Christopher Columbus

Because he opened up salvation to the Natives. He opened a path to ending their child sacrifices and cutting out human heart.

Because he charted the way forward.

Many souls were saved because of his expeditions.

1 Like

No Columbus did not butcher an entire race.

The majority of Native Americans died from diseases they had no immunity from.


Out of the estimated 300,000 people in Hispaniola; half-killed themselves rather than be enslaved. The rest were sent to Spain or were hunted down. 50 years later all damage is done there were only a few hundred left.

That wasn’t a disease that was an outright slaughter.

You make it sound like Columbus single-handedly killed every Native American who died of unnatural causes between 1492 and 1900. Moreover he didn’t butcher the Taino People either; most died from disease and while a large amount died from Spanish cruelty that was mostly done without his permission or approval. In fact, after he was removed from the Governorship it got worse.

So there were 150,000 suicides? I highly doubt that.


You know, you’ve got two hands and a brain and a computer. You can find that sort of information pretty easily on your own.

There’s a term that’s coming into vogue for what you’re doing here, and it’s called “Sea-lioning”.

1 Like

To be fair, the evidence so far that @JimR-OCDS has presented to back up that claim I’ve shown to have no merit. He cited Sublimis Deus, which was rescinded a year after it was enacted, and Jim admits that Sicut Dudum only was against the enslavement of Christians (thus not being evidence against slavery as a whole). The same could also be said for Regimini Gregis and Creator Omnium.

Unless Jim has new proof that differs from his discredited examples then @FiveLinden is correct to ask for specific information from Jim to back up Jim’s claim.

I did before, but here is a better explanation. Try reading the entire article.

From 1435 to 1890, we have numerous bulls and encyclicals from several popes written to many bishops and the whole Christian faithful condemning both slavery and the slave trade. The very existence of these many papal teachings during this particular period of history is a strong indication that from the viewpoint of the Magisterium, there must have developed a moral problem of a different sort than any previously encountered. In this article I will address three—from many more—of the responses of the papal Magisterium to the widespread enslavement that accompanied the Age of Discovery and beyond.

Eugene IV: , 1435

On January 13, 1435, Eugene IV issued from Florence the bull . Sent to Bishop Ferdinand, located at Rubicon on the island of Lanzarote, this bull condemned the enslavement of the black natives of the newly colonized Canary Islands off the coast of Africa. The Pope stated that after being converted to the faith or promised baptism, many of the inhabitants were taken from their homes and enslaved:

“They have deprived the natives of their property or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery (), sold them to other persons and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them… Therefore We … exhort, through the sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ shed for their sins, one and all, temporal princes, lords, captains, armed men, barons, soldiers, nobles, communities and all others of every kind among the Christian faithful of whatever state, grade or condition, that they themselves desist from the aforementioned deeds, cause those subject to them to desist from them, and restrain them rigorously. And no less do We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their pristine liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said 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.”


This is a strange take assuming the fact that the Magisterium was not against slavery for over a dozen centuries isn’t itself a great shadow.

As I have shown and will show again this is simply untrue. Yes, in several bulls (including Creator Omnium and Regimini Gregis) the Church denounced enslaved Christians, but that in no way is it condemning slavery as a whole or the slave trade.

The first sentence is not accurate. The correct statement should be that the bull condemned only the enslavement of the natives of the Canary Islands that were baptized or promised to become baptized. Again, being against just enslaving people in your certain group is not a condemnation of slavery as a whole in the slightest.

Here’s paragraph 2 from Sicut Dudum not included in the article:

The phrase “a promise of safety” is most telling. To be baptized meant one was supposed to be immune from being enslaved. To put it another way, the natives were told they ought to strongly consider getting baptized or else the Church simply would not be able to stop the Portuguese from taking them from their homes. That’s textbook blackmail. It’s no different than a mob enforcer telling a business they’d better pay protection money or there’s nothing they can do to keep Big Louie from roughing them up.

The last part is also telling. The pope is lamenting that those who promised to become baptized were taking that back. That makes sense since why submit to blackmail if they’re going to get the punishment anyway?

If you could, just keep a mental note about the use of the word “unjust” here. I’ll get back to it in a bit.

I’m not going to quote what the article says about Sublimis Deus, as I’ve said the bull – were it not rescinded – was a good call to abolish slavery. But as I’ve shown you multiple times now they did rescind it because they chose submitting to Spain in lieu of standing for what was right.

Finally, In Supremo Apostolatus. I give credit to the article that it notes both that the bull specifically lists that it’s against “unjust” slavery and that there were Catholics in America who said that the bull only denounced the slave trade. For the former, it’s interesting that in the first translation to English “injuste” to “unjust” was included, but in a later translation the word was purposefully left out. For the latter, I happen to like this paper which analyzed Pope Gregory’s anti-modern anti-industrial stance points to Gregory being against the slave trade but not slavery. What speaks the loudest is silence. In my job I’m sometimes required to pass down info from my boss to other people in my department. If I fail to pass on that info or do so incorrectly I’ll hear it from my boss. When the Council of Baltimore concluded that the bull was solely against the slave trade I haven’t found a peep from the pope or Magisterium telling the council that they misinterpreted the bull.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit