I'm Native American, born and raised on a reservation, and this is the exact sentiment for so many Native Americans. They see it as a white man's religion, and they point to the evil things perpetrated against Native Americans by people who call themselves Christians. It's a very very difficult issue to get past for a lot of people. I've been trying to convince them that this is the one true God that our ancestors talked about, and he came to save us as well. The gospel traveled thousands of years and thousands of miles to get to the reservations. Pray for our Native brothers and sisters that their hearts may be softened and that they may see the beauty of Christ.
I'm Cameroonian (Afrcain, in case you don't know what Cameroon is) and this talking point is tired and tiresome to me. With or without White people, were Native Americans not already hurting each other on the basis of tribalism? Of course they were! If anything, many things changed after White people cme to the Americas but they also brought many wrongdoings and bad things.
@@justaguy328 amen pray for sure well put! It just don't help with people wrongly portraying him as a white man when we know he was not. Being authentic to the truth of the Bible and history will ultimately be for the most good.
@@JustWordsOK Actually if you go to different parts of regions around the globe where Christianity survived for a longer period of time, you will realize that thy all slowly changed image of Jesus, Mary etc... to look more like them. This slow change happened over generations.
Ethiopia, Armenia and Georgia (contemporary names) were the first Christian kingdoms. Not Rome. Just a little history can go a long way. Christian Ethiopia had legal slavery until 1942. Slavery was not a "European" phenomena.
Agreed, but Ethiopia, Georgia and Armenia form of slavery weren’t racially motivated in the same manner as European slavery. All I would say is that don’t try to equalize European slavery with other forms of slavery.
@@warren279 Just pause a minute. The "scientific racialism" CAME CENTURIES AFTER the economic motivations regarding growing sugar cane in the West Indies for exporting sugar back to European buyers. Until the cotton gin was invented, slavery in North America was relatively minimal and focused on growing tobacco for export back to European buyers. The crystal clear ECONOMIC MOTIVATIONS date back to the 1500's. The so-called "scientific racialism" (pioneered by fake "university scientists") didn't come about until the mid-to-late 1800's. And the "scientific racialism" was not limited to African slaves in the West. Nope. The "scientific racialism" applied all over the world. Why? Because the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese and even Belgian "global" maritime empires. See now? Maritime empires and commerce (merchants) are who are relevant to this sad story. "Ideas" are never "about ideas." Nope. I grew up as America was losing the Vietnam War. Losing that war to Indochinese Asians did more to cure Americans of "scientific racialism" than MLK did.
@@warren279this wasn’t the intent. It was a consequence of other choices made that were made in service of recognizing and protecting humans. It began with not being allowed to enslave Christians and American slavery moved to Africans because enslaving natives was forbidden due to their poor constitutions to white man’s disease. Blacks were pagan and had been exposed to whites for a long time. And blacks were enslaving Europeans and Christians, too. The Holy Roman Empire collapsed before making rulings on any further limitations to slavery, leaving African slavery to become entrenched.
@@warren279 Well. one, you're wrong as hell. Two, i'm sure the other slaves will be happy to know that at least their slavery wasn't "racially motivated". That makes their slavery so much better lol. But back to the the more important point, whites were enslaved by other races all around the world as well, so try to spin it however you want, but literally every race has engaged in racially motivated slavery throughout history. It's the lie of a racist to try to spin it so that Europeans are an abnormal form of evil.
I’m Filipino. And this is such an ad hominem fallacy! If tomorrow it were discovered that Einstein was a child molester, that wouldn’t invalidate his theory of relativity. Am I just supposed to ignore the historical evidence of Our Lord’s resurrection just because some of his missionaries from Europe were jerks to my ancestors? I’m tired of this nonsense!
Excellent video. Thank you so much for teaching our Catholic history, it’s a treasure, that many of us ignore. God bless you in your work, teaching God’s Word.
The Popes condemned slavery all the way back during when it first started in the Canary Islands with the Natives and continued to condemn it throughout its entirety in Papal Encyclicals. There were some mistakes, but the Church was always against it, an in general; had a good tract record; regardless of individual Catholics doing bad. As for the Bible, in Catholic doctrine there is a difference between Just Title slavery and Chattel Slavery. Just Title can be justified, but it is severely limited. This form still sees the enslaved as human persons, and requires them to be treated humanely and not to be enslaved in perpetuity. Sometimes it isn’t necessarily intrinsically wrong (in regards to Just Title, which is still technically allowed in the Constitution). For example, if an ancient tribe went against another tribe, and they won, they might enslave them to stop them from retrying to invade them again. However, chattel, like what was seen with black people, was always condemned. Now, while Old Testament slavery has elements of chattel slavery, it was still very restricted. And we know that God permitted certain immoral actions in the Old Testament, often to avoid greater evils, until Christ came. Now, we are expected to try to be morally perfect. The New Testament does mention slavery, but barely. Slavery was a major part of the Roman Empire, and the early Christian Church was already persecuted. It would have made things worse to try and start a revolt or something. Therefore, the New Testament doesn’t mention it much, except for the Apostles saying to be good people, even under their circumstances, and that they would receive a Reward in heaven. However, Apostolic Tradition does make the separation between the two. Nowadays, no slavery is permissible, because there’s no need for it. So it is always against the Natural Law now (Moral Law). Slavery was completely eradicated in the Roman Empire once it became Christian, and was mostly replaced by serfdom in the Middle Ages. It became a thing again during the Age of Exploration, and a little while afterwards, but the Christian countries eventually banned it, starting with the Catholics. It took other countries centuries to mostly do the same (slavery still unfortunately exists today), after pressure from Christian countries.
