PastorAIO:
Why so touchy? You wouldn't be the only monkey na. Sebi I said that I nearly wrote it myself? Anyway, I AM A MONKEY, and a proud one at that.

What happened to the real PastorAIO?

JackBizzle:



What happened to the real PastorAIO?

He is became an advocate of simian right.

italo:


False! It was all the world. The African who sold their brothers and neighbours were not Catholic. The Arabian slave traders were not Catholic. The N Korean govt that still sends hundreds of thousands of its own citizens to labour camps is Atheistic, not Catholic. The US was never Catholic majority, the UK was not Catholic majority, France has had an anti-religious govt since the French Revolution almost 300 years ago.

Also, "Catholic-majority countries" is not equal to Catholic Church.

"Crusader King" is not equal to Catholic Church.

Besides, what's wrong in killing 3000 terrorists?

If Nigerian Army caught 3000 Boko Haram members in King Richards circumstances, what would you have them do?

To be continued...

The Church apparently has an impenetrable veil barring responsibility. All the servants and agents but the Church is responsible!

Ordinarily agents of the Church acting in contravention of its divine instructions ought to be punished. And there are hardly records to show that the Church reprimanded its servants for genocides committed in its name.

@italo

Isn't it hypocritical to apologize when you do not mean it. And isn't it worse to dress such hypocrisy up as a virtue?!

Kay17:
@italo

Isn't it hypocritical to apologize when you do not mean it. And isn't it worse to dress such hypocrisy up as a virtue?!

The popes meant it...that's why it's virtuous.

italo:


False! It was all the world. The African who sold their brothers and neighbours were not Catholic. The Arabian slave traders were not Catholic. The N Korean govt that still sends hundreds of thousands of its own citizens to labour camps is Atheistic, not Catholic. The US was never Catholic majority, the UK was not Catholic majority, France has had an anti-religious govt since the French Revolution almost 300 years ago.

Also, "Catholic-majority countries" is not equal to Catholic Church.

"Crusader King" is not equal to Catholic Church.

Besides, what's wrong in killing 3000 terrorists?

If Nigerian Army caught 3000 Boko Haram members in King Richards circumstances, what would you have them do?

To be continued...

Menh, it seems as if you now use the world as your standard. So if the world does it then it is okay for you to do it. That is just playing into the hands of anyone that looks at the Catholic Church and says, This is just another human institution. 'Human, all too human'.

So if Army commits every atrocity in the book then it will be okay for Catholic church to do the same.

If all the world are doing something that makes it okay for Catholic church to do so.

PastorAIO:


Menh, it seems as if you now use the world as your standard. So if the world does it then it is okay for you to do it. That is just playing into the hands of anyone that looks at the Catholic Church and says, This is just another human institution. 'Human, all too human'.

So if Army commits every atrocity in the book then it will be okay for Catholic church to do the same.

If all the world are doing something that makes it okay for Catholic church to do so.

You just jump into a discussion and comment without properly analyzing the comment I was replying to. Is this the same PastorAIO I know or has someone hacked PastorAIO's account?

Someone lied that it was Catholic majority countries that engaged in slavery...I pointed out that it was all the world. I never said slavery was okay. And I pointed out that Catholic majority countries is not equal to Catholic Church.

She also point said a crusader king killed 3000. And I asked what was bad in killing 3000 terrorists in those circumstances. What should King Richard have done with them?

The Crusade was a war...a just war. In war, people die. Enemies are captured. Captured enemies are sometimes killed if it is the only safe option.

Then again, I don't know how you missed where I said that the Crusader king is not equal to catholic church.

The Pope called a just crusade...it doesn't mean the actions of all the Christian soldiers were just.

Please don't make waste time explaining these simple things to you of all people.

You're smarter than this.

Oh hello italo! I was wondering where you were.

I'm sure you've seen the response I gave to your counterarguments.

italo:


The popes meant it...that's why it's virtuous.

An apology for the mere sake of politeness is not a sincere one. A genuine apology is a self acknowledgement of one's error or misdeed. It's a high mark of maturity.

chaosattractor:
Oh hello italo! I was wondering where you were.

I'm sure you've seen the response I gave to your counterarguments.

Madame Chaos, I opening thread for you o! Please don't ignorance me.

PastorAIO:


Menh, it seems as if you now use the world as your standard. So if the world does it then it is okay for you to do it. That is just playing into the hands of anyone that looks at the Catholic Church and says, This is just another human institution. 'Human, all too human'.

