SLAVERY, SODOMY, SULLIVAN

NRO - Corner ^ | 08/10/03 | Ramesh Ponnuru

[swilhelm73]

So it would appear Sullivan was *very* wrong in his assertion. I'd be willing to bet it was not intentional, that his source used the misleading quotation and he went with it without checking.

However, he certainly should have some kind of response to this I would imagine...

[Van Jenerette]

Andrew Sullivan rides a Trojan horse who parades as normal. He is to be taken cautiously...

[DJtex]

I like a lot of what Sullivan writes. His sexual orientation is of little concern to me most of the time. On this particular issue he has a vested interest, and maybe he lacks objectivity. But to bring in an "Instruction" from the church from 1866 and imply that it still reflects Church thinking, is really low.

[The Old Hoosier]

My protestant friends are gushing over the new directive on homosexual unions. Most of them wish their churches would do the same. I wish the Catholic Church was more consistent in getting this kind of document out on a lot more issues, and in telling legislators they'd better straighten up if they want to avoid censure.

[Kevin Curry]

Sullivan is obsessed with his own sexual perversions. A technically superior writer, his obsession warps his judgment on almost every topic he addresses.

[CatoRenasci]

No, he's just a one trick pony. He's reasonable on most topics, but he's such an unabashed fudge-packer, he completely loses all rationality on the subject.

[ClearCase_guy]

I like a lot of what Sullivan writes. His sexual orientation is of little concern to me most of the time.

I concur. His sexuality would really be a complete mystery -- if he didn't keep throwing it in people's faces. Homosexuals do not want to be left alone -- they want to force people to listen while they prattle on about their sex lives, and then they expect everyone to shout, "Right on! You go girl!"

If you fail to demonstrate such enthusiasm, you are a hate-filled homosphobe.

[Torie]

The Instructio itself, right at the point at which it declares "servitude itself [now let's add what Mr. Sullivan omits in the ellipsis], considered in itself and all alone (per se et absolute), is by no means repugnant to the natural and divine law," ...

The reason that the Holy Office is wrestling with the question is that it is focused on the possible legitimacy of three types of servitude that are not at the heart of the American debate: (1) penal servitude; (2) indentured servitude; and (3) the servitude of prisoners captured in just wars. That's why we have this business (right there in the material Sullivan quotes, but evidently doesn't pay much attention to) about the need to examine whether the "slave" (servitus) "has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty."

The weakness of the refutation is that there are a lot of words within the ellipses. There is no factual documentation of what the Vactican meant by "servitude" in the first instance. The author merely asserts what it meant two paragraphs down.

Thus the jury is still out. In any event, all forms of servitude are immoral in my view, and as a contract, against public policy, and thus should be rendered enforceable. So the Vatican still blew it, even if the author's spin on the matter is correct. JMO.

[pierrem15]

Sorry, but the Church opposed slavery in the New World (to no avail) almost from the beginning.

In 1493, Pope Alexander the VI forbade the enslavement of indigenous peoples, on condition of their conversion to Christianity.

Queen Isabella forbade the enslavement of Indians in 1500.

The Dominican order vigorously sought 9and obtained) a royal edict against the enslavement of both Indians and Africans in the Americas in the mid-16th century.

Since the royal writ was enforced by those engaged in or directly profiting from the slave trade or the plantation economy, the edict was ignored.

[Ann Archy]

Gee...I never doubted for a moment how My CHURCH stood on the slavery issue....it's AGAINST IT!!

[TheCrusader]

Another anti-Catholic red herring, though it smells more like a rancid Masonic diatribe than a fish to me. The Vatican did not hold Pope Pius IX's writings on slavery to be an infallible teaching, binding Catholics to believe and follow them.