I don’t know why… but I had been reading the history of slavery in the Spanish colonies of America… the Spanish had just ousted the moors and the age of exploration began that same year. When the Spaniards started setting the colonies, the crown forbade serfdom and so slavery was used. I am incredibly curious why the crown forbade serfdom in the colonies.
To be fair this is broadly correct, chattel slavery was banned, officially, by the Church before the 1800s. I am not going to write the practice changed however. It got to a point in 1684 that the Trans-Atlantic slave trade could have been banned. Unfortunately this did not happen.
"Slavery was completely eradicated in the Roman Empire once it became Christian" No it wasn't just read the Corpus Juris Civilis. According to Augustine, God approved of the flogging of disobedient slaves: "You must use the whip, use it! God allows it. Rather, he is angered if you do not lash the slave. But do it in a loving and not a cruel spirit." John Chrysostom wrote that "to discipline and punish ignorant slaves is a great accolade, and not a perchance commendation"
If you want a book on this matter I highly recommend: Lourenço da Silva Mendonça and the Black Atlantic Abolitionist Movement in the Seventeenth Century (2022) By José Lingna Nafafé. It focuses on an event in 1684 (For some reason no Catholic polemical works pick up on it and the only reference to it is the distinction between Just and Unjust title to slavery.) where Pope Innocent XI was made known of the horrid practice of slavery to the extent that King Pedro II of Portugal and King Charles II of Spain became abolitionist and were willing to end the trans-atlantic slave trade (Unfortunately vested interests prevented this. Sad honestly.). If the measures it proposed came to pass slavery as an institution would be impossible. Another thing I must emphasise is that the Church never permitted sexual slavery, in India Priests routinely castigated Portuguese men who kept concubines and one of the reasons the Pope became horrified in 1684 was over sexual slavery (I must note the reasoning was primarily the lack of marriage and sexual impropriety which is definitely not the primary issue but it remains a fact that sexual slavery was condemned.).
I totally clicked on it because of that, not gonna lie. I thought it was a Key and Peele sketch and he was going to introduce himself as Da'quarius Shaquarius. 😏
I always pray that I become a successful Catholic Social Media Influencer to spread the teachings and Revelations of the Catholic Church and the entire Christendom. I hope and pray the Devotion to the Eucharist and the Holy Souls in Purgatory helps me.
The Bible states, the slave should honor his master as he would honor God himself. All cultures have had slaves at one time or another. There is no culture in the world that has not used slaves at some point or another.
That was advice by Paul so that slaves can by their good example bring their asters closer to Christ. In the ened of the day Chrsitians weren't in the position tot end slavery
Slavery/ indentured servitude was a global phenomenon that is thousands of years old. Before the industrial revolution you needed manpower to perform physical labour. Resources were scarce and a symbiotic relationship between agricultural peasants/ serfs and landowners helped both survive. It was the harsh reality of life before the industrial revolution. Peasants in Europe were like indentured servants/ slaves tied to landowners.
From the beginning of Christianity until the late 19th century, the church argued slavery was in keeping with the natural law. Priests, religious orders, nuns owned slaves - and often pursued them when they ran away. In the early part of the 19th century, Pope Gregory XVI, under pressure from Britain, condemned the slave trade. At the end of the century, Pope Leo XIII was the first to express disapproval of slavery itself. Only at the Second Vatican Council in the early 60's did the church formally condemn slavery and only in John Paul II’s encyclical Veritas Splendor was it finally said after two millennia of outrageous injustice that slavery was intrinsically evil.
This is simply untrue. He even cited his source in the video. See the following: Sicut Dudum (1435) Sublimis Deus (1537) Pastorale Officium (1537) Bulla Cum Sicuti (1591) In Supremo Apostolatus (1839)
While there are instances of popes disapproving of slavery in particular places, it was only recently that the church proclaimed slavery to be intrinsically evil.
I'd love to see Pints with Aquinas take on Pax Tubes video on the Catholic Inquisition and Crusades. And also see the people who made "Debunking" videos of Pax Tubes 2 most popular videos.✌️ ✝️⛪✝️👌
Yes. According to Augustine, God approved of the flogging of disobedient slaves: "You must use the whip, use it! God allows it. Rather, he is angered if you do not lash the slave. But do it in a loving and not a cruel spirit." John Chrysostom wrote that "to discipline and punish ignorant slaves is a great accolade, and not a perchance commendation" Tertullian condemned the Marcionites for their advocacy of the liberation of slaves: "what is more unrighteous, more unjust, more dishonest, than to benefit a foreign slave in such a way as to take him away from his master, claim him who is someone else's property" De Wet, C.L. (2016-10-17). "The punishment of slaves in early Christianity: the views of some selected church fathers". Acta Theologica. 23 (1): 263. doi:10.4314/actat.v23i1S.13. ISSN 1015-8758.
Yes, but it's really not an issue to get hung up over for Europeans especially as the Church always opposed the more barbaric forms which were also in places with fewer Europeans. Places with more Black masters, overseers, and catchers like Saint-Domingue, later Haiti, the other Caribbean sugar plantations, Brazil, etc, were especially cruel compared to the American South. Pagan and Muslim areas of Sub-Saharan Africa also had brutal slavery
Nicholas V authorized Portugal to hold slaves. Yes the Church was on the forefront of ending slavery, but it’s not as if it’s always been the official teaching.
