The morality of conquest sanctioned by popes

  • Thread starter Thread starter angell1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

angell1

Guest
specifically in regards to this papal bull inter caetera to the Spanish

https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Inter_caetera_by_Pope_Alexander_VI_May_4_1493

there are also similar ones to the Portuguese, dum diversas and romanus pontifex in regards to African territories which even allow for enslavement

how does this square with just war theory? or catholic teaching in general? he does seem to be giving the right to rule over newly found territories, how can he even give territories that belong to someone else?

was the pope just wrong in this regard? I realize he is writing to specific monarchs so not infallible teaching but still, this is something the church is accused of today. It’s hard to understand, let alone try to argue with or explain to people who say the church allowed countries to steal their land.

anyways I hope my question is specific enough now
 
I would like to point out that conquered land was not exactly unknown before European colonisation of the Americas, Africa, and some others. Contrary to what the late Russell Means said (may he rest in peace) conquest was a pretty universal thing. Seems disingenuous to criticise one group over it, and not others. And how does one define conquest? Is bringing the gospel to Pagans conquest? I would argue, it is not.
 
Great topic. I know not enough about this to definitively comment but some questions would be interesting to help shape this:
What were the territories in question
What was the state of the civilization in the territories
Who were the allies of the monarchs, if there was a coalition?
We should also define enslavement and conquest
Did the Papa give justification and reason in the papal bull?
 
Pope Alexander VI’s motives and deeds have been greatly distorted throughout history. To properly view Alexander’s motives, we must immerse ourselves in the problems of the day.

Let us set aside the Pontifex Romanus, as the extent to which it was used or even originally meant has, again, been distorted.

Pope Alexander was presented with a dilemma. He knew that Christian missionaries had already ventured to the new world long before Christopher Columbus. In the 1100s, a bishop had been appointed for the western Norse settlements which composed of “Iceland, Greenland, Vinland and all the lands to the south”. So too, Leif Erikson and Christopher Columbus had both been inspired by St. Brendan the Navigator’s Navigatio which some interpret as describing the first true discovery of the new world. This is backed up by some controversial archaeological evidence of Chi-Rhos, Irish architecture and alphabet being found at some native american dwellings in New England from the 7th century. If you read ancient Cherokee from this time period all you have to do is turn your head at a right angle and you can read it in the ancient Irish language (Cherokee was written side to side and Olgham was written vertically).

Pope Alexander wanted to protect these Christian (or formerly Christian peoples). He specifically states that the people of these lands are close to Christianity already. The Pope was concerned, however, about the abuses being committed against these peoples by Christopher Columbus’s son, who was left in charge of his colony. Columbus’s son was committing atrocities against the local populace which went against Spanish law. Pope Alexander was trying to force all explorers to treat natives with the respect and dignity due to them under Spanish law.

If you notice, the encyclical repeatedly mentions ‘other countries’. Pope Alexander is not just speaking of other European countries. In some instances, he is speaking of the other nations of tribes which have already formed a central government. The Spanish were tasked with the protection of these native countries as much as they were tasked with the evangelization of these peoples.
(post 1 of 2)
 
(post 2 of 2)
The Encyclical actually did have positive effects. The only true act of war which we could consider ‘conquering’ would not be until 1521 when the Spanish went to war against the Mexican state of the Aztec Empire. Even then, there were extenuating circumstances. Between 1493 and 1521, the only legal action of the Spanish explorers was to found a settlement in an uninhabited stretch of coast and become friends with the surrounding tribes, slowly absorbing the native population as they converted. The only (legal) battles the Spanish were involved in were when one of their friendly tribes were attacked by or went to war against another tribe.

The Aztec situation was slightly different. Cortez had founded a small colony and made friends with local tribes. The tribes went to Cortez for advice. The local Imperial Aztec tax collector was gouging the tribes far beyond what was required of them by the Empire. Cortez advised the tribes to imprison the tribute collector for his crimes to await a ruling by the Empire. Instead, the tribe simply imprisoned him and broke ties with the Empire. Cortez, seeing the mistake, freed the Aztec official. After discussing the issue with the tribe, the tribe sent Cortez and 20 companies of their soldiers to secure an alliance with another local tribe. The tribe, hearing what had happened thought Cortez was hostile and thus attacked him. The resulting events devolved into all out warfare. The fall Aztec Empire was precipitated by bad reactions to misunderstandings.

