Slavery

[JP2Admirer]

stanley123:

So to sum up: According to the way you look at it, it is OK to focibly kidnap a six year ol Jewish boy so that he may be brought up as a Catholic against the will of his parents?
I am opposed to that . I think it is better for the parents to decide what religion their six year old son should have, and also I think it is outrageous for the Catholic authorities to forcibly kidnap a six year old boy from his Jewish parents.
Have you studied the history of the Janissaries in the Balkan states, according to which the Islamic authorities beleive it is OK to take the first born Orthodox Christian son from his parents and take him to turkey against the will of his parents and bring him up as an islamic soldier who will then be taught to fight against his own people. This is similar to the case under discussion except that the respective religons involved are diferent.

The Church supports freedom of conscience. CCC 1743 states, “God willed that man should be left in the hand of his own counsel, (Sir 14:14) so that he might of his own accord seek his creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.”

So, in answer to your question: if it is true that the Pope kidnapped this child and the child was baptized against his will (assuming he was at the age of reason), then the Pope sinned. If the boy was coerced, the Pope sinned. If the boy did it freely, the Pope did not sin. In kidnapping the child the Pope sinned.

I don’t know what the merit is to this story, and you will find that Catholics get particularly defensive when claims that seem as outrageous as this are made. However, Pope’s are not impeccable, as they are HUMAN. So, what the Pope did in this story, if true, was in opposition to Catholic teaching and was therefore a sin. Just because the Pope does something doesn’t make it Catholic Doctrine, unless he sits in the Chair of Peter and pronounces it ex cathedra.

And I know that Pious IX wasn’t sitting in Peter’s chair saying “it’s okay to kidnap children and change them to whatever faith you desire.” If that were the case, my friend, I would not be Catholic.

This similar to saying, “Since Clinton perjured himself, it is now the law of the land that anyone can commit perjury.” If you can see the absurdity in that, you should be able to with the Pope as well.

 

[Emly]

tjmiller:

Why are we speaking here as if something were wrong with slavery?

Because slavery is evil. It is the deliberite kidnapping of a person–a man created in the image and likeness of God-. It is taken a man and forceing him to work for his master. His master is surprime, and that slave is a “savage”. It is in a man takes a person, and treats them like a dog. And as Jesus said “what you do to the least of my people, that you do onto me”. Taking people as slaves, no matter how “poor” they are, is a wrongdoing.

Slavery in imperial America and Europe, was one of the saddest times and most shameful of American History. One only needs to read “The White Man’s Burden”, to know the mad aroogence and ingorence of the world at large.

As for Jewish boys, it shound be up to the parants. You can not put a gun to soemones head and tell them to worshop your God. It’d be like a bride going up to a groom she did not know, with a gun, saying “marry me or die!” He can marry her, but their wil never be true love. That’s why we have freedem of religion, so we don’t have HOly Wars or somthing of that sort.

The Church condoomed slavery, Fr. Micth Pakwa said that once on tv or the radio.Maybe I will call “Open Line” on Wed. and get back to you.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Al Masetti:

Can someone document, for the record, when the Church actually invented slavery, chattel or otherwise?

The Church was formed in the year 33 +/-.

So when was slavery invented?

Everyone is going on.

Would someone please respond with the year slavery was invented and which countries had slaves and which ones did not.

 

[stanley123]

Al Masetti:

Would someone please respond with the year slavery was invented .

Slavery existed before Christianity. According to what I read:
1226 AD

The legitimacy of slavery is incorporated in the Corpus Iuris

Canonici, promulgated by Pope Gregory IX which remained

official law of the Church until 1913. Canon lawyers worked out

four just titles for holding slaves: slaves captured in war, persons

condemned to slavery for a crime; persons selling themselves into

slavery, including a father selling his child; children of a mother

who is a slave.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

According to Catholic teaching, chattel slavery is evil, but just-title slavery is like just war and just capital punishment…easily abused, but not inherently evil.

For example, The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which brought an end to racial slavery in the U.S., does allow for just-title servitude to punish criminals: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

See more here:
Was Catholic moral doctrine on slavery erroneous?
itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com/2005/05/was-catholic-moral-doctrine-on-slavery.html

 

[mosher]

stanley123:

So to sum up: According to the way you look at it, it is OK to focibly kidnap a six year ol Jewish boy so that he may be brought up as a Catholic against the will of his parents?
I am opposed to that . I think it is better for the parents to decide what religion their six year old son should have, and also I think it is outrageous for the Catholic authorities to forcibly kidnap a six year old boy from his Jewish parents.
Have you studied the history of the Janissaries in the Balkan states, according to which the Islamic authorities beleive it is OK to take the first born Orthodox Christian son from his parents and take him to turkey against the will of his parents and bring him up as an islamic soldier who will then be taught to fight against his own people. This is similar to the case under discussion except that the respective religons involved are diferent.

It is only similar in the act of taking. The Islamic taking however is not a good because it is going from truth to non-truth in matters of faith.

 

[mosher]

JP2Admirer:

The Church supports freedom of conscience. CCC 1743 states, “God willed that man should be left in the hand of his own counsel, (Sir 14:14) so that he might of his own accord seek his creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.”

So, in answer to your question: if it is true that the Pope kidnapped this child and the child was baptized against his will (assuming he was at the age of reason), then the Pope sinned. If the boy was coerced, the Pope sinned. If the boy did it freely, the Pope did not sin. In kidnapping the child the Pope sinned.

I don’t know what the merit is to this story, and you will find that Catholics get particularly defensive when claims that seem as outrageous as this are made. However, Pope’s are not impeccable, as they are HUMAN. So, what the Pope did in this story, if true, was in opposition to Catholic teaching and was therefore a sin. Just because the Pope does something doesn’t make it Catholic Doctrine, unless he sits in the Chair of Peter and pronounces it ex cathedra.