@@littleone1656 Nicholas V literally tells Alfonso V of Portugal in the Papal Bull Romanus Pontifex to enslave Africans. That is not historically debatable. Now there are certain others in the tradition like Molina, Scotus, and most strongly Gregory of Nyssa, who were all against slavery. But the Church’s record on slavery is complicated, and you’re not doing the Church any good by being ignorant of history.
@@Notbraydendantin you can't condemn an entire church based on the heinous actions of a handful of its members. You're not doing anyone any favors by being ignorant yourself.
@@littleone1656 that’s what you don’t understand. I am not condemning the Church. I love the church, but you just need to start being honest with yourself. Nicholas V condoned slavery. I’m not using that as an argument against the Church at all, and you don’t understand that. The church doesn’t have a spotless history, and when you portray to the outside world that She does, you are not being true to Her. The fact that Nicholas V condoned slavery is not an argument against Catholicism. You seem to be afraid to accept that historical fact because you seem to think that unless a pope never proclaims anything at all that is in error, the the Church is is danger. Simply have more faith. Just because a certain pontiff endorsed slavery, doesn’t mean the church is fallible. I am defending the true church, you are defending a false caricature. So I ask: Who really loves the Church more?
@@Notbraydendantin I never said the Church was spotless and doesn't have a clean past. Don't put words in my mouth or misconstrue what I say. You're actually agreeing with what I said.
@ 7:36 Buddhist scripture speaks of how enslavement denies the individual to reach enlightenment as is further confines one to the suffering experienced on Earth. i.e. holding equal compassion for your fellow man is neigh impossible when one LITTERALLY OWNS YOU, potentially beats and starves you etc. But this conversation is clearly framed from a western perspective and eastern theology/philosophy and animism is not something I expect many people to be even mildly experienced with beyond the surface.
Onesimus was a slave of Philemon according to the New Testament book of Philemon. In fact, the Apostle Paul mediates or meddles the grievances between those two early Christians. We are Christians because we became free through Jesus Christ (John 8:31-32).
Thank you for pointing out the fact that Africans played a major role in the early church. Jesus founded his Catholic church for all races and ethnicities!
Absolutely! I have heard stories of people who started with little or no knowledge but managed to emerge victorious thanks to Ana Graciela Blackwelder.
What happens if you stop playing the game the way you're told? Can you go build a cabin in the woods and farm for yourself? Slavery did not end, it simply reverted to it's original, non-ethnically homogenous state.
According to some Catholics, we can reject this document from a pope if we disagree with it. Think about that the next time you read Fiducia Supplicans from beginning to end, which I suggest. Couples are unions and it says in paragraphs 4, 5 and 11 that sinful unions (couples) cannot be blessed. Imagine if someone slandered this pope after he wrote a document against slavery.
@@joehouston2833 Simon of Cyrene was a Jew living in Libya. That's like saying a Pakistani who lives in England is English. Oh, and he definitely wasn't black/subsaharan that's for sure.
No, the pope has no doorway of ignorance; he knew; *especially* if he was mislead, he knew full well that he was commanding evil to be done and to the faithful to call the sinful stuff "good", *particularly* if he was mislead; due to Christ's own promise of protection of the petrine office!
@@johnnotrealname8168 Nope, seeing as it is an issue of faith and morals; this singular event directly removes all loyalty to even God Himself as His vicar endorsed evil as "good" and mandated it be classified as such. The pope knew *exactly* what was being asked of him- so it is NOT "debatable" at all, it is actually confirmed that he publically called evil good, this singular act removes the dogma of papal infallibility from being valid while still keeping it in the mandated set of beliefs at the same time! And it was actually *way* more important than mere doctrine nor dogma; it is about *morals* and he classified evil as "good" in that singular document... thus disproving the whole claims of God Himself *as* God!
@@chissstardestroyer Okay again I think you completely misunderstand Papal Infallibility and what the Pope ordered. Even further read what other Popes after him wrote about slavery as an institution even for black slaves.
@@johnnotrealname8168 No, I did not misunderstand at all; he said that objectively evil stuff is objectively good; and that in and of itself means that church teaching is false- as well as the whole concept of papal infailability in and of itself; as *this* is Way worse than doctrinal or dogmatic error by far! Even worse than getting the identity of God Himself wrong! Plus, we know by this singular decree that the whole premise of God protecting the papacy from error on matters of faith and morals is in and of itself heretical since *this* singular event in Church history.
@@chissstardestroyer You really do not understand Papal Infallibility. Also as we see from before and after the Popes were largely anti-slavery. I can even send you to academic histories on this.
In 1866, the Holy Office issued an Instruction (signed by Pope Pius IX) in reply to questions from a vicar apostolic of the Galla tribe in Ethiopia: "... slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons. For the sort of ownership that a slave-owner has over a slave is understood as nothing other than the perpetual right of disposing of the work of a slave for one's own benefit-services which it is right for one human being to provide for another. From this, it follows that it is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or donated, provided that in this sale, purchase, exchange or gift, the due conditions are strictly observed which the approved authors likewise describe and explain. Among these conditions, the most important ones are that the purchaser should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue or Catholic faith of the slave who is to be transferred to another's possession."
A report on slavery issued by the Archdiocese of St. Louis, Missouri, details how many people were enslaved by the archdiocese’s first three bishops, as well as 11 diocesan priests, and seven other clergymen who ministered there in the nineteenth century. In all the report identifies the names of 99 people enslaved by Catholic clergy in the archdiocese - 44 enslaved by diocesan bishops and clergy, and the rest enslaved by clergy of religious orders. The report, “Slavery in the Historic Archdiocese of St. Louis,” notes however that these numbers are not definitive; that more people who were enslaved have yet to be identified. There remain at least 30 unidentified people who were enslaved by diocesan bishops and clergy, it states. And that's just ONE diocese!
