I couldn’t disagree with that but this thread is about the church apologising for what it did to indigenous people.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Francis I has apologized
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
I couldn’t disagree with that but this thread is about the church apologising for what it did to indigenous people.
The Roman Catholic Church has apologized regardless of what the outcome would be.
The RCC has played a very marginal role in the Native American genocide.
Has the crown of England ever apologized ?
Last edited:
Now that the 'apology' has been made and pretty well received, many are asking to rescind the 'doctrine of discovery' which is a somewhat misleading blanket term adopted to refer to what were essentially a series of public decrees—known as papal bulls—that were written by the popes of the 15th century to the Catholic kings of Spain and Portugal granting them permission to colonize non-Christian lands and enslave the non-Christians found in these lands that were deemed undiscovered by the Christian world.
There were three papal bulls of discovery issued to this end: Pope Nicholas V first wrote “Dum Diversas” to the king of Portugal in 1452. Within less than three years, he would issue a similar decree, “Romanus Pontifex,” to the king of Spain. It would be almost four decades before Pope Alexander VI wrote “Inter Caetera” in 1493, which is the papal bull most often cited when referring to the doctrine. It preserves many of the directives contained in preceding papal bulls and further amplifies the scope of what the pope allowed kings to do under the blessing and authority of the Catholic Church in the church’s quest to evangelize.
With these letters, the popes granted to kings and those of their empires certain permissions, among these the rights to conquer the lands of Indigenous Peoples where Christianity had not taken root, to convert the Indigenous Peoples there to the Roman Catholic faith and to enslave Indigenous Peoples.
While the doctrine of discovery might be considered obsolete by some, it has implications today for Indigenous communities, notably in the way that it has been used by justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to deny Indigenous Peoples’ land petitions.
The doctrine was first used in a 1823 U.S. Supreme Court case. In Johnson v. McIntosh—the first of three landmark cases in Indian law in the United States—the court ruled that while the Piankeshaw and Illinois Indians, two Native American communities, were within their right to occupy, settle and govern parcels of land in the Ohio River valley, they had no claim to land ownership. Following the logic of the doctrine of discovery, the land belonged to those who discovered it and therefore the federal government rightly owned the land.
The doctrine of discovery has been applied in many other cases and used internationally to legitimize governments’ ownership of land. As late as 2005, in Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also argued against an Indigenous community’s claim to their land on the basis of the doctrine. In each of these cases, the particulars are complicated. Their inclusion here is not intended as a debate over the rightness of the judgment but rather to show how a so-called doctrine established in three letters by 15th-century popes has come to bear on secular laws and affect Indigenous communities.
In late March, when the delegations of First Nations, Métis and Inuit Peoples heard the pope’s historic first apology for the church’s participation in the Canadian government-mandated residential education system, some members of the delegation said they told the pope that an apology on Indigenous soils in Canada needed to include a call to repeal the doctrine of discovery.
But on Monday July 25, 2022, when the pope offered the most comprehensive apology yet as the leader of the worldwide Catholic Church for abuses in Canada, there was no explicit mention of that doctrine.
Explainer: Could Pope Francis revoke the 15th-century ‘Doctrine of Discovery’ used to justify colonizing Indigenous peoples? | America Magazine
There remains much more to be done to correct such an injustice.
There were three papal bulls of discovery issued to this end: Pope Nicholas V first wrote “Dum Diversas” to the king of Portugal in 1452. Within less than three years, he would issue a similar decree, “Romanus Pontifex,” to the king of Spain. It would be almost four decades before Pope Alexander VI wrote “Inter Caetera” in 1493, which is the papal bull most often cited when referring to the doctrine. It preserves many of the directives contained in preceding papal bulls and further amplifies the scope of what the pope allowed kings to do under the blessing and authority of the Catholic Church in the church’s quest to evangelize.
With these letters, the popes granted to kings and those of their empires certain permissions, among these the rights to conquer the lands of Indigenous Peoples where Christianity had not taken root, to convert the Indigenous Peoples there to the Roman Catholic faith and to enslave Indigenous Peoples.
While the doctrine of discovery might be considered obsolete by some, it has implications today for Indigenous communities, notably in the way that it has been used by justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to deny Indigenous Peoples’ land petitions.
The doctrine was first used in a 1823 U.S. Supreme Court case. In Johnson v. McIntosh—the first of three landmark cases in Indian law in the United States—the court ruled that while the Piankeshaw and Illinois Indians, two Native American communities, were within their right to occupy, settle and govern parcels of land in the Ohio River valley, they had no claim to land ownership. Following the logic of the doctrine of discovery, the land belonged to those who discovered it and therefore the federal government rightly owned the land.
