Commenti a: Synod of Bishops, hope in the peripheries

Di: L’eredità di Francesco, la spada di Damocle di Leone XIV – Il fumo di Satana

Mon, 11 Aug 2025 16:54:30 +0000

[...] Su questi altri documenti non si è saputo più nulla. In alcuni casi, sappiamo quale sarebbe stata la linea. Sulla schiavitù, Fernandez è tra coloro che sottolineano che la Chiesa ha appoggiato la schiavitù, cambiando dottrina solo in un secondo momento. Questa affermazione contraddice i dati storici, l’esistenza di ordini religiosi come i Mercedari, fondati proprio per liberare gli schiavi, e il fatto che le decisioni politiche dello Stato Pontificio non possono essere confuse con le posizioni teologiche. Fernandez, tuttavia, ha sostenuto ostinatamente questa idea, esprimendola persino in una conferenza stampa durante il Sinodo sulla Famiglia del 2014. [...]

Di: Bill K

Bill K — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 09:35:42 +0000

http://www.churchmilitant.tv/platform/?today=2014-10-27

Di: Bill K

Bill K — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 09:34:09 +0000

Getting back to the Synod, when is the Pope going to have his people post the final document of the SYNOD 2014, on the Vatican web site in all major languages including English ?
As of this post, it is only posted in Italian.
.
In addition – why doesn’t the Pope REQUIRE via Motu Priprio that all Seminaries throughout the world – require the reading from cover to cover of an approved Catholic Bible and the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” within the first 2 years of study ?

Di: The messenger

The messenger — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 23:45:55 +0000

“The Church can have a change of mind. For example, we know that the Church at the beginning was in favor of slavery, and later she was not anymore,» said Victor Fernandez, rector of the Catholic University of Argentina, vice president of the Commission for the Synod’s Message to the People of God, and Pope Francis’ ghostwriter.”

The Pope’s Ghostwriter????

Then he should be fired!

This Victor Fernandez is twisted! So we know that from the beginning, the Church was against anal sex, and later this should change?

This Fernandez person is equating freedom from slavery as a good just like anal sex behavior as a good.

This is the Holy Father’s Ghost writer?
I don’t understand this, what is going on here???

Di: Jack Gordon

Jack Gordon — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 11:58:12 +0000

“A cherry picking of church history by progressives has allowed them to claim otherwise….” You’re quite right. As Nicolás Gómez Dávila succinctly put it: “Falsifying the past is the method the Left used in pretending to produce the future.”

Di: Joseph Klapatch

Joseph Klapatch — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 11:40:25 +0000

1198 Trinitarians founded by St. John of Matha and St. Felix of Valois, established hospitals for slaves at Algiers and Tunis in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries;

1218 The Order of Our Lady of Ransom (Mercedarians), founded by St. Peter Nolasco, ministered to slaves throughout northern Africa and Europe, one of their vows “To become a hostage in the hands of the infidels, if that is necessary for the deliverance of Christ’s faithful.”

1435, Pope Eugene IV wrote “Sicut Dudum” condemned slavery in the Canary Islands off the coast of Africa.

1462 Pope Pius II declared slavery “a great crime”

1537, Pope Paul III wrote “Sublimis Deus”, and later two follow on documents condemning slavery

1639 Pope Urban VIII forbade it

1741 Pope Benedict XIV forbade slavery

1815 Pope Pius VII demanded of the Congress of Vienna the suppression of the slave trade

1839, Pope Gregory XVI wrote “In Supremo” condemning slavery

1888 Pope Leo XIII addressed the Brazilian bishops, exhorting them to banish from their country the remnants of slavery

1888 Pope Leo XIII in the Canonization of the Jesuit Peter Claver, one of the most illustrious adversaries of slavery, branded the “supreme villainy” of the slave traders.

Di: fredx2

fredx2 — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:41:56 +0000

And the fact that Fernandez does not know any of this is appalling.

Di: fredx2

fredx2 — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:40:23 +0000

You point out that two individual churchmen took positions on slavery that were not in accord with Catholic teaching on the matter, that is all. Since the secular rulers often even appointed the local bishops, often local bishops were more the King’s men than they were the Pope’s men. Richeliue, Cardinal Woolsey, Thomas A Becket for example was made Archbishop of Canterbury by Henry II, not the Pope.
You confuse what sexular bishops did with what the actual stance of the church was. Gregory IX issued a bull condemning slavery, and the American bishops twisted its meaning. Just as today, when the pope speaks about abortion, and certain American bishops claim that abortion is no big deal, and should be just part of a seamless garment, in which they can ignore abortion.
But the fact remains, the official church teaching has been agaainst slavery.
The fact that Las casas gooded up for a while in an attempt to save the indians again, says nothing about the church’s position on slavery.
Remember: at all times no matter what, the church’s position was that slaves should be treated well – and that one rule ameliorates almost all of slavery’s sting.

Di: fredx2

fredx2 — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:31:08 +0000

You are absolutely correct. The church has always ameliorated slavery. A cherry picking of church history by progressives has allowed them to claim otherwise, but a careful examination of history, shows that the church has, for the most part, played an incredibly important role in eliminating slavery.
The church has always separated “slavery” (servitus) into two types: Just title slavery and unjust title slavery. What we consider slavery is unjust title slavery, and the church has always stood against that. Just title slavery was things where people were considered to be justly held in servitiude, such as for punishment for crimes (before there were prisons, they just put people into slavery instead, that way they did not have to provide for their upkeep) For prisoners of war, there was only two real options: kill them all, or make them slaves. They could not afford to feed thousands of mouths when they could barely feed their own. So prisoners became slaves too, and the church would support that, rather than see them massacred. And Just title slavery included those who bonded themselves into slaver, by choice, because it was actually a stop up in the world. A peasant who could not feed himself would become a servant in the house of a rich person to better his life.
But as soon as racial slavery appeared, the church was solidly against that.
The problem comes in this area: In the new world, Charles V gained the right to appoint bishops from the Pope. So the bishops in the new world were Kings men, not church men, really. So they engaged in the ownership of slaves and often ignored the Pope’s insistence that all slaves be treated well, and they allowed unjust title slavery to take place. So the church become besmirched with their deeds. But the church itself has always stood against racial slavery.

Di: Laicus

Laicus — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:21:18 +0000

I quote Wikipedia’s article on Bartolomé de las Casas :

“In his early writings, he advocated the use of African slaves instead of Natives in the West-Indian colonies; consequently, criticisms have been leveled at him as being partly responsible for the beginning of the Transatlantic slave trade (…) In this early work, Las Casas advocated importing Black slaves from Africa to relieve the suffering Indians, a stance he later retracted, becoming an advocate for the Africans in the colonies as well. This shows that Las Casas’s first concern was not to end slavery as an institution, but to end the physical abuse and suffering of the Indians” : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolom%C3%A9_de_las_Casas

Now I shall translate the French Wikipedia about Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet (a 17th century Roman Catholic Bishop and writer) :

“In the 5th “Warning to the Protestants” he refutes the theory of the implicit or explicit contract between the prince and his subjects (…) and enunciates the famous statement : “To condem that status [slavery] would not only condemn Jus Gentium, where servitude is allowed, as appears from every law ; but that would condemn the Holy Spirit, who orders the slaves, through the mouth of Saint Paul, to remain in their condition, and does not obligate the masters to free them”.