The teachings when considered as a whole, such as who ultimately belongs to who, result in slavery abolishment. How does one own that which was bought by the blood of the Lord? If you consider slave owning and the challenges you may face, suddenly, the slave master concept is unworkable. This is why even though the scriptures don't outright condemn it, they do better. They instruct a believer to see it as the rot it is. And when you see people try to purify their society, for example in Britain it was ruled that the air was too pure for slave to breathe, any who set foot on her soil was to be set free. And that is a religious concept, coming from the pureness of lamb setting us free from sin. While many have lost their way and tolerated it too their shame and the shame of their generations, Christians have a long history of being understanding that with the teachings of Christ and the church there is no conclusion but that slavery is an abomination. Gregory of nysa for example. "Do you notice the enormity of the boast? This kind of language is raised up as a challenge to God. For we hear from prophecy that all things are the slaves of the power that transcends all (Ps. 119:91[2]). So, when someone turns the property of God into his own property and arrogates dominion to his own kind, so as to think himself the owner of men and women, what is he doing but overstepping his own nature through pride, regarding himself as something different from his subordinates?” he also points out the list of things man is given dominion over in genesis and that to take dominion over a man is to take what belongs to God.
@@JesusRulez-l3j not a catholic. You'll have to give me a source. The only sources I find are stupid websites that don't use citations or even mention which work. However I found something SIMILAR in de regime judaeorum, and it's just saying that it's legal to tax Jews. "It is true, as the Law declares, that Jews in consequence of their sin, are or were destined to perpetual slavery: so that sovereigns of states may treat their goods as their own property, with the sole proviso that they do not deprive them of all that is necessary to sustain life." I think it's just 21st century atheists doing the usual by any means necessary thing and lieing for the sake of making Christians look bad. "I don't need religion to be a good person" Ayyyyyyye so it seems
@@JesusRulez-l3j source? Because if not I'll go with what I think the websites I found that had this "quotation" without citing the work were shall we say attempting to copy from. In the regime judaeorum, Augustine addresses a series of questions by a duchess of Brabant about whether it would be lawful for a Christian ruler to tax a Jews who made money via usury since usury was a sin in both traditions but legal in most if not all of europe. Ill gotten gains. He writes "It is true, as the Law declares, that Jews in consequence of their sin, are or were destined to perpetual slavery: so that sovereigns of states may treat their goods as their own property, with the sole proviso that they do not deprive them of all that is necessary to sustain life." I'm not catholic though so again, if you have a source, the work from where that's from if I'm mistaken with what I think the quote is meant to be, let me know. As I said, I only saw this on one the anti theist side of the internet and they never once showed their sources beyond just attributing it to Aquinas. I think it's just the "I don't need God and heaven nonsense to be a good person" people showing their famed integrity.
All Catholic cultures display Jesus as a person of their own culture. It's totally fine to do it. Jesus is for everybody and he can be portrayed as any race if that helps people grow close to him.
@@Joker22593 what?!? One clearly your not that informed... if you go down to Mexico or if you seen Catholic churches in Africa almost every depiction is of European people. Second why would it ever be okay to quote unquote make God into our image...
Christianity is a european religion. Not sure why that's a bad thing. If europe never existed Christianity wouldn't either. Jesus was clearly inspired by a lot of greek philosophy. The art and culture of christianity would also not exist.
I'm Native American, born and raised on a reservation, and this is the exact sentiment for so many Native Americans. They see it as a white man's religion, and they point to the evil things perpetrated against Native Americans by people who call themselves Christians. It's a very very difficult issue to get past for a lot of people. I've been trying to convince them that this is the one true God that our ancestors talked about, and he came to save us as well. The gospel traveled thousands of years and thousands of miles to get to the reservations. Pray for our Native brothers and sisters that their hearts may be softened and that they may see the beauty of Christ.
I'm Cameroonian (Afrcain, in case you don't know what Cameroon is) and this talking point is tired and tiresome to me. With or without White people, were Native Americans not already hurting each other on the basis of tribalism? Of course they were! If anything, many things changed after White people cme to the Americas but they also brought many wrongdoings and bad things.
@@justaguy328 amen pray for sure well put! It just don't help with people wrongly portraying him as a white man when we know he was not. Being authentic to the truth of the Bible and history will ultimately be for the most good.
@@JustWordsOK Actually if you go to different parts of regions around the globe where Christianity survived for a longer period of time, you will realize that thy all slowly changed image of Jesus, Mary etc... to look more like them. This slow change happened over generations.
It is modernity's interest to harness and use old resentments to destroy Christianity. It is the world view that gets in their way.
@@spencerd8504 so the images were whitewashed. But slowly in some or no longer "washing" you agree then?
Ethiopia, Armenia and Georgia (contemporary names) were the first Christian kingdoms. Not Rome. Just a little history can go a long way. Christian Ethiopia had legal slavery until 1942. Slavery was not a "European" phenomena.
Agreed, but Ethiopia, Georgia and Armenia form of slavery weren’t racially motivated in the same manner as European slavery. All I would say is that don’t try to equalize European slavery with other forms of slavery.
@@warren279 So getting whipped by someone of your own race is somehow prefferable?
