L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Really? I know a thread here I can redirect you to.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
"Nuns Blast Catholic Church's 'Doctrine Of Discovery' That Justified Indigenous Oppression"
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
abucs
Guest
Sure, i’ll peruse it when I come back from Ayala Lost Wanderer.Really? I know a thread here I can redirect you to.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
When I think about it, the thread seems quite related to this report.Sure, i’ll peruse it when I come back from Ayala Lost Wanderer.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=907985&page=2
A
abucs
Guest
So you don’t like monarchies.
I see no group of Catholics idealising the Christian past. From what I read they simply point out the fact that monarchies and democracies are forms of government that can be both bad or good depending on the people.
I read your claim about how your people suffered under the Spanish monarch.
I am in Cebu City now, in a couple of days i’m heading towards Negros, last week Manila, before that 3 months in Subic, before that Dagupan, San Fernando, Vigan and Loaog and before that Tuguegarao and Banaue.
I’ve spent much time travelling up and down the Philippines. I see old Spanish Churches, I see schools, I see hospitals, i see communities, i see fiestas, I see Christians working together to build a better country.
You’re going to have to work very hard to convince me how you are suffering under the colonial past of monarchal Spain.
Interestingly when I speak to educated Philippinos they often talk about the shortcomings of democracy. How it is easily corrupted by money and family and tribal interests. I hear in the churches priests routinely speak out against corruption. I hear the musings of Philippinos who look to places like Singapore and wonder out loud if a strong dictatorial leader might not be a good thing for the Philippines.
I hear ordinary poor Ilocanos and others talk about the successes of Ferdinand Marcos and their frustrations of democracy owned by warring families.
If you don’t like monarchies that’s fine. I don’t much like them myself. But don’t make historical monarchies an excuse for the failures of the Philippines.
And don’t by extension use that to attack the church unless you want to put it into context how much good the church does in the Philippines.
The sister in the beginning link had a similar narrow expression of Catholic historicity.
I see no group of Catholics idealising the Christian past. From what I read they simply point out the fact that monarchies and democracies are forms of government that can be both bad or good depending on the people.
I read your claim about how your people suffered under the Spanish monarch.
I am in Cebu City now, in a couple of days i’m heading towards Negros, last week Manila, before that 3 months in Subic, before that Dagupan, San Fernando, Vigan and Loaog and before that Tuguegarao and Banaue.
I’ve spent much time travelling up and down the Philippines. I see old Spanish Churches, I see schools, I see hospitals, i see communities, i see fiestas, I see Christians working together to build a better country.
You’re going to have to work very hard to convince me how you are suffering under the colonial past of monarchal Spain.
Interestingly when I speak to educated Philippinos they often talk about the shortcomings of democracy. How it is easily corrupted by money and family and tribal interests. I hear in the churches priests routinely speak out against corruption. I hear the musings of Philippinos who look to places like Singapore and wonder out loud if a strong dictatorial leader might not be a good thing for the Philippines.
I hear ordinary poor Ilocanos and others talk about the successes of Ferdinand Marcos and their frustrations of democracy owned by warring families.
If you don’t like monarchies that’s fine. I don’t much like them myself. But don’t make historical monarchies an excuse for the failures of the Philippines.
And don’t by extension use that to attack the church unless you want to put it into context how much good the church does in the Philippines.
The sister in the beginning link had a similar narrow expression of Catholic historicity.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
It’s pretty easy given that the legacy of corruption traces its way back to the frailocracy. Then again, that’s not really the problem I’m talking about here. What I’m talking about is the fact that there are still Catholics with a rose-tinted view of the time period.You’re going to have to work very hard to convince me how you are suffering under the colonial past of monarchal Spain.
That’s not the topic of this discussion. The issue is that many pro-medieval Catholics are treating monarchial periods as if the crimes of monarchs, colonizers, and corrupt clergy are less guilty than today’s pro-contraceptive dissenters.If you don’t like monarchies that’s fine. I don’t much like them myself. But don’t make historical monarchies an excuse for the failures of the Philippines.
