As an admittedly lazy follow-up to the recent discussion of empire and secession, I thought it might be helpful to introduce the papal "bulls of donation", in which the popes go well beyond mere toleration by taking an active and supportive role in the conquest of the New World. In theory, yes, there is a possibility that the involvement of the pontiffs could have been a moral or prudential error, such acts falling outside the charism of indefectibility, and good Catholics may disagree without censure. However, in the absence of any proof of wrongdoing, the faithful clearly owe Christ's Vicars the benefit of the doubt in this matter.
Contra those whose religion is Americanism rather than Christianity, no Christian can say "Americans are my only neighbors" and to hell with everyone else. Although empire building is seldom an obligation and often ill-advised, it cannot be true that the only just reason for conquest is self-defense. The example of Christian charity in the excerpt below is instructive:
From Inter Caetera by Pope Alexander VI, addressed to the kings of Castile and their successors:
Therefore all things diligently considered (especially the amplifying and enlarging of the Catholic faith, as it behooveth Catholic Princes following the examples of your noble progenitors of famous memory), whereas you are determined by the favor of Almighty God, to subdue and bring to the Catholic faith the inhabitants of the aforesaid lands and islands, we greatly commending this, your godly and laudable purpose in our Lord, and desirous to have the same brought to a due end, and the name of our Saviour to be known in those parts, do exhort you in our Lord and by the receiving of your holy baptism whereby you are bound to the Apostolic obedience, and earnestly require you by the bowels of mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, when you intend for the zeal of the Catholic faith to prosecute the said expedition to reduce the people of the aforesaid lands and islands to the Christian religion, you shall spare no labors at any time, or be deterred with any perils conceiving from hope and confidence that the omnipotent God will give good success to your godly attempts.
And that being authorized by the privilege of the Apostolic grace, you may the more freely and boldly take upon you the enterprise of so great a matter, we of our own motion, and not either at your request nor at the instant petition of any other person, but of our own mere liberality and certain science, and by the fulness of Apostolic power, do give, grant, and assign to you, your heirs and successors, all the firm lands and islands found or to be found, discovered or to be discovered toward the west and south, drawing a line from the pole Arctic to the pole Antarctic (that is) from the north to the south: containing in this donation, whatsoever firm lands or islands are found or to be found toward India or toward any other part whatsoever it be, being distant from, or without the aforesaid line drawn a hundred leagues toward the west and south from any of the islands which are commonly called De Los Azores and Cabo Verde. All the islands, therefore, and firm lands, found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered, from the said line toward the west and south, such as have not actually been heretofore possest by any other Christian king or prince until the day of the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ last passed, from the which beginneth this present year.We, by the authority of almighty God granted unto us in Saint Peter, and by the office which we bear on the earth in the stead of Jesus Christ, do forever, by the tenure of these presents, give, grant, assign, unto you, your heirs, and successors (the kings of Castile and Leon), all those lands and islands, with their dominions, territories, cities, castles, towers, places, and villages, with all the right and jurisdictions thereunto pertaining: constituting, assigning, and deputing, you, your heirs, and successors the lords thereof, with full and free power, authority, and jurisdiction. Decreeing nevertheless by this, our donation, grant, and assignation, that from no Christian Prince which actually hath possest the aforesaid islands and firm lands unto the day of the nativity of our Lord beforesaid, their right obtained to be understood hereby to be taken away, or that it ought to be taken away.
Comments (34)
"We,...give... all those lands and islands, with their dominions, territories, cities..."
Can the Pope give away non-Christian lands today?
Posted by al | March 12, 2010 1:52 AM
Sigh . . . you start off so well with this:
and somehow end up here . . .
Not only is the idea of "charitable conquest" contrary to just war doctrine, it costs us the moral high ground against Islam by legitimizing proselytism by the sword.
If the spiritual well-being of the savages is really what motivates a Christian prince, he would do better to follow the examples of Saints Gregory the Illuminator, Frumentius, Cyril and Methodius, or Herman of Alaska.
Posted by CJ | March 12, 2010 7:03 AM
CJ,
Luke 9:
If Jesus rebuked His disciples for attempting to punish the village for rejecting the Gospel, how much angrier would He be at His church for going into the village, swords in hand, and forcing it on them...
Posted by Mike T | March 12, 2010 8:47 AM
Furthermore, I'd like to point out that what Jeff is advocating here is Dar Al-Islam/Dar Al-Harb wrapped up in a thinly veiled Christian guise.
Posted by Mike T | March 12, 2010 8:49 AM
Since this is a rephrasing of something I said in the previous thread, I know it's an attack on my position. I still stand by what I said. If you think I am outside the faith for what I said, then I could equally claim the same for you for advocating something which is contrary to what Jesus taught about the use force toward the advancement of the Gospel.
Posted by Mike T | March 12, 2010 8:56 AM
Mike T, I agree with you 100% on spreading the gospel by violence, and the fact that doing so follows the example of Mahound, rather than Christ. The saints I named in my post all spread the Gospel by preaching rather than warfare.
Of course, I think you are 100% wrong on the "rest of the world can go to hell" part. At the very least, every Christian on the globe is more closely "related" to you than Daniel Dennet or Starhawk.
Posted by CJ | March 12, 2010 9:25 AM
"They can go to hell" is not my reaction to my brothers and sisters in Christ regardless of where they are or to the church's charitable and missionary activities toward them. It is simply my political view toward the (non-)duty of the American state toward foreigners.
One of the major reasons for my recalcitrance toward any interventionism is that we won't do what needs to be done. Simply sending in peacekeepers is not enough; they have to actually be ordered to kill people who are disturbing the peace. The US lacks the will to actually unleash its forces in these countries in a way that might even hypothetically cut out these cancerous elements because that might kill half a dozen civilians or something.
Now, I'm not going to downplay civilian casualties as something of trivial importance, but for a country that operates under the pretense of intervening for the greater good, we get so lost in the minutia (100 dead combatants, 2 dead civilians is considered a failure by many) that we invariably cripple our efforts and are saved by the grace of God.
Posted by Mike T | March 12, 2010 10:51 AM
First of all, nowhere in the document does the pope advocate forced conversion.
Secondly, all he is doing is granting to Spain the right of governance over a territory that had, for all intents and purposes, no general government to speak of -- a right, by the way, that Spain had already claimed for herself anyway.
Of course, this general government would have to be imposed on the natives by some force. But so what? Do savage tribes have some God-given right not to be governed?
And again, although the government would be imposed by force, the faith would not be imposed but would follow naturally, which is what the pope means when he says, “reduce the people of the aforesaid lands and islands to the Christian religion…”
Posted by George R. | March 12, 2010 11:10 AM
That is wrong in three ways:
1) The tribal government was a legitimate form of government. Your objection seems to be that it is primitive.
2) There were standing governments in some of those annexed regions which could be described as analogous to a European nation-state.
3) One could make a similar argument about the legitimacy of the Islamic Caliphate invading and conquering all of Christendom because it was, for a long time, loosely governed by weak feudal governments with no overarching, uniting authority unless you wish to contend that the Catholic Church acted as an imperial government.
Posted by Mike T | March 12, 2010 11:45 AM
I'm all for empires and accepting the legitimacy of European conquests in the New World (even if not always the precise machinations used to achieve it). But that's a far cry from accepting an American empire as legitimate or desirable. I'd submit to be imperially ruled by a Hapsburg, Borbon, the Knights of Malta, or someone elected by the Sejm. I adamantly refuse to be imperially ruled by any individual or institution produced by the modern United States. It's apples and oranges.