The doctrine of discovery has been applied in many other cases and used internationally to legitimize governments’ ownership of land. As late as 2005, in Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also argued against an Indigenous community’s claim to their land on the basis of the doctrine. In each of these cases, the particulars are complicated. Their inclusion here is not intended as a debate over the rightness of the judgment but rather to show how a so-called doctrine established in three letters by 15th-century popes has come to bear on secular laws and affect Indigenous communities.
In late March, when the delegations of First Nations, Métis and Inuit Peoples heard the pope’s historic first apology for the church’s participation in the Canadian government-mandated residential education system, some members of the delegation said they told the pope that an apology on Indigenous soils in Canada needed to include a call to repeal the doctrine of discovery.
But on Monday July 25, 2022, when the pope offered the most comprehensive apology yet as the leader of the worldwide Catholic Church for abuses in Canada, there was no explicit mention of that doctrine.
Explainer: Could Pope Francis revoke the 15th-century ‘Doctrine of Discovery’ used to justify colonizing Indigenous peoples? | America Magazine
There remains much more to be done to correct such an injustice.
Yeah... about that.
Here's a recent social media post from Walking Eagle News (satirical news site - kind of like an indigenous The Onion):
The caption in the post: "Following a long-standing habit of giving headdresses, blankets and other sacred items to problematic public figures, a group of First Nations chiefs announced they'll be gifting a headdress to a 'planet-killing' asteroid that's currently barreling towards earth."
Attachments
Not really. The Pope hasn't apologized for the role of the Church - as opposed to specific individuals - in residential schools.
It also hasn't back down from its position that indigenous people should be brought to Christianity.
Again: not really.
Most residential schools in Canada were affiliated with the Catholic Church, and Catholic organizations often pushed the government to expand the program.
The Catholic Church played a key role in this episode of attempted cultural genocide.
Also, all New World colonialism by European powers - and by extension the genocide of North American indigenous peoples - can be traced back to the Papal bull establishing the doctrine of discovery.
No. She should.
Brian2
Veteran Member
That would be speaking with forked tongue.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
About as forgiving as Geronimo towards the Mexicans.
Brian2
Veteran Member
I would say you are confusing Catholicism with European leaders, people, cultures etc.
No, it's really both. The Catholic Church had a critical role in supporting and enabling genocide and oppression in the Americas (and elsewhere):
Discovery doctrine - Wikipedia
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
I think we should give Mexican territory back to Mexico. Not like we got the southeast US peacefully.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Um…. probably?
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
I wasn't aware Mexico had territory in the USA. I know only about the Spanish Empire.
But no matter, the native peoples of central and south America will soon occupy the USA - they are the new imperialists.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Which church was in charge of the continent at the time again?
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Mexico had the southwest before we did.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
America was discovered and settled by Christian Countries from Europe. The main countries where England, France and Spain. There was also Germany and Portugal.
The Protestant movement started at the time of discovery. It changed the role of the Catholic Church, limiting the power of the Vatican. The change caused these countries to become more secular-centric. Napoleon was not subordinate to the Vatican, even if he was Catholic. The King of England has his own church. Leaders of those countries had new powers, beyond the Catholic Church.
The worse were the Spanish Conquistadors. They were secular based leaders looking for wealth and power; cold blooded materialists. The Church's role was more about sending in missionaries, then sharing the booty with the secular leaders.
The Atheists should be apologizing, since they were the early materialists and pro-secular leaders, back then, but not yet able to stand up as a card carrying atheist; the closet atheists. One can tell a tree by the fruit is bears. The religious freedom in America was a way to offer a check and balance to the new generation of secular power led by Atheism and materialism.
The Protestant movement started at the time of discovery. It changed the role of the Catholic Church, limiting the power of the Vatican. The change caused these countries to become more secular-centric. Napoleon was not subordinate to the Vatican, even if he was Catholic. The King of England has his own church. Leaders of those countries had new powers, beyond the Catholic Church.
The worse were the Spanish Conquistadors. They were secular based leaders looking for wealth and power; cold blooded materialists. The Church's role was more about sending in missionaries, then sharing the booty with the secular leaders.
The Atheists should be apologizing, since they were the early materialists and pro-secular leaders, back then, but not yet able to stand up as a card carrying atheist; the closet atheists. One can tell a tree by the fruit is bears. The religious freedom in America was a way to offer a check and balance to the new generation of secular power led by Atheism and materialism.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
About ten thousand years or so after Native Americans showed up.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
I don't know much about American history, but didn't the 'south west' belong to 'native Americans' and not Mexicans?
Brian2
Veteran Member
You could be right. I might be confusing Catholicism with the teachings of Jesus,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, which had nothing to do with supporting and enabling genocide and oppression in the Americas (and elsewhere).
Brian2
Veteran Member
Really, was there a Christian Church in charge of America and so was the cause of what people did in America?