Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday outlined his most tangible initiative yet to try to revive Christianity, creating a Vatican office for re-evangelizing Europe and other traditionally Christian regions where the faith is falling by the wayside.
In an official decree, Benedict said the new office would work with bishops to promote church doctrine, use modern communication methods to get the church’s message out and mobilize missionary-type activities using members of religious orders and new religious movements.
But even on its first day of existence, the Pontifical Council for the New Evangelization ran into an all-too-typical Vatican snag: The four-page decree instituting the office was issued only in Latin and Italian, even though the pope announced the office’s creation four months ago.
Since certain Anglican Archbishops only want to pose and play dialogue and fellowship with Hindus, Muslims, Druids and Zoroastrians, etc., somebody has got to evangelize them.
That’s not typical. The English version comes out on the day most decrees are issued. I applaud His Holiness for his efforts.
Great news!
Thank you, Pope Benedict XVI! It is interesting, however, to see this posted on the same day as the article on the Doctrine of Discovery story from Oregon.
The messages from the two are immensely different.
Hello Anthony. I took a look at the article you reference on the Doctrine of Discovery story from Oregon:
I’m puzzled… are you suggesting that Benedict applauds the theological rationale given 600 years ago for the capture, vanquish or enslavement of non-Christians and the seizure of their property? My guess is he would be distinctly opposed to that.
I see nothing contradictory about a person deeply opposing theological rationales for theft and murder of non-Christian peoples, while also firmly arguing for sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ with them.
I apologize for posting the previous comment without a better explanation.
I am not suggesting at all that Benedict applauds the theological rationale for enslavement of non-Christians and the seizure of their property. My point was that while St. Andrew’s North Portland tries to rid themselves of guilt and create a warm fuzzy feeling, the RCs are actually out evangelizing and promoting church doctrine.
The two groups are both reaching out but it seems only one is out to save souls.
“…when popes granted European monarchs and explorers the right to capture, vanquish or enslave non-Christians and seize their property.”
Anyone who has actually read the documents or who knows the history of the Popes’ statements on slavery will know this is an out and out lie. Yes the doctrine was abused but not because it granted the right to enslave non Christians. You can read the documents “Inter Caetera” and “Sublimus Dei” very readily online. The latter by Pope Paul III states in part:
“We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.â€
Elves, somehow I posted the above to the wrong thread. Would you be so kind as to remove it from here. I’ll post it in the correct one. Many thanks.
Thanks Anthony. I understand you now. Appreciate the followup.
I basically agree with you, though it is worth observing that if there’s been one church beating its breast lately and confessing guilt about past sins, and trying to create warm fuzzy feeling with those its hurt, it’s been the church of Rome. Rightly so of course; I’m certainly not saying Rome shouldn’t be doing that.
The one thing that struck me as a bit confusing in the AP piece is the journalist’s conflation of the term “Christianity” with Roman Catholic doctrine. The story seems to suggest that the recent papal move is a general attempt to counter secularism and re-irrigate Europe’s Christian roots — i.e. something akin to the Mere Christianity idea of CS Lewis. If true then the papal office would be working with other creedal groups: Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc. But other parts of the article seem to suggest that this is an attempt to revive specifically Roman Catholicism. Either goal is understandable, but the article doesn’t help the reader discern which it is.
I dunno, Paula – it seemed good to me that you posted the above on this thread. The second papal document, dated 1537, that you referred to above is short and can be read here:
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0220a.htm
On reading it I was stunned to realize the lengths that some go to to misrepresent such decrees from the Catholic Church. I wonder if its declaration that ‘enslavement…..should it happen….is null and has no effect’ (slightly paraphrased by me for brevity) had something to do with the Catholic blacks who founded free black towns in Spanish Florida, as they did (many of them were runaway slaves from British plantocracy of colonial South Carolina and Georgia). The document does give the lie to the so-called ‘Doctrine of Discovery’ revisionist history.
So thanks for posting it here!
It’s worth noting the papal bulls mentioned above span a period of 85 years: Dum Diversas (1452), Romanus Pontifex (1455), Inter Caetera (1493), and Sublimus Dei (1537).
The first three were written during the time when the European nations were beginning their conquest of the Americas (and Africa). They differ enormously in content and tone from the passage quoted above from the 1537 document. The pope who authored the 1537 document is certainly to be commended for wishing to restrain the terrible and ongoing sins that the earlier bulls had authorized, but it was a little late.
