I’m not the sort who trolls my own combox for something to post about, but a comment left on my Catholyc Doctrine ≠ Catholic Doctrine post really deserves wider attention – because it’s as terrible as it is sad.
Over the years, I’ve engaged in a mostly civil back and forth with a man named Joe who consistently lands on the Catholyc side of any disagreement or argument. But a comment he left yesterday really floored me, which gave me motivation to repost it – not as means of admonition or disparagement or humiliation.
Except to myself – and as a call to prayer.
Here’s the relevant portion of his comment, and my response:
Lastly, … LarryD: we are donating funds withdrawn from our Diocese to the Women’s Ordination Conference. And we were happy to participate in the first ordination of women priests in our area several weeks ago.
Actually, Joe, that is quite possibly the saddest thing I’ve read in quite some time. To hear you joyfully and gleefully admit that you’ve freely chosen to ex-communicate yourself (if I read your comment correctly, in that you participated in the fake ordination)… In fact, from now on, when I spend an hour in front of the Blessed Sacrament in Adoration, you will be foremost in my prayers.
I’m not interested in arguing with you anymore, Joe. I’m sorry I had said some time ago that I thought your comments were “cute”. They aren’t cute – they’re very, very sad and this has truly become a very serious situation.
I should have been praying for you much sooner than now, and I hope that Jesus in His loving mercy does not hold that against me.
I ask all my readers to pray for Joe as well.
Like I had said earlier – I’m not reprinting this in order to embarrass Joe. I’m certain he’s quite proud of what’s he done and supported, so that’s not the issue. No, I’m reprinting this merely to solicit help, as stated in the final line of my response. Will you join me?
The gate is narrow and few pass through it. Most go to hell. These are our Lord’s words as well as Our Lady’s (see, Our Lady of Fatima).
Yes, we do need to pray for the Holy Spirit to change the mind and hearts of those who are fighting against the Church founded by Christ. It’s easy to forget when we’re in the heat of battle that these are matters of eternal life and death. If the Church is teaching the Truth revealed by Christ, which we believe as Catholics, then to separate yourself from the Church by promoting heresy like Women’s Ordination is to separate yourself from Christ and putting your salvation at risk.
Of course, we need to pray for ourselves that the Holy Spirit will keep us from sliding away from the Truth revealed by Christ. Very few fall into heresy willingly, but are convinced step by step away from the Church.
Yes, truly sad that Joe has chosen to go down on the wrong side of history. I would remind him that those who supported gnosticism, arianism & a whole lot of other things claiming they would be proven right & authentic Catholic teaching tossed out, ended up being proven wrong themselves. I say this to warn him lovingly that he can still return to the Catholic Church that will welcome him with open arms. Will pray for him.
Joe’s view of the Catholic Church is the same as those who comment on NCR on a daily basis. I am so depressed and sad for these people and I’m sure they think they are right and we are bigoted, misogynistic Republicans and Catholic throw-backs. I do pray for them and all people who don’t enjoy the peace and liberation that comes from being a Traditional Catholic. We don’t worry about any perceived (on their part) lack of equality and choice in life…
LarryD – I appreciate your comments and prayers. We do need the Holy Spirit to renew our Church. I have given enough examples of dissenters who have been proven to be authentic in our Church tradition. Trust me – you are not embarrassing me. I am trying to come to terms with the dissention within our Church – laity vs. Hierarchs; liberal vs. conserviative; majority vs. minority.
I am really attuned to John Henry Newman and here I summarize: the creation of
Church doctrine is not the exclusive preserve of the hierarchy and that consultation with the laity is in fact a necessity for authentic doctrine. Therefore it is, for me, not a question of “proud of what I have done.” I think I and others need to express a view that will be judged in the future as correct – as have the examples of dissent I have cited in past posts.
I welcome all your posters’ comments. I do believe you and I are in love with the Church of Jesus Christ – we just have different views of governance.
And, again, I apologize for the “warm the cockles of your heart” comment. I do see many of your posts as “snarky” – and I shouldn’t have responded in kind.