In short, the bull has nothing really to do with just war theory. It was an attempt to avoid war and atrocities. Unfortunately, some used it against it’s original purpose.

Pope Alexander also had a slight vested interest in preserving peace in this part of the world. At the time, tobacco was only found via trading with the native tribes in the new world. After the Spanish had made their original presentation to him about the bounties of the new world, he was rarely seen afterwards without a cigar in his hand or mouth. When Pope Alexander was presented with the first shipload of gold from the new world to adorn St. Mary Major’s basilica in Rome, he reportedly said “What is a church going to do with a hundred tons of gold? If you had given me tobacco, that would be a different story!” Talk about holy smokes!
 
Last edited:
well, yes of course, everyone else was doing it too. doesn’t necessarily make it right. are there Christian principles that support conquest, seems pretty difficult to justify. and no, spreading the gospel is not necessarily conquest, since it is supposed to be done by peaceful means
 
yes, of course it was, though arguably, they are not bringing the gospel per say.
 
yes, i understand what you are saying. however, he did grant the spanish and portuguese crowns over new lands. how was he able to do that when the lands did not belong to him?
 
When it came to the Christian kingdoms of Europe in this period, the Pope had a degree of authority above the various kings and stepped in to mediate disputes between them. Pope Alexander knew that the discovery of unclaimed lands would draw any and all European nations to seek new colonies. Up to this point, the coasts of Africa had began to be embroiled in this conflict and he did not want the same violence to spread to the new world. Thus, with ‘granting’ the new world to Spain, he wasn’t saying that “You now own all of the new world,” but rather “I will support your claims to your colonies from encroachment by other Christian kingdoms if you spread the Gospel among the new peoples and treat them with respect.”

The Portugese only gained a portion of the new world through a treaty which made an imaginary line through the Atlantic which separated Portugese colonial claims from Spanish ones. This treaty was mediated and guided by Pope Alexander. At the time, it was unknown that Brazil passed beyond this line. It was only later that explorers found that the area technically fell within Portugese boundaries.
 
Last edited:
was it moral for them to make new colonies when other people were already there? and hie bulls to the Portuguese certainly does not make it sound like “treat all natives as equals”
 
The reason why the tone with the Portuguese in his bulls is different is because the vast majority of Portugal’s colonies were in Africa at the time. He was speaking of the muslim nations which inhabited the areas and constantly raided and warred against any Christian settlements. He was not speaking of the tribes in the new world.
angell1 said:
was it moral for them to make new colonies when other people were already there?
Click to expand...
That is the thing, there weren’t other people already there. New colonies were always set up in areas without a permanent settlement. The tribes of the new world did not have concepts of land ownership and so most welcomed small colonies and outposts as simply neighbors.

This type of colonization was quite common for the tribes of the area. If a village got too big, then some of it’s inhabitants would leave, find an uninhabited stretch of land and build a new village. They would speak to the tribes in the areas surrounding their new home to make sure there was no conflict. If there wasn’t, then they would just call the new village home. This was how many of the tribes of the new world saw the Spanish. They were simply a small splinter of a larger tribe looking for a new home. They didn’t make trouble for their neighbors. Instead, it seemed that they brought wondrous gifts with them. So the tribes just let them be.

The Spanish colonizers did not immediately seize all land within a certain boarder. They worked the immediate land and traded with the natives. Quite often, they received permission from the local tribes to establish new outposts and trade relations which expanded their colony. It was only through trade and evangelization that the natives began to live in the Spanish cities and follow their laws. Once the colony grew large enough to be self sufficient and able to protect itself, many tribes actually petitioned inclusion into the Kingdom of Spain because it protected them from warring tribes or oppressive local native kingdoms or empires (like the Aztecs).
 
fair enough, the aztech empire does seem like it was quite brutal, however some of the conquisadors did seem to have acted horrifically with some of the mayans and later the incas
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top