Slavery sucks

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 28 2005, 03:34 PM']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?
[right][snapback]662809[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

lol. are you serious? do you even try to make sense of yourself?

so. your information was obtained from the book review, not the book
you didnt read the book because through the book review you found that "it was apparent you were dealing with and apologetics text which is slanted"
yet you used the book review previously in this thread to back up an arguement you were making AND refute the fact that you didnt read the book...

smooth.

furthermore, this whole message board is full of apologetics, yet.. you participate and read everything here....

perhaps you need a vacation? you know, chillax. take some time off dawg. order pizza. You'll get em next time im SURE.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Jul 28 2005, 03:31 PM']"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.
[right][snapback]662804[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

No. His reasons allow a sin, an action contrary to the natural law, to be committed for the sake of convenience. Is it attacking the church to say that this is an error?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Sirklawd' date='Jul 28 2005, 04:25 PM']lol. are you serious? do you even try to make sense of yourself? 

so. your information was obtained from the book review, not the book
you didnt read the book because through the book review you found that "it was apparent you were dealing with and apologetics text which is slanted"
yet you used the book review previously in this thread to back up an arguement you were making AND  refute the fact that you didnt read the book...

smooth.

[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I think it prudent to have more faith in Fr. Leonard Kennedy, writing for the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Quarterly, than an author who ignors all the papal and concilar pronouncements regarding slavery prior to 1435.

Incidently , it was the Council of Toledo in 655 which ruled to enslave all children of clerics; and it was Pope Urban II at the Synod of Melfi in 1089, who directed that all wives of clerics be enslaved.

Is that mentioned in "Slavery and the Popes? :

[thessalonian]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 28 2005, 05:54 PM']RESPONSE:

I think it prudent to have more faith in Fr. Leonard Kennedy, writing for the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Quarterly, than an author who ignors all the papal and concilar pronouncements regarding slavery prior to 1435.[/quote]

Fr. Kenedy didn't mention anything about the events before 1435 in his article either. He doesn't even criticize panzer for it so it seems you are being biased in accepting his views. He doesn't meet your criteria either but I guess criticizing the book is enough

[quote]Incidently , it was the Council of Toledo in 655 which ruled to enslave all children of clerics; and it was Pope Urban II at the Synod of Melfi in 1089, who directed that all wives of clerics be enslaved.

Is that mentioned in "Slavery and the Popes? :[/quote]

Well it is servitude so it wouldn't be. Of course you just think that is a nice word and not a first millenia economic system.

Edited July 28, 2005 by thessalonian

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 28 2005, 05:54 PM']RESPONSE:

I think it prudent to have more faith in Fr. Leonard Kennedy, writing for the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Quarterly, than an author who ignors all the papal and concilar pronouncements regarding slavery prior to 1435.  so, yes, this is me saying that i didnt read the book because of the slanted reviewer and NOW saying that i have more faith in him than the author of the book. dont you just love how i go back and forth in my logic? I clearly am lightyears beyond you mortals.

Incidently , blah blah stuff that didnt have to do to what sirklawd was saying, yet ill mention it anyway because, hey my logic rulez. and i love discussions. blah blah.

[right][snapback]662985[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

this is how i read you.

[Laudate_Dominum]

To briefly sketch the history, you have ancient Greek and Roman slavery which was just a part of society that was taken for granted. A society without slavery never really entered people's minds.

With the emergence of Christendom you have the ancient institutions of slavery being replaced by what is more properly called serfdom. Slavery as such did not exist anymore in Catholic countries.
Serfdom was generally little more than being bound to cultivate the land you lived on or something like that.

Later on you had a great deal of immoral slavery going on as Christians were enslaved by muslims. It is true that Kings would also make slaves out of captured war criminals and this was approved by the Church, but this is not the kind of slavery we imagine. They did not have modern penal systems and manual labour was a typical way of life for criminals and prisoners. We still have prisoners, hoards of them in fact. And many of them are used as slaves (although we wouldn't dare call it that). As long as their basic rights are respected this can be a moral practice. I think it is better than just locking people in cages actually.