@@warren279 Just pause a minute. The "scientific racialism" CAME CENTURIES AFTER the economic motivations regarding growing sugar cane in the West Indies for exporting sugar back to European buyers. Until the cotton gin was invented, slavery in North America was relatively minimal and focused on growing tobacco for export back to European buyers. The crystal clear ECONOMIC MOTIVATIONS date back to the 1500's. The so-called "scientific racialism" (pioneered by fake "university scientists") didn't come about until the mid-to-late 1800's. And the "scientific racialism" was not limited to African slaves in the West. Nope. The "scientific racialism" applied all over the world. Why? Because the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese and even Belgian "global" maritime empires. See now? Maritime empires and commerce (merchants) are who are relevant to this sad story. "Ideas" are never "about ideas." Nope. I grew up as America was losing the Vietnam War. Losing that war to Indochinese Asians did more to cure Americans of "scientific racialism" than MLK did.
@@warren279this wasn’t the intent. It was a consequence of other choices made that were made in service of recognizing and protecting humans. It began with not being allowed to enslave Christians and American slavery moved to Africans because enslaving natives was forbidden due to their poor constitutions to white man’s disease. Blacks were pagan and had been exposed to whites for a long time. And blacks were enslaving Europeans and Christians, too.
The Holy Roman Empire collapsed before making rulings on any further limitations to slavery, leaving African slavery to become entrenched.
@@warren279 Well. one, you're wrong as hell. Two, i'm sure the other slaves will be happy to know that at least their slavery wasn't "racially motivated". That makes their slavery so much better lol. But back to the the more important point, whites were enslaved by other races all around the world as well, so try to spin it however you want, but literally every race has engaged in racially motivated slavery throughout history. It's the lie of a racist to try to spin it so that Europeans are an abnormal form of evil.
Thank you, Fr. Louis and Pints with Aquinas, for tackling such a complex and important topic. God Bless!
I’m Filipino. And this is such an ad hominem fallacy! If tomorrow it were discovered that Einstein was a child molester, that wouldn’t invalidate his theory of relativity. Am I just supposed to ignore the historical evidence of Our Lord’s resurrection just because some of his missionaries from Europe were jerks to my ancestors? I’m tired of this nonsense!
Excellent video. Thank you so much for teaching our Catholic history, it’s a treasure, that many of us ignore. God bless you in your work, teaching God’s Word.
That was informative. Thank you.
The Popes condemned slavery all the way back during when it first started in the Canary Islands with the Natives and continued to condemn it throughout its entirety in Papal Encyclicals. There were some mistakes, but the Church was always against it, an in general; had a good tract record; regardless of individual Catholics doing bad. As for the Bible, in Catholic doctrine there is a difference between Just Title slavery and Chattel Slavery. Just Title can be justified, but it is severely limited. This form still sees the enslaved as human persons, and requires them to be treated humanely and not to be enslaved in perpetuity. Sometimes it isn’t necessarily intrinsically wrong (in regards to Just Title, which is still technically allowed in the Constitution). For example, if an ancient tribe went against another tribe, and they won, they might enslave them to stop them from retrying to invade them again. However, chattel, like what was seen with black people, was always condemned. Now, while Old Testament slavery has elements of chattel slavery, it was still very restricted. And we know that God permitted certain immoral actions in the Old Testament, often to avoid greater evils, until Christ came. Now, we are expected to try to be morally perfect. The New Testament does mention slavery, but barely. Slavery was a major part of the Roman Empire, and the early Christian Church was already persecuted. It would have made things worse to try and start a revolt or something. Therefore, the New Testament doesn’t mention it much, except for the Apostles saying to be good people, even under their circumstances, and that they would receive a Reward in heaven. However, Apostolic Tradition does make the separation between the two. Nowadays, no slavery is permissible, because there’s no need for it. So it is always against the Natural Law now (Moral Law). Slavery was completely eradicated in the Roman Empire once it became Christian, and was mostly replaced by serfdom in the Middle Ages. It became a thing again during the Age of Exploration, and a little while afterwards, but the Christian countries eventually banned it, starting with the Catholics. It took other countries centuries to mostly do the same (slavery still unfortunately exists today), after pressure from Christian countries.
I don’t know why… but I had been reading the history of slavery in the Spanish colonies of America… the Spanish had just ousted the moors and the age of exploration began that same year. When the Spaniards started setting the colonies, the crown forbade serfdom and so slavery was used.
I am incredibly curious why the crown forbade serfdom in the colonies.
@@vinciblegaming6817They did not. Encomiendas and Repartimientos were essentially serfdom. However Indian slavery was banned in the colonies.
To be fair this is broadly correct, chattel slavery was banned, officially, by the Church before the 1800s. I am not going to write the practice changed however. It got to a point in 1684 that the Trans-Atlantic slave trade could have been banned. Unfortunately this did not happen.
"Slavery was completely eradicated in the Roman Empire once it became Christian" No it wasn't just read the Corpus Juris Civilis. According to Augustine, God approved of the flogging of disobedient slaves: "You must use the whip, use it! God allows it. Rather, he is angered if you do not lash the slave. But do it in a loving and not a cruel spirit." John Chrysostom wrote that "to discipline and punish ignorant slaves is a great accolade, and not a perchance commendation"
@@tomasrocha6139 You will find plenty of anti-slavery statements back then also.
