Slavery

[stanley123]

mosher:

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.

According to the wikipedia:
"The genocide and atrocious acts committed by the Spanish against the natives (the Tainos in particular) are well documented in terrifying detail by Bartolomé de Las Casas in his letters and book A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies."

 

[stanley123]

mosher:

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.

Not really.You have nothing to rely this opinion of yours on. According to the wikipedia:
“Columbus is also viewed as a villain for transporting Native Americans to Europe for sale as slaves. There is no evidence of any previous trans-Atlantic voyages that transported slaves for sale. Thus, he was the first known European to transport slaves eastward across the Atlantic, and so is seen by some as the founder of the Atlantic slave trade in which millions of Africans were transported westward across the Atlantic for sale as slaves in the atrocity of the Middle Passage.”
But
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 "

 

[itsjustdave1988]

stanley123,

According to the wikipedia…

Do you understand how laughable it is to cite wikipedia as your source? It’s not authored by scholars, but is a “free encyclopedia THAT ANYONE CAN EDIT.” You can make it say anything you want it to say, until some other shmo edits your revisions.

In response to your rather one-sided propoganda campaign…

Racial slavery began in large-scale during the 15th century and was formally condemned as early as 1435. Pope Eugene IV in 1435 wrote to Bishop Ferdinand of Lanzarote in his Bull, Sicut Dudum:

"…They [the Spanish] have deprived the natives [of the Canary Islands] of their property or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery, sold them to other persons and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them… We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands…who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money… The Popes and Slavery by Fr. Joel S. Panzer (Alba House, 1996), p. 8]

 

[Brendan]

itsjustdave1988:

In response to stanlye123’s one-sided propoganda campaign…

Racial slavery began in large-scale during the 15th century and was formally condemned as early as 1435. Pope Eugene IV in 1435 wrote to Bishop Ferdinand of Lanzarote in his Bull, Sicut Dudum:

Dave,

Don’t forget the part of the Bull where the Pope Eugene excommunicates anyone who did not comply with the Bull and release the slaves.

And there is also Pope John VIII in 837, who wrote

There is one thing about which we should give you a paternal admonition, and unless you emend, you incur a great sin, and for this reason, you will not increase gain, as you hope, but guilt. … many in your area, being taken captive by pagans, are sold and are bought by your people and held under the yoke of slavery. It is evident that it is religious duty and holy, as becomes Christians, that when your people have bought them from the Greeks themselves, for the love of Christ they set them free, and receive gain not from men, but from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Hence we exhort you and in fatherly love command that when you redeem some captives from them, for the salvation of your soul, you let them go free.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Thank you Brendan. Here’s some more that perhaps Stanley123 can add to his library of information on the topic…

Pope Paul III in 1537 issued a Bull against slavery, entitled Sublimis Deus, to the universal Church. He wrote against the practice of the Spanish and Portuguese who were colonizing South America:

“The exalted God loved the human race so much that He created man in such a condition that he was not only a sharer in good as are other creatures, but also that he would be able to reach and see face to face the inaccessible and invisible Supreme Good… Seeing this and envying it, the enemy of the human race, who always opposes all good men so that the race may perish, has thought up a way, unheard of before now, by which he might impede the saving word of God from being preached to the nations. He (Satan) has stirred up some of his allies who, desiring to satisfy their own avarice, are presuming to assert far and wide that the Indians…be reduced to our service like brute animals, under the pretext that they are lacking the Catholic faith. And they reduce them to slavery, treating them with afflictions they would scarcely use with brute animals… by our Apostolic Authority decree and declare by these present letters that the same Indians and all other peoples - even though they are outside the faith - …should not be deprived of their liberty… Rather they are to be able to use and enjoy this liberty and this ownership of property freely and licitly, and are not to be reduced to slavery…” [Ibid., pp.79-81]Papal condemnations of slavery were repeated by Popes Gregory XIV (1591), Urban VIII (1639), Innocent XI (1686), Benedict XIV (1741), and Piux VII (1815).

What I’d like to know is WHO ELSE stood against slavery as the popes did? What other Church or government in the 1400s and 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s spoke out against racial slavery, hmmmmm???

 

[itsjustdave1988]

One more…

1839, Pope Gregory XVI issued a Bull, entitled In Supremo, which also clearly condemned racial slavery:*“We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples.” *[Ibid., pp.101]
If you want a scholarly source on the topic, I recommend Fr. Joel Panzer’s book The Popes and Slavery (Alba House, 1996). That way you receive more than just the propoganda that wikipedia and Stanley123 have to offer.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

You may also be interested in this article from the Protestant magazine, Christianity Today, by Rodney Stark (2003)…

The Truth About the Catholic Church and Slavery
The problem wasn’t that the leadership was silent. It was that almost nobody listened.
By Rodney Stark
07/18/2003

“Some Catholic writers claim that it was not until 1890 that the Roman Catholic Church repudiated slavery. A British priest has charged that this did not occur until 1965. Nonsense!”

(christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/128/53.0.html)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Montie Claunch:

I was just wondering. Through the ages what has been the churches postion on slavery? Thanks and God bless.

I hope that answers your question.

 

[stanley123]

itsjustdave1988:

One more…

1839, Pope Gregory XVI issued a Bull, entitled In Supremo, which also clearly condemned racial slavery:"We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples." [Ibid., pp.101]

If you want a scholarly source on the topic, I recommend Fr. Joel Panzer’s book The Popes and Slavery (Alba House, 1996). That way you receive more than just the propoganda that wikipedia and Stanley123 have to offer.

It looks like the RCC is contradicting itself on the topic of slavery because in

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.

and in

1866 AD

The Holy Office in an instruction signed by Pope Pius IX

declares: Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature,

is not at all contary to the natural and divine law, and there can

be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by

approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons …

It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be

sold, bought, exchanged or given".

If the Catholic Church can change its teaching on slavery, can it change its teaching on other things such as women priests?

 

[stanley123]

itsjustdave1988:

If you want a scholarly source on the topic, I recommend Fr. Joel Panzer’s book The Popes and Slavery (Alba House, 1996). That way you receive more than just the propoganda that wikipedia and Stanley123 have to offer.

The book is not entirely honest because Father Panzer is not writing from a neutral point of view. For example, Father Panzer writes about the the work of the Catholic priest, Bartolomeo de las Casas, in ending the enslavement of the indigenous peoples by the Spanish colonists. But on the other hand, Fr. Panzer is completely silent about De las Casas’ suggestion that Africans be used as slaves instead.
Also do you deny what was written in the wikipedia that:
"The genocide and atrocious acts committed by the Spanish against the natives (the Tainos in particular) are well documented in terrifying detail by Bartolomé de Las Casas in his letters and book A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies."

 

[Brendan]

stanley123:

If the Catholic Church can change its teaching on slavery, can it change its teaching on other things such as women priests?

It isn’t.

As noted, there are several forms of slavery. Biblical slavery, the use of those captured in war, or those convicted of crime, can be just. (we note this as God Himself commanded it at time)

This type of slavery is commonly called indentured servitude. The person is not considered owned property, only their labor is. And the person is released after a set period of time.

The use of the labor of criminals also falls under this catagory of slavery. From the older chain gangs to the more common sight of labor battalions picking up trash off the freeway sholders, or making licence plates. This type of slavery is permitted by the Church as long as the punishment is just.

Chattle slavery, where the person himself is considered property, is a violation of the inate human dignity of the person and has ALWAYS been condemmed by the Church.

 

[mosher]

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.

Read the words that you quoted again. I said very specifically that that form of slavery is not licit but that indentured servatude is perfectly licit.

 

[mosher]

itsjustdave1988:

stanley123,

Do you understand how laughable it is to cite wikipedia as your source? It’s not authored by scholars, but is a “free encyclopedia THAT ANYONE CAN EDIT.” You can make it say anything you want it to say, until some other shmo edits your revisions.

In response to your rather one-sided propoganda campaign…

Racial slavery began in large-scale during the 15th century and was formally condemned as early as 1435. Pope Eugene IV in 1435 wrote to Bishop Ferdinand of Lanzarote in his Bull, Sicut Dudum:

"…They [the Spanish] have deprived the natives [of the Canary Islands] of their property or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery, sold them to other persons and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them… We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands…who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money… The Popes and Slavery by Fr. Joel S. Panzer (Alba House, 1996), p. 8]

Thank you … I was going to post something similar to the credibility of wikipedia.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

stanley123:

…
If the Catholic Church can change its teaching on slavery, can it change its teaching on other things such as women priests?

Ah…now we see your agenda. You are desparate to see “change” so as to justifiy your dissent. Kinda transparent, though, don’t you think?

Well…change in discipline does occur, which includes changes in canon law. And even changes in doctrine may occur, in the sense that the Church grows in its understanding of the deposit of faith. However, you’ll just have to find some other more liberal denomination that suits your own personal tastes if you want women priests. Perhaps the Anglicans are more easily swayed by your poor polemics.

As for the Catholic Church’s view of slavery, there is STILL just forms of slavery which are by no means immoral. So your desparate polemic to argue for women priests fails miserably.

