not created in the image of God?

 

[dmar198]

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.

I have read the document, and I don’t think your characterization of it is correct. I think it is talking about Portuguese wars with some Muslims nations, and it authorizes the Portuguese king to consign prisoners of war to forced labor, while calling the people in this condition slaves. I don’t think it says anything about innocent people being assigned to forced labor.

Do you think that is a reasonable interpretation of the document? Do you think it is morally wrong for criminals to be put to any degree of forced labor at all, such as community service, for example? Do you think it is morally wrong to call such prisoners slaves?

The secular humanist would be opposed to enslavement of women (and men) by the white European male, regardless of their religious affiliation.

Earlier you said that attitude is based on the secular humanist belief that human beings have rights. What is the rational basis for that belief, if human beings are not created in the image of God?

 

[Jack007]

I have read the document, and I don’t think your characterization of it is correct. I think it is talking about Portuguese wars with some Muslims nations, and it authorizes the Portuguese king to consign prisoners of war to forced labor, while calling the people in this condition slaves. I don’t think it says anything about innocent people being assigned to forced labor.

dum diversas has been discussed here

 

[Tomdstone]

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

It seems like the teaching on slavery has changed. for the better, which is great. But it wasn’t always that way, was it?

 

[Tomdstone]

Earlier you said that attitude is based on the secular humanist belief that human beings have rights. What is the rational basis for that belief, if human beings are not created in the image of God?

Humanism and belief in the worth and dignity of man.

 

[Tomdstone]

Do you think those verses suggest that it is okay to enslave a free person or that it is okay to treat a slave as an inferior? I think those passages suggest the opposite. For example, Ephesians 6:8-9 says, “[W]hatever good any one does, he will receive the same again from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. 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.”

That suggests to me that God does not favor the master above the slave, and the master should imitate that. What does it suggest to you?

I think the context of Colossians 3:22 also teaches the equality of slave and master: “Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.” Colossians 3:11. What do you think of that? It doesn’t sound good to me either. I think the Old Testament makes it clear that some actions are morally evil and will be judged by God, even though the Mosaic law doesn’t punish them. Therefore, I think something can be forbidden by the Old Testament because it is against the eternal law of God even if the Mosaic law doesn’t punish it, and I think the verse you cited is a perfect example. Other passages in the Old Testament forbid treating your slaves as unequals, but the Mosaic law doesn’t punish the violation of that standard in this instance. Do you think that is reasonable?

I also think the Old Testament specifically teaches that slaves should be treated as equals in Job 31:13-15 – “If I have rejected the cause of my manservant or my maidservant, when they brought a complaint against me; what then shall I do when God rises up? When he makes inquiry, what shall I answer him? Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?”

What do you think of that passage? Earlier you said that attitude is based on the secular humanist belief that human beings have rights. What is the rational basis for that belief, if human beings are not created in the image of God?

It is problematic because clergy held slaves and according to what I read, in some cases slavery was justified by reference to the Bible.

 

[Michael1978]

It is problematic because clergy held slaves and according to what I read, in some cases slavery was justified by reference to the Bible.

Clergy are humans, humans are sinners. What’s your point? One of Jesus own chosen 12 disciples was a liar and a traitor. King David, who is referred to in the Bible as a man after God’s own heart, was a murderer and adulterer. Any institution made up of human beings is subject to the failings of human beings. That doesn’t mean you toss the institution. Jesus said the gates of hell will never prevail against his Church. He didn’t say that his Church would be perfect on earth until the end of time.

 

[dmar198]

Humanism and belief in the worth and dignity of man.

What reason is there to treat a human being as any more valuable than a rock, if people are not made in the image of God?

It is problematic because clergy held slaves

I think any clergyman who treated another man as an inferior was disobeying Church teaching, and I don’t think those actions should be attributed to the Church’s teachings. Therefore, I think the Church can be true even if some of its clergy were (and sometimes still are) evil. Do you think that’s reasonable?

according to what I read, in some cases slavery was justified by reference to the Bible.

I think you can only justify slavery by citing the Bible if you misquote the Bible. Do you think that’s reasonable?

 

[glendab]

Hello Michael.

Clergy are humans, humans are sinners. What’s your point? One of Jesus own chosen 12 disciples was a liar and a traitor. King David, who is referred to in the Bible as a man after God’s own heart, was a murderer and adulterer. Any institution made up of human beings is subject to the failings of human beings. That doesn’t mean you toss the institution. Jesus said the gates of hell will never prevail against his Church. He didn’t say that his Church would be perfect on earth until the end of time.

:clapping::clapping::clapping: Yippie! Well said.

