The Pope Endorsed Slavery???

  • Thread starter Thread starter Denise_Shae
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Denise_Shae

Guest
In helping my daughter with her history assignment, I happened to stumble on this site:
Slavery and Christianity, which makes the following claims (as well as others):
After the Dark Middle Ages during which Roman Catholicism could not get grip on the masses it took the doctrine ‘rationalism’ (invented by Descartes) as way of thinking. Peculiarly after blessing by the ‘fundamentalist’ protestant Immanuel Kant use of rational logic did the trick, now a period of industrialism started AND Roman Catholicism was accepted as leading religion.
Click to expand...
Anyway, the split between church and politics or mind-body split is a Roman Catholic myth. And this way of thinking later allowed European powers to export slavery all over the world, under the guidance of the pope. It caused slavery Roman style in the America’s, and through the English and Dutch invaders in South Africa (Apartheid). But in the end the Roman Catholic doctrine became clever, and hided slavery by using difficult rational terms.
Click to expand...
I always thought the Church didn’t approve of Descartes and his “rationalism”.

This is the first time I’ve ever heard of such claims against the Church.

I’m still trying to figure out whether this site is Anti-Catholic or Anti-Christianity, in general. :confused:
Or even if the author actually believes what he/she has written.

Anyone know where these ideas came from (or why)?

Thanks and God Bless!
 
Denise_Shae said:
In helping my daughter with her history assignment, I happened to stumble on this site:
Slavery and Christianity, which makes the following claims (as well as others):

I always thought the Church didn’t approve of Descartes and his “rationalism”.

This is the first time I’ve ever heard of such claims against the Church.

I’m still trying to figure out whether this site is Anti-Catholic or Anti-Christianity, in general. :confused:
Or even if the author actually believes what he/she has written.

Anyone know where these ideas came from (or why)?

Thanks and God Bless!
Click to expand...
Does this help ?

From the Bull Romanus Pontifex (1454):

…We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso – to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit…

Complete text here: http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/indig-romanus-pontifex.html

Bulls tend to be written in very long sentences - hundreds of words long :); it’s advisable to read the whole Bull to make sure one does not misunderstand what it says.

Even so, I don’t see how this Bull escapes being a charter for what would now be rejected (surely rightly ?) as imperialism.

=--------------------------=

Background

The kingdoms of Portugal and Castile had been jockeying for position and possession of colonial territories along the African coast for more than a century prior to Columbus’ “discovery” of lands in the western seas. On the theory that the Pope was an arbitrator between nations, each kingdom had sought and obtained Papal bulls at various times to bolster its claims, on the grounds that its activities served to spread Christianity.
The bull Romanus Pontifex is an important example of the Papacy’s claim to spiritual lordship of the whole world and of its role in regulating relations among Christian princes and between Christians and “unbelievers” (“heathens” and “infidels”). This bull became the basis for Portugal’s later claim to lands in the “new world,” a claim which was countered by Castile and the bull Inter caetera in 1493.
An English translation of Romanus Pontifex is reproduced below, as published in European Treaties bearing on the History of the United States and its Dependencies to 1648, Frances Gardiner Davenport, editor, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1917, Washington, D.C., at pp. 20-26. The original text in Latin is in the same volume, at pp. 13-20.
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:
Does this help ?

From the Bull Romanus Pontifex (1454):

…We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso – to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit…

Complete text here: http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/indig-romanus-pontifex.html

Bulls tend to be written in very long sentences - hundreds of words long :); it’s advisable to read the whole Bull to make sure one does not misunderstand what it says.

Even so, I don’t see how this Bull escapes being a charter for what would now be rejected (surely rightly ?) as imperialism.

=--------------------------=

Background

The kingdoms of Portugal and Castile had been jockeying for position and possession of colonial territories along the African coast for more than a century prior to Columbus’ “discovery” of lands in the western seas. On the theory that the Pope was an arbitrator between nations, each kingdom had sought and obtained Papal bulls at various times to bolster its claims, on the grounds that its activities served to spread Christianity.
The bull Romanus Pontifex is an important example of the Papacy’s claim to spiritual lordship of the whole world and of its role in regulating relations among Christian princes and between Christians and “unbelievers” (“heathens” and “infidels”). This bull became the basis for Portugal’s later claim to lands in the “new world,” a claim which was countered by Castile and the bull Inter caetera in 1493.
An English translation of Romanus Pontifex is reproduced below, as published in European Treaties bearing on the History of the United States and its Dependencies to 1648, Frances Gardiner Davenport, editor, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1917, Washington, D.C., at pp. 20-26. The original text in Latin is in the same volume, at pp. 13-20.
Click to expand...
Hi Michael,

Peace be with you. 🙂

Thanks for posting the info and links.

