PhuturePriest Posted May 1, 2014 Author Share Posted May 1, 2014 I don't know anything about him. However my reading of the article was not that the Church did not address the topic of slavery before the 19th century but that the Church did not categorically denounce slavery as such as inherently wrong until the 19th century. But even that is wrong. So the integrity of his book is destroyed. This is a circuit judge, not a historian, theologian, or canonist, making historical claims in a book, and they turned out to be wrong. This destroys the integrity of his book. All he had was an agenda to make the Church look bad, and he had a publisher willing to publish whatever he came up with. It's dishonest and ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 But even that is wrong. So the integrity of his book is destroyed. This is a circuit judge, not a historian, theologian, or canonist, making historical claims in a book, and they turned out to be wrong. This destroys the integrity of his book. All he had was an agenda to make the Church look bad, and he had a publisher willing to publish whatever he came up with. It's dishonest and ridiculous. What was he wrong about? I have no idea who this person is or what the particulars of his argument are. However the counter claims I have seen are dishonest. As I have noted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted May 1, 2014 Author Share Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) What was he wrong about? I have no idea who this person is or what the particulars of his argument are. However the counter claims I have seen are dishonest. As I have noted. As was noted before: January 13, 1435, Pope Eugene IV issued "Sicut Dudum" against slavery, not 1888, as Noonan reports. Edited May 1, 2014 by FuturePriest387 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 As was noted before: January 13, 1435, Pope Eugene IV issued "Sicut Dudum" against slavery, not 1888, as Noonan reports. No. That condemns a particular instance of slavery. It does not condemn slavery as a category. The Bull threatens excommunication against individuals who continued a particular population. It did not condemn slavey categorically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted May 1, 2014 Author Share Posted May 1, 2014 No. That condemns a particular instance of slavery. It does not condemn slavery as a category. The Bull threatens excommunication against individuals who continued a particular population. It did not condemn slavey categorically. I've missed this. :heart: You need to post more around the phorum, especially now that you have so much free time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 I've missed this. :heart: You need to post more around the phorum, especially now that you have so much free time. I start a campaign in 2 weeks. So savor it while it lasts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted May 1, 2014 Author Share Posted May 1, 2014 I start a campaign in 2 weeks. So savor it while it lasts. Demand phorum rights to your boss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 Demand phorum rights to your boss. Ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now