Need help with something

i’m having problems with the fact that the church says she never changes her moral teachings.

how does that exaplin launching crusades, accepting slavery for the longest time and the burning of heretics?

i know what most of you will say, that people are sinful and they carry this out. but when said person is the pope and they’re doing it, then other people start ot think it’s ok. especialy if they are issuing papal bulls regarding these subjects.

i know, these issues may not be as bad as some make them out to be but in a fully christianized nation, they shouldn’t have happened at all. it made us no different from anyone else.

what was the point of owning nonchristian slaves, for example, and starting wars with muslims and jews. or all the enslavement that happened in the new world, it was sanctioned at first and then condemned later on. all of this just to try to get people to convert.

at the time all of it was moral and justifiable, now it isn’t.

or am i missing something here?

interested to read the answers…
Mary.

I thought you just recently did a thread on this.

Starting wars with Muslims and Jews? How do you think it came to pass that the Muslims gained control of the Holy Land? The Crusades were trying to reclaim the Christian land from the Muslims.

I’d suggest either doing more research or providing specific examples, because most of these ‘claims’ are sensationalized views of anti-Catholics that either greatly exaggerate (or sometimes fictionalize) past events to condemn the Church. I’m in no way saying that there are not bad Catholics, but a lot of your claims are vague and emotionally-based.

For example, I could apply the same claims against pretty much every other sovereignty in the world. Let’s take the United States: history of slavery, have fought wars against foreign nations (both in defense and on offense) or aided in wars among other nations, and has executed people for treason. Or we could go to a country that is predominantly non-Christian. Muslim nations have promoted slavery, Muslim nations have fought wars (both offensive and defensive), and Muslim nations have opposed those who speak out against Islam. My point is, without specific examples, you are not providing concrete arguments.

Let’s focus on the Crusades. Why do you believe that the Church stated wars with Jews and Muslims? Not as in motivations of the Church, I’m asking why do you believe that statement to be true?

Yes, you definately are “missing something here” !!! You are judging history by modern standards, which is a serious mistake. It sounds like you have been listening to Southern Baptists or Pentacostal Christians - both of whom are virulently anti-Catholic and twist history to their own ends.
To begin with, the Crusades started as a religious enterprise,
The Moslems had conquered Jerusulam and adjacent Christian Shrines. They did not merely persecute Christians, They gave them a choice: Convert to Islam or die. I do not know about you, but I can think of no better reason for Christian Europe to go to war against the Moslems at that time. Unfortunately, although the Crusades had a legitimate religious beginning, greed soon overcame the European Noblemen and the Crusades soon degenerated into a political effort-warfare for profit.
In addition, this occured in a particularly brutal period in history. What we consider to be atrocities today was considered normal behavior in war at the time, However, the Church did condemn the wanton killing of innocent people during the Crusades-even though they were non-Christians- and the Church was ignored in such matters.
As far as slavery was concerned, slavery had existed continuously from Biblical times until the 19th Century. All peoples, including the Jews owned slaves. No one considered that it was wrong until the Quakers in England began a political campaign against it. This led to its abolution in the British Empire around 1821.
Although the Catholic Church was mute on the legitimacy of Slaves before abolution, it was quite vocal against the abuse of slaves by their owners, and it excommunicated several early Spanish Colonists in the New World for abusing their slaves. Incidentally, one of the most vocal clerics against the abuse of slaves was Father Junipero Serra, the early Missionary to California.
The Church did not change any of their attitudes on these matters just to gain converts. You forgot, or didn’t know that before Mohammed created Islam, all of Europe, North Africa, the Near and Mid East was all Catholic. A few Jews lived in what is now Turkey and Syria, but almost none lived in Palestine after they were forcibly expelled from there by the Romans in 70 A.D.
I strongly suggest that you either take a College survay course in European-American history, or get some books on the subject from your local library. Do not pay attention to what is Anti-Catholic blather.

have not been listening ot anti catholics.

what about jesus’ words to love your enemieis. how exactly does that justify taking back something from an enemy?

there are specific papal bulls in the 14th century sanction slavery in the new world. i don’t have time ot post them now but feel free to look it up.

the church forbade only the owning of christians slaves, nonchristians could sitll be enslaved.

the first century was brutal too, i didn’t see jesus going around promoting this kind of stuff.

i understand to some extent bighting a battle for devfensive purposes, but avtively launching certain crusades is a different matter.

the difference is that nations don’t claim to hav eunchanging moral authority. tha’ts what i’m struggling with here.

the church today would never do those things.

what i want to know is if slavery is seen as immoral nowadays, or the burning of heretice, for example. and was it actually considered in that time period, or was just everyone stuck in a lot of sin. do you understand the difference i’m trying to see?

like this for example

The Portuguese sought confirmation that they could enslave infidels in a crusade. In 1452 Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas to King Alfonso V of Portugal which included the following words: “we grant to you…full and free permission to invade, search out, capture and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ…to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery”. In 1454 Pope Nicholas explicitly confirmed the rights granted to King Alfonso V in Dum Diversas in Romanus Pontifex by which he granted to Alfonso “…the rights of conquest and permissions previously granted not only to the territories already acquired but also those that might be acquired in the future”.

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 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…[78]

In 1456, Pope Calixtus III confirmed these grants to the Kings of Portugal and they were renewed by Pope Sixtus IV in 1481; and finally in 1514 Pope Leo repeated verbatim all these documents and approved, renewed and confirmed them.[79]

Once again, you are not only judging historical actions by modern standards, You are also judging morality by modern interpretations of the Bible. Both actions are condemned by scholors and are considered immature. If done and published in a university setting, this would be the equivalent of committing academic suicide. It would damage your creditability severely!
It is one thing to state dates and events, interpreting these facts is an entirely different thing; especially when it concerns the history of religion and the Church.

Reference your comment which I highlighted and underlined above:

Under your thought process then if an enemy force invaded the USA by landing forces in Texas you feel it is okay for the people and US forces in Texas to fight and kill the enemy but if that enemy force overruns Texas and the US forces are driven out they should not be allowed to launch an attack on the enemy forces in Texas to try to take back?
Is that what you are suggesting?

Similarly, in World War II Hitler’s forces overran Europe. Again, under your way of thinking D-Day should not have been allowed!

Bump!

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