So the good excuses the bad?And don’t by extension use that to attack the church unless you want to put it into context how much good the church does in the Philippines.
The sister in the beginning link had a similar narrow expression of Catholic historicity.
A
abucs
Guest
Did someone say the good excuses the bad? Please show me where that was said.
What was said was that you cannot be narrowly focussed to build a view of the past that is obviously biased to the negative and expect to be taken seriously.
For example you say the legacy of corruption traces its way back to what you call frailocracy which I am guessing is your derogatory way of saying the Spanish period.
Really, no corruption before that you think?
This is exactly the narrow minded anti Catholic focus that the nun has rightly been criticised for.
What was said was that you cannot be narrowly focussed to build a view of the past that is obviously biased to the negative and expect to be taken seriously.
For example you say the legacy of corruption traces its way back to what you call frailocracy which I am guessing is your derogatory way of saying the Spanish period.
Really, no corruption before that you think?
This is exactly the narrow minded anti Catholic focus that the nun has rightly been criticised for.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Against this background, we report that it is claimed that in 1454 Pope Nicholas V gave permission to Alfonso V of Portugal to enslave Saracens, and other “enemies of Christ.”
First, we have yet to see any documentation for this claim. Even if it be so, it as not a doctrinal teaching, but a practical action. Such an action could indeed imply a teaching in the mind of the one who acted, but it did not express any teaching. So we need to recall what was said above about divine Brinkmanship. Volume III, of Warren Carroll’s church history chronicles so many serious abuses of Popes in the middle ages. And we all know that Alexander VI had illegitimate children, and even officiated at marriage for them and even appointed an illegitimate son, Caesar, as a Cardinal! None of these abuses amounts to a teaching, but only to a very regrettable action.
Further we note that the alleged document allows slavery for Saracens. We need to remember also what was said above, that slavery is a bit less a penalty than life in a prison. And it may be earned by grave sin. Now the Saracens had been murdering all sorts of persons. Their religion was literally spread by the sword. Their sacred book, the Koran, says (cited from Bernard Palmer, Understanding the Islamic Explosion, Horizon House, 1980, pp. 36-37): “When ye encounter unbelievers, strike off their heads until ye have made a great slaughter among them, and bind them in bonds. . . .” They also believed that to fight in such a “Holy War” ensures immediate salvation, going to a sex paradise. Islamic people held Spain and Portugal for centuries, and got control of the area at first precisely by killing the “infidels”.
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SLAVERY.HTMSo since—if indeed the claim is true—Pope Nicholas V granted such an approval, it is evident he must have thought something substantially changed the case. For there was the much earlier prohibition of slavery by Pope John VIII in 873, in which he called it a grave sin. And Pope Paul III not long after 1454 (in 1537) ordered under automatic excommunication that slavery stop.
D
dmar198
Guest
I think what’s more problematic was that these clarifications didn’t stop the Spanish and Portuguese from enslaving and oppressing regardless. And yet, there are Catholics even on this forum who still persist in glorifying this so-called ‘Christian’ era. Now that is something the Church needs to be more apologetic about.
I, for one, have labelled the Spanish and Portuguese enslavers as dissenters, or equivalent titles. I teach a Church History series at my local parish in which the Conquistadors were discussed. And I based my treatment of them on the 19th century Church History books by Joseph Epiphane Darras, which books have the personal approval of Pope Pius IX. Volume 4 Period 7 Chapter 7 Section 5 of these books contain these words: “The Spanish conquerors of the New World had reduced the natives to slavery, and doomed them to toil in the mines. In vain did the clergy, both regular and secular, protest against an abuse as impolitic as it was barbarous. Their complaints were unheeded. There yet remained at the foot of the Cordilleras, in the plain that looks toward the Atlantic, between the Orinoco and the Rio de la Plata, a country filled with savages, where the Spaniards had not yet carried their baneful conquests. It was in the shades of these forests that the missionaries undertook to form a Christian republic, and to bestow, at least, upon a few of the natives the happiness which they were not allowed to bring to all.” sourceIt doesn’t help when conservative Catholics look longingly to these historical periods and deliberately ignore the underhanded disobedience of the supposedly religious colonizers.
