Slavery sucks

[thessalonian]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 27 2005, 02:05 PM']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! :
[right][snapback]661313[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Carnanc]

I think servitude has often been an ok thing. It has allowed many to come to America and work to pay off the debt of the trip. that is not slavery, and that is probably what the popes had in mind.

[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.


ironmonk

[/quote]

RESPONSE:

If a teacher corrects a student who is seriously in error, does that mean the teacher "hates" the student?

I'm sorry that I can't tell you what you want to be told.

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Jul 27 2005, 02:46 PM'] 
[right][snapback]661394[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

lol truuuuuuue that.
some nearly the oldest arguement against the church ever.

plz.

[Carnanc]

this seems like an old argument I suppose, but i've been asksed this a number of times, and i'm still not sure of all the facts on it.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='slywakka250' date='Jul 27 2005, 02:57 PM']I think servitude has often been an ok thing. It has allowed many to come to America and work to pay off the debt of the trip. that is not slavery, and that is probably what the popes had in mind.
[right][snapback]661427[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

A little Catholic "lets pretend" here.

"It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given. "

One doesn't sell, buy, exchange, or give indentured servants. The Pope said "slave" and meant slave.

[thessalonian]

Slywakka,

The comment of the above person's post in context.

[QUOTE]...[b]servitude [/b](protestants generally insert slavery here but that is not a proper tanslation) itself, consider in itself and all alone, is by no means repugnant to the natural and divine law, (they of course stop here) and there can be present very many JUST TITLES for servitud, as can be seen by consulting the approved theologians and interpreters of the canons. For the dominion which belongs to a master in respect to a slave is not to be understood as any other than the perpetual right of disposing, to one's own advantage, servile work, which dominion it is legitamte for a person to OFFER to another person. From this then it follows that it is not repgnant to the natural and divine law that a slave be sold, bought, excahnged, or given.[QUOTE]


Some types of servitued/slavery were allowed by the Church. Those of indentured servitude, mutually agreed upon, and slavery from just wars or crimes (just title). Thus the broader words in the last sentence, slavery. And historically, yes, the labor that the indentured servant represented was in fact sold. The guy just pulls history out of his hat.

Edited July 27, 2005 by thessalonian

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 27 2005, 04:11 PM']RESPONSE:

A little Catholic "lets pretend" here. 

"It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given. "

One doesn't sell, buy, exchange, or give indentured servants. The Pope said "slave" and meant slave.
[right][snapback]661467[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
What keeps you calling yourself a Catholic when you don't agree with the Church at all and have no problem belittling it's leaders, past and present?

[thessalonian]

[quote name='slywakka250' date='Jul 27 2005, 03:09 PM']this seems like an old argument I suppose, but i've been asksed this a number of times, and i'm still not sure of all the facts on it.
[right][snapback]661464[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I highly recommend you read Fr. Panzer's book, "The Popes and Slavery". It irons the whole thing out pretty well. The good and the bad. In the end it may make our 21st century sensibilities a little quesy but the Catholic Church was very consistent with regard to different forms of slavery/servitude.

Edited July 27, 2005 by thessalonian

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 27 2005, 03:37 PM']What keeps you calling yourself a Catholic when you don't agree with the Church at all and have no problem belittling it's leaders, past and present?
[right][snapback]661528[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Response:

"at all"? Evidence please!

[LittleLes]

About the 13th century, canon lawyers worked out what were termed "just titles" of slavery. There were four such titles. Some people even today don't see any problem with them. Lets take a look.

The legitimacy of slavery is incorporated in the Corpus Iuris Canonici, promulgated by Pope Gregory IX which remained official law of the Church until 1913. Canon lawyers worked out four just titles for holding slaves:


(1) slaves captured in war,

(2) persons condemned to slavery for a crime;

(3) persons selling themselves into slavery, including a father selling his child;

(4) children born of a mother who is a slave.

Slavery of any type has now been condemned by the Church.

But what about those "Just Titles"?

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 27 2005, 05:07 PM']Response:

"at all"? Evidence please!
[right][snapback]661689[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

whether or not you call yourself a catholic. You are only a true catholic if you believe in EVERYTHING the catholic church says is true.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 27 2005, 06:07 PM']Response:

"at all"? Evidence please!
[right][snapback]661689[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I have never seen you agree with the Church. Please provide a list of things you agree with the Church on.

[argent_paladin]

Although Thess and Ironmonk made this same point, I thought I would put it as simply as possible so that you don't (deliberately) misunderstand.

If the Church at one time said "Slavery is not wrong" and later "Slavery is wrong" there are two possible reasons:
1. The Church's position has changed.
2. The Church's definition of "slavery" has changed.

First, I would ask you to recall that words change meaning relatively quickly. Also, we are using translations from multiple languages. Also, words typically have multiple meanings as well as connotations. So, one cannot assume that "slavery" translated from Biblical Hebrew about 2500 years ago means the same thing as "slavery" translated from late Classical Latin in an 8th century papal document, means the same thing as "slavery" as translated in a 20th century document originally cast in French but the definitive text being in Latin. Also, cultural contexts change which cause words to have different meanings. Slavery today simply means something different to most people than slavery before the Civil War or emancipation.

Here is what I think is happening:

It is not a contradiction to say that slavery (in a broad, philosophical, technical sense) is not intrinsically immoral but that slavery (in a narrower, modern sense, is. If we define slavery as the deprivation of freedom, either temporary or permanent, of a person then it is not intrinsically immoral. Just saying that generic slavery is not intrinsically immoral is not to say that certain circumstances or properties of persons would not make it immoral (such as innocence of slave, mistreatment, etc).
The modern definition of slavery is more narrow. It is permanent removal of all civil rights and ususually hereditary and often racial. It is a particular instatiation of slavery in general not the entire definition.
That is why context is so critical so one can understand exactly what is meant by slavery. Also, the letter from the Holy Office is not close to being infallible because it was not an official teaching document (like a constitution or declaration) nor was it from the Pope (in an encyclical) or ecumentical council. It *is* possible for a curial dicastery to be wrong (not that I think it is ).
And one doesn't need to go back to war to show that there are several perfectly acceptable examples where slavery (in a broad sense) is considered acceptable. First, criminal suspects can be imprisoned, even if they are not convicted of any crime, if they are deemed a flight risk. Also, people can be quarentined. If there were an outbreak of an epidemic in your town, the government could order you to not leave the town. It could even take you to a hospital and not allow you to leave.
It is not contradictory to say that slavery (broad sense) is ok but slavery (narrow sense) is wrong.

[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. Fr. Panzer's book tries to paint the picture that the Popes were really against slavery after all. Of course, Panzer doesn't deal with the early practices and mentions no documents earlier than 1435. But, while trying to justify the Church's actions regarding slavery, even he has to admit that slave ownership was permitted.

You might enjoy a review of Fr. Panzer's bok by a fellow priest, Fr. Leonard A. Kennedy, C.S.B. It's available on the web under "The Popes and Slavery."