See the Radical Catholic Page at: 
http://www.bway.net/~halsall/radcath.html

		Syllabus of Papal and Magisterial Errors

 		   version. 1.6 March 17 1998
				by Paul Halsall
     		halsall@murray.fordham.edu


The Roman Catholic Church is the world's largest religious
organization. As a devoted Roman Catholic the author of this
document is convinced that despite some tragic dysfunctions,
the Roman Catholic religion is ultimately valid as way of
understanding human beings and the Universe.  One of the
main dysfunctions, however, arises from the centralization -
ongoing since the 11th century - of power and authority in
the office of the pope, and the common assertion of papal
and magisterial inerrancy. This assertion is made by both central 
Roman authorities and conservative Roman Catholics in debate.

This document lays out errors committed by popes and the
central Roman authorities. These errors are not the ones
asserted by non-Catholic critics of the Roman Church, but
ones that, even if not often discussed, would be acknowledge
by all or most Roman Catholics.

The goal here is to establish that the charism promised by
Christ to the Church is one of final perseverance, not one
of inerrancy. Some of the "errors" below do not, logically
at least, invalidate claims to magisterial or papal infallibility. 
The main defense would be that the error was not "asserted as 
infallible", or that the person making the error was acting in 
an unofficial capacity. Readers can judge for themselves if this 
is a sufficient defense.

A note about typical conservative responses to the type of information
gathered here. Hans Kueng, writing in his book _Infallible: 
An Inquiry_, (Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1983, German 
ed. 1970), makes the following observations which are as true
now as when he wrote twenty-five years ago [pp. 38-39].

	The errors of the ecclesiastical teaching office in every
	century have been numerous and indisputable: a close scrutiny
	of the Index of Forbidden Books would be particularly revealing 
	in this respect. An yet the teaching office constantly found
	it difficult to admit these errors frankly and honestly. Mostly
	the correction was only made "implicitly," in a veiled
	way, without any frankness and particularly without admitting
	the mistake. It was feared that awareness of the admitted 
	falliblity of certain important decisions would restrict or even 
	finally shut out the prospect of claiming infallibility for
	certain other important decisions

	For a long time, too, Catholic theologians in their works on
	apologetics in service of the teaching office, were able to
	successfully ward off any questioning of infallibility by the use
	of a basically simple recipe: either it was not an error or - 
	when at last and finally an error could no longer be denied,
	reinterpreted, rendered innocuous or belittled - it was not 
	an infallible decision.[...] 

John Vogel, on the Free Catholic list, told a story which makes the
same point:

	I once had an apologist as a project manager.  The person between 
	us in the org chart had been given instructions to get me to 
	leave my job since the customer had told them no more key 
	personnel could be fired without endangering the contract. 
	(My company had been purchased.)

    My project manager was trying to find a way to stop me from 
	writing up formal complaints against my supervisor since she 
	actually recognized that until more people could be trained on 
	our computer system she needed me.  It was a very ugly.
	
	So after he was foolish enough to write down things that the 
	customer knew were wrong and that I could prove were wrong she 
	began trying to find an explanation that wasn't actionable.  Her 
	explanation for how what had happened would change each time 
	I pointed out an inconsistency.  Her goal was neither truth 
	nor fairness but rather to find a way to keep the situation 
	stable just a little longer and not to admit that anything that 
	the company could be sued for had happened.



			   *****************************


The errors fall into four main areas:

Syllabus of Papal and Magisterial Errors

A:	Theological errors taught by popes or central Roman authorities.

	1.	Vigilius (553) - public wavering over Christology
	2.	Honorius I (634) - initiates heresy of monothelitism
	3.	John XXII (1331) - states that beatific vision must wait 
		until last judgment
	4.	Boniface VIII  (1302) - declares that it is
		necessary for salvation for every human person to
		be subject to the bishop of Rome.
	5.	Sixtus V (1590) - declaration that the 1590 version of
		the Vulgate - which was riddled with errors - was
		forever valid and unalterable.
	6.	Papal approval of the cult of St. Philomena in the 19th
 	    century.
	7.	Pontifical Bible Commission (1906 -1933) - variety of 
		statements now rejected by all or most Catholic Biblical 
		scholars.
	8.	What About Augustine and "Roma Locuta, causa finita est"?
	