If you want a book on this matter I highly recommend: Lourenço da Silva Mendonça and the Black Atlantic Abolitionist Movement in the Seventeenth Century (2022) By José Lingna Nafafé. It focuses on an event in 1684 (For some reason no Catholic polemical works pick up on it and the only reference to it is the distinction between Just and Unjust title to slavery.) where Pope Innocent XI was made known of the horrid practice of slavery to the extent that King Pedro II of Portugal and King Charles II of Spain became abolitionist and were willing to end the trans-atlantic slave trade (Unfortunately vested interests prevented this. Sad honestly.). If the measures it proposed came to pass slavery as an institution would be impossible. Another thing I must emphasise is that the Church never permitted sexual slavery, in India Priests routinely castigated Portuguese men who kept concubines and one of the reasons the Pope became horrified in 1684 was over sexual slavery (I must note the reasoning was primarily the lack of marriage and sexual impropriety which is definitely not the primary issue but it remains a fact that sexual slavery was condemned.).
The thumbnail made me think you were talking to Keegan-Michael Key. Lovely discussion.
I totally clicked on it because of that, not gonna lie. I thought it was a Key and Peele sketch and he was going to introduce himself as Da'quarius Shaquarius. 😏
Soooooo Good!!
I always pray that I become a successful Catholic Social Media Influencer to spread the teachings and Revelations of the Catholic Church and the entire Christendom. I hope and pray the Devotion to the Eucharist and the Holy Souls in Purgatory helps me.
This is great to see fr. Louis we loved having you at St. Augustine😊
The Bible states, the slave should honor his master as he would honor God himself. All cultures have had slaves at one time or another. There is no culture in the world that has not used slaves at some point or another.
Well we rejected slavery.
That was advice by Paul so that slaves can by their good example bring their asters closer to Christ. In the ened of the day Chrsitians weren't in the position tot end slavery
He also said that the Master should honor the slave as well because all are equal in the eyes of God
Slavery/ indentured servitude was a global phenomenon that is thousands of years old. Before the industrial revolution you needed manpower to perform physical labour. Resources were scarce and a symbiotic relationship between agricultural peasants/ serfs and landowners helped both survive. It was the harsh reality of life before the industrial revolution. Peasants in Europe were like indentured servants/ slaves tied to landowners.
@@ashwinjohn4319Not sure it is fair to write that peasants were like slaves but it is true that they were tied to the land often.
This is such a great episode. Love this channel.
Thank you for being a priest Father Louis.
Did they never heard about the Lady of Guadalupe with her olive skin?
One of my favorite fertility goddesses
Olive complexion doesnt mean, like black olives.
My patron saint is Abba Moses the Ethiopian (also know as the black, and the strong.) 🤗🙏🏻
This is such an important topic, and that book you mentioned is on my wishlist.
Europeans brought Haitians to Haiti. We’re not native to Haiti we come from African which was already exposed to Christianity before Europe.
Catholic statesmen must be like Saint Olav Haraldsen not Olav Triggvisen must always be Christians before anything else.
Subjugate is conquer, take over. The definition doesn’t include slavery.
- to bring under control
- to make submissive
Crusade
From the beginning of Christianity until the late 19th century, the church argued slavery was in keeping with the natural law. Priests, religious orders, nuns owned slaves - and often pursued them when they ran away. In the early part of the 19th century, Pope Gregory XVI, under pressure from Britain, condemned the slave trade. At the end of the century, Pope Leo XIII was the first to express disapproval of slavery itself. Only at the Second Vatican Council in the early 60's did the church formally condemn slavery and only in John Paul II’s encyclical Veritas Splendor was it finally said after two millennia of outrageous injustice that slavery was intrinsically evil.
This is simply untrue. He even cited his source in the video.
See the following:
Sicut Dudum (1435)
Sublimis Deus (1537)
Pastorale Officium (1537)
Bulla Cum Sicuti (1591)
In Supremo Apostolatus (1839)
While there are instances of popes disapproving of slavery in particular places, it was only recently that the church proclaimed slavery to be intrinsically evil.
Ozana, ozana, maranata.
Jezi sove nou, vini, n'ap tann ou.
Amèn! 🇭🇹
St.Pope John Paul II apologized for the Church's particpation in the slave trade.
I'd love to see Pints with Aquinas take on Pax Tubes video on the Catholic Inquisition and Crusades. And also see the people who made "Debunking" videos of Pax Tubes 2 most popular videos.✌️ ✝️⛪✝️👌
Yes. According to Augustine, God approved of the flogging of disobedient slaves: "You must use the whip, use it! God allows it. Rather, he is angered if you do not lash the slave. But do it in a loving and not a cruel spirit." John Chrysostom wrote that "to discipline and punish ignorant slaves is a great accolade, and not a perchance commendation" Tertullian condemned the Marcionites for their advocacy of the liberation of slaves: "what is more unrighteous, more unjust, more dishonest, than to benefit a foreign slave in such a way as to take him away from his master, claim him who is someone else's property"
De Wet, C.L. (2016-10-17). "The punishment of slaves in early Christianity: the views of some selected church fathers". Acta Theologica. 23 (1): 263. doi:10.4314/actat.v23i1S.13. ISSN 1015-8758.
Based
St Martin of Tours
The interview is 3 hours. You should watch all of it instead of a few minutes of it.
Yes, but it's really not an issue to get hung up over for Europeans especially as the Church always opposed the more barbaric forms which were also in places with fewer Europeans. Places with more Black masters, overseers, and catchers like Saint-Domingue, later Haiti, the other Caribbean sugar plantations, Brazil, etc, were especially cruel compared to the American South. Pagan and Muslim areas of Sub-Saharan Africa also had brutal slavery
Nicholas V authorized Portugal to hold slaves. Yes the Church was on the forefront of ending slavery, but it’s not as if it’s always been the official teaching.