Peace,
JoeK
I certainly will, Larry.
Oh Larry, I, and bunch of other zealous and well educated students here in Austin will certainly be praying for Joe. Oh yeah, the Holy Spirit will definitely renew the Church–with a wave of faithful up and comers from the youth to weed out all this nonsense of disobedience.
Impossible. “Well educated students” and “in Austin” do not belong in the same sentence
In the post linked to, someone going by the handle “blott-on the landscape” asked “joekstl” a question which I often ask – in so many words – of those who disagree with Church teaching; “Why do people who disagree with the church so much always feel the need to reform it. If you want a church that is Enlightened, Homosexual Friendly (they even have Gay Bishops) and has Priests of the female persuasion then why not go and join the Anglican Communion?”
In Joe’s reply, he compared his staying in a Church with which he disagreed to his not leaving the USA if he disagreed with the President. Sadly, like too many people, Joe doesn’t seem to understand that the Catholic Church is not a democracy…….nor should she be. Living in a democratic republic, I know that I have an opportunity (albeit, limited) to change things about the government that I think need changing. That said, I can see myself leaving the United States if problems with the government were beyond repair.
Not knowing Joe, I can’t say with any certainty why he chooses to maintain that he is still Catholic. I suspect, it may be an inability on his part to admit that his opinions are in error.
Thanks for all the comments – for the most part very civil.
I think the “saddest” thing in our Church over the past 50 years has been the clergy sex abuse scandal. From the highest rungs of our leadership, there has been gross malfeasance. And yet, most of the Rome hierarchy failed to take action. If you want a group to really add to your list of prayers, I would suggest the clergy currently on trial in Philadelphia and Kansas City; and, their victims.
As to Robert’s comments about the Church not being a democracy – yes and no. All councils take action by vote – and for the early councils that included non-clergy, such as the secular ruler, who in many cases called the council. Bishops for hundreds of years were called to ministry by their community. We also see in Acts that an early severe disagreement on whether Gentiles could become Christians with first being Jewish was decided with the agreement of the “whole Church.” Someone has to be in final authority – but that someone should never act as dictator.
Lastly, I do not believe I am error, but obviously not in agreement with current Vatican teaching. I believe our Church is the sign of God’s grace and presence in our world; but it is also sinful and continually in need of reformation. I have made my points of development of doctrine many times, so no need to repeat here. And I firmly believe, but not in my lifetime that women will be ordained to ministry. Currently I am hopeful that the diaconate will be open to women – and there have been some signs that Rome might be just a little open to it; at least there has been no “non-infallible but irreformable” statement about it.
Peace to all,
JoeK
It does not matter if “you” don’t believe you’re in error. You don’t have the authority nor the infallibility to make that call.The fact of the matter is that you ARE in error, whether you think so or not, and whether you like it or not.
The recognition of objective truth is part of being Catholic. When “you” are in opposition to the authority and infallibility of the Church, “you” are wrong. This is settled.
As a grad student studying Newman, I can most accurately say that he never spoke of consulting the “laity” but rather the “faithful.” He used words like “the faithful,” “the pious,” and “the devout” and not mere laity. He also clearly stated that the clergy are not eliminated from the sensus fidelium either. The documents of Vatican II also attest to the fact that it is not the “laity” but rather the “faithful” who are to be consulted. “Faithful” is defined as those who have the mind of the Church – who accept her teachings and all of her teachings.
This is a common misconception of Newman. He should not be used to prop up dissent and heresy precisely because he abhorred such things in his own life.
More info on Newman and the sensus fidelium:
In 1999, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity defined the sensus fidei as “an active capacity for spiritual discernment, an intuition that is formed by worshipping and living in communion as a faithful member of the Church.” When the “whole body of the faithful” exercises this capacity, it is known as the sensus fidelium or “sense of the faithful,” which is a means of ensuring the Church “as a whole remains faithful to Christ.” The clergy, and specifically the bishops, are not excluded from the sensus fidelium, but rather are a part of it. Because of their position of authority, however, it is important for the bishops to “be alert to the sensus fidelium.” The sensus fidelium works with the Scriptures, Tradition, and the magisterium and is “mediated by their contributions.” It is not a body which overrules or vetoes the other elements of the Church, but rather represents another area where the Holy Spirit is active.