B:	Moral teachings which have been later reversed or ignored.

	1.	Slavery
	2.	Usury
	3.	Contraception and family planning
	4.	Sex forbidden during Menstruation

C:	Errors of moral action or insight by Rome [Popes or Officials]
	
	1.	Urban II - calling for the Crusades
	2.	Gregory IX - allowing the use of torture by the Inquisition
	3.	Benedict XIV - calling for the ghettoization of Polish Jews
	4.	Papal attacks on the availability of the Bible to the laity.

D:	Errors of moral action by Councils
	
	1.	Gangra (325-381) - anathematizing women who cut off hair
	2.	Lateran VI (1215) - imposition of symbol on the Jews


  ***************************************************************

A:	Theological errors taught by popes or central Roman authorities.

	1.	Vigilius (553) - public wavering over Christology
	2.	Honorius I (634) - initiates heresy of monothelitism
	3.	John XXII (1331) - states that beatific vision must wait 
		until last judgment
	4.	Boniface VIII  (1302) - declares that it is
		necessary for salvation for every human person to
		be subject to the bishop of Rome.
	5.	Sixtus V (1590) - declaration that the 1590 version of
		the Vulgate - which was riddled with errors - was
		forever valid and unalterable.
	6.	Papal approval of the cult of St. Philomena in the 19th
 	    century.
	7.	Pontifical Bible Commission (1906 -1933) - variety of 
		statements now rejected by all or most Catholic Biblical 
		scholars
	8.	What About Augustine and "Roma Locuta, causa finita est"?
	

1.	VIGILIUS (553) - public wavering over Christology

	Part of the reason for the great prestige of the papacy was the
	important defense it had made of the Trinitarian cause in the
	battle with Arians. In the debates of the fifth & sixth centuries
	over  Christology, though, Rome was less successful in always 
	getting it right. Vigilius and Honorius are the popes at issue    
	here.

	Pope Vigilius faced the problem of dealing with the Emperor
	Justinian, who was quite capable of executing any opponent. 
	During the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, Vigilius 
	was in Constantinople, [although he certainly had not called
	the council and was and was not happy with it.] Justinian, who 
	had called the council, was concerned to resolve the
	Christological debates which were dividing his empire. At the time
	discussion revolved around the writings of the important
	theologian Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 438), in particular a work
	of his known as the 'Three Chapters". It was generally, 
	although perhaps unfairly, considered that Theodore was a
	supporter of "Nestorianism", the heresy which made a too radical
	distinction between the human Jesus and the divine Christ. 

	The Council, for this reason, condemned Theodore's writings, 
	and Theodore himself, even though Theodore had bee dead over
	a century and had died in communion with the Church. Vigilius
	publicaly refused to go along with this, issuing his own
	*Constitutum* which condemned certain propositions from 
	Theodore's writing, but not the writings or the person 
	himself. The Constitutum also anathematized those who condemned 
	Theodore's "Three Chapters" by name. [That is the pope effectively
	anathematized the members of the ecumenical council then meeting.] 
	Although the Constitutum was perhaps fairer to Theodore than the 
	Council, it was also in direct conflict to earlier statements by 
	Vigilius that he would  condemn Theodore and the 'Three Chapters'. 

	Having made his stance, though, Vigilius then decided to reject 
	his own Constitutum and on Dec., 8, 553 wrote a letter to the
	Patriarch Eutychius repenting his own writing [he invoked
	the example of Augustine's *Retractiones*!].

	What we have here is the example of a Roman Pope issuing a variety
	documents on the central theological issues of faith - and 
	changing his mind. 