I need to read the documents a couple times, in order to mentally translate them into laymen’s language, so I can fully comprehend them. :o
(I have a terrible time reading Papal Encyclicals)

God Bless!
 
Denise_Shae said:
Hi Michael,

Peace be with you. 🙂

Thanks for posting the info and links.

I need to read the documents a couple times, in order to mentally translate them into laymen’s language, so I can fully comprehend them. :o
(I have a terrible time reading Papal Encyclicals)

God Bless!
Click to expand...

I hope this hasn’t confused things for you 🙂 :o​

The longest Latin sentence I know of in a Church document is in the Acts of the Council of Vienne (1311 to 1312): it was 823 words long. This looks like another long one.

I like your signature 🙂 ##
 
Hi Denise Shae

I’m Henk Tuten, the author of the article that confused you
I happened to stumble on your question

No, though I’m not religious, I’m not anti christianity.
I have my serious doubts about catholicism in top being much related to the ‘all humans are equal’ message of Jesus.
And I try to give facts that show ‘Rome’ even was pro slavery (of ‘heathens’),
perfectly assisted by the answer to you of Gottle of Geer

‘Rome’ was a powerhouse, both as Empire and as Church of Rome.
Rome needed slavery politically, and never aimed seiously at abolishing slavery
 
Anyway, the split between church and politics or mind-body split is a Roman Catholic myth. And this way of thinking later allowed European powers to export slavery all over the world, under the guidance of the pope. It caused slavery Roman style in the America’s, and through the English and Dutch invaders in South Africa (Apartheid). But in the end the Roman Catholic doctrine became clever, and hided slavery by using difficult rational terms.
Click to expand...
We can nip this in the bud real easy. Everyone who has studied American history knows that the U.S. was a Protestant country and anti-Catholicism was rampant. So the Catholic Church could not impose slavery or any other thing even if it wanted to, which it didn’t.
 
Hi Rick

It’s astonishing how little Americans know about their religion (no offense)
Of course protestants as members of a deviant branch of catholicism hate catholics, but in basic subjects are not different from catholics.
Protestants were the ones who pure for profit used slavery in South Africa and The New World
The biggest slave trader was the protestant Dutch VOC

The hero of protestantism Immanuel Kant said: “Blackness is ugliness and stupidity”
 
henkt said:
Hi Rick

It’s astonishing how little Americans know about their religion (no offense)
Click to expand...
What exactly “don’t I know”? Or, for that matter, what exactly did I say? All I did was link to three papal documents relevant to the matter of official Church views on slavery. I made no comment at all.
 
Hi Rick

You don’t seem to know anymore why you gave that specific answer to my question
Although protestants are a deviant branch, they are part of catholicism

Catholicism had no problem with slavery, and protestantism even less
Protestantism brought the ‘slavery of heathens’ attitude of catholicism to The New World

Catholicism did great effort to deny its role in slavery.
So you’ find a lot of papal bulls saying so
Not really convincing

All the best
 
Denise_Shae said:
In helping my daughter with her history assignment, I happened to stumble on this site:
Slavery and Christianity, which makes the following claims (as well as others):

I always thought the Church didn’t approve of Descartes and his “rationalism”.

This is the first time I’ve ever heard of such claims against the Church.

I’m still trying to figure out whether this site is Anti-Catholic or Anti-Christianity, in general. :confused:
Or even if the author actually believes what he/she has written.

Anyone know where these ideas came from (or why)?

Thanks and God Bless!
Click to expand...
The Church, never supported slavery nor did any Pope. The Church, in fact always condemed slavery, and did in fact end slavery in Europe from the time of Rome, through it’s end and up until the Muslim invasion.

The Muslim invasion however, introduced a bit of an X-Factor. Remember that in Spain in particular (cited by the professor discussed in the This Rock article posted earlier) had to live with and deal with Muslims controlling nearly the whole of the Penninsula from 711 to 1492 when they were finally kicked out (Columbus sailed the Ocean blue because Ferdenand and Isabella were celebrating). The Mulsims saw nothing wrong with Slavery, and practiced it in the territories they controlled.