Newman provided the definition of the Immaculate Conception and the proceedings at the Council of Ephesus as examples of the sensus fidelium at work. The sensus fidelium is not infallible itself, but rather is further evidence of the infallibility of defined doctrine. It is important to note that Newman spoke carefully of the “faithful,” “devout,” and “pious,” as opposed to simply the “laity,” indicating that the Holy Spirit works through those well-formed and well-disposed to His message, and not those who may claim the title of “Catholic” but live in ignorance or obstinacy of Church teaching.
Lumen Gentium describes the “Catholic faithful” as those who are “fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops.” Those who represented sensus fidelium best were to be found among the martyrs – those unlettered and ordinary lay men and women – who gave such incredibly strong and public assent to the beliefs and doctrines of the Church as to willingly die in order to avoid disavowing them. The martyrs are certainly a far cry from dissenting theologians and former Catholics often claiming the title of sensus fidelium in today’s world, using the term as some sort of justification for dissent through its alleged “veto” power over the hierarchy.
Sources:
Lumen Gentium
Joseph Ratzinger, Conscience and Truth: The Essence of Morality
John Henry Newman, “On consulting the FAITHFUL on matters of doctrine”
John Henry Newman, “Letter to the Duke of Norfolk”
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Veritatis: Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian
As for the women deacons, because the deaconesses of the Early Church were not ordained, they were not deacons in the sense of the ordained versions of today. Since when cannot enter into Holy Orders, there will not be female deacons. This is a settled issue in the Church.
I think precision of language is important here as well. First, Joe is exercising private judgment on matters that are not decided by private judgment, but rather by the authority of the Church. Such actions are not synonymous with Catholicism, but rather protestantism. Joe is a protestant, as a result of his reliance on private judgment and a malformed conscience. He is also of the type of protestant which, if brought to its logical conclusion, will step into unitarianism and ultimately, atheism.
Second, on conscience itself. This faculty is the highest authority we have, but the least luminous. To be Catholic is to recognize the Fall of man and the prevalence of sin in his life. Sin has all but destroyed his conscience – it is in a state of ruin. God has provided the infallible and authoritative Church as a means of illuminating the conscience and bringing it back, as far as possible in this life, to what it was prior to the Fall. A conscience formed by Church teaching, and completely obedient to it, is a conscience that will find itself in the right, and one that can be comfortably and safely followed. A conscience not formed by Church teaching will find itself in the wrong, and though one is bound to follow it, one will not be correct. It is an unfortunate, yet correctable, consequence of the Fall.
Third, Newman is used often by those who dissent…or rather “Pseudo-Newman.” Pseudo-Newman, as you might have guessed, is a fictional author who, aside from being fictional, is also decidedly non-Catholic. Pseudo-Newman’s thoughts on private judgement is that it is the ultimate decider of doctrine – of what is right and wrong. Pseudo-Newman also states that one’s conscience is always correct and should always be followed – that the Fall did not deform it and that it has no need of being corrected, trained, and reformed. In other words, unlike Newman, Pseudo-Newman does not really believe in sin, thinks that right and wrong are matters of private judgment, and that no one has a right to dispute that.
I would add, just as a “PS” that Pseudo-Newman is the only saint and doctor of the relativist church of former Catholics, but true to form, his or her sainthood is a matter of personal opinion.
To Bruce: thank you for commenting and you are right, Newman uses the word “faithful” – which encompasses the whole Church, clergy and non-clergy. In his description of how this consult works he says: “in order to know the tradition of the Apostles, we must have recourse to the faithful . . .. Their voice then is the voice of tradition.” In commenting on the role of the faithful in the Arian heresy situation he says that the voice of authentic tradition “may express itself in certain cases, not by Councils, nor Fathers, nor Bishops, but by the communis fidelium sensus (common sense of the faithful)”.
