Replies

Put up or shut up you say to me? Are you really that dense? Or just lawyerly, reliant upon technicalities? Aah, would it be for reason the treaties and associated bulls are not so simple to follow? Or that one if making a misstep in tracing through them, can be then be dished out a schoolmarm's scolding?

Tell me professer, just what is your own motivation here? For surely you already know what all the associated articles added up to, and what the results were, when eventually coming fully into light coverable only by invoking "not ex-cathedra" and "not as to faith and morals" (which you have already invoked, tipping your hand?) which claims otherwise must be very carefully examined to prove true or not so true at the MANY instances of church involvement in regards to slavery not limited to papal bulls of that time period, to fully determine proper outcome (faith & morals, or no). There are too, older teachings giving limited support of the practice, etc.

Was that part of your own Master's thesis? or doctoral dissertation? If so...park 'em in a blog somewhere and send us a link. I promise I won't ping the FR blogger police if you do.

When you read the Treaty of Toredillas, let me know.

I didn't name that precise treaty, but you did...and things do jell there in the year 1494 don't they?

I was not the one who brought up the treaty. Unless you mean some other treaty - which you apparently have not named or do not know - you referred to the Treaty of Toredillas here: “An RC pope had written up where the dividing line between where those of either nation could collect slaves.”

Actually there was more than one treaty addressing the territorial issues. More than a few papal bulls much intertwined with them too. Isn't that the truth?

When will you admit that popes authorized the taking of slaves among the "pagans" and unconverted, along with captured hostiles whom would not submit to conversion? In the time period we are speaking of, first authorized as approved, even recommended conduct in Africa, twice over. Oh wait, you did somewhat admit to it, but weakly, in saying it as some popes were weak on slavery.

Weak on slavery??? Explicit endorsement (appearing as demand and instruction to do so in association with all the rest of the vanquishing & plundering) is not a "weak position", it is positive position.

There was no "weakness" other than can be seen in the ensuing centuries as the issue of slavery was approached again and again, slowly reeled in by those in the highest levels of the church, with those highest levels eventually catching up with some among them on lower levels, such as De La Casas whom himself had to refine his own position towards slavery on his own way (he was thinking for himself like a Protestant?) towards concluding slavery was wrong under any condition, in spite of the previous scarcely limited endorsement and long after continued tolerance for it.

It did indeed take *some* (far too many!) self-identified Protestants in the U.S. and elsewhere some long centuries to catch up with the likes of De la Casas and those otherwise found among Catholic and Protestant alike whom abhored the institution of slavery, some number on either "side" abhoring it from it's inception. In the macro, the many eventually seem but to have followed De la Casas' own progression in slow motion, with the greater Western world finally putting an end to the institution as participated in by their own nations, at the cost of much suffering. Interestingly enough, Lincoln's own Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves only in lands the North didn't at that time control, with some small remnant of slavery in places they did control not offically stipulated to be included or addressed, as was at the time pointed out by Seward.

"Colonialism" itself, with or without whichever endorsement of slavery inherent, was much too itself a product of the RCC in conjunction with (that wedded thing again) kings, and empire which bore it's fruit in the combined interests of extension of empire (lands both known of and newly "discovered lands" given to kings by decree of popes) and church (to convert the pagans of those lands) but in course of fulfillment and execution originally included slavery in the New World.

Otherwise, you are grasping at straws.

Here's a smaller example of the straw grasping;

That is demonstrably false. Entrance into St. Peter’s is free.

But they still gawk, which was the point! They gawk at all the finery, the "extravagant excess" which St. Peter himself would likely see it as. The tourists still line up even at those venues they don't have to pay to take a peek, and they still gawk at those places where they don't have to pay to gawk.

Why so upset? Beyond the "paying good money to" part which can well enough include air fare to get there, they not being able to as affordably charter airliners for themselves at the same low low rates a Pope can(?) or because some of the tourists are RC thus "don't gawk" or something? Or because the extravagance is "tastefully done" to European eyes much accustomed to architectural projections of power & wealth? Was it the "excess" portion of the "extravagance" sort of comment made by another I was originally defending that is so bothersome?