So if Army commits every atrocity in the book then it will be okay for Catholic church to do the same.

If all the world are doing something that makes it okay for Catholic church to do so.

Love the Nietzschean reference.

italo:


You just jump into a discussion and comment without properly analyzing the comment I was replying to. Is this the same PastorAIO I know or has someone hacked PastorAIO's account?

Someone lied that it was Catholic majority countries that engaged in slavery...I pointed out that it was all the world. I never said slavery was okay. And I pointed out that Catholic majority countries is not equal to Catholic Church.

She also point said a crusader king killed 3000. And I asked what was bad in killing 3000 terrorists in those circumstances. What should King Richard have done with them?

The Crusade was a war...a just war. In war, people die. Enemies are captured. Captured enemies are sometimes killed if it is the only safe option.

Then again, I don't know how you missed where I said that the Crusader king is not equal to catholic church.

The Pope called a just crusade...it doesn't mean the actions of all the Christian soldiers were just.

Please don't make waste time explaining these simple things to you of all people.

You're smarter than this.

It is a wonder that the Catholic Church endorsed slavery rather than use its spiritual jurisdiction against the practice of slavery.

A further wonder that the execution of prisoners of war and refugees would constitute a just war!

Ordinarily i wouldn't condemn the Church on modern standards and luxuries but you seem to insist absolving the Church on such standards.

Kay17:


It is a wonder that the Catholic Church endorsed slavery rather than use its spiritual jurisdiction against the practice of slavery.

False. The Church fought against slavery. Never endorsed it.

Kay17:


A further wonder that the execution of prisoners of war and refugees would constitute a just war!

So what should King Richard have done to the 3000 jihadists?

chaosattractor:
Oh hello italo! I was wondering where you were.

I'm sure you've seen the response I gave to your counterarguments.

My dear, sorry, you know our discussion is long and needs more reading and researching. See the other one you posted six links, I had to read them all. I'm answering you, pastor, Kay, jack, and others...can you do it?

Pls be patient

italo:


False. The Church fought against slavery. Never endorsed it.


So what should King Richard have done to the 3000 jihadists?

Was there any papal injunction against slavery? Any excommunication against slavers?

These 3000 people are said to be prisoners of war albeit jihadists. The tag jihadist used to label is not enough to murder them whilst defenceless and unarmed. It is true King Richard had no Geneva Convention to guide him on how to treat prisoners of war, yet it is criminal to justify their killings.

Best Oscar winner


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwdCIpbTN5g

Good church getting some more loving attention

Kay17:


Was there any papal injunction against slavery? Any excommunication against slavers?

Papal Bull from Pope Eugene IV: <Sicut Dudum>, 1435

On January 13, 1435, Eugene IV issued from Florence the bull <Sicut Dudum>. Sent to Bishop Ferdinand, located at Rubicon on the island of Lanzarote, this bull condemned the enslavement of the black natives of the newly colonized Canary Islands off the coast of Africa. The Pope stated that after being converted to the faith or promised baptism, many of the inhabitants were taken from their homes and enslaved:
[b]
"They have deprived the natives of their property or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery (<subdiderunt perpetuae servituti>, sold them to other persons and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them.... Therefore We ... exhort, through the sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ shed for their sins, one and all, temporal princes, lords, captains, armed men, barons, soldiers, nobles, communities and all others of every kind among the Christian faithful of whatever state, grade or condition, that they themselves desist from the aforementioned deeds, cause those subject to them to desist from them, and restrain them rigorously. And no less do We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their pristine liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands ... who have been made subject to slavery (<servituti subicere>. These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money."[/b]

The date of this Bull, 1435, is very significant. Nearly 60 years before the Europeans were to find the New World, we already had the papal condemnation of slavery as soon as this crime was discovered in one of the first of the Portuguese geographical discoveries.

Eugene IV was clear in his intentions both to condemn the enslavement of the residents of the Canary Islands, and to demand correction of the injustice within 15 days. Those who did not restore the enslaved to their liberty in that time were to incur the sentence of excommunication ipso facto.

With <Sicut Dudum>, Eugene was clearly intending to condemn the enslavement of the people of the Canaries and, in no uncertain terms, to inform the faithful that what was being condemned was what we would classify as gravely wrong. Thus, the unjust slavery that had begun in the newly found territories was condemned, condemned as soon as it was discovered, and condemned in the strongest of terms.