The issue of women deacons and their ordination is NOT settled. We do have records of their ordination. From the Apostolic Constitutions – and the “famous” Barbarini 336 text: plus the texts from the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon – the latter of which talks about a “prayer for the Ordination of Deaconesses.” I realize that there is much debate on the meaning of certain words in these documents, but I do not think there has been any current Vatican ruling either yea or nay. And we have a tradition of deacon ordination of women in our traditionally conservative Eastern Rite Orthodox churches. The issue is open and I hope we can address it as a whole Church – and not just with a sole decision from the Bishop of Rome.
And don’t forget – Paul called Phoebe a deacon (not deaconess).
Back to my issue with our current hierarchical view of Pope as central and sole authority – may I bring up, by today’s standards, a really obscure Metropolitan Archbishop – Hincmar of Reims – in the late ninth century; without denying a primacy to the Bishop of Rome his view was that the Church is made up of an assembly of local churches in communion with one another through a common faith and the celebration of the Eucharist. The churches are ruled by the Scriptures, the canons of the great Councils, and the norms that were generally accepted by the whole Church, and not the personal authority of the Bishop of Rome. What we have currently lost is the collegiality of Bishops as developed in the documents of Vatican II where, along the lines of Hincmar, the Bishops govern the particular churches as the vicars and ambassadors of Christ. This power, which they personally exercise in Christ’s name is proper , ordinary and immediate. The pastoral office is entrusted to them completely. Nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiff, for they exercise authority which is proper to them and are quite properly called heads of the people they govern.
This concept of local churches has been abrogated by a sole decree from Rome – and unfortunately, our Bishops here in the US have just rolled over.
Finally, as to Newman – his document “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” should be a matter of discussion at all levels of our Church.
Peace,
JoeK
Indeed, Newman’s essay on development should be read – it is a clear and unwavering support of the Catholic Church – specifically her authority and infallibility and the pope’s authority and infallibility. Newman thought that the pope should be obeyed even outside of infallible ex cathedra statements. Do you? If so, JP II’s document definitively deciding that women’s ordination is a no-no is to be obeyed. The CDF’s confirmation of the document doesn’t hurt either.
It would be good for you to read Newman’s essay. In it, he makes the argument that the Church, and her pope, are the only true Church, and are to be obeyed as the infallible authority on earth. All of her teachings – not just the ones we like.
And you’re still wrong on female deacons. They were not ordained, and no, there is no credible evidence to the contrary. Women cannot enter into Holy Orders and it is a settled issue.
Also, you’re advocating the “federal church” model, which doesn’t hold up because it runs into the authority of the papacy, which cannot be violated. Above bishops and above ecumenical councils stands the papacy. That is the Church, like it or not.
St. Bonaventure, Doctor of the Church, helps here: The pope is everyone’s bishop and everyone’s parish priest.
Oh, and I went back through documents of and on the Council of Chalcedon. The “deaconesses” were consecrated women – kind of like nuns – and not ordained clergy. In other words, they did not undergo Holy Orders, which is impossible, but rather were consecrated in some kind of ceremony. The deaconess served a function very much like some of today’s orders who are not cloistered, such as working as nurses and teachers. They also were involved in baptizing women, for the sake of modesty.
Joe Heschmeyer did a fine job of explaining this:
Canon 19 of the First Council of Nicaea: “Likewise in the case of their deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have been enrolled among their clergy, let the same form be observed. And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity.”
Joe says: Now, to me, that’s also clear. Of all of the Paulianists (men and women, lay and would-be clerics), Nicea points to the deaconesses, and says that they’re “to be numbered only among the laity.” Three points to be made here, that I think show why the interpretation suggested in the comments doesn’t hold up:
1. If deaconesses were permitted, why not allow them to be rebaptized and ordained, like their male counterparts? Why number these women among the laity, instead of just ordaining them to the diaconate correctly, as was done with their male counterparts?
