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

[dmar198]

Interesting.

Any Pedro Martyr and Bartolome de las Casas?

If you read the context, the author does mention Bartolome de last Casas, in Volume 4 Period 7 Chapter 3 Section 35: “New Christian communities were rapidly springing up under the care of the Dominicans and Franciscans, in Brazil, Jamaica and the other lately-discovered lands of the West. The most illustrious of these evangelical laborers was the celebrated Las Casas, a former companion of Columbus, afterward a Dominican and bishop of Chiappa. For fifty years he labored with untiring energy to convert the Indians and to protect them from the oppression of the Spanish governors. The discovery of Mexico opened a new field to the preachers of the gospel.” source I don’t think I saw anything about Pedro Martyr. Why do you ask?

 

[Tomdstone]

Where does the moral obligation come from?

The atheist might say that the concept of morality is a product of evolution.
See:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origins_of_Virtue
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality
veoh.com/watch/v20011764nRA2J3Sn

 

[dmar198]

The atheist might say that the concept of morality is a product of evolution.
See:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origins_of_Virtue
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality
veoh.com/watch/v20011764nRA2J3Sn

Yes, I have heard of that idea before. As I understand it, it is the belief that virtuous behavior helps the species, and therefore ours has evolved to appreciate virtuous behavior.

But I wonder how you answer the problem with this argument noticed by Peter Kreeft: when I am faced with a situation where I want to do something evil and I think I can get away with it, why should I be obligated by evolutionary morality? Does it have power over me? Does it command my attention and obedience for some rational reason? Or is it really just a case of: these virtuous behaviors tend to help the species, and other people appreciate them. You’re left to help the species or yourself depending on your mood, because all there ends up being is the fact that morality tends to help other people, no obligations connected.

Perhaps I am not expressing myself clearly. Do you think you could defend evolutionary morality against the objection that it destroys the command of moral claims over our conscience?

 

[Tomdstone]

Yes, I have heard of that idea before. As I understand it, it is the belief that virtuous behavior helps the species, and therefore ours has evolved to appreciate virtuous behavior.

But I wonder how you answer the problem with this argument noticed by Peter Kreeft: when I am faced with a situation where I want to do something evil and I think I can get away with it, why should I be obligated by evolutionary morality? Does it have power over me? Does it command my attention and obedience for some rational reason? Or is it really just a case of: these virtuous behaviors tend to help the species, and other people appreciate them. You’re left to help the species or yourself depending on your mood, because all there ends up being is the fact that morality tends to help other people, no obligations connected.

Perhaps I am not expressing myself clearly. Do you think you could defend evolutionary morality against the objection that it destroys the command of moral claims over our conscience?

People have free will so they can act immorally if they so choose.

 

[dmar198]

People have free will so they can act immorally if they so choose.

Yes, but if atheism is true, is there any reason to worry about moral considerations at all, if the alternative is just to do whatever you want whenever you think you can get away with it? Do you think there is any way to defend atheism from the charge that it removes any rational basis for the obligation of sometimes doing things we don’t want to do?

 

[Tomdstone]

Yes, but if atheism is true, is there any reason to worry about moral considerations at all, if the alternative is just to do whatever you want whenever you think you can get away with it? Do you think there is any way to defend atheism from the charge that it removes any rational basis for the obligation of sometimes doing things we don’t want to do?

Secular humanism.

 

[dmar198]

Secular humanism.

And why should you care what see secular humanism says if you want to do something different? What rational foundation is there for anyone to think secular humanism has authority to command?

 

[Tomdstone]

And why should you care what see secular humanism says if you want to do something different? What rational foundation is there for anyone to think secular humanism has authority to command?

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.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If you read the context, the author does mention Bartolome de last Casas, in Volume 4 Period 7 Chapter 3 Section 35: “New Christian communities were rapidly springing up under the care of the Dominicans and Franciscans, in Brazil, Jamaica and the other lately-discovered lands of the West. The most illustrious of these evangelical laborers was the celebrated Las Casas, a former companion of Columbus, afterward a Dominican and bishop of Chiappa. For fifty years he labored with untiring energy to convert the Indians and to protect them from the oppression of the Spanish governors. The discovery of Mexico opened a new field to the preachers of the gospel.” source I don’t think I saw anything about Pedro Martyr. Why do you ask?

I have started to read more into the period following the discovery of Columbus being lost in the Americas .