Posted by Paul | March 12, 2010 12:49 PM
I'm not clear myself on what this language means exactly. In this instance the Pope seems to be securing for Spain the right to rule certain territories which might, instead, have been secured for other Christian kingdoms. The inhabitants of these territories - brutally oppressed by their own rulers as well as their neighbors, and lacking stable governments and defined borders - were going to be colonized by some power or other. The Pope decided by whom and, more importantly, for what ends.
Can he do this today? I don't see why he couldn't. In the future such may be civilization's only hope. Whether there are any Christian powers left, today, on the face of the earth is another question.
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | March 12, 2010 1:53 PM
Tribal government is primitive. And even if it is legitimate, there’s no reason why it couldn’t be made subject to a higher authority.
Again, so what? There’s no reason why they could not have been made subject to a higher Christian authority.
If Islam were true, the invading and conquering Caliphate would be legitimate. Just like if 2+2=5 were true, everyone would be obliged to accept it. Similarly, if the pope were not the Vicar of Christ, he would have no right to assign vast regions of the globe to Christian princes. But if he is the Vicar of Christ, to deny him that authority would be the same as denying that Christ is the King of kings, and Lord of lords. So you see, if the Church is what it claims to be, it is an imperial government par excellence.
Posted by George R. | March 12, 2010 3:18 PM
Well that's one huge if, of course. I know people have a tendency to roll their eyes at Romans 13, but the rulers are put in place by God. There's no obvious reason why this doesn't apply to everybody from tribal chieftans to the Shahenshah . And if they are put in place by God, then conquering and deposing them is an attack on the order He established.
Posted by CJ | March 12, 2010 3:47 PM
"In Hoc Signo Vinces" - "In this sign you shall conquer" - attended the vision of the Cross given by Heaven to Constantine the Great. It has never been the doctrine of the Church that conquest is only justified by temporal notions of self-defense. For the cause to be just, it is enough that a grave wrong be rectified.
If the United States were to invade and conquer North Korea, a nation which poses no serious threat to us, there would be no injustice provided that the other criterion of just war were met. (For the record, I do not believe the war in Iraq meets this standard.)
Furthermore, as George R. pointed out, nowhere do the popes call for forced conversions; neither was the conversion of the New World carried out "by the sword". That would certainly be news to legions of missionaries and evangelists, many of whom died as martyrs. Just as the conversion of Europe depended upon the civilization imposed by the Roman empire, so the conversion of the New World depended upon the imposition of peace and order by the colonizing powers.
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | March 12, 2010 4:37 PM
Jesus Himself used force "toward the advancement of the Gospel" by driving the money-changers from the temple. Furthermore, the scriptures are replete with examples of conquest, commanded by God, for the furthering of His Kingdom. Granted - the circumstances of the old covenant were entirely different, but we know from these examples that conquest directed "toward the advancement of the Gospel" relies upon other circumstances for its justification and is not, in itself, intrinsically immoral. (Zippy, you can chime in anytime ...)
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | March 12, 2010 4:55 PM
Or it may be that God, through the temporal order He has directly consecrated or established by other means, is imposing this same order upon other governments.
Is it your opinion that no government may involuntarily owe allegiance to another without injustice? Or that established governments can never lose their own claims to legitimacy?
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | March 12, 2010 5:01 PM
Don't know about the others, but Herman of Alaska's labors were made possible by Russian imperialism.
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | March 12, 2010 5:26 PM
If the United States were to invade and conquer North Korea, a nation which poses no serious threat to us, there would be no injustice provided that the other criterion of just war were met.
Um, doesn't the fact that they pose no serious threat to us mean that a criterion of just war has not been met?
Posted by William Luse | March 13, 2010 5:47 AM
Shouldn't the opportunity cost of invading North Korea be considered? Also, what about China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia?
