1. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    29 Aug '05 23:24
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    I'm sorry but this is not a document on Church teachings but it is a political effort to settle a political dispute between the then world powers Portugal and Spain in a time wherein Europe is threatened by the "Saracenes", the followers of Mohammed, and other "pagans"

    You can also read The Inter Caetera, Papal Bull of May 4, 1493 by Alexander VI

    ...[text shortened]... e Church's moral teachings on slavery, the slave trade or other issues you are sadly mistaken.
    A Pope saying you can place people into "perpetual slavery" is not to be read as a moral statement???? The nitpicking conservative Catholics resort to to avoid the inevitable conclusion that the teachings of the medieval Church were unconscionable are mind-boggling.
  2. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    29 Aug '05 23:37
    Pope Nicholas apparently took his Papal Bull seriously since he threatened excommunication to anyone violating it and also said:

    Therefore let no one infringe or with rash boldness contravene this our declaration, constitution, gift, grant, appropriation, decree, supplication, exhortation, injunction, inhibition, mandate, and will. But if anyone should presume to do so, be it known to him that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul.

    I mean if the thing was enforceable by "the wrath of Almighty God" surely we can read a little moral authority into it, Ivanhoe.
  3. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    30 Aug '05 06:59
    a quick search on the issue of christians and anti-slavery found thse:

    1800 +: The Roman Catholic church's Sacred Congregation of the Index continued to place many anti-slavery tracts on their Index of Forbidden Books in order to prevent the public from reading them.

    1829's: Congregationalists, Quakers, Mennonites, Methodists and Unitarians organized the "underground railway" to help slaves escape northward towards Canada and southward into Spanish held territories.

    1839: Pope Gregory XVI wrote in Supremo Apostolatus that he admonishes and adjures "in the Lord all believers in Christ, of whatsoever condition, that no one hereafter may dare unjustly to molest Indians, Negroes, or other men of this sort;...or to reduce them to slavery..." The operative word is unjustly

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav2.htm

    Here's something that inadvertantly shows the church's acquience to slavery, because it was talking about conversion of pagan to christianity.

    "In about 575 a monk called Gregory saw some young men in the Rome slave-market. He spoke to them and discovered that these men were from England. After talking to these slaves he was shocked to discover that there were very few Christians living in England. Gregory was determined to change this situation and when he became Pope he sent his friend Augustine and forty monks to England to convert the inhabitants to Christianity."

    http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/REcatholic.htm
  4. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    90892
    30 Aug '05 07:45
    Ivanhoe--what I fail to understand the continued existence of slavery in Catholic territories up until the late nineteenth century (Brazil being the last Christian country to do away with the institution). An unequivocal stance against slavery--with, say, excommunication for slave owners--would surely have militated against this state of affairs. As it is, the likes of Wilberforce & the Quakers achieved far more in this regard than the most powerful spiritual institution in the world.

    That the Church's spiritual instructions should differ from its political agenda in my view negates any moral authority it might assume. Apart from the moral authority inherent in those silly hats.
  5. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36105
    30 Aug '05 12:25
    The first question that needs to be asked when reviewing historical perspectives on slavery is whether the term "slavery" was used in the same sense then as we do today. We moderns tend to think of American slavery as being the defining form of slavery whereas, in historical times, there were many other forms that were much less oppressive (e.g. indentured labour).

    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0006.html
  6. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    48441
    30 Aug '05 13:061 edit
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    Ivanhoe--what I fail to understand the continued existence of slavery in Catholic territories up until the late nineteenth century (Brazil being the last Christian country to do away with the institution). An unequivocal stance against slavery--with, say, excommunication for slave owners--would surely have militated against this state of affairs. As it ...[text shortened]... ny moral authority it might assume. Apart from the moral authority inherent in those silly hats.
    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0006.html

    A century later, Pope Paul III applied the same principle to the newly encountered inhabitants of the West and South Indies in the bull Sublimus Deus (1537). Therein he described the enslavers as allies of the devil and declared attempts to justify such slavery “null and void.” Accompanying the bull was another document, Pastorale Officium, which attached a latae sententiae excommunication remittable only by the pope himself for those who attempted to enslave the Indians or steal their goods.

    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0006.html
  7. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    48441
    30 Aug '05 13:07
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    The first question that needs to be asked when reviewing historical perspectives on slavery is whether the term "slavery" was used in the same sense then as we do today. We moderns tend to think of American slavery as being the defining form of slavery whereas, in historical times, there were many other forms that were much less oppressive (e.g. indentured labour).