It should be noted that any Papal instruction on a topic such as slavery is not about Church doctrine or salvation, and therefore does not qualify to be included among ex-cathedra pronouncements. Any Pope can can err on matters not relating to essentials of Christian faith, morals and Salvation. With a topic dealing with slavery and the natural law, though there is certainly an inherent moral component involved, a pope speaks as a private doctor on the matter when he does not bind the entire Church to hold his words as de fide doctrine. The wording of this papal pronouncement lacks all the directive speech necessary for ex-cathedra, (from the throne, infallible), teaching. Words such as "We declare into perpetuity", "We hereby define", "We pronounce to all God's faithful", etc., are completely lacking in this document. The document falls into the same category as the Church's teaching on Just War, (jus ad bellum). It will be revised from generation to generation, as a developing theological interpretation, but is never a Church doctrine.

Furthermore, the Bible itself does not condemn slavery, but seems to condone it in some forms, as the New Testament reveals:

"Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brethren; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved." (Tim. 6: 1-3).

"Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ; not in the way of eye-service, as men-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart" (Ephesians 6: 5-6)

"Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not continue in the house for ever" (John 8:34).

The Catholic Church is deeply conscious of Scriptural teachings, and must therefore remain ever vigilent against teaching that which opposes God's Word, as Pius IX seemed to have done. None-the-less, the issue of slavery's morality is not part of essential Christian doctrine, and falls more into the category of theological hypothesis. In other words, a good Christian who dies in confusion about whether slavery is licit in the natural law or not can still die in a state of grace. The slavery component the Scripture alludes to is to treat even slaves with Christian love, and seems to leave us with that. The foaming-at-the-mouth dog who authored this sham is a slave to Satan, methinks.

[dennisw]

He's usually better than this but if you check out the Andrew Sullivan blog today it's all about advocacy of gay marriage and complaining about the Catholic church.

[aimhigh]

Sorry, but the Church opposed slavery in the New World (to no avail) almost from the beginning.

Please why the Vatican gave a million dollars to Jefferson Davis, so the South could win the war.

[txzman]

"Yes. If the current pontiff is right about capital punishment, for example, many of his predecessors have been wrong. (Of course, neither he nor they have proposed his or their teaching as an exercise of the charism of infallibility.)"

I thought the Pope was supposed to be infallible, as God's supreme representative on earth?!?

[swilhelm73]

Only on religious matters.

[pierrem15]

Yeah, right. Another "papist" conspiracy against Anglo-Saxon Protestants (supported by Southern Baptists, of course) here.

I particularly enjoyed the part where a letter to the CSA commisioners referring to "your countries," was taken to imply formal recognition of the secession.

In Italian (like French) the name "Unites States" is itself grammatically plural, as it was in English also before the Civil War.

[beckett]

Sullivan has gone round the bend on the RCC's refusal to bend to his wishes. He just about said he was off to sulk this month while he considers whether to remain a Catholic. The whole hastily stitched together attack on the Church's stand on slavery grew out of a fit of pique, an irrational lashing out in anger of highly dubious factual accuracy.

[beckett]

Please why the Vatican gave a million dollars to Jefferson Davis, so the South could win the war.

Source.

[ontos-on]

You say that Andrew Sullivan did not intentionally distort the Catholic Papacy position on slavery. I would not be so fast to jump to that conclusion. When the issue of homosexuality is involved, Mr. Sullivan is entirely unreliable. He is personally involved and has insufficent objectivity and ethics in forming his arguments and opinions. I am sorry to have to say that but this conclusion has been reached over considerable time being exposed to his articles and his "blog".

He is a little boy about this topic and his immature carrying on about "the boyfriend" on his web journal. He seems to be trying to pretend that his sexual orientation has a legitmacy that we all should recognize and affirm. Without that, he is like a juvenile who is on an adolescent mission to justify himself to the world.

He really should not write about homosexuality, because his personal involvement and committment infects and destroys his writiing on this topic. It then infects how he deals with the Catholic Church, Trent Lott, Santorum, child abuse, the Christian Right, or anyone else who could have a possible ramified implicate for homosexuality.

One has to be prepared to dig deep to discover the extent of the distortion in any particular column, as witnesses by this author who gets this expert on Catholic history.

Frankly, I would prefer to be able to trust my authors and at least be able to presume that they are being honest. Andrew Sullivan has lost that for me --due to how his homosexuality has now perverted his entire corpus of writing. This is very sad.