Papal Bull from Pope Paul III: <Sublimis Deus>, 1537

The pontifical decree known as "The Sublime God" has indeed had an exalted role in the cause of social justice in the New World. Recently, authors such as Gustavo Gutierrez have noted this fact: 'The bull of Pope Paul III, <Sublimis Deus> (June 2, 1537), is regarded as the most important papal pronouncement on the human condition of the Indians." It is, moreover, addressed to all of the Christian faithful in the world, and not to a particular bishop in one area, thereby not limiting its significance, but universalizing it.

<Sublimis Deus> was intended to be issued as the central pedagogical work against slavery. Two other bulls would be published to implement the teaching of <Sublimis,> one to impose penalties on those who fail to abide by the teaching against slavery, and a second to specify the sacramental consequences of the teaching that the Indians are true men.

The first central teaching of this beautiful work is the universality of the call to receive the Faith and salvation:

"And since mankind, according to the witness of Sacred Scripture, was created for eternal life and happiness, and since no one is able to attain this eternal life and happiness except through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary to confess that man is of such a nature and condition that he is capable to receive faith in Christ and that everyone who possesses human nature is apt for receiving such faith . . . Therefore the Truth Himself Who can neither deceive nor be deceived, when He destined the preachers of the faith to the office of preaching, is known to have said: 'Going, make disciples of all nations.' 'All,' he said, without any exception, since all are capable of the discipline of the faith."

The teaching of <Sublimis> continued:

"Seeing this and envying it, the enemy of the human race, who always opposes all good men so that the race may perish, has thought up a way, unheard of before now, by which he might impede the saving word of God from being preached to the nations. He has stirred up some of his allies who, desiring to satisfy their own avarice, are presuming to assert far and wide that the Indians of the West and the South who have come to our notice in these times be reduced to our service like brute animals, under the pretext that they are lacking the Catholic Faith. And they reduce them to slavery (<Et eos in servitutem redigunt>, treating them with afflictions they would scarcely use with brute animals."

The common pretext of the allies of "the enemy of the human race," i.e. Satan, for enslaving the Indians was that they lacked the Faith. Some of the Europeans used the reasoning that converting the Indians should be accomplished by any means necessary, thus making the Faith an excuse for war and enslavement. Paul III stated that the practice of this form of servitude was "unheard of before now." This clearly indicates that the practice of enslaving an entire ethnic group of people—the Indians of South America—for no morally justifiable reason was indeed different from anything previously encountered.

The second core teaching of <Sublimis Deus> which follows from this is the necessity of restoring and maintaining the liberty of the Indians:

"Therefore, We, . . . noting that the Indians themselves indeed are true men and are not only capable of the Christian faith, but, as has been made known to us, promptly hasten to the faith' and wishing to provide suitable remedies for them, by our Apostolic Authority decree and declare by these present letters that the same Indians and all other peoples—even though they are outside the faith—who shall hereafter come to the knowledge of Christians have not been deprived or should not be deprived of their liberty or of their possessions. Rather they are to be able to use and enjoy this liberty and this ownership of property freely and licitly, and are not to be reduced to slavery, and that whatever happens to the contrary is to be considered null and void. These same Indians and other peoples are to be invited to the said faith in Christ by preaching and the example of a good life."

Thus, we see that Eugene IV and Paul III did not hesitate to condemn the forced servitude of Blacks and Indians, and they did so once such practices became known to the Holy See. Their teaching was continued by Gregory XIV in 1591 and by Urban VIII in 1639. Indeed Urban, in his document <Commissum Nobis>, appealed to the teaching of his predecessors, particularly Paul III. The pontifical teaching was continued by the response of the Holy Office on March 20, 1686, under Innocent XI, and by the encyclical of Benedict XIV, <Immensa Pastorum>, on December 20, 1741. This work was followed by the efforts of Pius VII at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 to have the victors over Napoleon outlaw slavery.

Kay17:


Was there any papal injunction against slavery? Any excommunication against slavers?

Are you satisfied? Or you want more Papal Bulls?

Or have you found another issue to criticize the Catholic Church for?

Kay17:




These 3000 people are said to be prisoners of war albeit jihadists. The tag jihadist used to label is not enough to murder them whilst defenceless and unarmed. It is true King Richard had no Geneva Convention to guide him on how to treat prisoners of war, yet it is criminal to justify their killings.

I asked you what King Richard should have done...you can't answer. All you do is complain.

By what law was it criminal for Richard to kill 3000 Jihadists? Kay17s law?