	For a fuller account see John Meyendorff, _Imperial Unity
	and Christian Divisions_, (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladmir's 
	Seminary Press, 1989), pp. 235-245.



2.	HONORIUS I (634) - initiates heresy of monothelitism

	This is an old chestnut - often used by Protestant polemicists
	against Roman Catholic claims. For all that, the incident is 
	important in any evaluation of the history of papal errors.

	Monthelitism was a "heresy" that attempted to resolve the 
	long-standing dispute about the relation of human and divine 
	in the person of Christ. Monothelites suggested that Christ
	had "one will".  It was condemned as a heresy at the 3rd
	Council of Constantinople in 680-81 AD [an "ecumenical council"].

	The problem for papal infallibility is that it was a pope - 
	Honorius I who in 634 suggested the heresy in letters to patriarch
	Sergius of Constantinople. As a result Honorius was condemned
	and anathematized by the 3rd Council of Constantinople. To be
	blunt: an ecumenical council condemned a pope as heretic.

	Most Catholic writers admit a: that Honorius I wrote the letters
	in question, b: that the letters were in fact in error by
	proposing a new heresy, c: Honorius was condemned for these 
	opinions by the Council.  They then try to safeguard the
	notion of papal infallibility by insisting that Honorius
	was not issuing his opinions "ex cathedra" [thus, presumably
	implying that a pope can err in all other matters except ex 
	cathedra pronouncements].  Other Catholic writers have admitted
	that Honorius' letters [the letters of one bishop to another] do
	constitute official acts, but have argued that Honorius was not
	in fact being heretical. As we will see this leaves the 6th
	council as being in error, as well as later popes. Certainly the 
	whole episode is uncomfortable for papalists.

	Here are some details:
	1. Honorius is condemned in the Acts of the 13th Session of
	the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II) with these
	words ".. all of whom we define are to be subjected to anathema. 
	And with those we define there shall be expelled from the holy 
	Church of God an anathematized, Honorius who was some time Pope of
	Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius"

	2. Pope Leo II confirmed the decree of the Council and
	explicitly says that he too anathematized Honorius, with these
	words " Also Honorius qui hanc apostolicam sedem non apostolicae 
	traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immaculatam   
	fidem subvertere conatus est, et omnes qui in suo errore defuncti  
	sunt" [Percival, p. 352]

	Here Leo in confirming the decrees expressly says that he
	too is anathematizing Honorius for "his error".

	3. The decree of the Seventh Ecumenical Council [Nicea II] said
	"We affirm that in Christ there be two wills and two operations
	according to the reality of each nature, as also taught by
	the Sixth Synod held at Constantinople, casting out Sergius,
	Honorius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Macarius, and all those who agree with
	them". [Percival, 550]

	This Council was, btw, presided over by the Bishop of Ostia,
	a legate of the pope, and confirmed by the Pope of the time.
									 
	4. The popes from the 5th to the 11th century took an oath
	in a form prescribed by Gregory II. This Oath included the
	phrase "smites with eternal anathema the originators of
	the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because
	he assisted in the base assertion of heresies".

	There can be no doubt then that Honorius, who to be fair was
	only trying to calm the situation, was condemned and anathematized
	as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, a decree confirmed
	and acknowledged by popes for over 500 years.

	[See Percival, ed, _The Seven Ecumenical Councils_, p. 351-352]


3.	JOHN XXII (1316-1334) - states that beatific vision must wait until 
	last judgment

	John XXII was the second Avignon pope - but this was before the
	schism of 1378, and the he is considered by all authorities to
	have been a "real" pope. In many respects he was one of the 
	greatest popes of the 14th century in his efforts to reform the Church.

	He was also a vigorous preacher. In a sermon on All Saints day
	in 1331 [surely a expression of the papal teaching office] he
	espoused a heresy when he insisted that the souls of the dead do
	not see God ["gain the beatific vision"] until after the general
	resurrection.