Fr. Panzer’s book has an Imprimatur and does a far better job than you have in explaining the Church’s historic teaching of Slavery. The following article also has an Imprimatur of the Catholic Church (November 3, 1999). It describes the Catholic Church’s view on slavery far better than your caricature does…

Slavery and the Catholic Church
users.binary.net/polycarp/slave.html

 

[stanley123]

mosher:

Thank you … I was going to post something similar to the credibility of wikipedia.

Anyone can make a general statement that wikipedia is not to be trusted. But I am asking about specific statements, and specific things that occurred in history, not one general condemnation without particulars. Do you deny any part of the following statements:

“The genocide and atrocious acts committed by the Spanish against the natives (the Tainos in particular) are well documented in terrifying detail by Bartolomé de Las Casas in his letters and book A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies.”

“Columbus is also viewed as a villain for transporting Native Americans to Europe for sale as slaves. There is no evidence of any previous trans-Atlantic voyages that transported slaves for sale. Thus, he was the first known European to transport slaves eastward across the Atlantic, and so is seen by some as the founder of the Atlantic slave trade in which millions of Africans were transported westward across the Atlantic for sale as slaves in the atrocity of the Middle Passage.”
But
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 "

 

[stanley123]

itsjustdave1988:

The following article has an Imprimatur of the Catholic Church (November 3, 1999). It describes the Catholic Church’s view on slavery far better than your caricature does…

Slavery and the Catholic Church
[users.binary.net/polycarp/slave.html](http://users.binary.net/polycarp/slave.html)

However, did you see where it addressed the following:
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.

and in

1866 AD

The Holy Office in an instruction signed by Pope Pius IX

declares: Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature,

is not at all contary to the natural and divine law, and there can

be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by

approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons …

It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be

sold, bought, exchanged or given".

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Stanley123,

You seem to be shadow boxing with someone who denies the legitimacy of slavery. I wholeheartedly affirm that there are legitimate forms of slavery and the Catholic Church TODAY still insists upon it.

For example, the slavery of the people of Israel in Babylonia was just punishment from God. According to John Paul II…

“The Second Book of Chronicles reminds us that the deportation to Babylon was a punishment inflicted by Yahweh on his people for their grave sins, especially that of idolatry. Nonetheless, the period of slavery was meant for their repentance and conversion” (John Paul II, Homily at St Gaudentius Parish , 9 March 1997).

So, no doctrinal reversal as you would have us believe. However, the Church without denying just capital punishment or just war in doctrine, asserts that in practice these things are ripe for abuse and can be evil in their particular practice. Likewise for slavery. If all you have is a “change” in Catholic practice, then your polemics are unconvincing and you should look to the Anglicans for your desire to have women priests.

 

[stanley123]

itsjustdave1988:

Stanley123,

You seem to be shadow boxing with someone who denies the legitimacy of slavery. I wholeheartedly affirm that there are legitimate forms of slavery and the Catholic Church TODAY still insists upon it…

Does this mean that you do agree that:
“Columbus is also viewed as a villain for transporting Native Americans to Europe for sale as slaves. There is no evidence of any previous trans-Atlantic voyages that transported slaves for sale. Thus, he was the first known European to transport slaves eastward across the Atlantic, and so is seen by some as the founder of the Atlantic slave trade in which millions of Africans were transported westward across the Atlantic for sale as slaves in the atrocity of the Middle Passage.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Stanely123,

Putting aside your disdain for the Catholic Church for a moment, can you tell me which Church or Government opposed racial slavery with as much equal force as was opposed by the papal bulls I’ve quoted above? Who? Where are the non-Catholic decrees which equal the force of *Sublimis Deus *(1537) of Paul III?

**"…by our Apostolic Authority decree and declare by these present letters that the same Indians and all other peoples … are not to be reduced to slavery" **(Sublimis Deus)

Which Government opposed unjust forms of slavery with such authority and when?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

stanley123:

Does this mean that you do agree that:
“Columbus is also viewed as a villain for transporting Native Americans to Europe for sale as slaves. There is no evidence of any previous trans-Atlantic voyages that transported slaves for sale. Thus, he was the first known European to transport slaves eastward across the Atlantic, and so is seen by some as the founder of the Atlantic slave trade in which millions of Africans were transported westward across the Atlantic for sale as slaves in the atrocity of the Middle Passage.”

I have no evidence of what Columbus did or didn’t do personally. Neither have you presented any historical evidence. Quoting wikipedia is scholastically worthless. You might as well quote yourself as your own authority on the matter, it would be just as convincing.