Kay17:


An apology for the mere sake of politeness is not a sincere one. A genuine apology is a self acknowledgement of one's error or misdeed. It's a high mark of maturity.

apology Translate Button
[uh-pol-uh-jee]
noun, plural apologies.
1.
a written or spoken expression of one's regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another

One can, fail or injure someone...without doing wrong.

In that case, an apology could be for the sake of politeness.

PastorAIO:


Madame Chaos, I opening thread for you o! Please don't ignorance me.

Oh sorry I just saw the thread! On anarcho-communism right?

Hmmm...I don't know how I'll relate it to religion. Or you could just email me...

Kay17:


The Church apparently has an impenetrable veil barring responsibility. All the servants and agents but the Church is responsible!

Ordinarily agents of the Church acting in contravention of its divine instructions ought to be punished. And there are hardly records to show that the Church reprimanded its servants for genocides committed in its name.

There are such records. You just go around talking in ignorance.

chaosattractor:
Sorry for the late response, I had to shorten the post drastically for Nairaland to accept it.



Logical fallacy. Person A doing evil does not excuse Person B of participating in that evil. Or do you think that when you stand before the God you believe in that you'll say "Mr. So-and-so was also doing it so I have done nothing wrong"? Especially when the church as you claim is supposed to be a moral beacon.

This is why I linked to a source on chattel slavery and the Transatlantic slave trade, not slavery in general. Because if it was the latter I would simply have pointed you to the Bible where slavery is endorsed including branding/mutilation of slaves, beating them and treating them as second-class citizens. See Exodus 21:1, 21:20 and 21:32; Colossians 3:22; Titus 2:9. According to Paul's writings it was a "sin"/wrongdoing for African-American slaves to rise up against their masters or seek freedom.

I can overlook the endorsing of bonded/forced labour and indentured servitude in the Bible, after all it is a product of its time. What I will never condone or overlook are passages and statements that endorse chattel slavery which any student of history can tell you is one of the most egregious violations of human rights that humanity has come up with. Coupled with institutionalized racism in the transatlantic slave trade, which Catholic clergy also participated in. (For those who don't know, chattel slavery is a system in which a slave is considered his master's literal property. He or she is nothing more than another possession and the master is considered to own everything about them including any children they produce. This is the ideology that led to the enslaving of the black race because it was widely believed that black people were their owners' property right from birth or even conception, like farm animals).

This thing doesn't need these long epistles. Truth goes straightforward while lies go round about. Here's your original statement:

1) It was Catholic-majority countries that specialized in chattel slavery.

Accept that that statement is wrong...or prove that US, UK, African countries, Arabians etc were Catholic majority...before you divert to other things.

N.b
1. Catholic majority countries is not equal to Catholic Church.
2. I never said it was okay for a few people in Catholic majority countries to do it because Atheists and other non-Catholics were doing it.
3. A few Catholic Clergy is not equal to the Catholic Church.

Please read official Papal denunciation and condemnation of slavery in one of the responses I gave to Kay17.

italo:


Are you satisfied? Or you want more Papal Bulls?

Or have you found another issue to criticize the Catholic Church for?

Your last post on papal bulls was well done and thought of.

Yet you are sure the Church's position was unequivocal? There was no canonical law or papal injunction that approved slavery especially of enemies of the Church?

chaosattractor:

A Crusader King that was sent to fight for and with the endorsement of the church and Pope himself. When George Bush sent his generals to wage war in the Middle East did you also say that "general" is not equal to "Bush"? Do we not say that the United States is at war with Iraq, Afghanistan, etc? Please stop trying to deflect blame.

A General is not equal to George Bush. A Nigerian soldier that raped a Liberian woman during the Ecological peace-kepping mission (which was a just war) is not equal to Ecowas that sent him. Secondly, George Bush is the commander-in-chief of the US armed-forces. The Pope never had such powers over King Richard.

chaosattractor:

Did you miss the part where there were literal children murdered in that massacre? I repeat, these were prisoners-of-war and refugees from the town of Acre that he had just sacked. He had them all murdered except the wealthy ones who could be ransomed, and historians' consensus is that at least one of his reasons was that he didn't want to be responsible for the extra mouths. As if they're the ones that called him all the way from England to come and attack their town and then complain that he cannot feed them.