Glenda

 

[estesbob]

It is problematic because clergy held slaves and according to what I read, in some cases slavery was justified by reference to the Bible.

Of the 12 apostles one betrayed him, one doubted him , one denied him 3 times and 11 hid when he was crucified . Fortunately God does not require perfection from his followers.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

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.

It’s not about the labels. I don’t really care what labels are put on me be religious people because they’re always a matter of perspective. When I call myself degenerate, I only use the word from the perspective of the self-proclaimed pious (even though I also use a more positive vocabulary for myself).

The line is crossed when I see the evil of hypocrisy underlying it. I’ve met more than a handful of Catholics who worship the age of exploration as a Christian era. To say that the philosophical spirit of that age is superior in spite of the crimes is like saying communism is only good in theory. My wish is that Catholics simply reflect on these crimes as deeply as they constantly rail about the so-called ‘false idols’ of modern culture. You think my generation is desensitized? These people are desensitized to the idea of actual, racially charged slavery!

Clergy are humans, humans are sinners. What’s your point? One of Jesus own chosen 12 disciples was a liar and a traitor. King David, who is referred to in the Bible as a man after God’s own heart, was a murderer and adulterer. Any institution made up of human beings is subject to the failings of human beings. That doesn’t mean you toss the institution.

Often times, it feels more like the faithful need to be reminded of this and not the critics.

 

[estesbob]

It’s not about the labels. I don’t really care what labels are put on me be religious people because they’re always a matter of perspective. When I call myself degenerate, I only use the word from the perspective of the self-proclaimed pious (even though I also use a more positive vocabulary for myself).

The line is crossed when I see the evil of hypocrisy underlying it. I’ve met more than a handful of Catholics who worship the age of exploration as a Christian era. To say that the philosophical spirit of that age is superior in spite of the crimes is like saying communism is only good in theory. My wish is that Catholics simply reflect on these crimes as deeply as they constantly rail about the so-called ‘false idols’ of modern culture. You think my generation is desensitized? These people are desensitized to the idea of actual, racially charged slavery!

Often times, it feels more like the faithful need to be reminded of this and not the critics.

So since some members of the church allegedly did bad things centuries ago I’m not allowed to criticize the excesses of the current culture? Are you also taking into account the great saints who spent their lives ministering to the slaves or do we only need to reflect on those who betrayed church teaching ?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

So since some members of the church allegedly did bad things centuries ago I’m not allowed to criticize the excesses of the current culture?

Nope. Why? Cuz you don’t even focus on the past as much. You’re all too busy looking at the splinters of today’s generation in spite of the historical plank in the idol of the Christian Golden Age.

Are you also taking into account the great saints who spent their lives ministering to the slaves or do we only need to reflect on those who betrayed church teaching ?

Right. Meanwhile the saints of today are labelled as socialists, terrorists, and New Age gurus because well, they live in 21st century. (And apparently, the most sinful era of humanity.)

 

[estesbob]

!

Often times, it feels more like the faithful need to be reminded of this and not the critics.

I think the faithful should reflect on things like this :

Yesterday, May 30, 1627, on the feast of the Most Holy Trinity, numerous blacks, brought from the rivers of Africa, disembarked from a large ship. Carrying two baskets of oranges, lemons, sweet biscuits, and I know not what else, we hurried toward them. We had to force our way through the crowd until we reached the sick. Large numbers of the sick were lying on the wet ground or rather in puddles of mud. To prevent excessive dampness, someone had through of building up a mound with a mixture of times and broken pieces of bricks. This, then, was their couch, a very uncomfortable one not only for that reason, but especially because they were naked, without any clothing to protect them.

We laid aside our cloaks, therefore, and brought from a warehouse whatever was handy to build a platform. In that way we covered a space to which we at last transferred the sick, by forcing a passage through bands of slaves. Then we divided the sick into two groups: one group my companion approached with an interpreter, which I addressed the other group. There were two blacks, nearer death than life, already cold, whose pulse could scarcely be detected. With the help of a tile we pulled some live coals together and placed them in the middle near the dying men. Into this fire we tossed aromatics. Then, using our own cloaks, for they had nothing of the sort, and to ask the owners for others would have been a waste of words, we provided for them a smoke treatment, by which they seemed to recover their warmth, and the breath of life. The joy in their eyes as they looked at us was something to see.

This was how we spoke to them, not with words but with our hands and our actions. And in fact, convinced as they were that they had been brought here to be eaten, any other language would have proved utterly useless. Then we sat, or rather knelt, beside them and bathed their faces and bodies with wine. We made every effort to encourage them with friendly gestures and displayed in their presence the emotions which somehow naturally tend to hearten the sick.