I was not the one who brought up the treaty. Unless you mean some other treaty - which you apparently have not named or do not know

Yet you know the names Dum Diversas (which I cited) and Romanus Pontifex. What did those bulls authorize? Do you know, or must I tell you?

More than one treaty followed after, with the papal bull Aeterni regis "Eternal kings" from 1481 ratifying among other things territorial divisions the earlier 1479 Treaty of Alcáçovas between Portugal and Spain, which addressed perspective demarcation of influence awarding the Canary Is. to the Spanish king, with & Azores, Cape Verde, the Guinea coast of Africa and waters South of the Canaries to Portugal. These decrees and others much the basis for the treaty I mentioned. My mistake, oh boy ya' got me there, mr. perfect. Now if you could just be a bit more inclusive in analysis that would be a welcome change.

Slavery initially authorized (by popes) through several previous documents but not explicitly by "treaty" although by default that treaty and other documents implicitly carried forward the instruction (to among other things, take as slaves into perpetuity those found in the lands where the papal bulls authorized conquest)...as I have previously elaborated in some self correction. But that wasn't enough self correction for you, professor?

The associated supporting documents? Perhaps you could steer us towards the fuller writings and empowerment of Henrique by a Latin pope. I named the initial one bull, and the Order Henrique was made a part of. I wonder what else was communicated, for there seems something lost there...

Henrique arrived back after his first trip with slaves accompaning and offered them to the pope, after which the pope writes up the explicit direction including the forible taking of pagans and others into slavery, into perpetuity. Put those sort of things and much other later evidences together...and the overlap of RC church and mercantile empire involving or including enslavement of others emerges.

The treaty from 1494 you still seem much stuck upon (stuck upon that I am alledged to have not read) in light of the preceding bulls and other documents including the very one you mentioned as being prohibition against slavery. Sicut Dudum or "Just As Long Ago" in the year 1435, the title itself apparantly hearkening back to previous times when those resistant to RC styled "catholic faith" could be enslaved from among European populace, presented by you previously here as prohibiting slavery, but in fact much serves the opposite (not prohibiting slavery outright, just under certain conditions) and by default and implication results in the authorization, or should we say "blessings"(?) from the RC church given over for, first to the Portuguese, then by extension the Spanish, to take slaves in conjunction of their explorations and conquests of the New World continuing on in the same tone & vein as can be understood in "Just as long Ago" applicable, for the Spaniards were still allowed to take slaves in the Canary Islands, other than the ones they were told to repatriate, with that bull being readable as to apply to those taken wrongfully for reason they had been previously baptised but imperfect in regards to RC Christianity, and naive.

Portuguese were previously authorized to do take slaves in Africa as the Dum Diversas which explicitly authorized but did not limit it's grants & provisions to Africa either, which fuzziness was part of later contentions simultaneously settled by the Treaty or Toredillas, the treaty itself being signed endorsement by the interested parties (Portugal & Spain) of a papal bull previousInter Caetera 1493 appearing to fit the bill of being an ex-chathedra statement for invoking the chair of St. Peter (but not in those exact words) still speaks .

Among other works well pleasing to the Divine Majesty and cherished of our heart, this assuredly ranks highest, that in our times especially the Catholic faith and the Christian religion be exalted and be everywhere increased and spread, that the health of souls be cared for and that barbarous nations be overthrown and brought to the faith itself. Wherefore inasmuch as by the favor of divine clemency, we, though of insufficient merits, have been called to this Holy See of Peter, recognizing that as true Catholic kings and princes, such as we have known you always to be, and as your illustrious deeds already known to almost the whole world declare, you not only eagerly desire but with every effort, zeal, and diligence, without regard to hardships, expenses, dangers, with the shedding even of your blood, are laboring to that end; recognizing also that you have long since dedicated to this purpose your whole soul and all your endeavors - as witnessed in these times with so much glory to the Divine Name in your recovery of the kingdom of Granada from the yoke of the Saracens - we therefore are rightly led, and hold it as our duty, to grant you even of our own accord and in your favor those things whereby with effort each day more hearty you may be enabled for the honor of God himself and the spread of the Christian rule to carry forward your holy and praiseworthy purpose so pleasing to immortal God.

in which the lines demarcating Spanish and Portuguese authorized spheres had been extended from pole to pole, along with other various...with the above quoted urging on more of the same which had already transpired "known to almost the whole world" and can be read as including approval after-the-fact for that which tranpired in the taking of Granada "from the yoke of the Saracens" which included taking some of them into slavery.