These people are no better than modern cafeteria Catholics like me. And yet, why aren’t the likes of Mr. Conquistador being given the label? Why must it only be the liberal crowd that gets marked with the scarlet D of dissident?
I personally don’t care to push for any political agenda just to highlight these documents. It’s just that when the religious are going to go around accusing others of dissent, then they should at least shamefully admit that they’ve should’ve started before Cortez, Magellan, or Columbus ever set foot in their ships!
Thus, it seems to me, it is a part of classic Catholicism to describe the Spanish and Portuguese enslavers as abusers, while defending those who defended the Indians. Traditional Catholics therefore don’t give the label of “dissident” to modern Cafeteria Catholics alone. We apply it to the Conquistadors, though even among them there are exceptions. (I think Cortes can be at least partially defended, for example.)
What do you think of the quote I provided?
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
It wouldn’t be the Spanish brand, at the very least. We already had a civilization long before those invaders came. Yet alas, the fact is we’re still racing to discover what life was like before them. Now not even you can truly say this because we’re still struggling to piece a comparison together.Really, no corruption before that you think?
You can thank the destructive actions of the friars for that. Don’t cry revisionist history when the foreign powers are responsible for destroying/censoring an integral part of an entire nation’s past.
It’s something that is very much needed in these forums and should be paraded in the faces of those who want human civilization to return to those times.What do you think of the quote I provided?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I thought that there were clergy who held slaves, so not all clergy protested against slavery.I, for one, have labelled the Spanish and Portuguese enslavers as dissenters, or equivalent titles. I teach a Church History series at my local parish in which the Conquistadors were discussed. And I based my treatment of them on the 19th century Church History books by Joseph Epiphane Darras, which books have the personal approval of Pope Pius IX. Volume 4 Period 7 Chapter 7 Section 5 of these books contain these words: “The Spanish conquerors of the New World had reduced the natives to slavery, and doomed them to toil in the mines. In vain did the clergy, both regular and secular, protest against an abuse as impolitic as it was barbarous. Their complaints were unheeded. There yet remained at the foot of the Cordilleras, in the plain that looks toward the Atlantic, between the Orinoco and the Rio de la Plata, a country filled with savages, where the Spaniards had not yet carried their baneful conquests. It was in the shades of these forests that the missionaries undertook to form a Christian republic, and to bestow, at least, upon a few of the natives the happiness which they were not allowed to bring to all.” source
Thus, it seems to me, it is a part of classic Catholicism to describe the Spanish and Portuguese enslavers as abusers, while defending those who defended the Indians. Traditional Catholics therefore don’t give the label of “dissident” to modern Cafeteria Catholics alone. We apply it to the Conquistadors, though even among them there are exceptions. (I think Cortes can be at least partially defended, for example.)
What do you think of the quote I provided?
M
manualman
Guest
Sure there are nuts in any trail mix, what’s your point? One does NOT have to demonstrate the perfection of a past period to establish that the dominant philosophical and theological worldview of that period was superior to that dominant today. Claiming this to be true is hardly ‘rose-tinted.’It’s pretty easy given that the legacy of corruption traces its way back to the frailocracy. Then again, that’s not really the problem I’m talking about here. What I’m talking about is the fact that there are still Catholics with a rose-tinted view of the time period.
The striking thing about the Church is the way she is both otherworldly and divine while also being terribly human (with all the frailties and imperfections that implies).
If this is true, then the net result we should expect to see in history is that the Church is never made up of perfect human beings, but the influence she has on her subject always tends to make them BETTER than they would have been otherwise. So bad as the Conquistadors sometimes behaved in the New World, it’s not as bad as the muslims (for example) would have behaved had they gotten there first (for example).
This will become increasingly clear in the next 50 years as the results of severing western civilization from it’s roots in Christian theology and philosophy become clearer. I fear for my children, but trust in God that He has His purposes.
D
dmar198
Guest
Good point.I thought that there were clergy who held slaves, so not all clergy protested against slavery.
Tomdstone, on a somewhat related note, do you think you can have morality without God?