2. This interpretation make Canon 19 bizarrely redundant. You would have to conclude that the Canon says that (a) none of the ordinations of any of the Paulianists are valid, and then (b) none of the ordinations of any of the Paulianist women are valid. The second part would add nothing that wasn’t already the logical conclusion of the first part. If the Paulianist ordinations are invalid, then obviously, the ordinations of Paulianist women are invalid.
3. This interpretation would mean that the Canon wasn’t just redundant, but outright misleading. Why single out the deaconesses and say that they should be “numbered only among the laity,” if what you really mean is that all of the Paulianist clergy are numbered among the laity?
I’m reminded of the debate of Anglican women’s ordination. Catholics reject the validity of Anglican ordinations, and the validity of women’s ordination. So if there were a canon addressing mass Anglican conversions to Catholicism, we’d expect it to (a) deal with the problem of how to ordain / re-ordain Anglican clergy generally, and (b) deal with the distinct problem of Anglican women claiming ordination.
In other words, Canon 19 is exactly what we’d expect if Nicea rejected both Paulianist and women’s ordinations. But it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense if women’s ordination to the diaconate was permissible. That’s why I don’t think that the interpretation suggested in the comments holds up to careful scrutiny.
Here is another good link dispelling myths about deaconesses. The evidence suggests that they were consecrated widows, not ordained clergy, and were counted among the laity like any consecrated man or woman.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/womord.txt
Bruce: A correction to my original comment on Newman and the use of “laity” vs. “faithful”; it is clear from his discussion of the Arian heresy and Church reaction that he is referring to laity vs. Bishops.
Secondly – I do not believe a Pope is above Bishops and Councils.
I do not believe the issue of women deacons has been settled – and like many other Church teachings that somehow creepingly get to be called irreformable, but not infallible, I have seen nothing here from Rome. And I believe the issue of women deacons should always be kept separate from priestly ordination; we’re talking here about an ordination to ministry to the community, separate from what today we call priestly ordination.
As to studies on this issue I highly recommend Kyriaki Karidoyanes Fitzgerald and her book on women deacons in the Orthodox Church – mainly because of her scholarly study of the early Church ordination rituals and the language they use, especially the term “laying on of hands.”
Peace,
JoeK
Well, as I said earlier Joe, you are a protestant, so none of this is surprising. You have reserved as matters of private judgment things which are not matters of private judgment, but rather belong to the authority of the Church. You reject Church authority, founded upon Christ and given to her by Christ, which makes you protestant. Let’s be precise with our language. Catholic, you are not. Your opinion is your opinion, and you have a right to an opinion. But you do not have a right to be correct. In this case, you are not correct. The actual evidence against you is enormous, and one would think that a rational person would recognize when he is wrong and make amends.
I’m beginning to think you are not a rational person. The weight of evidence is too much for you to remain obstinate. Your reasons for remaining outside the Church are emotional and irrational.
You are flatly wrong about Newman and the use of the “laity” and the Arian heresy. The term used is “faithful laity”…FAITHFUL laity. Here is a quote from Ward’s Life of Cardinal Newman:
“In the article he [Newman] took up wider ground—that of the functions of the laity in the past in preserving even dogmatic truths in the Church. He pointed out in it that in the years succeeding the Council of Nicæa the majority of the Bishops had been more or less tolerant of Arianism, while the faithful laity (together with their parish priests) had guarded the orthodox tradition.” – http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume1/chapter17.html
Newman himself stated:
“It was mainly by the faithful people that Paganism was overthrown; it was by the faithful people, under the lead of Athanasius and the Egyptian bishops, and in some places supported by their Bishops or priests, that the worst of heresies was withstood and stamped out of the sacred territory.” – http://www.newmanreader.org/works/arians/note5.html
He also included parish priests as part of the faithful laity he mentioned in the above citation.
Newman quotes St. Basil in the above link too:
“St. Basil says, about the year 372: “Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are SOUND IN FAITH avoid the places of worship as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitudes, with groans and tears to the Lord in heaven.”