Anyway, the Church has throughout history condemned slave trades and forms of slavery that are unjust and immoral (which is most of them). And in the context of the modern world that we live in, slavery means something different and is basically unjustifiable (except perhaps within the context of the penal system).

Your claims show a lack of appreciation for historical, sociological and cultural situations, definitions of terms, and the intricasies of morality.
My impression is that you have an agenda to accuse the Church of contradicting herself and have no interest in seeing things correctly.

The fact is Catholicism is the primary reason why there is no longer slavery in the world. Without the Church the slavery of the ancient world would likely still be taken for granted.

You cannot do justice to the facts without recognizing what the Church has done to transform society.
Are you aware of the many great religious order in history that were founded specifically to redeem slaves? Many saints had been slaves during their life.

This is one of my fav. quotes:
[quote]Catholicae Ecclesiae - Pope Leo XIII, promulgated in 1890.

There are incontestable historical documents which attest to that fact, documents which commended to posterity the names of many of Our predecessors. Among them St. Gregory the Great, Hadrian I, Alexander III, Innocent III, Gregory IX, Pius II, Leo X, Paul III, Urban VIII, Benedict XIV, Pius VII, and Gregory XVI stand out. They applied every effort to eliminate the institution of slavery wherever it existed. They also took care lest the seeds of slavery return to those places from which this evil institution had been cut away.[/quote]

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Jul 28 2005, 06:05 PM']Fr. Kenedy didn't mention anything about the events before 1435 in his article either.  He doesn't even criticize panzer for it so it seems you are being biased in accepting his views.  He doesn't meet your criteria either but I guess criticizing the book is enough
Well it is servitude so it wouldn't be.  Of course you just think that is a nice word and not a first millenia economic system.
[right][snapback]662999[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

(1) Since Fr. Kennedy was writing a critique of Fr. Panzer's book, obviously he wouldn't be dealing with evidence that was not presented in the book he was reviewing.

(2) If a servant is the perpetual property of the owner and his or her offspring also become the property of the owner, that, by definition is chattel slavery. "Servitude" or "servant" is a euphinism frequently used to avoid the word slave. Col Travis is said to have had a "servant" at the Alamo. But that 'servant" was, in fact, Travis's slave.

[LittleLes]

Catholicae Ecclesiae - Pope Leo XIII, promulgated in 1890.

There are incontestable historical documents which attest to that fact, documents which commended to posterity the names of many of Our predecessors. Among them St. Gregory the Great, Hadrian I, Alexander III, Innocent III, Gregory IX, Pius II, Leo X, Paul III, Urban VIII, Benedict XIV, Pius VII, and Gregory XVI stand out. They applied every effort to eliminate the institution of slavery wherever it existed. They also took care lest the seeds of slavery return to those places from which this evil institution had been cut away.

RESPONSE:

No. With all due respect to Pope Leo XIII, he is in error here. But he tries at this point to distance the Church from the approval and encouragement of slavery. Why didn't he quote any writings. But, if he realized as Pope no "good Catholics" would dare question him, he didn't have to.

And what about the writings of "many of his predecessors like:

Gregory I, Pope Urban II, Alexander III, Innocent III, Pope Nicholas V, Paul III and, of course, Pius IX,

( Innocent III allowed perpetual enslavement of any who did not support efforts against the Saracens. He's probably have done the same today to any who didn't support the Iraqi War!).

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 07:38 AM']( Innocent III allowed perpetual enslavement of any who did not support efforts against the Saracens. He's probably have done the same today to any who didn't support the Iraqi War!).
[right][snapback]663533[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yeah, that's likely.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 28 2005, 09:46 PM']To briefly sketch the history, you have ancient Greek and Roman slavery which was just a part of society that was taken for granted. A society without slavery never really entered people's minds.

With the emergence of Christendom you have the ancient institutions of slavery being replaced by what is more properly called serfdom. Slavery as such did not exist anymore in Catholic countries.
Serfdom was generally little more than being bound to cultivate the land you lived on or something like that.

[/quote]

RESPONSE:

The emergency of serfdom was quite a bit after the "emergence" of Christianity. From the Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia (on the web): "Serfdom evolved from agricultural slavery of Roman Empire and spread through Europe around 10th century. It was dominant during the Europe's Middle Ages."