With that invocation itself having of course followed and been given under the non-revoked provisions of the "Until Different" Dum Diversas itself invoking the "Apostleship of St. Peter" beginning with inclusion of;

"...Apostolic service entrusted to us (although we do not deserve it) by celestial Providence..." ending with

"Given in Rome at St. Peter, in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1452 on June 18th, in the sixth year of our Pontificate."

Which leaves the argument that the RC church did not endorse the taking of slaves (although this particular papal bull invoking "Apostolic service entrusted" and "given at St. Peter" now termed not an ex-cathedra statement(?) apparantly by later second guessing or exclusion by way of special pleading) also fully sets aside and ignores that spoken of in Romanus Pontifex;

to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed

itself an echo from "Until Different" Dum Diversas which held at it's core the explicit;

and wherever established their Kingdoms, Duchies, Royal Palaces, Principalities and other dominions, lands, places, estates, camps and any other possessions, mobile and immobile goods found in all these places and held in whatever name, and held and possessed by the same Saracens, Pagans, infidels, and the enemies of Christ, also realms, duchies, royal palaces, principalities and other dominions, lands, places, estates, camps, possessions of the king or prince or of the kings or princes, and to lead their persons in perpetual servitude...

Like I mentioned before but you seemed to miss implication of --- such ideas, principles, rules of conquest as it were, as stipulated above, were understood by all parties to be carried forward through the Treaty of Toredillos, under the later modifications of course. For what else was that treaty about, but to settle conflicts of competition regarding conquest, with the Spaniards wanting to operate under the same rules of conquest (and under the same "blessings" too)? They went back to what both parties (nations) regarded as the same sole originating authority which had set the whole thing in motion with some deal with Henrique, later either confirmed or expanded upon with the "Until Different" pronouncement which had invoked St. Peter, claimed to be from St.Peter's (even if only by location) but should be disregarded since it only from the physical location and apostolic office claiming itself to be the continuing physical presence of Christ on earth -- except when it's not.

The historical results unanimously confirm that it was at the time considered by a great many to be as God intended it, making it at the time a moral teaching in action, as it were. Resulting in it be true enough that the treaty (along with all the other bulls and similar treaties) empowered if not implicitly directed the taking of slaves in the New World. That this taking of slaves in the New World was later reapproached and altered gradually towards it being forbidden, itself operated under clause of "Until Different" carried forward.

What do you want, a full thesis in regards to the cultural and political overlap of the RC church and various (chiefly Southern) European nobles and notables?

For purposes of this conversation, the interplay between church and nobles in regards to explorations and expansion of earthly kingdom, resulted in as something of a by-product, the beginnings of organized taking of slaves in Africa by Europeans. Such had been done chiefly, only by Muslims of various sort, if not between African tribes themselves, and disregarding the Hebrew children's own experience of having entered a slavery like condition themselves by degrees, under the pharoes of Egypt. It's in Africa, just thought I'd make a passing mention...

That this took place much in reaction to Muslim invasions (and occupation of Spain) along with being in reaction to the long standing practice of Muslims enslaving captives, and making a business out of doing so, perhaps should be made mention of. Yet then, that's not the half of it as to fuller historical setting...

While the "treaty" you stress much mention of (for I had alluded to it) doesn't precisely mention slaves, it still plays an important role in the later development of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Which included the taking of slaves by the Spanish as they set out to conquer "pagan" lands and convert the savages to Christianity, under the "spirit" as it were of how such conquest was first layed out under Dum Diversas, translating [again] literally as "Until Different" but later modified by other directives to include more explicitly the aim of religious conversion of the "pagans" and prohibit converts from being made into slaves. The Spanish initially took that to mean forcible conversions (or slavery for those whom resisted). One could understand their confusion given the circumstances, and the language expressed in the papal bulls. Although the mistake of forcible conversion had been strongly enough spoken against after the occurrance of such in the Canaries, and later objected to in regards such policy in the New World, still initially concurrent with the beginnings of Spanish exploration in the New World left on the table was allowance of those "pagans" and others found "wherever in those lands" under the rules of discovery & conquest to be forced into slavery among those whom chose not to submit to baptism.