Which historians had that consensus? What do you and the historians say Richard should have done? He should have released refuJihadists to Saladin so that they'll come back to kill him? The Muslim refuJihadists in Europe are already raping women, killing people and burning property. What makes you think the ones Richard captured were any better? ISIS has many child-jihadists. What makes you think Saladin didn't?

chaosattractor:


Did you even stop to read what you're typing? This is blatant and callous xenophobia coming from somebody that is proclaiming his church as the most compassionate of all institutions. What happened to "Thou shalt not kill" and "turn the other cheek"? Hypocrisy in high places.

They don't apply in a just war. War is War! It isn't hypocrisy. What is hypocrisy is when you think you should be the one to interprete Christian teaching to the Catholic Church that brought Christianity to you.

chaosattractor:


Soooo what you're trying to say is that you don't have any sources or counterpoints to the allegations. You just feel that they're not true so we must take your word for it over that of a man that researched and published a whole book on his findings.

Here are some more articles with more sources on the topic:
http://americamagazine.org/content/all-things/vatican-bank-scandal-nobody-talking-about
http://americamagazine.org/issue/culture/follow-money

In fact Pope Francis himself is worried about and has taken action concerning these mere "beer-parlour hateful allegations", trying to clean up the Vatican Bank:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/13/can-pope-francis-clean-up-gods-bank
(That last article is very long but it contains even more sources and historical scandals as well as the current Pope's efforts to audit and overhaul the bank).

Sorry dear, it's your job to prove your allegation. I can't call you a thief and tell you to prove you aren't.

Post any text in those links that shows a proven crime by the Church or a conviction, not allegations, arrests, condemnations etc. Pope Francis auditing and overhauling the bank is not a proof of crime.

.

Don't worry, I"ll twist it appropriately and it will be a religious topic.

Wait for it.

chaosattractor:


Oh sorry I just saw the thread! On anarcho-communism right?

Hmmm...I don't know how I'll relate it to religion. Or you could just email me...

italo:
Papal Bull from Pope Eugene IV: <Sicut Dudum>, 1435

On January 13, 1435, Eugene IV issued from Florence the bull <Sicut Dudum>. Sent to Bishop Ferdinand, located at Rubicon on the island of Lanzarote, this bull condemned the enslavement of the black natives of the newly colonized Canary Islands off the coast of Africa. The Pope stated that after being converted to the faith or promised baptism, many of the inhabitants were taken from their homes and enslaved:
[b]
"They have deprived the natives of their property or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery (<subdiderunt perpetuae servituti>, sold them to other persons and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them.... Therefore We ... exhort, through the sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ shed for their sins, one and all, temporal princes, lords, captains, armed men, barons, soldiers, nobles, communities and all others of every kind among the Christian faithful of whatever state, grade or condition, that they themselves desist from the aforementioned deeds, cause those subject to them to desist from them, and restrain them rigorously. And no less do We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their pristine liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands ... who have been made subject to slavery (<servituti subicere>. These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money."[/b]

The date of this Bull, 1435, is very significant. Nearly 60 years before the Europeans were to find the New World, we already had the papal condemnation of slavery as soon as this crime was discovered in one of the first of the Portuguese geographical discoveries.

Eugene IV was clear in his intentions both to condemn the enslavement of the residents of the Canary Islands, and to demand correction of the injustice within 15 days. Those who did not restore the enslaved to their liberty in that time were to incur the sentence of excommunication ipso facto.

With <Sicut Dudum>, Eugene was clearly intending to condemn the enslavement of the people of the Canaries and, in no uncertain terms, to inform the faithful that what was being condemned was what we would classify as gravely wrong. Thus, the unjust slavery that had begun in the newly found territories was condemned, condemned as soon as it was discovered, and condemned in the strongest of terms.



Papal Bull from Pope Paul III: <Sublimis Deus>, 1537

The pontifical decree known as "The Sublime God" has indeed had an exalted role in the cause of social justice in the New World. Recently, authors such as Gustavo Gutierrez have noted this fact: 'The bull of Pope Paul III, <Sublimis Deus> (June 2, 1537), is regarded as the most important papal pronouncement on the human condition of the Indians." It is, moreover, addressed to all of the Christian faithful in the world, and not to a particular bishop in one area, thereby not limiting its significance, but universalizing it.

<Sublimis Deus> was intended to be issued as the central pedagogical work against slavery. Two other bulls would be published to implement the teaching of <Sublimis,> one to impose penalties on those who fail to abide by the teaching against slavery, and a second to specify the sacramental consequences of the teaching that the Indians are true men.