Unfortunetly the Christians who came into long term close contact with them, were in fact heavily influenced by them which lead to many heresies like Iconoclasty, having multiple wives in some cases, being allowed to divorous simply by saying divorous 3 times and even, practicing the evil that is slavery. Because these (formally) Catholic heretics and otherwise Catholic sinners bastardize and do not fully hold to all the teachings of the Church, does not suggest that the Church ever supported slavery.
 
henkt said:
Hi Rick

You don’t seem to know anymore why you gave that specific answer to my question
Although protestants are a deviant branch, they are part of catholicism

Catholicism had no problem with slavery, and protestantism even less
Protestantism brought the ‘slavery of heathens’ attitude of catholicism to The New World

Catholicism did great effort to deny its role in slavery.
So you’ find a lot of papal bulls saying so
Not really convincing

All the best
Click to expand...
I’d like to see you support your assertion.
 
crazzeto said:
The Church, never supported slavery nor did any Pope. The Church, in fact always condemed slavery, and did in fact end slavery in Europe from the time of Rome, through it’s end and up until the Muslim invasion.
Click to expand...
The Church “tolerated” slavery for some time as the lesser of two evils and not being incompatable with natural law- before eventually condemning it absolutely:

"Primitive Christianity did not attack slavery directly; but it acted as though slavery did not exist. By inspiring the best of its children with this heroic charity, examples of which have been given above, it remotely prepared the way for the abolition of slavery. To reproach the Church of the first ages with not having condemned slavery in principle, and with having tolerated it in fact, is to blame it for not having let loose a frightful revolution, in which, perhaps, all civilization would have perished with Roman society. newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm

“Christianity found slavery in possession throughout the Roman world; and when Christianity obtained power it could not and did not attempt summarily to abolish the institution. From the beginning, however, as is shown elsewhere in this article, the Church exerted a steady powerful pressure for the immediate amelioration of the condition of the individual slave, and for the ultimate abolition of a system which, even in its mildest form, could with difficulty be reconciled with the spirit of the Gospel and the doctrine that all men are brothers in that Divine sonship which knows no distinction of bond and free. From the beginning **the Christian moralist did not condemn slavery **as in se, or essentially, against the natural law or natural justice. 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.” newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm

Apparently, as of the publication of the Encyclopedica in 1917, slavery had not been condemned as “absolutely” immoral.

Slavery was declared an “infamy” in 1965:

"Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator."vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html
 
henkt said:
Hi Denise Shae

I’m Henk Tuten, the author of the article that confused you
I happened to stumble on your question

No, though I’m not religious, I’m not anti christianity.
I have my serious doubts about catholicism in top being much related to the ‘all humans are equal’ message of Jesus.
And I try to give facts that show ‘Rome’ even was pro slavery (of ‘heathens’),
perfectly assisted by the answer to you of Gottle of Geer

‘Rome’ was a powerhouse, both as Empire and as Church of Rome.
Rome needed slavery politically, and never aimed seiously at abolishing slavery
Click to expand...
Last time I checked Christ Never condemned Slavery, but told us to respond to God In whatever state we are found in. There are countless subjects that Christ never spoke on or about, Many of which were simply the common knowledge. Law & acceptable practices of the Jews & Romans of his day. Subject matter that in the overall puirpose of Christ’s life & His Gospel Message were deemed insignificant or otherwise non-noteworthy.

It is also worth noting that there is no condemnation of slavery in the Decalogue or the Old Testament even by the Jewish peoples that had long endured it. Now freedom was certainly to be preferred over servitude and we see many examples of this.

Trying to enforce today’s Moral codes upon civilizations of 2000 years ago is ludicrous. There have been many changes to Moral, & Ethical & Legal codes over the millennium. Some for the better & some for the worse. (ie: everything that Hitler did to the Jews & others were Morally justified & legal under the Third Reich.)

Does that mean that we should be oppressive to our neighbors? No. But It does recognize that there are things of the Earth & Man & things of Heaven & God.

Christ’s church on Earth has had to deal with this matter using the teachings & doctrines that have been defined & handed down. Justice, Love, Mercy & Charity being principal components of this. However direct scriptural references outlawing Slavery are hard to come by. We know the Path which we are to pursue. We have much to do in further refining our responses to God & to share that with others. 😉

Lastly direct evidence shows that slavery in several forms still exists today. Islam and its peoples & their practices being a major contributor to that current crisis.

Regards,
 
RunningMan,

I’m sorry but you’re trying to say that the Church (and Pope) ever supported slavery just because it didn’t take the issue head on right away? Durring the persecutions? I’m sorry but that’s a weak argument, I’m sorry but in the name of prudence but it wouldn’t have been prudent (or possible) for the Church to effectivly take on every single moral issue head on in such a small and weak state.

The Church would go through great lengths to end slavery, from the earliest days highly encouraging the freeing of slaves, and later on founding entire orders who’s entire purpose was to secure the freedom of slaves. So dedicated were these orders they were required to, under certain circomstances trade them selves for the slave (i.e. if the slave was going to lose their faith) until money could be secured for their freedom.

Any suggestion that the Church was ever truely friendly towards the institution of slavery is based on a bad evaluation of history.
 
I’m a little bit flabbergasted about so much historical ignorance.
Looks like fundamentalism, facts are not important, only the beliefs.
Well feel free to believe that popes are angels.

No use discussing. I stop responding

All the best

Henk Tuten
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top