Pope Leo XIV makes historic apology for Vatican's role in legitimizing slavery
Posted by polymute@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 24 comments
Posted by polymute@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 24 comments
octopusboots@reddit
That is pretty strange to me, considering the book they're operating from. No one in the entire bible takes issue with the institution of slavery. There's laws to regulate it, but banning it is not in there.
fubo@reddit
Sola scriptura is a Protestant heresy. The Catholic Church does not believe that the entirety of Christian faith & morals are contained in the Bible.
FrigidMcThunderballs@reddit
There's something to be said for how modern americanized viewpoints of Christianity leave people very surprised by and unprepared to engage with historical and international traditions. I was originally going to say the heavy cultural protestantism but then i remembered American Catholics get this too, especially lately when they casually go "this pope is a woke modernist because of [centuries old theological they never heard of before]"
brrbles@reddit
The wild thing is that many American Catholics are effectively evangelical Christians due to the way that the evangelical culture machine dominates Christian publishing.
brrbles@reddit
It's like the Protestant version of "textualism", and it mostly exists to distract you from understanding what you believe and why you believe it and shroud ideology in the language of rationalism.
fubo@reddit
I'm not a practicing Christian of any stripe, but the Protestant position here is just goofy silly if you ask me. The Church compiled the Bible ... but the Church existed for a couple hundred years before that. They were already doing church stuff before the Bible was around. Was that church stuff all unfounded and wrong, because they didn't have the Bible to base it on? If you're gonna claim the Bible was divinely inspired, well, Gospel Jesus himself says that he's putting Peter in charge ... but he never says "hey Matthew, write this stuff down."
(Lutheran bibliolatry is possibly downstream of Jewish mystical views of the Torah having existed before the creation of the world; ironic since Luther was such an antisemite.)
Jepekula@reddit
That is not what Sola Scriptura is or means. Lutherans do not say apostolic tradition does not exist, nor does it even mean that tradition ought to not be followed, it merely means that tradition ought to never contradict the scriptures, and when they do contradict, it is the scriptures that ought to be followed.
Socraman@reddit
Problem is that the scriptures contradict themselves, especially the Old Testament. And it also a book of myths, something the Catholic Church understands, and this is why it accepts the Big Bang and evolution as facts unlike many protestant churches.
Mikerosoft925@reddit
Most mainstream Protestant churches in Western Europe at least also accept this
QuackSomeEmma@reddit
Well, Catholicism doesn't just base everything on the book. They have a pope for a reason. And frankly I think what Europe did for slavery is in no way comparable to the modes that came before. Serfdom, enslavement of war prisoners, for punishment, and debt bondage are so much different than the systematic horrors of chattel slavery. Which was really enabled by, and further fueling the immense surplus of the industrializing economy
polymute@reddit (OP)
Persia practiced chattel slavery (well some of the empires in the antiquity did). The Assyrian empires certainly did. Various Mesopotamian polities, the Elamites too. Bronze and Iron age Canaan, Syria, Anatolia as well. Mesoamerica had chattel slaves too. The Arab's for certain. Check out one of the first internal threats the Caliphate had to deal with after consolidating the firstish wave of conquests: black chattel slave revolt in Mesopotamia: the Zanj Rebellion which broke out in the 860s in kodern day Iraq. Mayans, Aztecs for sure. others likely. Just off the top of my head. Hardly a European (including Greco-Roman) invention. Nor a one-time invention. It is horrific. It is also a frequently emergent part of empire building.
socksandshots@reddit
Umm... Europe did engage in chattel slavery.
The entire greco roman economy was based of it. While nominally england banned it in 1000ish AD, it was the main economic driver post plague in europe. In fact, 1600 europe literally passed the heriditary enslavement acts making it so that they had a permanent labour force.
Remember the colonies? It was only in the late 19th centurary that the european powers started actually banning chattel and heriditary slavery.
Socraman@reddit
Maybe learn to read.
socksandshots@reddit
Like what? Spain banning chattel slaverly 100 years after the industrial revolution? Or that it took almost 80 years more for Spain to do it for its colonies?
Also, i think you dont realise how the industrial revolution was driven by slave plantations and mines? Feel free to elaborate or give me something you think i should read.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/asiento-de-negros. Here's what i think you should read
Socraman@reddit
Man or woman, you're just looking like a fool.
The thread is this:
- Person A says: "the Bible actually condones slavery"
- Person B says: "the slavery forms during Bible times and afterwards are one thing, the horrors of chattel slavery that Europe brought another horror altogether, enabled by industrializing economy surplus".
- You: "ackshually Europe engaged in chattel slavery"
You trying to school me on slavery just further paints you like a fool who cannot connect two dots and have reading comprehension.
Also your aggressiveness towards my 4-word sentence, by reacting to my country flair (that I have for the sake of transparency, unlike you) and then teaching me about something I never even mentioned, points towards you spending too much time on Xitter or whatever social media shitty place, where this kind of aggressive one-liners are rewarded.
My recommendation is that you get your head out of your ass, learn how to read, and spend less time online.
socksandshots@reddit
Damn... You're actually right.
I didn't read that as well as i should have. I feel like an ass. And yea, pretty poor form to target that you're spanish. Oof. Gonna remember this one.
Socraman@reddit
It's okay, we all make mistakes. The fact that you own yours is noteworthy and commendable, I'm really glad. In Spanish there's the saying that "rectifying is of wise people" so looks like you're at least somewhat wise.
In any case, I'm sure we're all on the same page about condemning chattel slavery in all its forms and how it is a terrible stigma on European history.
Merci mon ami, à bientôt.
wet_suit_one@reddit
Yeah.
It's a real weakness in the Bible. The Republic, which predates the New Testament by several centuries, did do away with slavery.
Odd that isn't it?
It (being the absence of slavery's eradication in the bible) is not something that one readily notices, but once you do, well, it gives rise to some thoughts.
ClinicalDigression@reddit
I've not read the thing, because literally why would I, but I've heard that there are anti-slavery bits sprinkled in here and there. Which makes sense: it was written by many authors across a millennium. You'd expect it to have contradictions.
octopusboots@reddit
I read it. Nope, that is not in there.
analoggi_d0ggi@reddit
While the Catholic Bible forms the bedrock of its faith it should be pointed out that Church Teachings and Traditions also forms a big part of Catholic beliefs, based on the idea that the Catholic Church is a living institution.
As others have said Bible Thumping is kinda an Evangelical-Protestant thing.
riaqliu@reddit
unironically this, there's a reason why Roman Catholicism has survived for so long and that's by leveraging compromises to their advantage; i.e., native syncretism, blending both local cultures and christian doctrine despite glaring inconsistencies in any form of logic and learning to live with it anyways
evangelicals (and people who confuse catholicism as one of its variants) cannot and will never fathom the idea of not "going by the book"
seiryuu-abi@reddit
Past popes have apologized for Christians’ involvement in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. But no pope had ever publicly acknowledged, much less apologized for, the role that past popes played in giving European sovereigns explicit authority to subjugate and enslave “infidels.”
That’s actually why I’m pretty surprised by this too.
wet_suit_one@reddit
Seems positive.