    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0006.html
    Thanks for the link.
  8. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    90892
    30 Aug '05 15:42
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0006.html

    A century later, Pope Paul III applied the same principle to the newly encountered inhabitants of the West and South Indies in the bull Sublimus Deus (1537). Therein he described the enslavers as allies of the devil and declared attempts to justify such slavery “null and void.” Accompanying the b ...[text shortened]... he Indians or steal their goods.

    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0006.html
    The extent to which that Papal bull benefited the Indians can be seen today in the total absence of Caribs from the Caribbean.

    Can you find a document outlawing the Portuguese slave trade in Africa? The Borgia pope Alexander III issued a Bull granting the Portuguese exclusive rights to Africa in the 15th century. The effects of the slave trade were hardly beneficial to the African continent.

    An example from Angola: "As well as for use by colonialists and slave traders, churches were also used to ‘christianise’ enslaved Africans, who had to be baptised before being loaded onto slave ships like cargo. Churches symbolised oppression and opposition to African religions and practices, and stand as testimony to the violence of enslavement. ‘Nossa Senhora do Pópulo is an example of an 18th century church in Benguela." (http://www.antislavery.org/breakingthesilence/slave_routes/slave_routes_angola.shtml)

    Which papal edict had the greater effect--the one banning the enslavement of Indians (too little, too late) or Alexander Borgia's division of the New World between Portugal & Spain?

    Another Pope, Urban VIII--Galileo's nemesis--also published a bull against slavery. "In a Bull, dated 22 April, 1639, he strictly prohibited slavery of any kind among the Indians of Paraguay, Brazil, and the entire West Indies " (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15218b.htm). Not a word about Africa, though.

    The RCC was not responsible for the institution of slavery, but to imply, as Ivanhoe's initial post appears to imply, that it made enormous efforts to combat the slave trade is absurd.
  9. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    90892
    30 Aug '05 15:59
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    The first question that needs to be asked when reviewing historical perspectives on slavery is whether the term "slavery" was used in the same sense then as we do today. We moderns tend to think of American slavery as being the defining form of slavery whereas, in historical times, there were many other forms that were much less oppressive (e.g. indentured labour).

    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0006.html
    I don't know why but I can't access that link.

    For what it's worth, I formed my early ideas about slaves in relation to Christian history & the Roman Empire rather than the USA. Perhaps I'm not one of "you moderns".

    Varying degrees of oppression certainly existed--in Roman times, a slave could be worked to death in a mine or enjoy a relatively privileged position as a teacher...What I find inimical about slavery is forcing someone to do something against their will. I can't see all that much difference between indentured labour and slavery--apart from the question of ownership, both involve people forcing other people to work for nothing. In fact indentured labour can be seen as slavery by another name. Perhaps you can clarify this point?

    (Off topic, I found an interesting article on Fidel Castro "selling Cubans as slaves" http://belize1.com/BzLibrary/trust165.html).
  10. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    48441
    30 Aug '05 20:09
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    ..... and why do we have to believe this site you gave us ? Can you back up these claims by reliable sources ?

    For instance where does it say in Sublimus Deus that "Only hostile non-Christians, captured in just wars could become slaves" ?

    "1548 CE: Pope Paul III confirmed that any individual may freely buy, sell and own slaves. Runaway slaves were ...[text shortened]... Catholic or not, have a habit of producing a lot of writings contrary Roman Catholic teachings.
    Is there still hope you will answer these questions Bosse ?
  11. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    30 Aug '05 21:15
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    Ivanhoe--what I fail to understand the continued existence of slavery in Catholic territories up until the late nineteenth century (Brazil being the last Christian country to do away with the institution). An unequivocal stance against slavery--with, say, excommunication for slave owners--would surely have militated against this state of affairs. As it ...[text shortened]... ny moral authority it might assume. Apart from the moral authority inherent in those silly hats.
    Charles Fox discarding the Old Testament started the anti-slavery ball rolling.
  12. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    31 Aug '05 00:30
    Originally posted by frogstomp
    Charles Fox discarding the Old Testament started the anti-slavery ball rolling.
    You dummy, that was George Fox. Try and be a bit more precise Charle's Fox was a legislator that teamed with William Wilburforce. 1807 anti slave trade law.
  13. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    90892
    31 Aug '05 08:54
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    Is there still hope you will answer these questions Bosse ?
    I can't find hard evidence on the Internet for slave-trading Popes, so I'll concede that point.

    Something frogstomp posted:

    1839: Pope Gregory XVI wrote in Supremo Apostolatus that he admonishes and adjures "in the Lord all believers in Christ, of whatsoever condition, that no one hereafter may dare unjustly to molest Indians, Negroes, or other men of this sort;...or to reduce them to slavery...".