Christianity "emerged" a thousand years earlier and continued the practice of slavery.

And the introduction of surfdom in Europe did not preclude slavery elsewhere. Neither did it modify the Catholic Church's moral approval of slavery.

For example, you are no doubt familiar with the fairly long history of chattel slavery in the American South.

Perhaps Catholic Answers will provide you with a citation to any writiing by any pope of this period or Catholic bishop in the American South in any way critizing the open practice of slavery.

The movement to abolish slavery in America was led, to a very large degree, by the Christian Churchs, but NOT by the Catholic Church which continued to maintain that slave ownership was not contrary to "the divine and natural law."

As in the case with the apologetics tract you are using, it doesn't tell you "the rest of the story." And it hopes you don't investigate on your own.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 29 2005, 10:07 AM']RESPONSE:

The emergency of serfdom was quite a bit after the "emergence" of Christianity. From the Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia (on the web):   "Serfdom evolved from agricultural slavery of Roman Empire and spread through Europe around 10th century. It was dominant during the Europe's Middle Ages."

Christianity "emerged" a thousand years earlier and continued the practice of slavery.

And the introduction of surfdom in Europe did not preclude slavery elsewhere. Neither did it modify the Catholic Church's moral approval of slavery.

For example, you are no doubt familiar with the fairly long history of chattel slavery in the American South.

Perhaps Catholic Answers will provide you with a citation to any writiing by any pope of this period or Catholic bishop in the American South in any way critizing the open practice of slavery.

The movement to abolish slavery in America was led, to a very large degree, by the Christian Churchs, but NOT by the Catholic Church which continued to maintain that slave ownership was not contrary to "the divine and natural law."

As in the case with the apologetics tract you are using, it doesn't tell you "the rest of the story." And it hopes you don't investigate on your own.
[right][snapback]663677[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
LOL, alright LittleLes. You are tempting me to get off my lazy butt and finish this goofy discussion... But alas, I'm too disinterested. I will at least make some wee observations in passing.

To answer you odd statements in reverse:

1. Just so you know I'm not using an "apologetics tract".
No wonder people get tired of talking to you, your manner seems to be of the button pushing sort.

1.1 That's because it was basically protestants doing it in the first place. How many Catholic plantation owners were there in the South? And besides, any Catholic involved in the slavery back then was automatically excommuncated so you couldn't say Catholics were doing it at all.

2. The ignorance of this statement is unfathomable considering the preceding discussion. I'm not here to run around in circles endlessly.

3. Around the 10th century is the 900's, but the decline was much sooner. And I said this was with "the rise of Christendom" so I don't see how this fact (which was implicit in my earlier statement) says anything new. The Church was a small minority when it was founded and it took many centuries for the old pagan society to disappear. Throughout this time however Christianity was transforming the institution of slavery from within.

Finally: you really must define your terms. Slavery can refer to a great many things. The forms of slavery throughout history and in different societies vary considerably. I would appreciate it if you would adopt a more precise and sophisticated terminology when discussing these matters. Ultimately to be bound to work for someone is not intrinsically immoral. I assume this is obvious enough. The only reason this conversation even has any effect is because the word slavery evokes a particular kind of slavery that the Church univocally condemned. You are not being fair and I wonder if you realize this and just don't care. I hope this is not the case.

Cheers :

[LittleLes]

On the contrary,

LOL, alright LittleLes. You are tempting me to get off my lazy butt and finish this goofy discussion... But alas, I'm too disinterested. I will at least make some wee observations in passing.

To answer you odd statements in reverse:

1. Just so you know I'm not using an "apologetics tract".
No wonder people get tired of talking to you, your manner seems to be of the button pushing sort.

****************************Les answers,

If you are using a neutral text, please identify it.

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

1.1 That's because it was basically protestants doing it in the first place. How many Catholic plantation owners were there in the South? And besides, any Catholic involved in the slavery back then was automatically excommuncated so you couldn't say Catholics were doing it at all.
***************************Les replies,

Evidence please. If true, why did the Church have Catholic bishops in the South? In case a few Catholic moved there?

Also please cite your evidence that Catholics were "excommunicated" for owning slaves. Keep in mind that the Holy Office had specifically OK'd the buying and selling of slaves (see Holy Office Instruction, 1866). And the Church itself owned slaves.

