But the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and Pope Paul III in 1548 authorized the purchase and possession of Muslim slaves in the Papal states.
It’d be better if you had eyes on both ways. And since you believe that all things are possible with God, I’m sure I’m not asking much from such faithful believers.
does that bok tell you about the treatment of those slaves?
Your homework assignment today is to learn the difference between “impeccable” and “infallible” For extra credit read the Papal Bull Sublimus Dei
Please provide some names so we’ll know who you’re talking about.
Yes, and Peter was the first pope and denied Jesus three times! Again I ask you what is your point? The pope is human too. Believe me there have been some bad popes throughout history that have acted totally contrary to Church doctrine.
I believe the point is the usual “I found something bad a Pope did in the past therefore the Church teaching on abortion, homosexuality , contraception etc. is wrong”
Im sure Hugo Chavez is on the list
Do you think that something can be forbidden by Old Testament moral codes and yet tolerated under the Mosaic law? Because I think treating slaves as inferiors is an example of that. What do you think of that idea?
If human value comes from culture, doesn’t it logically follow that people aren’t valuable if their culture doesn’t think they are?
Um, excuse me, but I think you’re labeling all Catholics with these few words of yours after claiming it is us who are guilty of labeling you! You’ve personally met “more than an handful of Catholics,” so now you can speak for all of us? NOT! I worship God and God alone. Sorry no “age of exploration” is worshiped by any Catholic. All ages are Christ’s for He created everything and everyone, whether or not those who tell the tales of man’s endeavors in the history books ever give Him credit for it. He holds all of creation in the palm of His hand.
Were people such as Joan of Arc who were burned alive at the stake valuable or not? If she was valuable, why did the Church authorities want to burn her alive at the stake? A secular humanist would be opposed to that.
That is a good point you are bringing up about the Crusades and the Inquisition. Was it right for the Church authorities to support the burning of people, such as Joan of Arc, at the stake? As far as the Crusades go, the fourth Crusade was a real disaster with Bishops from Venice praying for the destruction of the Greek Orthodox. I suppose we could go into the many horror stories associated with that Crusade, such as the brutal rape of Greek Orthodox nuns who had dedicated their lives to Christ. And the fact that much of the incredibly valuable loot stolen from the Greek Orthodox Churches found its way into Roman Catholic Churches in the west and was never returned.
The Church didn’t burn her at the stake.
Yes, people who were burned at the stake were very valuable because they were created in the image of God.
Because they weren’t following Catholic doctrine.
If he was present at her execution, then I think that is an example of his not following Church doctrine, because I believe the Canon Law of the time forbade clerics from recommending heretics for execution or being present at their executions.
A minute ago I thought you said that secular humanists assign value based on human experience and culture. If a culture devalues certain people, like Joan of Arc for example, then it would seem to logically follow that they are not valuable by secular humanist standards (at least, not in that culture). Am I making a mistake here?
She was put on trial by Roman Catholic Bishop of Beauvais Pierre Cauchon. Bishop Cauchon declared her guilty and turned her over to the state to be burned at the stake on 30 May 1431. I think that he was present at her execution and did not object, but in fact supported it.
As I said the Church did not burn her at the stake-in fact the Canonized her!