He mentions laity again, with an important qualifier:
“…the body of the laity was FAITHFUL TO ITS BAPTISM”
Newman mentions the “piety” of the laity – these are not dissidents like you, but faithful adherents to ALL of Church teaching.
“Indeed, to many of the Arianizing bishops, may be applied the remarks, which Hilary makes upon the laity subjected to Arian teaching; that their own piety enabled them to interpret expressions religiously, which were originally invented as evasions of the orthodox doctrine” – http://www.newmanreader.org/works/arians/chapter5-1.html
Newman spoke of laity who remained in communion with Arian bishops (perhaps your kind of laity? I think so):
“The same obligation of Christian unity, which was the apology for the laity who remained, as at Antioch, in communion with an Arian bishop… ” – http://www.newmanreader.org/works/arians/chapter5-1.html
He spoke of more unfaithful laity here (underscoring that when Newman used “laity” in a positive light, it meant “faithful laity” and often times martyrs, and when he used in a negative light, it meant unbeliever:
“There may be secret unbelievers, both among clergy and laity; or individuals who are tending in their imaginations and their reasonings to grievous error or heresy.” – http://www.newmanreader.org/works/england/lecture4.html
Here is a huge one for you, Joe. Newman reported that the laity who “ventured on positive innovations on the rule of faith” (i.e., dissented), were exposed to the operation of the anathema.
“As to the laity, they were not required to subscribe any test as the condition of communion; though they were of course exposed to the operation of the anathema, in case they ventured on positive innovations on the rule of faith.” – http://www.newmanreader.org/works/arians/chapter3-1.html
More Newman quoting others on faithful laity:
“Unbelievers laugh at what they see, and the weak are unsettled; faith is doubtful, ignorance is poured over their souls, because the adulterators of the word in wickedness imitate the truth. Religious people keep silence; but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in faith avoid the places of worship, as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitude with groans and tears to the Lord in heaven.” – http://www.newmanreader.org/works/historical/volume2/fathers/chapter2.html
So you seem to be quoting “Pseudo-Newman” instead of actual Newman. And your arguments on the sensus fidelium, the authority of the Church, and the primacy of the pope have all been exposed and found wanting.
A rational person would recognize when his arguments are on shaky grounds, at best. It is time for you to seriously reconsider your path, because if this is what you have based in on, you have been duped.
A key give-away, Joe, was your constant reference to “I believe” this and “I believe” that, or “I don’t believe” this and “I don’t believe” that. Who gave you the authority? If you bothered to read above, only the faithful laity have any claims in the Church, and those claims are not infallible. This is clear. It does not matter if “you” don’t believe that. The faithful do, which makes us faithful.
If you were a member of the faithful, you would believe what the Church believes. You would have the mind of the Church and a conscience formed by Church teaching. But you don’t, so you are not.
I will, and have, prayed for you, because your salvation is at risk.
And one more thing regarding Newman and the Church. Revelation is complete, Joe, meaning there will be no further “news” from God regarding man’s salvation. What remains is for man to determine exactly what Revelation contains, and for that, an infallible authority is necessary to discern truth from falsehood, especially with regard to doctrinal developments. Newman pointed out the absurdity of holding that, though Christ provided Himself as a living and infallible guide to the Apostles, He did not provide the same for the centuries of followers who lived after His ascension. Such an action on Christ’s part would be unreasonable and uncharitable, which is not possible. Newman firmly believed that “the pope is assuredly infallible in points of doctrine…[and] has the whole message of Divine Truth latent in him.” – that is a DIRECT QUOTE fro Newman himself.
Sources: John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, and “Fall of de la Mennais.”
More:
“The pope, when determining anything in a doubtful matter, whether by himself or with his own particular council, whether it is possible for him to err or not, is to be obeyed by all the faithful” – An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 87.
Its time you will yourself to become one of the faithful again, Joe, instead of a protestant.