    The inclusion of "unjustly" implies that there may be "just" reasons to enslave people. For a supreme example of this sort of reasoning, google "Requerimiento 1510" and see what comes up.

    Your turn to answer questions: which Papal Bull had a greater impact on the slave trade--Alexander III's allocation of Africa to Portugal or the one about Indians in 1537? Why did at least two Popes express their horror at Indians being traded as slaves but not say a word about Africans?
  14. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    48441
    31 Aug '05 16:302 edits
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    I can't find hard evidence on the Internet for slave-trading Popes, so I'll concede that point.

    Something frogstomp posted:

    1839: Pope Gregory XVI wrote in Supremo Apostolatus that he admonishes and adjures "in the Lord all believers in Christ, of whatsoever condition, that no one hereafter may dare unjustly to molest Indians, Negroes, or oth ...[text shortened]... Popes express their horror at Indians being traded as slaves but not say a word about Africans?
    Bosse: "I can't find hard evidence on the Internet for slave-trading Popes, so I'll concede that point."

    Noted !


    As far as frogstomps quote please read the link Lucifershammer gave us:

    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0006.html

    ... and please make a distinction between slave trade, chattel enslavement and enslavement as a punishment, justly robbing someone of his freedom like we do today by putting someone (justly I hope) in jail, and the enslavement which we would call nowadays taking prisoners of war.

    Bosse: "For a supreme example of this sort of reasoning, google "Requerimiento 1510" and see what comes up."

    Not many hits ..... What is it you want to say ? Your remark is too general in nature.


    Bosse: "Your turn to answer questions: ..... "

    You want to lay a burden of guilt on certain Popes in particular and on the Roman Catholic Church in general. Your questions presuppose and reflect your intention to blame them. Circular reasoning ?

    "which Papal Bull had a greater impact on the slave trade--Alexander III's allocation of Africa to Portugal or the one about Indians in 1537? "

    Does the answer really reflect any serious conclusion about the efforts of those who wanted to abolish slave trade and chattel slavery ? My answer is of course the 1537 bill as this is a statement about morals whereas the allocation bill is a political settlement of a political dispute.

    Bosse: "Why did at least two Popes express their horror at Indians being traded as slaves but not say a word about Africans?
    "

    Your question again presupposes guilt. There can be lots of reasons why only part of the (world) problem is being adressed. One of the reasons could be that the persons whom are being adressed live in the region that is being discussed. For instance a letter adressed to the bishops in Brazil will probably deal with the problem of enslavement of Indians while other documents aimed to reach those who are engaged in enslavement and slave trade in black people (called negroes in the old documents) will deal with the very enslavement and slave trade the people of that particular diocese are engaged in.
  15. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    48441
    31 Aug '05 17:091 edit
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    I don't know why but I can't access that link.

    For what it's worth, I formed my early ideas about slaves in relation to Christian history & the Roman Empire rather than the USA. Perhaps I'm not one of "you moderns".

    Varying degrees of oppression certainly existed--in Roman times, a slave could be worked to death in a mine or enjoy a relati ...[text shortened]... rticle on Fidel Castro "selling Cubans as slaves" http://belize1.com/BzLibrary/trust165.html).
    Bosse: "both involve people forcing other people to work for nothing.... "

    This is the "American" form of slavery, chattel slavery, not for instance the old Roman form of slavery.

    To put things in a broader perspective, please read the following:


    http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Bible/Social_Aspects.htm



    Some Aspects of the "Social Situation" of the "Pauline Churches"
    A. Paul’s "Citizenship"

    Citizenship in the Roman Empire:

    originally, only the free inhabitants of the city of Rome were considered "Roman citizens"
    but as time went on more and more people from other areas gained citizenship through various means;
    if non-Roman soldiers retired from the imperial army, they were usually given citizenship;
    if slaves belonging to Roman citizens were freed, they were usually granted citizenship;
    yet most people in the Roman Empire were not "Roman citizens," but citizens of their own native cities or countries (Acts 19:35)
    Privileges of Roman Citizenship:
    Roman citizens had more legal rights: they could not be flogged or held in prison without trial (Acts 16:37-38)
    Roman citizens could appeal to the Emperor [the "Supreme Court"] if found guilty by a local court (25:10-12)
    Roman citizens could only be executed by the sword (i.e., beheading), but not tortured (e.g., crucifixion)
    Roman citizens were exempt from some taxes and other obligations, esp. local rules and regulations
    Paul's Multiple Citizenships:
    a Hebrew, an Israelite, Jew/Judean - 2Cor 11:22; Phil 3:5; Acts 21:39--22:3
    a citizen of Tarsus - Acts 9:1; 21:39; 22:3; cf. Acts 15:21; Gal 1:21
    a Roman citizen - Acts 16:16-40 (esp. 37-38); 22:25-29; 23:27
    a citizen of heaven! - Phil 3:20; Eph 2:19

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    C. Slavery in the Roman Empire - Slavery in the 1st century Mediterranean was very different from slavery in 19th century America:

    Who were slaves?


