Slavery sucks

[thessalonian]

Les,

What you will never acknowledge is that there are two words in use by the Catholic Church. Slavery and servitude. When you pick up on this concept you will get it. I am not sure that will every happen but then water was changed in to wine and men walked on water.

Edited July 27, 2005 by thessalonian

[Paladin D]

[b]Let My People Go
The Catholic Church and Slavery[/b]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp[/url]

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 27 2005, 11:13 AM']...Pope Martin V's  "Dum diversas" and "Romanus Pontifex"...
[right][snapback]660841[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It was actually Pope [b]Nicholas[/b] V, in case anyone wanted to track these documents down. Continue on!

[thessalonian]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 27 2005, 09:57 AM']RESPONSE:

All forms of slavery rob the person of personal dignity and are intrinsically disordered, at least according to Pope JP II. And are condemned. The "some (acceptable) forms of slavery" claim is in error.

From Veritatis splendor#80 we have:

"Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature "incapable of being ordered" to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed "intrinsically evil" (intrinsece malum): they are such ALWAYS AND PER SE, in other words, on account of their very object, and QUITE APART FROM THE ULTERIOR INTENTIONS OF THE ONE ACTING AND THE  circumstances.

Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object".131 The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the  RESPECT DUE TO THE HUMAN PERSON, gives a number of examples of such acts: "Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, SLAVERY, prostitution and trafficking in women and children..."

We can deal with the "just titles of slavery,"  a moral fiction which developed to support slavery, in due course. Suffice it to say, that no  type of slavery is now considered morally acceptable, at least according to Pope JPII (see also Gaudium et Specs).
[right][snapback]660802[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, les, all forms of slavery.

It is no longer considered allowable to enslave those captured in just wars because of the ability to imprison them. In the days of old there were two possibilities since you couldn't just let them loose. Kill them or put a ball and chain around their ankles and put them to work for their keep. The later was allowed. What would you propose, just kill them or let them loose to kill women and children. Should we let the 600 go at guantanomo bay?

Servitude, which protestants insist on calling slavery in order to make the Catholic Church look bad in the 1866 document, is not practiced today anywhere that I know of. THough actually many labor situations are not alot different. The world economy has changed since the first millenium.

Veritas Splendor says nothing different that the Catechism. Your raising it makes you feel good I suppose thinking you've raised another source that contradicts. But I have answered it. In les's little mind slavery is always bad, therefore he is incapable of being intellectually honest about the matter and acknowledging what the catholic history is on the issue.

Actually you are wrong about all forms of slavery. It is not called slavery today, but men who are imprisoned for crimes do perform tasks many times such as making license plates. Sometimes they are paid and sometimes not. This form of "slavery" is not forbidden by the constitution, nor does the Catholic Church or any other Church speak out against it and rightfully so. I don't even hear a peep out of you Lestermister.

The document by Nicholas you are speaking of is considered under slavery due to just wars. The justice of the wars is up for debate but that is the application.

Blessings

Edited July 27, 2005 by thessalonian

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Jul 27 2005, 11:07 AM']Yes, les, all forms of slavery. 

It is no longer considered allowable to enslave those captured in just wars because of  the ability to imprison them.  In the days of old there were two possibilities since you couldn't just let them loose.  Kill them or put a ball and chain around their ankles and put them to work for their keep.  The later was allowed.  What would you propose, just kill them or let them loose to kill women and children.  Should we let the 600 go at guantanomo bay? 

Servitude, which protestants insist on calling slavery in order to make the Catholic Church look bad in the 1866 document, is not practiced today anywhere that I know of.  THough actually many labor situations are not alot different.  The world economy has changed since the first millenium. 

Veritas Splendor says nothing different that the Catechism.  Your raising it makes you feel good I suppose thinking you've raised another source that contradicts.  But I have answered it.  In les's little mind slavery is always bad, therefore he is incapable of being intellectually honest about the matter and acknowledging what the catholic history is on the issue.