St. Bartolome is a real champ and probably the first Civil Rights advocate in the “New World”. And yes, he was the 1st Bishop of Chiappas.

I am trying to read a lot more about Pedro Martir because he was named to the “Consejo de las Indias” by the Spanish crown, who wanted to take Colon’s power away.

People love to blame the Church for all the bad that happened in this era and these 2 Saints are a great example.

 

[abucs]

Do you have any online links for your research Isaiah?

 

[abucs]

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.

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.

You say there is a lack of knowledge of Philippine history and then you project a destructive foreign force for causing that.

You say that corruption before the Spanish was not of the Spanish brand as if corruption is attached to nationality. But yet you want to adopt the idea that Philippino corruption today is somehow Spanish long after the Spanish have left.

Basically you are imagining all your ills are due to the Spanish. Excuse me but that is a delusion. A childish bogeyman complex that I hope you grow out of.

The Philippino’s accepted Christianity Lost Wanderer because it brought much benefit and advancement to their civilization. That is something it appears you are yet to come to terms with.

 

[Jack007]

sorry if anybody has already said this, but popes blasted it even before those nuns did.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

You say there is a lack of knowledge of Philippine history and then you project a destructive foreign force for causing that.

Not just that. They’re guilty of near-genocide!

But yet you want to adopt the idea that Philippino corruption today is somehow Spanish long after the Spanish have left.

The term haciendera is of Spanish origin.

Basically you are imagining all your ills are due to the Spanish. Excuse me but that is a delusion.

Right, and upholding the Spaniards as the bringers of light and civilization is most sane. Forgive me if I’d sooner spit at the feet of friars.

The Philippino’s accepted Christianity Lost Wanderer because it brought much benefit and advancement to their civilization. That is something it appears you are yet to come to terms with.

Pff, tell that to the supporters of the Liberal party, CBCP critics, oh and this guy. Remember him?

If my circle of friends and college buddies are any indication, the days of the Church’s influence seem numbered in this former colony. And frankly, I’m not so sure if I should find that depressing anymore given it’s rather unhelpful role in my personal life and those around me.

Perhaps I’m not the one who needs to come to terms with something. Last I checked, we just passed a Reproductive Health Bill.

 

[glendab]

Hello Lost.

It 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!

What is it about the modern mindset that lays all of the Church’s “sins” and failings in the past upon the shoulders of each and every one of us? And what is it about the modern Catholic minds that accept this disproportionate guilt? We are not responsible for the Church’s past collectively and the Papal apologies for the “sins” of the past was a response from the heart not a directive for all of us to constantly apologize every time someone points out something bad that was done by a Church member. We’d spend all of our time apologizing instead of evangelizing. No, I think the Papal apologies issued a directive to the enemies of the Church to constantly bring up all those things they feel we need to apologize for. The Pope will apologize, then they’ll bring up another “issue,” then they hope he’ll respond to that one, and so on, until they bring up the real agenda and demand an apology for not ordaining women because after all, the Protestants are way ahead of us on that policy issue, aren’t they?

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hello Tom.

I thought that there were clergy who held slaves, so not all clergy protested against slavery.

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

 

[Lost_Sheep]

This so-called “doctrine” is not doctrine in the sense that it is an immutable teaching of the Church and was not an infallible ex cathedra declaration by Alexander VI.

It was more of a political “doctrine” than a spiritual one.

 

[abucs]

The fact is that the Spaniards never had a multitude of soldiers in the Philippines. Certainly nothing to the extent of the Japanese during World War 2. Yet Catholic culture was embraced by Philippino tribes up and down the archipelago. Even when tribes rebelled against the Spanish they held dearly onto the Catholic faith. That was the clear reality.

When you are talking about the evil Catholic Spaniards destroying Philipino culture and your supporting link is about a guy who was put in jail by contempory Philippino law courts over protests regarding a recent parliamentary bill then basically you have no case.

As far as your other opinion piece link regarding first contact with the people of Guam have you actually read it?

