Why did Pope Leo XIII approve Christopher Columbus?

[HailStarofSea]

Again, I’m going to have to continue my explanation tomorrow. It’s ridiculously late. I’m mostly done though.

Thanks for the explanation and time, but the issue still remains regarding Pope Leo XIII. Believing that slavery is morally evil doesn’t jibe with writing a papal encyclical in favor of a slave-trader? Why did the Pope honor Columbus despite his many atrocities and his lack of accomplishments related to Catholicism? Isn’t human “glory” for the worldly?

Would be very grateful if you have a reference on how Africans and Muslims rejected Catholicism to lead to condemnation of pagans ans Sarcens?

Exactly. If Native Americans weren’t people, then the entire race could legitimately be enslaved at will, since they were irrational, soulless creatures. The church had to define that they WERE people in order to prevent the Spanish and Portuguese from exploiting them as animals. Interestingly, a similar tactic was used in the nineteenth century to implement the first child labor laws. Since horses were actually treated better than some human children in factories, lawyers sued on the premise that since humans were above animals, they had to at the minimum be held to higher protections than beasts of burden.

But the problem is that Columbus’s initial voyages’ primary goal were (according to his writings) to convert the Indians even prior to De Casas activism. So genuine confusion about the “humanity” and soullessness of Indians doesn’t seem rational. Surely, Columbus had read the Old Testament where the Hebrews practiced cannibalism themselves. But the question focuses more on the Pope than on Columbus since the Pope was in a primarily moral office and not a business office.

As an aside, how do you think comparing unborn babies to animals would work now? We have laws to protect baby calves so that they won’t suffer pain. Could we also say that infants suffer pain during abortion and so they shouldn’t be killed?

 

[sedonaman]

The film is based in ACTUAL events concerning the Treaty of Madrid in 1750, and the Jesuit Reductions.

There are any number of movies based on actual events but are not very accurate historically.

In part, the movie also depicts the life of St.Roque González de Santa Cruz. It may have been dramatized for the sake of entertainment, but the film in fact communicates what a number of religious within the period recorded concerning the Missions themselves.

Black Robe is another novel, and movie in the same tradition.
…

I find all this very difficult to believe due to the current entertainment industry attitude toward religion in general and Catholicism in particular.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Please give references that you are a shoo-in for the 99% percentile of holiness, that saints are NOT in the 99% of holiness, or that 99% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Hmmmm. You stated a statistic. I challenged it. And you push the burden of proof on me. I see how you want this conversation to go…

 

[sedonaman]

… And I am also aware that 99% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Even that one ?

 

[sedonaman]

Rolltide,

I read below that Christopher Columbus was a Spanish Jew. That he was a Marrano, a Jew who pretended to be Catholic and was looking for a homeland for Jews.

huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/22/christopher-columbus-jewish_n_1534928.html

Consider the source.

 

[Rolltide]

Consider the source.

Well, the Huffington Post is certainly not a very reliable source, but the historian is an actual name, not some crackpot, so I really can’t speak to the legitimacy of the story, but it is unlikely.

 

[HailStarofSea]

Hmmmm. You stated a statistic. I challenged it. And you push the burden of proof on me. I see how you want this conversation to go…

To be fair, the burden of proof should not be on me either. You need to back up what you say and not just spend your time challenging others. Can dish but can’t take? Is starting confrontations and passive aggressively insulting others saintly behavior? You cited a statistic without any proof, please provide a reference. ESPECIALLY before you ask me to do what you refuse to do!

You are acting like a pharisee with disingenuous questions. Matthew 21:23 - 32

He had gone into the Temple and was teaching, when the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him and said, 'What authority have you for acting like this? And who gave you this authority?'

In reply Jesus said to them, 'And I will ask you a question, just one; if you tell me the answer to it, then I will tell you my authority for acting like this.

So, go ahead, tell me your **authority **for your statistics and statements, and I will prove what I say as well as you prove what you say. Fair is fair.

 

[East02West]

There are any number of movies based on actual events but are not very accurate historically.

I find all this very difficult to believe due to the current entertainment industry attitude toward religion in general and Catholicism in particular.

The various Papal bulls I cited, as well as Rolltide’s own words on the subject should suffice in communicating otherwise.

The point is, while various members of the clergy were indeed amicable to the Natives (Not all, but most), the vast majority of Spaniards who came to the New World (I’m curious about the religious significance of the phrase.) did so for the sake of acquiring wealth. That’s attested by the Catholic Encyclopedia, and the Vatican on the subject. Read through the Bulls I cited.

It’s not anti-Catholicism to discourse through the very real abuses that indeed have occurred throughout our history. The Church is composed of sinners, of which I am am the greatest sinners. What is however required, is that we learn from those errors, as opposed to making apologia for them after the fact. We’re not doing anyone any favours by dismissing them as “anti-Catholicism”, especially when a number of religious from within the period dedicated their careers to this particular cause.