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


2. The ignorance of this statement is unfathomable considering the preceding discussion. I'm not here to run around in circles endlessly.

***********************Les replies,

Please identiry the statement to which you are referring.

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

3. Around the 10th century is the 900's, but the decline was much sooner. And I said this was with "the rise of Christendom" so I don't see how this fact (which was implicit in my earlier statement) says anything new. The Church was a small minority when it was founded and it took many centuries for the old pagan society to disappear. Throughout this time however Christianity was transforming the institution of slavery from within.

******************************Les replies,

On the contrary. About 350 AD it became the law that virtually all Roman citizens convert to Christianity. Paganism was abolished by decree of the emperor and their places of worship and property confiscated. So for about 600 to 700 years the controling Christian majority could have limited or abolished slavery. But didn't because it had Church approval.

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

Finally: you really must define your terms. Slavery can refer to a great many things. The forms of slavery throughout history and in different societies vary considerably. I would appreciate it if you would adopt a more precise and sophisticated terminology when discussing these matters. Ultimately to be bound to work for someone is not intrinsically immoral. I assume this is obvious enough. The only reason this conversation even has any effect is because the word slavery evokes a particular kind of slavery that the Church univocally condemned. You are not being fair and I wonder if you realize this and just don't care. I hope this is not the case.



Cheers

**********************Les replies,

I have repeatedly defined my use of the term slave. Haven't you been paying attention?

I am using the same term as the Church based on scripture. Lev 25 45-46: Such slaves you may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves.

That's the kind of slavery that existed in early Rome and in the American South.

[Carnanc]

while I see how you may be confused by the passage from leviticus and the 1866 Holy Office Instruction, If you look at the beginning of this thread, and at the other explanations people have given, the Church has consistantly taught in the dignity of the human person. Slavery is a little hard to define, since as we have mentioned there may be some forms of slavery that are acceptable such as servitude. The Slavery in the American south was one of the most cruel forms of slavery. It is this cruelty which the Church is condemning such as the killing of slaves for no reason at all.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='slywakka250' date='Jul 29 2005, 01:12 PM']while I see how you may be confused by the passage from leviticus and the 1866 Holy Office Instruction, If you look at the beginning of this thread, and at the other explanations people have given, the Church has consistantly taught in the dignity of the human person. Slavery is a little hard to define, since as we have mentioned there may be some forms of slavery that are acceptable such as servitude. The Slavery in the American south was one of the most cruel forms of slavery. It is this cruelty which the Church is condemning such as the killing of slaves for no reason at all.
[right][snapback]663958[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

You are in error. The Church consistently taught the moral legitimacy of chattel slavery (as practiced in the American South and elsewhere) and that it was in keeping with scripture ( see esp Lev 25) and the natural law.

Holy Office instruction, 1866: "It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given."

And from the (on-line) the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"From the beginning the Christian moralist did not condemn slavery as in se, or essentially, against the natural law or natural justice. The fact that slavery, tempered with many humane restrictions, was permitted under the Mosaic law would have sufficed to prevent the institution form being condemned by Christian teachers as absolutely immoral."

But this constant teaching changed relatively recently. Now slavery is a sin and evil "always and per se" and against the natural law:

CCC# 2414 The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that .... lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard of their personal dignity ...

Veritatis splendor: 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..."

It's unfortunate if your belief system makes it impossible to accept the well documented facts regarding the Church support of the moral legitimacy of slavery and the change in teaching which now proclaims slavery sinful and unjustifiable under any circumstances.

[MC Just]

[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]


Man you wouldnt have had your beloved bible if it wasnt for the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. That is a fact of history. Even Martin Luther admitted it. Protestants are thiefs and liars.

They stole our bible and made their own version of it. The Catholic church is firm and build on a three legged stool. Scripture, The Magesterium and Sacred Tradtion, yall pulled two of the legs off and expected to stand on one. lol

That stupidity and foolishness was proved shortly after the reformation. When "The new church of the new gospel" was shattered into thousands of peices. Satan divides and conquers, consider yourself conquered. :

Edited July 30, 2005 by MC Just