    In the ancient world, people could become slaves for various reasons:
    Birth: children born to slaves were automatically also slaves.
    POWs: prisoners of war would often be sold as slaves.
    Debts: some people were sold, or sold themselves (or their children) into slavery to pay debts (cf. Matt 18:25).

    How did slaves live?

    The socio-economic situation of ancient slaves was not necessarily all that bad:
    Life would obviously be miserable for slaves doing hard labor in the mines or similar situations;
    But life might be fairly comfortable for slaves of rich people, like senators, governors, or emperors (cf. Rom 16:23b; Phil 4:22).
    Slaves could own money and other property, so that a slave might even own another slave!
    Slaves might be given large amounts of authority by their masters (cf. Matt 18:23-35).

    How long were they slaves?

    Ancient slavery was not always life-long; many would eventually be freed (cf. 1Cor 7:21-23):
    Debt-slaves often had a limited time of service agreed upon with their masters.
    Some slaves might be able to save enough money to buy their own freedom.
    Masters might reward especially good slaves for their service by setting them free (cf. Phlm 13-16).
    Slaves of Roman citizens would usually be granted Roman citizenship when they were freed.

    Slaves in the New Testament?

    There are many NT references to slavery:
    Christians who are slaves are told to obey their earthly masters (Col 3:22-24; Eph 6:5-8).
    Christian masters were not expected to free their slaves (1Tim 6:1-2), with a few individual exceptions (Phlm 13-16).
    Masters are told not to treat their slaves harshly (Col 4:1; Eph 6:9).
    Erastus, the "city treasurer", was probably a slave (Rom 16:23b).
    Paul and other Christians often use "slave" language metaphorically to describe their relationship with Jesus and/or God (Rom 1:1; 1Cor 7:21-23; Gal 1:10; etc.)


    E. Courts & Trials, Prisons & Prisoners - The ancient judicial system was completely different from today's in several different respects:

    Prisons today are mostly for the incarceration of people after they have been found guilty of a crime;
    Ancient prisons were only used as holding tanks for people before they came to trial (Acts 5:17-40; 12:3-19);
    But since there was no right to a "speedy trial", people might remain in prison for months or years (Acts 21:27--26:32; 28:16-31).
    Prison conditions were generally abysmal, and prisoners awaiting trial were often mistreated (Acts 16:16-40).
    Roman citizens were not supposed to be beaten, and had certain other privileges (Acts 16:37; 22:25).
    Modern prisons provide food, medicine, etc., but ancient prisons provided almost nothing for prisoners.
    To survive, a prisoner's family or friends had to bring him food, blankets, medicine, and other necessities.
    Without outside help, a prisoner could easily starve or die of illness before even coming to trial.
    The NT has several examples of people providing assistance to Paul while he was in prison (Phil 2:25-30; Phlm 10-14).
    That is why "visiting prisoners" is such an important charitable obligation (Matt 25:31-46; etc.; see also Lucian, Peregrinus 12-13).
    There was no separate judicial branch in ancient governments, but the political administrators served as judges:
    The Romans usually allowed local peoples to live under their own laws, and be judged by their own rulers.
    More important cases were tried before the provincial governors, but only citizens of Rome could "appeal to the emperor."
    The state did not bring charges against individuals, but other private individuals had to accuse people of crimes.
    If the defendant was found innocent, the penalty he/she would have received sometimes fell upon the accuser!
    After trial, innocent people were freed, while guilty people could be punished in various ways (but did not remain incarcerated):
    Fines: monetary penalties or the forfeit of property.
    Flogging: beatings or other physical punishments (Acts 5:40).
    Exile: being forced to leave home and/or told where they may live (Rev 1:9).
    Death: capital punishment, using especially means of execution for slaves and foreigners (Jesus).
    Thus Paul was not in prison because he had been found guilty of some crime, but he was still awaiting trial after being arrested (see Phlm 1, 9, 23; Col 4:3, 10; Phil 1:7-26; 2Cor 1:8-11; cf. Acts 19:21-41).


    http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Bible/Social_Aspects.htm
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree