Slavery sucks

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Sirklawd' date='Jul 27 2005, 05:30 PM']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.
[right][snapback]661722[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Yes. That's what the "True Believers" are told they must do!

And any evidence that doesn't support their belief system obviously is the work of heretics of some stripe.

And these "True Believers," much like true believers in all the "-isms," buy into that.

A thorough and objective investigation into the evidences is prohibited, of course.

Maybe these should be placed on the "Index of Forbidden Books." :

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 27 2005, 06:04 PM']I have never seen you agree with the Church.  Please provide a list of things you agree with the Church on.
[right][snapback]661768[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

No. The assertion was not made by me, hence, until it is evidenced, I need offer no proof to the contrary.

Proving the assertion is the responsibility of the person making it.

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 28 2005, 06:29 AM']RESPONSE:

Yes. That's what the "True Believers" are told they must do! 

And any evidence that doesn't support their belief system obviously is the work  of heretics of some stripe.

And these "True Believers," much like true believers in all the "-isms," buy into that.

A thorough and objective investigation into the evidences is prohibited, of course.

Maybe these should  be placed on the "Index of Forbidden Books." :
[right][snapback]662250[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


there is no such mentality prohibiting the investigation of historical and theological events of the catholic church. The fact that you think such a thing is evidence of the garbage that fills your mind.


the catholic church calls people to understand the faith. if, after learning about it, you do not believe in the whole faith there is no point to calling yourself a catholic. you cant be a catholic, and pick and choose what you want to believe in and what you dont. For the record, you are a Lesian. people, like john kerry, who claim that they are catholic and then say they are for abortion, are NOT catholic. Its much the same as if I said that Im democrat, but dont believe in anything the democrats believe - wtf is that? ignorance and idiocy, thats what.

so, lets a person investigates the church, like you, and finds things that they dont agree with. well, thats too bad. where does that person get off trying to CHANGE the church?? who the heck do they think they are??? Please move on. purhaps you will enjoy mormonism, or scientology.

Edited July 28, 2005 by Sirklawd

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 28 2005, 07:32 AM']RESPONSE:

No. The assertion was not made by me, hence, until it is evidenced, I need offer no proof to the contrary.

Proving the assertion is the responsibility of the person making it.
[right][snapback]662253[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Not interested.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Jul 28 2005, 06:06 AM']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.

[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Yes indeed. The claim that the meaning of slavery has changed and therefore the Church's teaching really hasn't changed has about the same creditability as the defense that the definition of money has changed so the change in Catholic teaching on the prohibition on loaning for interest hasn't really changed.

Although creative, neither are too believable because of the evidence.

Lev 25:45-46 "You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves."

This is from today's New American Bible. It uses the same definition of slavery as was used when it was written. Note: The use of the terms "chattel" and "hereditary property."

So, since we have eliminated the second reason, we hare left with your first.

"The Church's position (on slavery) has changed."

Playing apologetic's "lets pretend" just doesn't work.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 28 2005, 06:23 AM']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."
[right][snapback]662248[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I've read the article. The reason that Fr. Panzer does not go beyond 1435 is before that race based slavery was extremely rare. This is a historical fact acknowledge by Protestants and Catholics alike. Servitude was the primary economic system before serfdom came on the scene. Your author also misrepresents some of Panzers explanations. He also completely obscures and ignores the clear distinction Panzer makes between slavery and servitude. I am not going to waste much time with rebutting yoru nonsense. You will forever find things that prop up your views rather than actually submit to the Church. it's obvious that you wouldn't know Fr. Panzer's book if you saw it and will not likely read it. You are far wiser than he or anyone else on everything about Catholicism. Even the magesterium itself.
Blessings

Edited July 28, 2005 by thessalonian

[LittleLes]

Pope Paul III's 1548 Motu Proprio on slavery tells us that:

"Each and every person of either sex, whether Roman or non-Roman, whether secular or clerical...may freely and lawfully but and sell publically any slave whatsoever of either sex..."

page 75, Maxwell, John E, "Slavery and the Catholic Church: The History of Catholic Teaching Concerning the Moral Legitimacy of the Institution of Slavery," Chickester, UK, 1975.

Did Fr. Panzer include this papal writing in his "The Popes and Slavery"?

[thessalonian]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 28 2005, 09:36 AM']Pope Paul III's 1548 Motu Proprio on slavery tells us that:

"Each and every person of either sex, whether Roman or non-Roman, whether secular or clerical...may freely and lawfully but and sell publically any slave whatsoever of either sex..."

page 75, Maxwell, John E, "Slavery and the Catholic Church: The History of Catholic Teaching Concerning the Moral Legitimacy of the Institution of Slavery," Chickester, UK, 1975.

Did Fr. Panzer include this papal writing in his "The Popes and Slavery"?
[right][snapback]662360[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Didn't Paul III write Sublimis Deus? Yes I think he did. Wasn't it against RACE BASED SLAVERY. Yes I think it was

I would have to check. I don't recall offhand. But if you look at my post in which I quote your famous 1866 instructions it goes in to the buying and selling of slaves and the context in which it is okay. I am quite certian that if I look in to your quote above it will not conflict with what was said in that insturction that you thought was daming evidence as well. Buying and selling of slaves was consistently allowed as long as they wer under just title. I have no doudt that your quote is within that context as welll. But you will forever keep finding partial and out of context quotes on the net and asking questions such as this to try and trip up the Church. Jesus called this sort who continually tried to trip him up a "brood of vipers".