No, I am not a “Protestant? – unless you mean someone who protests somewhat. Of course, you may have at one time or another considered John Courtney Murray, Yves Congar, Karl Rahner, et al the same. Our Church lives in an ever changing milieu. If you look at our Church statements on slavery,eg.
If you want to look at what can change in our Church I recommend two studies: John T. Noonan’s “A Church That Can and Cannot Change”; and “Rome Has Spoken,” by Maureen Fiedler and Linda Rabben.
And thanks (maybe) for not commenting on my recommendation to read about the ordination of Deacons in the Eastern Rite churches.
And there it is: Joe rejects objective truth and the authority of the Church in favor of his own (flawed and fallen) private judgment. And you attempt to back up your flawed and erroneous theories with Pseudo-Newman, a fictional writer who often pops up in arguments among protestants who hate the Church that Christ founded.
That makes you a protestant.
Joe,
Can I help you on the ‘Church[s] statements on slavery’? I’m afraid it’s only the Pope speaking but I have it on good authority he is to be believed on matters of faith and morals, I think slavery is a moral issue don’t you.
As early as the seventh century, Saint Bathilde (wife of King Clovis II) became famous for her campaign to stop slave-trading and free all slaves; in 851 Saint Anskar began his efforts to halt the Viking slave trade. That the Church willingly baptized slaves was claimed as proof that they had souls, and soon both kings and bishops—including William the Conqueror (1027-1087) and Saints Wulfstan (1009-1095) and Anselm (1033-1109)—forbade the enslavement of Christians.
Since, except for small settlements of Jews, and the Vikings in the north, everyone was at least nominally a Christian, that effectively abolished slavery in medieval Europe, except at the southern and eastern interfaces with Islam where both sides enslaved one another’s prisoners. But even this was sometimes condemned: in the tenth century, bishops in Venice did public penance for past involvement in the Moorish slave trade and sought to prevent all Venetians from involvement in slavery. Then, in the thirteenth century, Saint Thomas Aquinas deduced that slavery was a sin, and a series of popes upheld his position, beginning in 1435 and culminating in three major pronouncements against slavery by Pope Paul III in 1537.
Pope Eugene IV condemned the enslavement of peoples in the newly colonized Canary Islands. His bull Sicut Dudum (1435) rebuked European enslavers and commanded that “all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of [the] Canary Islands . . . who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money.”
A century later, Pope Paul III applied the same principle to the newly encountered inhabitants of the West and South Indies in the bull Sublimis Deus (1537). Therein he described the enslavers as allies of the devil and declared attempts to justify such slavery “null and void.” Accompanying the bull was another document, Pastorale Officium, which attached a latae sententiae excommunication remittable only by the pope himself for those who attempted to enslave the Indians or steal their goods.
When Europeans began enslaving Africans as a cheap source of labor, the Holy Office of the Inquisition was asked about the morality of enslaving innocent blacks (Response of the Congregation of the Holy Office, 230, March 20, 1686). The practice was rejected, as was trading such slaves. Slaveholders, the Holy Office declared, were obliged to emancipate and even compensate blacks unjustly enslaved.
Papal condemnation of slavery persisted throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Pope Gregory XVI’s 1839 bull, In Supremo, for instance, reiterated papal opposition to enslaving “Indians, blacks, or other such people” and forbade “any ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this trade in blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse.” In 1888 and again in 1890, Pope Leo XIII forcefully condemned slavery and sought its elimination where it persisted in parts of South America and Africa.
The Second Vatican Council declared without qualification that slavery was an “infamy” that dishonoured the Creator and was a poison in society.
This is just a quick resume of the main articles but you could try The Popes and Slavery [Book] by Joel S. Panzer, I’m sure there are others, but be careful, it seems that you have been filling your head with frankly, dangerous (to your soul) ideas, and believe me I am not one to point the finger, but you do seem to be seeking the truth, well you have found it, It is the Catholic Church and Jesus Christ is its Head and Founder, how do I know, He said so.
pax vobiscum
Mark