@@littleone1656 Nicholas V literally tells Alfonso V of Portugal in the Papal Bull Romanus Pontifex to enslave Africans. That is not historically debatable. Now there are certain others in the tradition like Molina, Scotus, and most strongly Gregory of Nyssa, who were all against slavery. But the Church’s record on slavery is complicated, and you’re not doing the Church any good by being ignorant of history.
@@Notbraydendantin you can't condemn an entire church based on the heinous actions of a handful of its members. You're not doing anyone any favors by being ignorant yourself.
@@littleone1656 that’s what you don’t understand. I am not condemning the Church. I love the church, but you just need to start being honest with yourself. Nicholas V condoned slavery. I’m not using that as an argument against the Church at all, and you don’t understand that. The church doesn’t have a spotless history, and when you portray to the outside world that She does, you are not being true to Her. The fact that Nicholas V condoned slavery is not an argument against Catholicism. You seem to be afraid to accept that historical fact because you seem to think that unless a pope never proclaims anything at all that is in error, the the Church is is danger. Simply have more faith. Just because a certain pontiff endorsed slavery, doesn’t mean the church is fallible. I am defending the true church, you are defending a false caricature. So I ask: Who really loves the Church more?
@@Notbraydendantin I never said the Church was spotless and doesn't have a clean past. Don't put words in my mouth or misconstrue what I say. You're actually agreeing with what I said.
@@littleone1656 you said that Nicholas V was against slavery and that is factually incorrect. That’s what I’m trying to tell you
I love how Catholic are against slavery since the very first of its foundation
@ 7:36 Buddhist scripture speaks of how enslavement denies the individual to reach enlightenment as is further confines one to the suffering experienced on Earth. i.e. holding equal compassion for your fellow man is neigh impossible when one LITTERALLY OWNS YOU, potentially beats and starves you etc. But this conversation is clearly framed from a western perspective and eastern theology/philosophy and animism is not something I expect many people to be even mildly experienced with beyond the surface.
Onesimus was a slave of Philemon according to the New Testament book of Philemon. In fact, the Apostle Paul mediates or meddles the grievances between those two early Christians. We are Christians because we became free through Jesus Christ (John 8:31-32).
Thank you for pointing out the fact that Africans played a major role in the early church. Jesus founded his Catholic church for all races and ethnicities!
The answer is Yes
Using modern notions of Africa, Europe and Asia makes no sense for Antiquity in general
Hallelujah!!! I’m favored and blessed with $60,000 every week! Now I can afford anything and also support the work of God and the church.
Oh really? Tell me more!
This is what Ana Graciela Blackwelder does, she has changed my life.
After raising up to 60k trading with her, I bought a new house and car here in the US and also paid for my son’s (Oscar) surgery. Glory to God.shalom.
I know Ana Graciela Blackwelder, and I have also had success...
Absolutely! I have heard stories of people who started with little or no knowledge but managed to emerge victorious thanks to Ana Graciela Blackwelder.
3:29 💀
What happens if you stop playing the game the way you're told? Can you go build a cabin in the woods and farm for yourself?
Slavery did not end, it simply reverted to it's original, non-ethnically homogenous state.
According to some Catholics, we can reject this document from a pope if we disagree with it. Think about that the next time you read Fiducia Supplicans from beginning to end, which I suggest. Couples are unions and it says in paragraphs 4, 5 and 11 that sinful unions (couples) cannot be blessed. Imagine if someone slandered this pope after he wrote a document against slavery.
You ready for truth fa afo?!
The man that helped Jesus carry his cross was an African..
doubt
@@Steven9567
Cyrene is North Africa.. or did you think he was English? 🤣
@@joehouston2833 Simon of Cyrene was a Jew living in Libya. That's like saying a Pakistani who lives in England is English. Oh, and he definitely wasn't black/subsaharan that's for sure.
@@ishmael2586
I hope you realize there are African Jews.. Or are you that ignorant? 🤔
@@ishmael2586
I hope you know there are African Jews 🤣
Get a hold of the Ethiopian Bible, please you will be amazed. The majority of Jesus Disciples were Ethiopians and including the Saints.
The majority were Jews. Later on the gentils became majority.
The religious orders brought Christianity to the Spanish speaking countries of today. It was never Bible and sword.
No, the pope has no doorway of ignorance; he knew; *especially* if he was mislead, he knew full well that he was commanding evil to be done and to the faithful to call the sinful stuff "good", *particularly* if he was mislead; due to Christ's own promise of protection of the petrine office!
Debatable. The issue was not doctrinal as such and it was something beyond the purview of the Office.
@@johnnotrealname8168 Nope, seeing as it is an issue of faith and morals; this singular event directly removes all loyalty to even God Himself as His vicar endorsed evil as "good" and mandated it be classified as such.
The pope knew *exactly* what was being asked of him- so it is NOT "debatable" at all, it is actually confirmed that he publically called evil good, this singular act removes the dogma of papal infallibility from being valid while still keeping it in the mandated set of beliefs at the same time!
And it was actually *way* more important than mere doctrine nor dogma; it is about *morals* and he classified evil as "good" in that singular document... thus disproving the whole claims of God Himself *as* God!
@@chissstardestroyer Okay again I think you completely misunderstand Papal Infallibility and what the Pope ordered. Even further read what other Popes after him wrote about slavery as an institution even for black slaves.
@@johnnotrealname8168 No, I did not misunderstand at all; he said that objectively evil stuff is objectively good; and that in and of itself means that church teaching is false- as well as the whole concept of papal infailability in and of itself; as *this* is Way worse than doctrinal or dogmatic error by far!
Even worse than getting the identity of God Himself wrong!
Plus, we know by this singular decree that the whole premise of God protecting the papacy from error on matters of faith and morals is in and of itself heretical since *this* singular event in Church history.
@@chissstardestroyer You really do not understand Papal Infallibility. Also as we see from before and after the Popes were largely anti-slavery. I can even send you to academic histories on this.
In 1866, the Holy Office issued an Instruction (signed by Pope Pius IX) in reply to questions from a vicar apostolic of the Galla tribe in Ethiopia: "... slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons. For the sort of ownership that a slave-owner has over a slave is understood as nothing other than the perpetual right of disposing of the work of a slave for one's own benefit-services which it is right for one human being to provide for another. From this, it follows that it is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or donated, provided that in this sale, purchase, exchange or gift, the due conditions are strictly observed which the approved authors likewise describe and explain. Among these conditions, the most important ones are that the purchaser should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue or Catholic faith of the slave who is to be transferred to another's possession."
A report on slavery issued by the Archdiocese of St. Louis, Missouri, details how many people were enslaved by the archdiocese’s first three bishops, as well as 11 diocesan priests, and seven other clergymen who ministered there in the nineteenth century.
In all the report identifies the names of 99 people enslaved by Catholic clergy in the archdiocese - 44 enslaved by diocesan bishops and clergy, and the rest enslaved by clergy of religious orders.
The report, “Slavery in the Historic Archdiocese of St. Louis,” notes however that these numbers are not definitive; that more people who were enslaved have yet to be identified. There remain at least 30 unidentified people who were enslaved by diocesan bishops and clergy, it states.
And that's just ONE diocese!
Why would you expect the church to condemn slavery when Jesus didn't condemn it? He told slaves to obey their masters.
The teachings when considered as a whole, such as who ultimately belongs to who, result in slavery abolishment. How does one own that which was bought by the blood of the Lord?
If you consider slave owning and the challenges you may face, suddenly, the slave master concept is unworkable. This is why even though the scriptures don't outright condemn it, they do better. They instruct a believer to see it as the rot it is. And when you see people try to purify their society, for example in Britain it was ruled that the air was too pure for slave to breathe, any who set foot on her soil was to be set free. And that is a religious concept, coming from the pureness of lamb setting us free from sin. While many have lost their way and tolerated it too their shame and the shame of their generations, Christians have a long history of being understanding that with the teachings of Christ and the church there is no conclusion but that slavery is an abomination. Gregory of nysa for example. "Do you notice the enormity of the boast? This kind of language is raised up as a challenge to God. For we hear from prophecy that all things are the slaves of the power that transcends all (Ps. 119:91[2]). So, when someone turns the property of God into his own property and arrogates dominion to his own kind, so as to think himself the owner of men and women, what is he doing but overstepping his own nature through pride, regarding himself as something different from his subordinates?” he also points out the list of things man is given dominion over in genesis and that to take dominion over a man is to take what belongs to God.
@@callum4337 ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1200S): “Since the Jews are the slaves of the Church, she can dispose of their possessions.”
@@JesusRulez-l3j not a catholic. You'll have to give me a source. The only sources I find are stupid websites that don't use citations or even mention which work.
However I found something SIMILAR in de regime judaeorum, and it's just saying that it's legal to tax Jews.
"It is true, as the Law declares, that Jews in consequence of their sin, are or were destined to perpetual slavery: so that sovereigns of states may treat their goods as their own property, with the sole proviso that they do not deprive them of all that is necessary to sustain life."
I think it's just 21st century atheists doing the usual by any means necessary thing and lieing for the sake of making Christians look bad. "I don't need religion to be a good person"
Ayyyyyyye so it seems
@@JesusRulez-l3j source? Because if not I'll go with what I think the websites I found that had this "quotation" without citing the work were shall we say attempting to copy from.
In the regime judaeorum, Augustine addresses a series of questions by a duchess of Brabant about whether it would be lawful for a Christian ruler to tax a Jews who made money via usury since usury was a sin in both traditions but legal in most if not all of europe. Ill gotten gains. He writes "It is true, as the Law declares, that Jews in consequence of their sin, are or were destined to perpetual slavery: so that sovereigns of states may treat their goods as their own property, with the sole proviso that they do not deprive them of all that is necessary to sustain life."
I'm not catholic though so again, if you have a source, the work from where that's from if I'm mistaken with what I think the quote is meant to be, let me know. As I said, I only saw this on one the anti theist side of the internet and they never once showed their sources beyond just attributing it to Aquinas.
I think it's just the "I don't need God and heaven nonsense to be a good person" people showing their famed integrity.
Can we address the fact the Catholics stay with these FALSE depictions of a European Christ or nah?
All Catholic cultures display Jesus as a person of their own culture. It's totally fine to do it. Jesus is for everybody and he can be portrayed as any race if that helps people grow close to him.
The israelites were white people
Read the Bible and letters about Jesus
@@Joker22593 what?!? One clearly your not that informed... if you go down to Mexico or if you seen Catholic churches in Africa almost every depiction is of European people.
Second why would it ever be okay to quote unquote make God into our image...
Christ was brown... History is so clear on this. So why the change 🤔
Our Lady of Guadalupe
Christianity is a european religion. Not sure why that's a bad thing. If europe never existed Christianity wouldn't either. Jesus was clearly inspired by a lot of greek philosophy. The art and culture of christianity would also not exist.