S
stanley123
Guest
I am also interested in the answer to that question.
- Status
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
What is the objection that must be answered?
As I stated already, the context appears to be about authorizing a crusade, of which servitude of the enemies of Christendom was clearly a part. The Saracens and pagans who for centuries were attacking the Iberian Peninsula did the same, as this was the common practice of warfare throughout the crusades. What doctrinal significance does this have?
We’ve already established that according to Catholic doctrine, just war, just capital punishment, and just slavery was and still is Catholic doctrine. Yet, there are unjust forms of slavery, ie. chattel slavery, which was condemned by popes in the 1400s, 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, 1800s and at Vatican II. The doctrine has not changed.
According Catholic author Mark Brumley, in his article entitled Let My People Go (This Rock: July/August 1999),
The bull you cite connotes this kind of just servitude. It may very well have been unjustly executed, as “just wars” can be unjustly executed. But that has little affect on the doctrine of just war, nor on the doctrine of just servitude. The pope by no means authorized the King of portugal to enslave Christians who resided in the lands he conquered, which would have been unjust chattel slavery.
Furthermore, the point which appears to be escaping michaelmac’s and your grasp is concisely explained by the Protestant article I linked to above 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
(christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/128/53.0.html)
Your thesis seems to imply that sins of popes or priests equates to the doctrine of Church. By that logic, fornication must have been approved doctrine of the Catholic Church, as popes have also fornicated. Idolatry must have been Jewish doctrine, as much of Judaism committed such sins in the OT, right? Yet, such logic is absurd. It lacks even an introductory understanding dogmatic theology.
Doctrine on slavery is not derived from bulls authorizing a specific king to conquer the enemies of Christendom. Such bulls are not primarily and exercise of the pope’s teaching authority, but are an exercise of his governing authority. The bull you cite is about authorizing a crusade and the servitude of those who are deemed enemies of Christendom. This merely reinforces that there exists a difference bewteen just servitude and chattel slavery.
The US Constitution recognized this difference, and so does the Catholic Church. Enemies of the state and criminals can and have been given forced labor in accord with international laws. You may not like this practice either, but you will have to take that up with the federal government and international treaties.
As for the topic of this thread, it is about what the Church teaches about the morality of slavery. As stated by many sources already cited, before and after Vatican II, there are just forms of slavery and unjust forms according to Catholic doctrine, just as there are for just war and just capital punishment. All of these are ripe for abuse in practice, and so in practice the Church is opposed to war, capital punishment and slavery, although Catholic doctrine continues to affirm that these things are not inherently evil.
S
stanley123
Guest
When you have a situation like:
“in 1488 Pope Innocent VIII accepted a gift of a hundred Moorish slaves from King Ferdinand of Aragon, giving some of them to his favorite cardinals."
*or *
“The first transnational, institutional endorsement of African slavery occurred in 1452 when Pope Nicholas V issued the bull Dum Diversas, which granted King Afonso V or Portugal the right to reduce to “perpetual slavery” all Saracens and pagans and other infidels and enemies of Christ” in West Africa.”
yale.edu/glc/events/race/Sweet.pdf
it looks like the Church has changed its teaching and practice on the issue of enslaving people.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Thanks for your opinion. I agree instead with the Pulitzer-prize nominee and Protestant author and Sociologist Dr. Rodney Stark’s article on the subject.
S
stanley123
Guest
It is not just my opinion. For example:
“Dr. George Brest, a non-Muslim historian says, “Christianity did not object to slavery. Politically or economically, it did not encourage the believers to oppose the traditions of their generations as regards slavery. Christianity did not even discuss the problem and said nothing against the rights of slave owners. It did not urge slaves to demand their freedom and did not basically ask to free the slaves.” “
“Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed.” (Timothy I 6:1)
“As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you.” (Leviticus 25:44)
See:
http://www.submission.org/christians/slavery.html
T
tjmiller
Guest
Every great civilization has been built on the backs of slaves.
Give us more.
We need them.
Give us more.
We need them.
S
stanley123
Guest
Would you like to volunteer? Or are you going to impose slavery on someone else by force of armed weapons? I don’t
see where you have the right to do that.
According to the Catholic encyclopedia online:
newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm
"The fact that slavery, tempered with many humane restrictions, was permitted under the Mosaic law would have sufficed to prevent the institution form being condemned by Christian teachers as absolutely immoral. They, following the example of St. Paul, implicitly accept slavery as not in itself incompatible with the Christian Law. The apostle counsels slaves to obey their masters, and to bear with their condition patiently. This estimate of slavery continued to prevail till it became fixed in the systematized ethical teaching of the schools; and so it remained without any conspicuous modification till towards the end of the eighteenth century. "
In other words, slavery was considered to be acceptable, until the end of the eighteenth century, but after that the teaching of the Church changed on the issue.
T
tjmiller
Guest
Yes.
I volunteer.
For the greater good.
But if I volunteer, can I be a slave?
I volunteer.
For the greater good.
But if I volunteer, can I be a slave?
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
You hope for this for an obviously biased reason, which the award-winning Sociologist Dr. Stark seems to be lacking. We get that you want the Church to have changed her doctrine so that one day, you can have women priests. Tell you what…start holding your breath now and see how long your much anticipated “change” to the doctrine on women priest takes.
As for me, I will breath easy knowing that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” (John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis).
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Yes, as this is one of the historical forms of just-title servitude.
From Fr. Martin D. O’Keefe, S.J., Known from the Things that Are - Fundamental Theory of the Moral Life, Imprimatur (1984):
"Slavery presents the risk of moral evil in many ways (chiefly in that it presents the potential for multiple abuse); but one cannot say that, as an institution, it is intrinsically evil…* It is possible for certain forms of slavery to be moral…**a life sentence in a penitentiary is a form of slavery, after all. And the sort of indentured service by which the ancestors of many Americans arrived in this country was certainly moral enough, even though in some cases perhaps harsh… it should also be said that the sort of slavery of blacks that was common in this country in past centuries was morally evil" *(Fr. Martin D. O’Keefe, S.J., Known from the Things that Are - Fundamental Theory of the Moral Life, Gonzaga University, 1985,pg. 225)
T
tjmiller
Guest
Ipso facto, slavery can be inherently good.
S
stanley123
Guest
In addition to being a lie, this is off the topic of the post.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I think it pertains to the topic, as Dr. Stark has written books and the article linked to above regarding slavery and Christianity.
What part is a lie? Stark being a Dr.? Stark being a award-winning sociologist? Or that you want women priests and propose the supposed “change” to doctrine as your basis for hope?
I base the latter on this statement from you…
This is right out of Fr. Philip Kaufman’s pathetic “dissenter’s handbook” called Why You Can Disagree and Remain a Faithful Catholic. (oddly enough, his book lacks an Imprimatur from the Church).
Dr. Stark has no stake in such an agenda, and is simply writing as an expert in sociology, especially with respect to religion.
If this is off-topic, then you probably shouldn’t have brought it up initially in post #48.
T
tjmiller
Guest
"expert sociologist "-
an oxymoron!
an oxymoron!
S
stanley123
Guest
Another lie. This was a question concerning whether or not Catholicism could change its teaching on women priests. I made no such statement that I wanted such a change.
You sir are a damned liar, if you claim that I “want women priests and propose the supposed “change” to doctrine as your basis for hope”.
- Status