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
From the article;
First off, there was a conflict between the Church and the Secular Explorers on how to treat indigenous people.
Missionaries were often imprisoned by leaders of exploration to the new world, for protesting against the treatment of indigenous people. Columbus himself imprisoned missionaries when they protested his treatment of indigenous people, on his subsequent voyages to the new world.
“Convert or be slaughtered,” was never in the papal bulls, but rather, the Church reached a compromise with secular military leaders that they could not touch indigenous people who had been converted to Christianity. This meant that the missionaries had to worked to preach the gospel to the indigenous people, not only for their souls, but for their protection against the military leaders of the expeditions.
Lastly, we need to keep in mind the times that these events took place. The indigenous people were not all friendly as Columbus first found. Some were outright savage, practicing cannibalism and torture for sport.
Jim
This is not the case and is misleading.The Doctrine of Discovery is a series of papal bulls, or decrees, that gave Christian explorers the right to lay claim to any land that was not inhabited by Christians and was available to be “discovered.” If its inhabitants could be converted, they might be spared. If not, they could be enslaved or killed.
First off, there was a conflict between the Church and the Secular Explorers on how to treat indigenous people.
Missionaries were often imprisoned by leaders of exploration to the new world, for protesting against the treatment of indigenous people. Columbus himself imprisoned missionaries when they protested his treatment of indigenous people, on his subsequent voyages to the new world.
“Convert or be slaughtered,” was never in the papal bulls, but rather, the Church reached a compromise with secular military leaders that they could not touch indigenous people who had been converted to Christianity. This meant that the missionaries had to worked to preach the gospel to the indigenous people, not only for their souls, but for their protection against the military leaders of the expeditions.
Lastly, we need to keep in mind the times that these events took place. The indigenous people were not all friendly as Columbus first found. Some were outright savage, practicing cannibalism and torture for sport.
Jim
D
dmar198
Guest
Do you have a citation for this? According to this article from Columbia Magazine, there is evidence that Columbus forbade mistreatment of the Indians.Columbus himself imprisoned missionaries when they protested his treatment of indigenous people, on his subsequent voyages to the new world.
Here’s an excerpt: Columbia: The popular view today is that Columbus is responsible for countless atrocities against the native peoples. In your opinion, is this a fair assessment?
Carol Delaney: No, not at all. The late 20th century brought a lot of critique about him from the perspective of the natives, and Columbus has become a symbol for everything that went wrong. But the more I read of his own writings and that of his contemporaries, my understanding of him totally changed. His relations with the natives tended to be benign. He liked the natives and found them to be very intelligent. He also described them as “natural Christians” because they had no other “sect,” or false faith, and believed that they could easily become Christians if they had instruction.
Columbus strictly told the crew not to do things like marauder or rape, and instead to treat the native people with respect. There are many examples in his writings where he gave instructions to this effect. Most of the time when injustices occurred, Columbus wasn’t even there. There were terrible diseases that got communicated to the natives, but he can’t be blamed for that.
A lot of the crewmembers didn’t like all of the restrictions and rebelled. In his writings, Columbus notes that the crew assumed that they could have slaves, that they could pick gold off of the trees, and that they didn’t have to work.
Columbia: What was Columbus’ view toward slavery?
Carol Delaney: As far as I can tell, Columbus never had any slaves, nor did he intend to get slaves when he went across the ocean. There was no possibility of enslaving the Grand Khan and his people. And [Columbus] believed the natives would become subjects of the Spanish sovereigns.
When they later met a different group of natives, whom they believed to be cannibals, Columbus’ brother sent some of these people back to Europe after their second voyage. It was considered morally acceptable at that time to enslave people who acted against their nature, with the hope that they would become good Christians. Slavery was common, even among people in the Caribbean. People ignore that fact and seem to think that Columbus instituted slavery.