The first central teaching of this beautiful work is the universality of the call to receive the Faith and salvation:

"And since mankind, according to the witness of Sacred Scripture, was created for eternal life and happiness, and since no one is able to attain this eternal life and happiness except through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary to confess that man is of such a nature and condition that he is capable to receive faith in Christ and that everyone who possesses human nature is apt for receiving such faith . . . Therefore the Truth Himself Who can neither deceive nor be deceived, when He destined the preachers of the faith to the office of preaching, is known to have said: 'Going, make disciples of all nations.' 'All,' he said, without any exception, since all are capable of the discipline of the faith."

The teaching of <Sublimis> continued:

"Seeing this and envying it, the enemy of the human race, who always opposes all good men so that the race may perish, has thought up a way, unheard of before now, by which he might impede the saving word of God from being preached to the nations. He has stirred up some of his allies who, desiring to satisfy their own avarice, are presuming to assert far and wide that the Indians of the West and the South who have come to our notice in these times be reduced to our service like brute animals, under the pretext that they are lacking the Catholic Faith. And they reduce them to slavery (<Et eos in servitutem redigunt>, treating them with afflictions they would scarcely use with brute animals."

The common pretext of the allies of "the enemy of the human race," i.e. Satan, for enslaving the Indians was that they lacked the Faith. Some of the Europeans used the reasoning that converting the Indians should be accomplished by any means necessary, thus making the Faith an excuse for war and enslavement. Paul III stated that the practice of this form of servitude was "unheard of before now." This clearly indicates that the practice of enslaving an entire ethnic group of people—the Indians of South America—for no morally justifiable reason was indeed different from anything previously encountered.

The second core teaching of <Sublimis Deus> which follows from this is the necessity of restoring and maintaining the liberty of the Indians:

"Therefore, We, . . . noting that the Indians themselves indeed are true men and are not only capable of the Christian faith, but, as has been made known to us, promptly hasten to the faith' and wishing to provide suitable remedies for them, by our Apostolic Authority decree and declare by these present letters that the same Indians and all other peoples—even though they are outside the faith—who shall hereafter come to the knowledge of Christians have not been deprived or should not be deprived of their liberty or of their possessions. Rather they are to be able to use and enjoy this liberty and this ownership of property freely and licitly, and are not to be reduced to slavery, and that whatever happens to the contrary is to be considered null and void. These same Indians and other peoples are to be invited to the said faith in Christ by preaching and the example of a good life."

Thus, we see that Eugene IV and Paul III did not hesitate to condemn the forced servitude of Blacks and Indians, and they did so once such practices became known to the Holy See. Their teaching was continued by Gregory XIV in 1591 and by Urban VIII in 1639. Indeed Urban, in his document <Commissum Nobis>, appealed to the teaching of his predecessors, particularly Paul III. The pontifical teaching was continued by the response of the Holy Office on March 20, 1686, under Innocent XI, and by the encyclical of Benedict XIV, <Immensa Pastorum>, on December 20, 1741. This work was followed by the efforts of Pius VII at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 to have the victors over Napoleon outlaw slavery.

gud research

italo:


Which historians had that consensus? What do you and the historians say Richard should have done? He should have released refuJihadists to Saladin so that they'll come back to kill him? The Muslim refuJihadists in Europe are already raping women, killing people and burning property. What makes you think the ones Richard captured were any better? ISIS has many child-jihadists. What makes you think Saladin didn't?


They don't apply in a just war. War is War! It isn't hypocrisy. What is hypocrisy is when you think you should be the one to interprete Christian teaching to the Catholic Church that brought Christianity to you.

Do you approve of the King Richard's actions as regard the refujihadists?

Kay17:


Your last post on papal bulls was well done and thought of.

Yet you are sure the Church's position was unequivocal? There was no canonical law or papal injunction that approved slavery especially of enemies of the Church?

hehehe, i tink those bulls were on chatel slavery, that of prisoners of war and servitude was different

Ubenedictus:
gud research

I will sell my left eye the day you say something truthful about the bad things the catholic church has done.

We both know that Italo is not telling the full story- there are popes who supported slavery in their writings eg Pope Gregory 1

Ubenedictus:
hehehe, i tink those bulls were on chatel slavery, that of prisoners of war and servitude was different

Prisoners of war? Indetured servitude?


Which prisoners of war or economic migrants were Europeans taking slaves from Ethopia under the support of the catholic church.


You and Italo should be lawyers. You can lie lie lie!