Posted by al | March 13, 2010 11:12 AM
I don't believe so. The popes certainly didn't believe so. St. Thomas put it this way:
The avenging of injuries is further clarified by the Catholic Encyclopedia
( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15546c.htm ):
In better times, moreover, "oppression of the innocent" was understood in light of the Catholic Faith. Enslaving a people in moral or spiritual darkness, persecuting believers, denying the right of all men to have the Gospel preached to them, etc., was considered just cause for war. Therefore St. Bernard of Clairvaux could say with a clear conscience:
All of this, of course, speaks only of "just cause", which is only one of three criteria (or seven, if you count recent additions) to be met before a war can be declared just.
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | March 13, 2010 6:27 PM
Absolutely. I meant only that the cause would be just, not that the war itself would be just apart from other considerations. Traditionally, three conditions must be met for a just war:
1) War must be declared by legitimate authority.
2) The cause must be just.
3) War must be waged with good intention. St. Thomas: "For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): 'The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war.'"
Recently, other conditions have developed in Catholic theology (see: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm ):
These last are of recent vintage in terms of formal catechesis and, to the best of my knowledge, do not rise to the same level of magisterial authority as the original three conditions outlined by St. Thomas. I think they also need a little more fleshing out. The condition that the ultimate goal must be the "re-establishment of peace", for example, seems to oppose the traditional view that wars may be purely punitive. Otherwise these conditions do serve as reliable checks, and when a particular war, such as that against Iraq, seems to fail on practically every count that's a pretty good indication that the war isn't just.
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | March 13, 2010 6:50 PM
On what count did the Iraq war fail? Based, that is, on your quotes from Aquinas and New Advent.
Posted by William Luse | March 14, 2010 3:42 AM
Posted by Zippy | March 14, 2010 11:07 AM
William, this will probably go into permanent history as a disputed issue. There are reasons intelligent people hold forth that the just war requirements were met, and the are reasons other intelligent people hold forth that they were not met. The responsibility for making the decision is not all of us, but "legitimate authority". Those who think the conditions were not met (well, some of them) seem to think that we as Americans should have been in opposition and even non-compliance because the war "was not a just war". I have not seen this argued at all well: if the responsibility belongs to those in authority, then aren't we obligated to obey them in their decision, at least up until the point where their offense against justice is so clear and so grave as to call for rebellion? (I am not referring to voting against such rulers, that lies within the people's ordinary role).
Posted by Tony | March 14, 2010 9:35 PM
Jeff, that is a very weak counter-example. There is a substantial difference between driving out people who are openly making a mockery of the temple and unleashing violence on people to make them bend the knee in submission to Christ.
If Christ rebuked them for even asking for permission to call upon the Father to punish the villagers for rejecting the Gospel, how much angrier would He be to see the Church do so on its own authority? To answer George R's issue about papal authority in this matter: even the Pope, assuming he is the vicar of Christ, may not do that which Christ rebuked, let alone do something which takes that action a step further.
I think you know what I mean by "the advancement of the Gospel." I am talking specifically about the use of violence as a tool to make people embrace it, specifically forced conversions in most cases.
Posted by Mike T | March 14, 2010 10:04 PM
I was being a little coy, Tony. I already knew the answer to my own question. But when Jeff says that the cause of invading North Korea would be just, when he quotes Aquinas as saying that "those attacked must have, by a fault, deserved to be attacked," and the Catholic Encyclopedia as saying that war can be waged on behalf of "the oppression of the innocent, whose unjust suffering is proportionate to the gravity of war and whom it is impossible to rescue in any other way," the Iraq war, which he considers unjust, starts to look better all the time.
And using Christ's scourging of the moneychangers as a model for dropping bombs on people is ridiculous. Mistaking our own sense of justice (or just war) for God's own in our desire to "advance the gospel" is about as perilous an undertaking as can be imagined.
Posted by William Luse | March 14, 2010 10:43 PM
If "enslaving a people in moral or spiritual darkness" is a casus belli then the Protestant nations would have ample reason for war against many third world "Catholic" countries where the Catholicism is so mixed with the previous pagan religion that it bares little resemblance to the Gospel.