Actually you are wrong about all forms of slavery.  It is not called slavery today, but men who are imprisoned for crimes do perform tasks many times such as making license plates.  Sometimes they are paid and sometimes not.  This form of "slavery" is not forbidden by the constitution, nor does the Catholic Church or any other Church speak out against it and rightfully so.  I don't even hear a peep out of you Lestermister.

The document by Nicholas you are speaking of is considered under slavery due to just wars.  The justice of the wars is up for debate but that is the application. 

Blessings
[right][snapback]660952[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

(1) A third possibility would be to eventually release them. And under no circumstances should enslaving all their offsprig be allowed.

I don't recall that we make slaves of the Germans or Japanese after World War II. Did we do that? No more so than it was necessary after earlier wars. But perhaps later I'll post the Catholic argument that allowed this form of slavery.

(2) I thought it was the otherway around, Catholics started calling slaves servants so it didn't sound so bad. Whatever the case, note that both Pope Pius IX in the Holy Office Instruction and the Catholic Encyclopedia correctly call slaves "slaves." Not servants. And no Protestants wrote these. And unfortunately slavery is still practiced. i understand it's big in the Sudan. But periodically imported slaves are found in New York City., too The UN has a commission dealing with today's slavery.

(3) CCC#2414 labels slavery a sin. But it does not get into a refutation of the natural law justification for slavery as does Veritatas splendor. However, both evidence that the Church's traditonal approval of the institution of slavery has changed, although this was a constant teaching.

(4) And, no, you are mistaken. Prisoners today cannot be sold or bought. Moreover, their offspring are not also automatically prisoners (or slaves). Also, prisoners, at least in this country, still enjoy many basic rights.

(5) You are correct. Any searching out, capturing, and enslaving of nonChristian people was once labeled a "just war," by Catholic teachings of the day.

[thessalonian]

Les,

I have better things to do with my time than to go around in circles with someone who is smarter than all the Catholic writers and theologians, including popes. My assessment is you will forever deny anything I say until the day a bolt of grace hits you between the eyes. Therefore I'll not cast any more pearls. I'll pray though.

God bless

[LittleLes]

Thessalonian claimed that:

It is no longer considered allowable to enslave those captured in just wars because of the ability to imprison them. In the days of old there were two possibilities since you couldn't just let them loose. Kill them or put a ball and chain around their ankles and put them to work for their keep. The later was allowed. What would you propose, just kill them or let them loose to kill women and children. Should we let the 600 go at guantanomo bay?

RESPONSE:

It never should have been allowable, since slavery is intrinsically disordered, and religious belief is not a proper justification to invade and enslave. Still, note the appeal to scripture and reason(or natural law) here:

"It is certainly a matter of faith that this sort of slavery in which a man serves his master as his slave, is altogether lawful. This is proved from Holy Scripture. It is also proved from reason for it is not unreasonable that just as things which are captured in a just war pass into the power and ownership of the victors, so persons captured in war pass into the ownership of the captors. All theologians are unanimous on this."

[Leander: Quaestiones Morales Theologicae, Lyons 1668 - 1692,
Tome VIII, De Quarto Decalogi Praecepto, Tract. IV, Disp. I, Q. 3.]



Romanus Pontifex , Pope Nicholas V 1455

"We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit –"

You probably won't find that on a Catholic website on in Catholic Answers publications! :

In short, searching out, perpetually enslaving, and seizing the property of any nonChristians was not a "just war" and hence grants no such thing as a "just title of slavery" to anyone!

[ironmonk]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 27 2005, 12:13 PM']The traditional Catholic teaching that slave ownership was morally justified as being in accordance with scripture ( the divine law) and the natural law - as attested to both by the 1866 Instruction of the Holy Office and the article on the Ethical Aspects of Slavery found in the 1912  (on-line) edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, has changed since the early 1900's.

Current Catholic teaching is that all forms of slavery are considered a sin against the 7th Commandment (see CCC#2414) and contrary to the natural law (see Veritatis splendor #80, and Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes).