Let me quote parts of a paragraph to you :

‘,It has become as fashionable for Pacific historians today to assume an anti-colonialist bias as it was for those in an earlier age to serve as apologists for the European powers. … Yet the biases of our own age make for no better history than do those of a former age. Historians are no closer to the truth when they superimpose such interpretive meanings as ‘war of liberation’ upon the events that took place in the Marianas three centuries ago. To do so is to misunderstand the nature of the hostilities that took place between the Spanish and Chamorros and misread the motivation for Chamorro resistance to Spanish rule. Similarly, the common assumption that the Spanish undertook the deliberate extermination of the Chamorro people by force of arms calls for re-examination. Spanish colonization in the Marianas did result in massive depopulation, to be sure, but such ‘extermination’ as did occur was neither deliberate nor was it accomplished by force of arms. …’

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

We are not responsible for the Church’s past collectively and the Papal apologies for the “sins” of the past was a response from the heart not a directive for all of us to constantly apologize every time someone points out something bad that was done by a Church member.

You are when you dream of this time period as if it was something the Church should return to. I refuse to see my generation demonized while you make saints out of conquerors and slavers.

We’d spend all of our time apologizing instead of evangelizing.

Oh that’d be great! You’re all about humility right? Keep at it. Y’know, cuz the moment you raise up your head again and forget this religion’s transgressions, you make the same mistake that got you into this mess.

The Pope will apologize, then they’ll bring up another “issue,” then they hope he’ll respond to that one, and so on, until they bring up the real agenda and demand an apology for not ordaining women because after all, the Protestants are way ahead of us on that policy issue, aren’t they?

If the Church wasn’t so mired in sexism in the past, you wouldn’t have to worry about it. Luther himself wouldn’t have existed if not for the corruption and ineptitude of German clergy. Who needs Satan when the Church itself digs its own pit from the failings of its own shepherds?

 

[abucs]

…continued

‘This article attempts to correct some of the more egregious and longstanding misperceptions of this first European colonial incursion into Oceania. …’

and you linked to this opinion piece with the words ‘The Spanish are guilty of near genocide’.

Apart from the fact that the opinion piece had little to do with the Philippines, nowhere did the author come remotely close to even hinting that the Spaniards were guilty of genocide.

In fact he goes the other way and suggests that people today have gotten the wrong idea and unfairly malign the colonial Spaniards.

This was your link!!!

It looks like you quickly read the first few lines where the author was giving a popular anti Spanish view, but then you didn’t read the rest where he set out to correct such a mistakenly biased view.

If you are not even going to read your links which end up contradicting yourself, why should anyone else?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Even when tribes rebelled against the Spanish they held dearly onto the Catholic faith. That was the clear reality.

It was a reality that abuses among the clergy were increasing and that in turn proved that the Filipinos’ patience with religious abuses were reaching their peak by the start of the first major revolutions.

Sounds like somebody needs to take a Rizal class.

When you are talking about the evil Catholic Spaniards destroying Philipino culture and your supporting link is about a guy who was put in jail by contempory Philippino law courts over protests regarding a recent parliamentary bill then basically you have no case.

What? You think this man dreamed up his cultural reference out of nowhere? You are more clueless about this country than I thought! It’s historical fact that a frailocracy was dooming this country towards stagnation. To say otherwise is the equivalent of denying the Holocaust.

It has become as fashionable for Pacific historians today to assume an anti-colonialist bias as it was for those in an earlier age to serve as apologists for the European powers. … Yet the biases of our own age make for no better history than do those of a former age. Historians are no closer to the truth when they superimpose such interpretive meanings as ‘war of liberation’ upon the events that took place in the Marianas three centuries ago. To do so is to misunderstand the nature of the hostilities that took place between the Spanish and Chamorros and misread the motivation for Chamorro resistance to Spanish rule. Similarly, the common assumption that the Spanish undertook the deliberate extermination of the Chamorro people by force of arms calls for re-examination. Spanish colonization in the Marianas did result in massive depopulation, to be sure, but such ‘extermination’ as did occur was neither deliberate nor was it accomplished by force of arms.

Yet they seemed to disregard their own advice on numerous occasions and paid for it dearly. Each of the killings of missionaries that occurred between 1674 and 1676 is clearly attributable to revenge for an affront suffered by some of the people shortly before: a public scolding, an accusation of cheating, the execution of a chief, and a harsh remonstrance. It is of such insults as these that many a war in the Pacific has been born, and there were undoubtedly many more suchfaux pas throughout the years of early missionary work. Spanish armed retaliation after each outbreak of violence probably only added insult to injury and served to harden the opposition of the aggrieved Chamorro parties.

Clearly, the price of hypocrisy is even higher than 18th century priests could have calculated if they knew how much armed intelligence these transgressions were.

The Church should keep apologizing… and stay that way so long as the spiritually proud insist that it’s apologized enough.