Can't we all just get along? We have a war to fight, and complete annihilation to avoid. That is, if it's convenient for everyone...
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/19/2006 1:16:57 PM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
See post 20 |
Posted on 04/19/2006 10:31:29 AM PDT by MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
The problem wasn't that the leadership was silent. It was that almost nobody listened.
Some Catholic writers claim that it was not until 1890 that the Roman Catholic Church repudiated slavery. A British priest has charged that this did not occur until 1965. Nonsense! As early as the seventh century, Saint Bathilde (wife of King Clovis II) became famous for her campaign to stop slave-trading and free all slaves; in 851 Saint Anskar began his efforts to halt the Viking slave trade. That the Church willingly baptized slaves was claimed as proof that they had souls, and soon both kings and bishops—including William the Conqueror (1027-1087) and Saints Wulfstan (1009-1095) and Anselm (1033-1109)—forbade the enslavement of Christians. Since, except for small settlements of Jews, and the Vikings in the north, everyone was at least nominally a Christian, that effectively abolished slavery in medieval Europe, except at the southern and eastern interfaces with Islam where both sides enslaved one another's prisoners. But even this was sometimes condemned: in the tenth century, bishops in Venice did public penance for past involvement in the Moorish slave trade and sought to prevent all Venetians from involvement in slavery. Then, in the thirteenth century, Saint Thomas Aquinas deduced that slavery was a sin, and a series of popes upheld his position, beginning in 1435 and culminating in three major pronouncements against slavery by Pope Paul III in 1537.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
Who cares, it was all a long time ago.
They were. Have yopu never heard of Bartolomeo de Las Casas? Spanish slave traders were placed under the interdict and denied the sacraments.
Why was the only priest who spoke up and tried to give liberty to the indians of Mexico captured and TRIED BY A CATHOLIC TRIBUNAL and executed by firing squad?
Substantiate this fraudulent accusation.
It did all happen a long time ago, but MMTU is lying about it right now.
Of more interest is the Islamic position on slavery. Arab muslims introduced chattel slavery to the West and Islamic countries were the last to ban it- in Saudi Arabia, slavery was legal until 1962.
Can't we all just get along? We have a war to fight, and complete annihilation to avoid. That is, if it's convenient for everyone...
A woman in a postition of authority in the Catholic Church - must be the miracle that made her a Saint.
Women have always had positions of authority in the Catholic Church. Only the uneducated confuse sacramental orders with authority.
Apparently you've never heard of an abbess, or Mother Theresa, or Teresa of Avila, or Mother Angelica, or Mother McAuley or Clare of Assissi or Catherine of Siena or Elizabeth Seton or thousands of others.
Not to mention the Mother of God.
Absolute truth. Straight from the mouth of a catholic apologist. More to come...
You think every sin ought to be punished by excommunication? Who would be left to communicate? Who would be left to sign the excommunications?
You don't really want "answers" to your "questions," though. You just want to pick a fight.
You are a liar and you are following your usual pattern of making vague references without any specific names or dates.
An example of your dishonesty: the Spanish Crown outlawed the slave trade in 1493 by introducing the encomienda system.
When, in the 1520s, Spanish priests and monls complained to the King and the Pope about abuses of the encomienda system in the New World, the King modified the laws to safeguard the Indians of the New World.
Quite typically, those who stood to profit found ingenious ways of abusing the system, but there was no legal form of chattel slavery in Spanish territory after 1546.
In the Protestant areas of North America, however, chattel slavery was practiced with abandon until 1865.
Harboring some hatred MeneMene? What prompted you to post this? It seems to me like there are more important things to discuss in this day and age than something that happened before we all were born. I'm no historian, but your post seems to me like it was intented not to educate or inform but to pick a fight.
This is another untruth told deliberately and with malice aforethought.
The article posted does not claim the nonsense that your intial post fraudulently claimed.
If we're going to engage in a bit of good, old-fashioned finger-pointing and flame-throwing, maybe you ought to reflect on the long and unhappy relationship between Protestantism and slavery on these shores. Protestant Christians used the Bible to defend and justify the slave trade. Slavery was rationalized because Africans were not Christian, therefore labeled "heathens" and considered sub-human.
