If you go to the beginning of the thread, you will notice that the context was wholly on American slavery. All the posts were discussing American slavery. Your first post “The Southern Strategy” was also on American slavery.
You’ll note that on page 1 of the thread Arizona Mike made the following statement as it pertains to those who would suggest the Christians, and Catholics in particular:
The Catholic Church has a good record on opposing slavery. From our founder, Jesus, who said he came to oppose every form of bondage over mankind (quoting Isaiah), to St. Paul, whose impassioned plea for mercy for an escaped slave is in the Bible (and worked), to St. Peter and St. John the Apostle, who denounced slavery as among the most horrible of sins, to Saint Augustine, whose parish stormed African slave ships and drophouses to free their prisoners and who used Roman law courts and his own funds to free slaves, to St. Patrick, who called out the pagan kings of Ireland for practicing slavery, to St. Nicholas who paid the bridal dowry to prevent poor girls from being sold into slavery in his parish, as well as the numerous papal bulls that condemned slavery and excommunicated slavers and slave holders.
Note the time frame Arizona Mike is giving – from Jesus until now. My initial response was to him in suggesting that he was wrong (or more accurately that the Church has been far more mixed to negative with regards to slavery). You stepped in and ask for proof. I gave
a mountain of proof.
When you couldn’t make much impression on the Church stance on American slavery, you tried to be expand the scope to something outside of what was being discussed , that is, American slavery. I see that you wanted to go all the way to the 4th century.
As I’ve shown it was not me who expanded the scope, but Arizona Mike. And that’s fine. Often times with these topics the topics will shift, expand, or fixate on certain specifics. That’s what happened here. Sometimes the root of an issue requires discussion on things not initially put in place by the OP. For example, you can’t talk about slavery in the United States in the 19th century without also talking about the Continental Congress in the 18th century.
And I suggest that you start a new thread rather than derail this OP’s thread which is on American slavery. I was hoping a few rebuttals on your allegations on non American slavery will suffice but apparently not. Kudos on the determination but wrong place.
This wasn’t a derailment. The topic is religion’s role in slavery. The discussion started on American slavery and expanded from there, as something so monumental is wont to do.
As for the Sicut Didum, the language right at the beginning says to free ALL enslaved. The last sentence on para 4 does not negate the 1st sentence which you refused to look at.
I broke it down bit by bit explaining how the pope was angered by those who were promised safety from slavery in exchange for agreeing to get baptized and then having the Portuguese renege on those deals. I showed how the criteria for those to be freed included those who were once residents of the Canary Islands (i.e. taken away). Instead of address those detailed points, your response is little more than “Nuh-uh”.
I can not help you there except suggest that you talk to a lawyer friend to clarify for you what Sicut Didum does say or doesn’t say. Talking past each other isn’t going to have much value add. With this, I shall withdraw from this thread.
In no way, shape, or form have I been talking past you. I’ve read each and every complaint, question, remark, and insinuation you made and responded with a thorough answer. In no way was I ignoring what you said and just repeating my points without addressing yours.
When you asked for documentation of the Church’s approval of slavery, I gave you that documentation.
When you asked for documentation that was part of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, I gave you documentation from the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
When you asked for information for what you asked for information regarding the Synod of Malfi (which you referred to without a lick of research as an obscure synod), I gave you numerous details including its importance and the fact that it was overseen by the pope.
When you asked for a list of atheists who combated slavery (despite my very salient point that atheists were quite rare, unpopular, and faced possible death), I gave you a list of names and their relevance in the abolitionist movement.
When you asked for my opinions as to the dangers of counseling a slave to potentially flee, I gave you those opinions.
When you asked for who had done more to combat the Atlantic slave trade, I gave the most prominent name (besides the atheists that I’d given earlier).
Practically nothing that I asked of you have I gotten a fair and honest response.
In no way can it be said that I talked past you. Do not
suggest that the fault in our discussion lies with me or my request for what is clearly relevant information with regards to slavery and religion.
We are here now, in fact the only two currently active in this thread. Show me that you can research. Take the expansion of the topic Arizona Mike initiated and show where the Church was against slavery those many centuries. In those times when the explorers from Spain and Portugal used the documents given by the Church that on their very face allow for the enslavement of non-Christians, show that the Church admonished those explorers for misinterpreting those documents.