As I cited previously, I am of the opinion that the Sepulveda Debates set the tone in this age for the questioning of personhood in relation to the unborn. Take that as you will.

 

[lerapt78]

Rolltide,

Thank you so much for the information. I recall reading years ago that there was a Papal decree that ordered the Spaniards to provide wages to the Native South Americans, that they had to give them a day off (on Sunday) and that the time was given off “with pay”. I don’t recall the year, so I don’t know if they were slaves that were given wages, or natives that simly did labor for the Spaniards. Do you know of this?

Also, what do you mean when you state that the Church thought of slavery in “Roman terms”??

Thanks!!

 

[Rolltide]

Rolltide,

Thank you so much for the information. I recall reading years ago that there was a Papal decree that ordered the Spaniards to provide wages to the Native South Americans, that they had to give them a day off (on Sunday) and that the time was given off “with pay”. I don’t recall the year, so I don’t know if they were slaves that were given wages, or natives that simly did labor for the Spaniards. Do you know of this?

This sounds like a later innovation. I’d have to do some research to p(name removed by moderator)oint when this was. It does sound plausible. However, it is equally plausible that the Spanish leadership in the colonies ignored the document.

Also, what do you mean when you state that the Church thought of slavery in “Roman terms”??

Go back and look at post #10 in this thread.

 

[Rolltide]

There are any number of movies based on actual events but are not very accurate historically.

I find all this very difficult to believe due to the current entertainment industry attitude toward religion in general and Catholicism in particular.

“The Mission” was made in 1982 and was nominated for an Academy Award. (It also has one of the most spectacular soundtracks of all time.) The movie is NOT perfect. For example, there are a few minor liberties taken in location so that the spectacular Iguasu Falls can be used as a backdrop. Also, the particular type of conflict being portrayed is really more indicative of ones that took place prior to 1700. The Guarani were a little more hostile by 1750 since they were so jaded by constant Spanish exploitation. Nevertheless, the film is REALLY good at exploring why missions, despite their best intentions, didn’t work out a lot of the time.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

To be fair, the burden of proof should not be on me either. You need to back up what you say and not just spend your time challenging others. Can dish but can’t take? Is starting confrontations and passive aggressively insulting others saintly behavior? You cited a statistic without any proof, please provide a reference. ESPECIALLY before you ask me to do what you refuse to do!

You are acting like a pharisee with disingenuous questions. Matthew 21:23 - 32

So, go ahead, tell me your **authority **for your statistics and statements, and I will prove what I say as well as you prove what you say. Fair is fair.

Your post certainly speaks for itself. I have no better response. Thank you.

 

[Rolltide]

Thanks for the explanation and time, but the issue still remains regarding Pope Leo XIII. Believing that slavery is morally evil doesn’t jibe with writing a papal encyclical in favor of a slave-trader?

Prior to the 1400s, slavery was seen as bad, but sometimes acceptable. A very good comparison would be to the way the Church regards the death penalty today.

Why did the Pope honor Columbus despite his many atrocities and his lack of accomplishments related to Catholicism? Isn’t human “glory” for the worldly?

Again, this is because enslavement in 1492 was still considered marginally acceptable, because it was usually practiced as something more akin to a harsher version of indentured servitude.

Would be very grateful if you have a reference on how Africans and Muslims rejected Catholicism to lead to condemnation of pagans ans Sarcens?

Well, this is a bit harder for me because the documents predate my area of expertise, which is from the 1400s onward. However, Islam would have initially been seen as a heresy, not a separate religion. They would have been condemned under the same justifications that Protestants were during the Reformation. Basically, if a group of people had heard of Christianity and NOT accepted it, they were considered lost souls.

But the problem is that Columbus’s initial voyages’ primary goal were (according to his writings) to convert the Indians even prior to De Casas activism.

Incorrect. The primary goal was to find a route to Asia and make the crown and the expedition wealthy through trade with India and China. Converting natives was a bonus.

So genuine confusion about the “humanity” and soullessness of Indians doesn’t seem rational. Surely, Columbus had read the Old Testament where the Hebrews practiced cannibalism themselves.

Very few Caribbean Indians actually practiced cannibalism, and the few that did, usually only did it ritually after battles, consuming a small amount of flesh from one or two dead enemies. Nevertheless, the stories were exaggerated and served as an excuse for Spaniards to exploit the natives as subhuman savages. The bigger issue about the “soullessness” of Native Americans, however, was the fact that the Spanish realized that they MUST have been around for thousands of years without any chance of hearing about Christianity. Given their knowledge of the world at the time, this seemed virtually incomprehensible.

But the question focuses more on the Pope than on Columbus since the Pope was in a primarily moral office and not a business office.

Well the pope at the time was Alexander VI, arguably the worst and most corrupt pope in history, so there you go…

As an aside, how do you think comparing unborn babies to animals would work now? We have laws to protect baby calves so that they won’t suffer pain. Could we also say that infants suffer pain during abortion and so they shouldn’t be killed?

This tactic is being used right now in a number of states. Fetuses can start definitively feeling pain around the 20th week (and possibly earlier), so there are attempts underway to use this to narrow the allowable timeframe for abortions.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Having read all of the missives in this thread, I must state once again, You can’t make a valid moral judgement as to the intent of historical events using contemporary moral values. If a judgement must be made, it must be done using the values in effect at the time of the event. This is a primary rule in the study of history.
A failure to observe this rule results in revisionism; that is, historical record distorted to accomodate a contemporary political slant…a cardinal sin for true intellectuals!

 

[Rolltide]

A failure to observe this rule results in revisionism; that is, historical record distorted to accomodate a contemporary political slant…a cardinal sin for true intellectuals!

Let me also point out, just for the sake of clarification, that “revisionism” is not the same as “revisionist history”. Revisionist history is re-examining an old historical question in the face of new evidence. A good example would be re-evaluating what we know about the Soviet Union now that we have access to the secret archives of that time period. Some of what we thought we knew was wrong, and thus this is legitimate re-examination. Revisionism CAN be as you say, but doesn’t have to be. It is possible to look at old historical events and apply them to new situations in new ways as culture changes. Key to any history is how you take lessons from the past and apply them to today. Of course, as you say, you have to base your examination of the past on the values of the bygone era.

 

[sedonaman]

… The primary goal was to find a route to Asia and make the crown and the expedition wealthy through trade with India and China. …

Thank you !!!

Converting natives was a bonus.
…

Since Columbus’ objective was to find a new route, and he underestimated the circumference of the earth in the process of developing and selling his idea, he did not expect to find any new continents. Are there any contemporary documents that cover converting unknown peoples that he might encounter?

 

[sedonaman]

… You can’t make a valid moral judgement as to the intent of historical events using contemporary moral values. If a judgement must be made, it must be done using the values in effect at the time of the event. This is a primary rule in the study of history.
A failure to observe this rule results in revisionism; that is, historical record distorted to accomodate a contemporary political slant…a cardinal sin for true intellectuals!

 

[HailStarofSea]

Well the pope at the time was Alexander VI, arguably the worst and most corrupt pope in history, so there you go…

The document was given at Rome, from St. Peter’s, on the 16th day of July, 1892, in the fifteenth year of Our Pontificate so it wasn’t from prior to the 1400s. And the pope wrote another document “On the Abolition of Slavery.” which says slavery causes disgrace and shows the perfidity and cruelty of man.

 

[Rolltide]

The document was given at Rome, from St. Peter’s, on the 16th day of July, 1892, in the fifteenth year of Our Pontificate so it wasn’t from prior to the 1400s. And the pope wrote another document “On the Abolition of Slavery.” which says slavery causes disgrace and shows the perfidity and cruelty of man.

Yes. Slavery by that time had evolved into African style plantation slavery, which had come to be condemned by the church. Roman style slavery, which was the type of slavery in force at the time of Columbus, was NOT condemned by the church. Let me state that again… the type of slavery that was around during Columbus’ voyage was found allowable by the Catholic Church in certain circumstances. However, since Roman style slavery had essentially ceased to exist by about 1650-1680, the church gradually called for the condemnation of ALL slavery. This is an example of the development of doctrine, due to the evolution of the institution of slavery. The change in opinion will gradually evolve, beginning with Las Casas and ending in the mid to late 1800s.

 

[Rolltide]

Thank you !!! Since Columbus’ objective was to find a new route, and he underestimated the circumference of the earth in the process of developing and selling his idea, he did not expect to find any new continents. Are there any contemporary documents that cover converting unknown peoples that he might encounter?

Not really, and this was precisely the problem. It was THOUGHT that pretty much everyone in the world (with potentially a few small exceptions that could be dealt with on an individual basis) had at least HEARD of Christianity. The Chinese and Indians (of India) would likely have been enslaved as well prior to 1400, except that they had large, powerful armies that were a match for the small numbers of Europeans that came there, even had they known about a non-overland route there. Native Americans didn’t have steel, gunpowder, horses, or European diseases, so they were massively outmatched. In any case, missionaries were making inroads into China and Japan at the time (because they were able to travel overland), and so they were able to mitigate this possibility.

Finding completely new continents was an UTTER shock to Europeans. Another reason Columbus got a pass from the Church is that he never realized during his lifetime that he hadn’t found Asia. He’s dead before Las Casas even becomes a priest. (He died in 1506, the Americas were recognized as new continents in 1507, and Las Casas became a priest in 1510.)