"You want answers?" You already know the answers. But lets not let the truth get in the way of a good lie, right?
You should know that in 1462, Pius II declared slavery to be "a great crime" (magnum scelus); that, in 1537, Paul III forbade the enslavement of the Indians; that Urban VIII forbade it in 1639, and Benedict XIV in 1741; that Pius VII demanded of the Congress of Vienna, in 1815, the suppression of the slave trade and Gregory XVI condemned it in 1839; that, in the Bull of Canonization of the Jesuit Peter Claver, one of the most illustrious adversaries of slavery, Pius IX branded the "supreme villainy" (summum nefas) of the slave traders. Then there is the beautiful letter which Leo XIII, in 1888, addressed to the Brazilian bishops, exhorting them to banish from their country the remnants of slavery -- a letter to which the bishops responded with their most energetic efforts, and some generous slave-owners by freeing their slaves in a body, as in the first ages of the Church.
All this information is freely available to anyone with a sincere disposition to find the Catholic Church's position on this issue. But why bring up slavery? Anyone with an axe to grind could make a similar kerfuffle about the Catholic Church with regard to abortion, for instance. For example, many of those doing the most to further the cause of abortion in the USA and elsewhere are "Catholics" such as Ted Kennedy, John Kerry etc etc. So why isn't the Catholic Church excommunicating them? Well I guess this must mean that the Catholic Church is in favor of abortion and is abetting the abortion industry, right?
The tawdriness of this logic is clear for all to see and for you to use it and promote it, reflects more on you than it does on the Catholic Church. This thread simply reinforces your own richly deserved reputation as an unreasonable individual who does not engage in honest debate.
How is this relevant to anything going on today? This can only cause acrimony without moving us along in any debate.
A very useful statement regarding the Catholic Church. Pick any topic over almost 2,000 years and those two sentences could serve as an introduction.
If we're going to engage in a bit of good, old-fashioned finger-pointing and flame-throwing, maybe you ought to reflect on the long and unhappy relationship between Protestantism and slavery on these shores. Protestant Christians used the Bible to defend and justify the slave trade. Slavery was rationalized because Africans were not Christian, therefore labeled "heathens" and considered sub-human.
"You want answers?" You already know the answers. But lets not let the truth get in the way of a good lie, right?
You should know that in 1462, Pius II declared slavery to be "a great crime" (magnum scelus); that, in 1537, Paul III forbade the enslavement of the Indians; that Urban VIII forbade it in 1639, and Benedict XIV in 1741; that Pius VII demanded of the Congress of Vienna, in 1815, the suppression of the slave trade and Gregory XVI condemned it in 1839; that, in the Bull of Canonization of the Jesuit Peter Claver, one of the most illustrious adversaries of slavery, Pius IX branded the "supreme villainy" (summum nefas) of the slave traders. Then there is the beautiful letter which Leo XIII, in 1888, addressed to the Brazilian bishops, exhorting them to banish from their country the remnants of slavery -- a letter to which the bishops responded with their most energetic efforts, and some generous slave-owners by freeing their slaves in a body, as in the first ages of the Church.
All this information is freely available to anyone with a sincere disposition to find the Catholic Church's position on this issue. But why bring up slavery? Anyone with an axe to grind could make a similar kerfuffle about the Catholic Church with regard to abortion, for instance. For example, many of those doing the most to further the cause of abortion in the USA and elsewhere are "Catholics" such as Ted Kennedy, John Kerry etc etc. So why isn't the Catholic Church excommunicating them? Well I guess this must mean that the Catholic Church is in favor of abortion and is abetting the abortion industry, right?
The tawdriness of this logic is clear for all to see and for you to use it and promote it, reflects more on you than it does on the Catholic Church.
The thread was not pulled so that it remains as evidence of what happens when posters ignore the moderator’s warning to stop personal attacks.
Issues of doctrine, philosophy and so forth may be discussed freely on the Religion Forum – but there is no tolerance for personal attacks. And there will be consequences.
Find a way to disagree respectfully – search for the right phrasing.
If you need an example of how to disagree respectfully: Luther and Erasmus: The Controversy Concerning the Bondage of the Will
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.