Paula L refers to suggestions that papal pronouncements might have endorsed “capture, vanquish or enslavement” as “out and out lies” and TACit is “stunned by the length to which some will go in misrepresenting these papal decrees.” And yet the offending words, as far as I can tell, are taken directly from Romanus Pontifex. Indeed, the pope also urges that the subjugated peoples be reduced to “perpetual slavery.” (See extended quote below.)
Inter Caetera (1493) is from a later pope, but unlike the 1537 statement makes no attempt to distance itself from or reverse the previous pronouncements. Because it doesn’t, and because it urges that “barbarous nations be subjugated and brought to the faith itself”, it was interpreted at the time (probably correctly) as a papal reaffirmation of what the earlier decrees had said. Bear in mind too that the decree is in the form of a warm letter to Ferdinand and Isabella of unqualified approval, written at the height of their Spanish Inquisition.
From Romanus Pontifex:
“… to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit….”
Well – what a difference 85 years makes, eh? as the Sublimus dei appears to negate much of the Romanus P. document.
I intend a more in-depth answer when I have time to read the Romanus P. document through.
Jon,
I really did not want to misdirect this thread. I refer you to an article “A Necessary Bondage? When the Church Endorsed Slavery.” which condemns the Pope for his failings while putting the document in historical perspective.
http://tinyurl.com/39s6kqd
It is my opinion on reading Romanus Pontifex that the passage:
“We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso — to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery,”
endorses the right of King Alfonso to commit acts of war on non Christians in that region and therefore perpetual slavery refers to the enforced involuntary servitude of prisoners of war and not to chattel slavery based on race. Such an endorsement was in response to threats of Muslim expansion and fears that non Christians were aiding the Saracens.
It was Church teaching that such involuntary servitude as well as that of criminals was justified in certain circumstances even if not so universally. One such circumstance would be captives taken in a Crusade. It was Prince Henry of Portugal who first petitioned Pope Eugene IV to elevate the status of his raids on the African coast to that of a Crusade. Pope Eugene’s Bull “Illius qui” agreed with that petition and the bulls you mention are a continuation and reaffirmation of that view.
No matter the contemporary justification; it did indeed lead to the easy acceptance and expansion of the chattel slave trade.
This was certainly not the Papal intent but it was the result.
I love this pope!
Yes, #1, and here is the English version:
http://www.zenit.org/article-30619?l=english
(Someone somewhere in the Vatican may be thinking, sheesh, those Anglophones are sure impatient….)
To get back on track. Evangelizing has always been seen as one of the first duties of the Church and this purpose was readily embraced by Protestants. Many men and women of faith, Catholic and Protestant faced and continue to face very real dangers to bring the Word to non Christian peoples. When the mission field called laborors responded.
The mission to revitalize the faith will be a harder challenge for Christians. For the reason that it is easier to explain a fullness of faith and belief to those who already have at least a mindset to understand the Truth about God and His Word. A Pagan (I am not using the modern pseudo new age meaning but the historical one) knows there is an other (or many others) who are worthy of worship. A Pagan sees evidence of a creator in his natural world. Also a Pagan may have a different value system than that found in Christianity, but it is not going to be one based on relativism.
But the modern European has embraced a radical secularism in which the question to be answered is not “is this good in the sight of God?” But is “will this make me happy?” The one arises out of belief that our chief duty is to live according to what is pleasing to God. The latter out of the belief that our chief duty is to please ourselves.
Unfortunately these days the pursuit of pleasure within the confines of moral absolutes (sp) is seen as a call to intolerance. The very idea that a personal happiness may be the result of sinful behavior is viewed as an attempt to usurp one’s rights.
This worship on the altar of self fullfillment has lead to the worse vices of the Pagans of history such as abortion and infanticide. But at least those Pagans had a language of belief that could be translated into Christianity.
It is going to be a very big challenge to bring the Gospel to the children of wrath which modernism has produced. It is ironic that those who see their own pleasure as the chief good are often so angry. They have no idea how to cure the turmoil of their souls. I pray that they will see that the answer is Christ.
Sorry, Pope–all the high tech, all the ‘modern communications methods’ you can conjure up, are not going to re-evangelize Europe.
What you conservatives just don’t get is that we reject the fundamental message, not the packaging, and that for many of us our rejection of that message is rationally considered.
Putnam in _American Grace_ I think has his finger on it. There was a revolution in the 1960s and two aftershocks–the conservative backlash of the Religious Right and the anti-religious backlash against the Religious Right’s social and political agendas. Currently the visible face of religion in America is conservative evangelical Christianity and increasingly Americans want no part of that.
You can blog it or tweet it, blast it to the masses on the the fanciest A-V equipment available–we don’t buy it.