Posted by Mike T | March 15, 2010 9:20 AM
Bill, the quotes from Aquinas and the Catholic Encyclopedia pertain only to one of seven or eight conditions for a just war: just cause.
The Iraq War had a just cause. That does not make it a just war. In my opinion, which I regret introducing, the Iraq War fails the just war test on several counts - there was never a reasonable chance of success (in part because "success" was never clearly defined), the damage to Iraq was hugely disproportional to the threat, the war produced evils and disorders greater than the evil eliminated, and it is probable that the intent in waging the war was less noble than what we have been told. As far as the Catholic Faith is concerned, the Iraq war has been a complete disaster for Christians and Christianity in the region. That's all I'm going to say about Iraq in this comment thread.
Tell it to the popes, Bill. What an attitude.
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | March 16, 2010 3:47 AM
I agree with you, Tony. Which is why I seldom bring it up. I'm worried about contributing to the erosion of respect for the state's authority to wage war. Sometimes I think I'm too worried, sometimes not worried enough. Anyway, I appreciate this comment.
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | March 16, 2010 3:54 AM
Mike T., I'm going to assume that I just haven't communicated well rather than assume you are willfully misrepresenting my arguments.
Yes, there is. Which I why neither I, nor the Church in the Bulls of Donation, promote unleashing violence on people to make them bend the knee in submission to Christ. Making a territory safe for the Gospel to be preached and missions to be established is not "conversion by the sword" by a long stretch.
Christ never rebuked legitimate governments from doing what legitimate governments do, which is wield the sword, administer justice, and under certain conditions, wage war.
"The Protestant nations"? Can you name one? Religiously speaking, any nation today capable of taking over a third-world Catholic country is just as far off the mark, if not more so, as Voodoo-Catholicism in the Caribbean, with even less hope for correction.
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | March 16, 2010 4:13 AM
You know, Bill, I'm not interested in responding to your nasty little caricatures. I have too little time for this as it is. Cheers.
Posted by Jeff Culbreath | March 16, 2010 4:38 AM
What I got out of them was that part of the Pope's "donation" of the lands to Spain was that he had a duty to suppress the religion of the native peoples. That may not come in the form of the Islamic suppression of the various religions of the Middle East and North Africa, but it strikes me as a kind of forced conversion inasmuch as it amounts to a use of force against them to such an end.
Now, if you can say that the Pope gave no license to the suppression of their religion, and that I am merely misreading this meandering text, then I'll concede the point. I find the British example in India to be more Christian in that what the British suppressed was not the entire religion, but those areas of the religion which inflicted a prosecutable, measurable injustice (sati for example).
The majority of the English-speaking world, Scandanavia and much of Germany would certainly count as Protestant nations, but then I won't disagree that they are astray. There are also no Catholic nations which are more right with God either as a nation.
Of course, since Voodoo-Catholicism is a pagan religion, not a Christian one, and therefore unlike any Christian denomination or sect, it arguably cannot lead to salvation as it is an unqualified abomination.
Posted by Mike T | March 16, 2010 7:18 AM
Malta?
(One of my favorite patron saints is St. George Preca, the first canonized Maltese saint. I had the privilege of attending his canonization Mass in St. Peter's Square in Rome. Odd fact: St. George Preca was a smoker, and often used the offer of a smoke to sailors as a way to start a conversation).
Posted by Zippy | March 16, 2010 9:48 AM
You know, Bill, I'm not interested in responding to your nasty little caricatures. I have too little time for this as it is. Cheers.
Your exact words:
Jesus Himself used force "toward the advancement of the Gospel" by driving the money-changers from the temple. Furthermore, the scriptures are replete with examples of conquest, commanded by God, for the furthering of His Kingdom.
If you want to blame someone for thinking that Christ's action is being made the inspirational analogy for wars of conquest, you now know where to look. If you didn't have "too little time for this" you might choose your words more carefully.
Posted by William Luse | March 16, 2010 10:37 PM