Blessings

Edited July 28, 2005 by thessalonian

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Jul 28 2005, 10:14 AM']Didn't Paul III write Sublimis Deus?  Yes I think he did.  Wasn't it against RACE BASED SLAVERY.  Yes I think it was

I would have to check.  I don't recall offhand.  But if you look at my post in which I quote your famous 1866 instructions it goes in to the buying and selling of slaves and the context in which it is okay.  I am quite certian that if I look in to your quote above it will not conflict with what was said in that insturction that you thought was daming evidence as well. Buying and selling of slaves was consistently allowed as long as they wer under just title.  I have no doudt that your quote is within that context as welll.  But you will forever keep finding partial and out of context quotes on the net and asking questions such as this to try and trip up the Church.  Jesus called this sort who continually tried to trip him up a  "brood of vipers". 

Blessings
[right][snapback]662376[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

The issue, of course, isn't race based slavery, but the approval of slave OWNERSHIP itself. (Actually race based slavery would be discriminatory. : )

And if you read the rationalization for the 1866 Holy Office's approval of slavery, it was that a poor man was forced to take slaves as a payment for a debt. Could he then sell them? The reply was he could. In a parallel situation, if the rich man had raped the poor man's daughter and she became pregnant, I don't think an abortion would have been allowed.

One can conclude then, that the buying and selling of slaves was not considered a sin in itself, as would have been the case with abortion. But it is now!

And the "just titles" which I have listed in an earlier post were a moral fiction developed by some canon lawyers to permit slavery. Even Fr. Panzer admits as much.

I love claims of differences because of context. :

[thessalonian]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 28 2005, 11:16 AM']RESPONSE:



And the "just titles" which I have listed in an earlier post were a moral fiction developed by some canon lawyers to permit slavery. Even Fr. Panzer admits as much.
[/quote]

No he does not. You haven't even read the book it is apparent.

[quote]I love claims of differences because of context[/quote]

That is apparent from your blatant disregard for context.

Edited July 28, 2005 by thessalonian

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Jul 28 2005, 11:22 AM']
LittlleLes stated:
And the "just titles" which I have listed in an earlier post were a moral fiction developed by some canon lawyers to permit slavery. Even Fr. Panzer admits as much.

******************************************

Thessalonian claimed


No he does not.  You haven't even read the book it is apparent.
That is apparent from your blatant disregard for context.

[/quote]
********************************************
RESPONSE:

"The Popes and Slavery" — book review LEONARD A. KENNEDY, C.S.B.
Panzer readily admits that the argument for possessing slaves by certain just titles (for example, if they had been captured in war) dated back many centuries and was generally accepted, even if it was not right.

Perhaps you might want to reread the book. This time wear your glasses. :

[Sirklawd]

some quoting a book review to refute and arguement proclaiming that you hadnt read the actual book?

-10 points.

Edited July 28, 2005 by Sirklawd

[thessalonian]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 28 2005, 03:09 PM']********************************************
RESPONSE: 

"The Popes and Slavery" — book review    LEONARD A. KENNEDY, C.S.B.
Panzer readily admits that the argument for possessing slaves by certain just titles (for example, if they had been captured in war) dated back many centuries and was generally accepted, even if it was not right.

Perhaps you might want to reread the book. This time wear your glasses. :
[right][snapback]662774[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


"Even if it was not right" is your authors own conjecture. Panzer does not say it (i.e. readily admit it). He explains why it was allowed and his explanations are excellent unless of course you are hell bent on attacking the Church.

Glasses won't help you I am afraid.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Sirklawd' date='Jul 28 2005, 03:13 PM']some quoting a book review to refute and arguement proclaiming that you hadnt read the actual book?

-10 points.
[right][snapback]662778[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Are you denying Fr. Kennedy's claim then?

I generally read book reviews first, and if it is apparent I'm dealing with an apologetics text which is slanted, I generally don't read it.

Does "Slavery and the Popes" cite the earlier Church writings in which popes and councils strongly supported the enslavement of nonChristians and in some cases even Christians?

Does it mention the Church policy that the wives and children of clerics were to be enslaved?

[thessalonian]

"Are you denying Fr. Kennedy's claim then?"

Your catchin on. Part of it.

"I generally read book reviews first, and if it is apparent I'm dealing with an apologetics text which is slanted, I generally don't read it."

What if the book review is slanted. (it is).

"Does "Slavery and the Popes" cite the earlier Church writings in which popes and councils strongly supported the enslavement of nonChristians and in some cases even Christians? "

Not the time period or the type of slavery he is dealing with. He deals with slavery, not servitiude and his goal is primarily to show the history from a papal perspective of race based slavery. This did not originate or at least was extremely uncommon in the first millenium so he does not go back that far.

"Does it mention the Church policy that the wives and children of clerics were to be enslaved?"


Sounds like you have read Rome Has Spoken or a review of it. That book isn't biased?

Once again you don't know the difference between servitude and other forms of slavery and I could just as well be talking to my doggy.

Edited July 28, 2005 by thessalonian