Meanwhile, Bartolomé de Las Casas, an admirer of Columbus, is remembered for writing in defense of the Indians. But unlike Columbus, Las Casas owned slaves and operated encomiendas in the beginning. He didn’t have a change of heart until long after Columbus’ death, and even as late as the mid-16th century, he proposed slavery of African blacks as a substitute for the Indians. source This interviewee doesn’t cite sources either, other than vague sentences like, “There are many examples in his writings where he gave instructions to this effect.” When there is a conflict of historical opinions, I like to see sources. Do you know of any?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Atheists justify morality in different ways.Tomdstone, on a somewhat related note, do you think you can have morality without God?
D
dmar198
Guest
Have you ever investigated any of those ways to see if they have a rational foundation?Atheists justify morality in different ways.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
An atheist would not believe that morality requires religion as a guide, but would base his morality on ideas such as utilitarianism and/or secular humanism. See:Have you ever investigated any of those ways to see if they have a rational foundation?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_without_religion
A
abucs
Guest
Can morality be reduced to a set of axioms?An atheist would not believe that morality requires religion as a guide, but would base his morality on ideas such as utilitarianism and/or secular humanism. See:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_without_religion
I think morality cannot be separated from the lived reality of spiritual interaction. Once spirituality is removed or ignored you just have a set of instructions like how to play volleyball.
Morality without spirituality is like a plane without fuel. In theory it’s a great machine, but it doesn’t get you too far.
D
dmar198
Guest
I have browsed that wikipedia article before. But what I am wondering is this: do you think it is reasonable that you should be morally required to obey utilitarianism or secular humanism? Where does the moral obligation come from?An atheist would not believe that morality requires religion as a guide, but would base his morality on ideas such as utilitarianism and/or secular humanism. See:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_without_religion
Consider this excerpt from an argument made by the philosopher Peter Kreeft:
Peter Kreeft said:[W]
here did [morality] get such an absolute authority?] There are only four possibilities.
*]From something less than me (nature)
*]From me (individual)
*]From others equal to me (society)
*]From something above me (God)
Let’s consider each of these possibilities in order.
*]How can I be absolutely obligated by something less than me—for example, by animal instinct or practical need for material survival?
*]How can I obligate myself absolutely? Am I absolute? Do I have the right to demand absolute obedience from anyone, even myself? And if I am the one who locked myself in this prison of obligation, I can also let myself out, thus destroying the absoluteness of the obligation which we admitted as our premise.
*]How can society obligate me? What right do my equals have to impose their values on me? Does quantity make quality? Do a million human beings make a relative into an absolute? Is “society” God?
source
Do you think that the person who came up with utilitarianism or secular humanism has the right to demand absolute obedience from everyone? Do you think those theories have that authority? Why? If I am faced with a choice that maximizes my own happiness, at the expense of 10 other people, utilitarianism says I should maximize the 10 rather than the 1. But what authority does it have over me? Do you think there are real moral absolutes?
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Interesting.I, for one, have labelled the Spanish and Portuguese enslavers as dissenters, or equivalent titles. I teach a Church History series at my local parish in which the Conquistadors were discussed. And I based my treatment of them on the 19th century Church History books by Joseph Epiphane Darras, which books have the personal approval of Pope Pius IX. Volume 4 Period 7 Chapter 7 Section 5 of these books contain these words: “The Spanish conquerors of the New World had reduced the natives to slavery, and doomed them to toil in the mines. In vain did the clergy, both regular and secular, protest against an abuse as impolitic as it was barbarous. Their complaints were unheeded. There yet remained at the foot of the Cordilleras, in the plain that looks toward the Atlantic, between the Orinoco and the Rio de la Plata, a country filled with savages, where the Spaniards had not yet carried their baneful conquests. It was in the shades of these forests that the missionaries undertook to form a Christian republic, and to bestow, at least, upon a few of the natives the happiness which they were not allowed to bring to all.” source
Thus, it seems to me, it is a part of classic Catholicism to describe the Spanish and Portuguese enslavers as abusers, while defending those who defended the Indians. Traditional Catholics therefore don’t give the label of “dissident” to modern Cafeteria Catholics alone. We apply it to the Conquistadors, though even among them there are exceptions. (I think Cortes can be at least partially defended, for example.)
What do you think of the quote I provided?
Any Pedro Martyr and Bartolome de las Casas?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.