It was like "open season". If one had "license" granted. And did their hunting in the proper "zones" separately assigned for the two parties as defined by the treaty which you keep repeating, didn't mention slavery, but as long as they stuck to the ongoing provisions of capture otherwise defined in a stream of preceding papal bull definitions, of that which was and was not "fair game", leaving definition of what constituted legal taking grounded upon "Just As Long Ago" and "Until Different" dependent as much upon exclusion in regards to conditions, again, resulting in the treaty resulting in salvery for the New World.

So I was wrong? I confess I've been repetitious as this has suffered from too much re-write, but I'm not looking to pass it off as Master's thesis... Not by treaty...but by the papal bulls which preceeded it? Why didn't you say so?

To invoke a lawyerly "not ex-cathedra" escape clause underwhelms in similar fashion to Muslims today claiming that their own conquests and practice of prior pratices regarding enslavement of others wasn't "true Islam".

Somewhat as was in Islam regarding their own conquests and expansions in their own sets of internal directives, it was otherwise all about issues relating to conquest (including slavery) as written of in papal bulls. The chief difference between those two being the first enthusiastically endorsed conquest and subjugation of conquered peoples in the name of Allah from that which they regarded as scripture (unless the conquered "submit" and convert to the religion of the conqueror) with the second having no such directive in it's own holy writ, other than by way of straining at the same and involving the employ of much reasoning toget past the otherwise clear prohibitions against "spreading the faith" by force which one needs understand much by way of the Spirit --- if the words alone confuse. Obviously, confuse they did, some of those words taken improperly out-of-context then mis-applied. Or else--- slavery as an institution would still be declared proper and right?

Fighting the Muslims involved a bit of beating them at their own game, in some aspects. That this much arose due also to frustration suffered by European Christians being blocked by Muslims from trading across the old silk and spice roads was part of it all, too, with the naval explorations attempt to work around the hostile Muslim land blockages in the Middle East, and beyond further East. But that much is elementary.

Do I need list each step and go into a thorough examination of each portion -- just to establish that much of the wealth and extravagance on display in Vatican City (including the prices paid to have all the work done building this and that) had origins connected to the resulting expansion of empire, including for a time the taking of slaves? not to mention such wealth (much towards the source of "donations") was in part also derived by way of the originally mentioned subjugation of European peasantry at the hands of the nobles?

I understand well enough the various applications of "the fuzzy infallibles" [infallibility] as variously described and variously, perhaps imperfectly is invoked by RCC adherents, and understand well enough how similar claims can be universally and truly enough applied to the greater universal Church, which of course includes the Latin church and it's affiliates. Such can vary, as in the various ways the Latin church defines itself to be, with the more desirous provisions appling only to or chiefly to itself (if there is error found within it is not the church which committed error) as failure to selectively invoke "infallibility" just so...dividing the wheat from the tares from among it's own past, results immedietly in calling into question certain Romish claims which could not be considered to be true to the extent or degree many WISH them to be...which is why the claim as frequently applied gets so fuzzy.

One cannot live by special pleadings alone. There has to be a better way. I think there is, by recognizing within the universal Church the difference between what are works of man (thus tainted with sin) and what are works of the Lord within and among the Church. Yet that same approach which is much applied by RC promoters is held by them to apply only to themselves in much the fashion these same promoters demand themselves to be called simply capital "C" "Catholic" to the exclusion of others (hogging the universitility) while many amongst them deny the same graces can be applied particularly to those who dare disagree with them that all their "teachings" be so perfect in the past, or are now, as despite the claim of being "Just as long Ago" they are still subject to "Until Different."

You can take this also from a mariner, from a man whom by the Spirit of the Lord was lead to become a fisherman;

"If wishes was fishes, it would be a stinky world"