To support the claims that popes have always condemned slavery, Catholic apologists usually cite papal statement made after 1500 which deal with condemnation of the slave trade but not slave ownership itself.

But earlier papal statements (which don't make it onto Catholic websites understandably) supported the institution of slavery and even encouraged it.

Two, Pope Martin V's  "Dum diversas" and "Romanus Pontifex," encouraged the invasion of nonChristian (esp infidel) lands, their confiscation, and the perpetual enslavement of their people.

Since some poster seems to want complete documents, perhaps someone more computer knowledgable than myself can find a complete "Dum diversas" for us. I can only find the pertainent sections. However, Romanus Pontifex is easily found. 
[right][snapback]660841[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Catholic meaning of servitude... One who expresses submission, recognizance, or debt to another. For example, if you wanted to move to Europe and could not afford it, you could offer to be in servitude of someone for a year to pay them back for paying your way to Europe and you would have to work a year for them . That is totally OK because you would have agreed to it.

Slavery as in someone not agreeing to do the work in return for something is never justified.


Why is your hate for the Church greater than your love for Christ? Christ loves the truth and you ignore the clear facts in the matter. You have listened to people who have taken things out of context and twisted their meaning... Now, you have the opportunity to win by learning the true meaning yet you ignore it.

Do you want to make Christ happy? If so, embrace the truth not the lie.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[thessalonian]

I've read the document lester the catholic theology molester. It was in Fr. Panzer's book. Do you know who Saracens were? You probably don't care.

Bye

Edited July 27, 2005 by thessalonian

[LittleLes]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 27 2005, 01:14 PM']
Why is your hate for the Church greater than your love for Christ? Christ loves the truth and you ignore the clear facts in the matter. You have listened to people who have taken things out of context and twisted their meaning... Now, you have the opportunity to win by learning the true meaning yet you ignore it.

Do you want to make Christ happy? If so, embrace the truth not the lie.
God Bless,
ironmonk
[right][snapback]661171[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Never confuse the Kingdom of God and the hierarchial Catholic Church.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Jul 27 2005, 01:16 PM']I've read the document lester the catholic theology molester.  It was in Fr. Panzer's book.  Do you know who Saracens were?  You probably don't care. 

Bye
[right][snapback]661175[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Yes, I certainly know who the Saracens, pagans, and other "enemies of Christ " were. A short single term would be nonCatholics.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 27 2005, 01:55 PM']RESPONSE:

Yes, I certainly know  who the Saracens, pagans, and other "enemies of Christ " were. A short single term would be nonCatholics.
[right][snapback]661297[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, because not all non-catholics murder, rape, pillage, and plunder.

[LittleLes]

And some more scriptural support the Church used to justify slavery:

Genesis 9:25-27: "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers. He also said, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem. May God extend the territory of Japheth; may Japeth live in the tents of Shem and may Canaan be his slave.' "

Exodus 20: 20-21"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 27 2005, 01:52 PM']RESPONSE:

Never confuse the Kingdom of God and the hierarchial Catholic Church.
[right][snapback]661292[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

and whats wrong with hierachy? Without the knowledge and wisdom of history that the church possesses - and passes down through the hierarchy of the pope to the priests to the families we would all be left to interpret the bible and teachings of Jesus ourselves - and no one would have any clue as to how the events of Jesus's time brought us to this day and age.

*gasp* that sounds suspisciously like protestantism. youre right, clearly a billion people having there own views of the truth/Jesus/Salvation/Love is MUCH better than a single, ageless, truth. that everyone can look to and be sure of.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Jul 27 2005, 01:57 PM']No, because not all non-catholics murder, rape, pillage, and plunder.
[right][snapback]661304[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

It didn't mater what the nonCatholics did or didn't do. The pope authorized and encouraged the invasion of their lands, the confiscation of their property, and their perpetual enslavement. And it was a "just war" to boot! :