After this we began an elementary instruction about baptism, that is, the wonderful effects of the sacrament on body and soul. When by their answers to our questions they showed they had sufficiently understood this, we went on to a more extensive instruction, namely, about the one God, who rewards and punishes each one according to his merit, and the rest. Finally, when they appeared sufficiently prepared, we told them the mysteries of the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Passion. Showing them Christ fastened to the cross, as he is depicted on the baptismal font on which streams of blood flow down from his wounds, we led them in reciting an act of contrition in their own language.

from a letter by Saint Peter Claver

 

[1newcatholic]

So since some members of the church allegedly did bad things centuries ago I’m not allowed to criticize the excesses of the current culture? Are you also taking into account the great saints who spent their lives ministering to the slaves or do we only need to reflect on those who betrayed church teaching ?

I think I’m with LostWanderer on this one–there is this kind of vicarious nostalgia that permeates a good deal of Catholic discourse, coupled with a sort of detached and abstract repugnance for the realities of Catholicism as it is practiced and taught today.

We can criticize the current church. We can praise the past church. But when we constantly do both, something is severely wrong with our perspective. We whitewash the ugly past, romanticize it, sacralize it, and suddenly the unpleasant difficulties of our era seem like monumental, unsurmountable problems. The truth is less black-and-white than that. It almost always is.

 

[estesbob]

Nope. Why? Cuz you don’t even focus on the past as much. You’re all too busy looking at the splinters of today’s generation in spite of the historical plank in the idol of the Christian Golden Age.

Right. Meanwhile the saints of today are labelled as socialists, terrorists, and New Age gurus because well, they live in 21st century. (And apparently, the most sinful era of humanity.)

What Saints of today are you referring to Edith Stein? Maximilian Kolbe? John Paul II? John XXIII ?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I think the faithful should reflect on things like this.

Nay. They should learn more about the propaganda material often spread by ‘religious’ colonist. Here’s the best example I have off the top of my head:

Si Tandang Basio Macunat

Synopsis

An unknown and unnamed narrator talks about meeting a farmer named Tandang Bacio. During their conversation, the narrator finds pleasure in the farmer’s straightforward answers and jestingly tells him that he could have been a governor gereral if only he had been educated in Manila. To the narrator’s surprise, Tandang Basio is outraged by the suggestion. Once he calms down, he proceeds to the tell the narrator his life story, from his humble beginnings to how he ended up as a farmer. Basio also tells the story of a wealthy couple who were set on sending their son to study in Manila, despite protests from their daughter and their parish priest. In the city, the son wastes his parents’ money on extravagances, and dies in prison. The rest of the family die in poverty and shame. Tandang Basio goes on to say that nothing good could ever come out of going to the city for education, and that people should be content with their status and embrace the simplicity of living in the province.

Background and Criticism

Many Spaniards believed that the “indios” were of inferior intelligence and could not succeed in anything but physical labor. Spanish friars also refused to teach the natives Spanish, as this could expose them to liberalist and socialist ideas and bring them in level with Spanish officials. Only Filipinos belonging to the upper classes could enroll in universities and schools. This situation reached its peak in 1897, when the friars recommended closing down all schools to stop the impending revolution.

Si Tandang Basio Macunat exemplifies these ways of thinking and emphasizes that locals should stay in the provinces and tend to their manual duties, instead of going to the cities and pursuing higher education. This novel, and others like it, were written in the hopes of controlling the growing political, cultural, and economic ideals among the populace. The novelhas been criticised by different generations of Filipino writers, including Jose Rizal, Marcelo H. Del Pilar, and Teodoro Agoncillo.

 

[Jack007]

Nope. Why? Cuz you don’t even focus on the past as much. You’re all too busy looking at the splinters of today’s generation in spite of the historical plank in the idol of the Christian Golden Age.

<estestob’s signature>
actually, catholics oppose all those actions.

Meanwhile the saints of today are labelled as socialists,

or those who love the poor , to speak correctly

terrorists,

it is against church teaching to start a fight

and New Age gurus

i have never heard of this, but the church is opposed to new age and it would be hypocrisy to call them new age gurus

because well, they live in 21st century. (And apparently, the most sinful era of humanity.)

there were worse times, brother.

 

[Tomdstone]

I think you can only justify slavery by citing the Bible if you misquote the Bible. Do you think that’s reasonable?

No. I think that there are passages in the Bible which condone slavery.
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6)

 

[Tomdstone]

Earlier you said that attitude is based on the secular humanist belief that human beings have rights. What is the rational basis for that belief, if human beings are not created in the image of God?

I guess that secular humanists might believe that values have their source in human experience and culture.