And I know that Pious IX wasn’t sitting in Peter’s chair saying “it’s okay to kidnap children and change them to whatever faith you desire.” If that were the case, my friend, I would not be Catholic.

This similar to saying, “Since Clinton perjured himself, it is now the law of the land that anyone can commit perjury.” If you can see the absurdity in that, you should be able to with the Pope as well.

That is not quite correct. The moral aspect associated with this is internal freedom which remains in tack. Some may claim that in this case it was morally correct to do what was done for the sake of the soul of the child. I am not prepared to assert that just yet.

 

[mosher]

Emly:

Because slavery is evil. It is the deliberite kidnapping of a person–a man created in the image and likeness of God-. It is taken a man and forceing him to work for his master. His master is surprime, and that slave is a “savage”. It is in a man takes a person, and treats them like a dog. And as Jesus said “what you do to the least of my people, that you do onto me”. Taking people as slaves, no matter how “poor” they are, is a wrongdoing.

Slavery in imperial America and Europe, was one of the saddest times and most shameful of American History. One only needs to read “The White Man’s Burden”, to know the mad aroogence and ingorence of the world at large.

As for Jewish boys, it shound be up to the parants. You can not put a gun to soemones head and tell them to worshop your God. It’d be like a bride going up to a groom she did not know, with a gun, saying “marry me or die!” He can marry her, but their wil never be true love. That’s why we have freedem of religion, so we don’t have HOly Wars or somthing of that sort.

The Church condoomed slavery, Fr. Micth Pakwa said that once on tv or the radio.Maybe I will call “Open Line” on Wed. and get back to you.

This is also not correct and not the catholic position. Slavery as you are noting is morally illicit but that is not true for slavery in toto. Indentured servatude is a licit form of slavery.

 

[stanley123]

According to the New Testatment, slaves are to obey their masters:
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. "(Eph. 6:5-6)

 

[stanley123]

According to the following site:
“Columbus was the first to engage in slavery in the Americas. The Taino were forced to mine for gold for him. Those who refused were killed or had their hands cut off and were left to bleed to death.
Shiploads of Taino were taken to Spain to be sold as slaves.”
nativevillage.org/Editorials/Columbus%20Day%20European%20Invasion.Papal%20Bull.htm

According to
The Bull Inter Caetera (Alexander VI.) May 4, 1493
"…our beloved son, Christopher Columbus, a man assuredly worthy and of the highest recommendations "

 

[Ortho]

mosher:

That is not quite correct. The moral aspect associated with this is internal freedom which remains in tack. Some may claim that in this case it was morally correct to do what was done for the sake of the soul of the child. I am not prepared to assert that just yet.

I would think those who consider it morally correct to take a kid for the sake of his soul would consider that OK today, too. And tomorrow?

 

[Ortho]

mosher:

It is only similar in the act of taking. The Islamic taking however is not a good because it is going from truth to non-truth in matters of faith.

I suspect philosophers would disagree about what happens to be true in this case.

 

[mosher]

stanley123:

According to the following site:
“Columbus was the first to engage in slavery in the Americas. The Taino were forced to mine for gold for him. Those who refused were killed or had their hands cut off and were left to bleed to death.
Shiploads of Taino were taken to Spain to be sold as slaves.”
nativevillage.org/Editorials/Columbus%20Day%20European%20Invasion.Papal%20Bull.htm

According to
The Bull Inter Caetera (Alexander VI.) May 4, 1493
"…our beloved son, Christopher Columbus, a man assuredly worthy and of the highest recommendations "

Such commentary about these men is about as historically reliable as Bill Clinton. It sounds exactly like the attrocities supposedly comitted by Don Juan de Onate in New Mexico which has been throughly debunked.

 

[mosher]

Ortho:

I suspect philosophers would disagree about what happens to be true in this case.

This is not a question of philosophy per se. It is a question about revealed truth which is a matter of theology.

 

[Al_Masetti]

stanley123:

According to the following site:
“Columbus was the first to engage in slavery in the Americas. The Taino were forced to mine for gold for him. Those who refused were killed or had their hands cut off and were left to bleed to death.
Shiploads of Taino were taken to Spain to be sold as slaves.”
nativevillage.org/Editorials/Columbus%20Day%20European%20Invasion.Papal%20Bull.htm

According to
The Bull Inter Caetera (Alexander VI.) May 4, 1493
"…our beloved son, Christopher Columbus, a man assuredly worthy and of the highest recommendations "

The notion that Columbus was the first to practice slavery in the Americas is false on the very face of it. Slavery was practiced by all the local inhabitants long before Columbus arrived.

 

[Ortho]

mosher:

This is not a question of philosophy per se. It is a question about revealed truth which is a matter of theology.

So, philosophers would agree? Or is this area off limits to philosophy?

 

[mosher]

Ortho:

So, philosophers would agree? Or is this area off limits to philosophy?

A philosoper deals with the natural world and is limited to that. The Theologian deals with matters of revelation.

 

[Emly]

mosher:

This is also not correct and not the catholic position. Slavery as you are noting is morally illicit but that is not true for slavery in toto. Indentured servatude is a licit form of slavery.

What are you saying? Certainlly not that its okay to take someone from their famally and put them in chains so they can do your will? That’s my idea of it.

 

[stanley123]

Emly:

What are you saying? Certainlly not that its okay to take someone from their famally and put them in chains so they can do your will? That’s my idea of it.

Well, I think what it is - is that it is OK if the good guys do it, but it is seriously wrong if the bad guys do it.

 

[Montie_Claunch]

stanley123:

Well, I think what it is - is that it is OK if the good guys do it, but it is seriously wrong if the bad guys do it.

ahh yes. as it is with all thing under the sun.