	This position, later asserted to be his opinion as "private
	theologian" provoked much dispute. On his death bed, John XXII
	retracted his opinion. His successor Benedict XII in 1336 issued
	the Constitution *Benedictus Deus* 1336 which asserted that the
	blessed souls of the dead see the face of the triune God 
	immediately after death, although the nature of their state between 
	death and the general resurrection was not elaborated on [i.e. how
	bodiless souls can "see" anything]. This definition was repeated
	at the Council of Florence and the council of Trent. 

	Once again then we have a pope publicly preaching was later
	understood to be error. And once more, the defense is that it
	was his "private opinion" - even though in this case it was made
	in a series of public sermons given by John XII as pope.

	*References*

	For a quick overview see William R. Canon, _History of Christianity
	in the Middle Ages_, 293-4

	For the relevant texts see J Neuner and J Dupuis, eds., _The
	Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents if the Catholic
	Church_, rev. ed. ( New York: Alba House, 1981), pp. 684-687)
	



4.	BONIFACE VIII (1302) - declared that it was necessary for
	salvation for every human person to be subject to the
	bishop of Rome.
	By Paul Halsall

	The Bull 'Unam Sanctam', in which Pope Boniface VIII
	asserted his rights against King Phillip the Fair of
	France, is a landmark in the history of the doctrine of
	Papal Primacy.

	The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia says: "The Bull lays
	down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Church,
	the necessity of belonging to it for the attainment of
	eternal salvation, the position of the Pope as supreme
	head of the Church, and the duty thence arising of
	submission to the Pope in order to belong to the Church
	and thus to attain salvation.  - in the writings of non-
	Catholic authors against the definition of Papal
	Infallibility, the Bull ...  was used against Boniface
	VIII as well as against the papal primacy in a manner
	not justified by its content.  The statements
	concerning the relations between the spiritual and the
	secular power are of a purely historical character, so
	far as they do not refer to the nature of the spiritual
	power, and are based on the actual conditions of
	medieval Europe."

	In fact the Bull seems to fulfill all the requirements
	of an infallible papal statement as laid down in 1871
	at the First Vatican Council. The final line " we
	declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely
	necessary for salvation that every human creature be
	subject to the Roman Pontiff" is in the form used for
	the declarations on the Immaculate Conception and the
	Assumption, for instance.
	
	As it stands, this doctrine has been repudiated by the
	modern Catholic Church. Even in the 19th century, Pius
	IX was clear that innocent people of goodwill could be
	saved. The Second Vatican Council specifically asserts
	that people in all religions can be saved. Although
	some later commentators have tried to salvage the
	position - usually by asserting that only the Church
	has the right to interpret its own documents, there is
	little doubt that there has been a def fact reversal in
	Church teachings around this "definitive" papal teaching.
	

	UNAM SANCTAM (Promulgated November 18, 1302)
	[The following English translation of 'Unam' is taken
	from a doctoral dissertation written in the Dept.  of
	Philosophy at the Catholic University of America, and
	published by CUA Press in 1927.]
	
	Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to
	maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and
	also apostolic.  We believe in her firmly and we
	confess with simplicity that outside of her there is
	neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the
	Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: 'One is my
	dove, my perfect one.  She is the only one, the chosen
	of her who bore her,' and she represents one sole
	mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of
	Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3].  In her then is one Lord,
	one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5].  There had been at
	the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah,
	prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been
	finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and
	guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this
	ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

	We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by
	the mouth of the prophet: 'Deliver, O God, my soul from
	the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.'
	[Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for
	himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say,
	the Church, He has called one because of the unity of
	the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the
	charity of the Church.  This is the tunic of the Lord,
	the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was
	cast by lot [Jn 19:23-24].  Therefore, of the one and
	only Church there is one body and one head, not two
	heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of
	Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the
	Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep'
	[Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these,
	nor those in particular, whence we understand that He
	entrusted all to him [Peter].  Therefore, if the Greeks
	or others should say that they are not confided to
	Peter and to his successors, they must confess not
	being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John
	'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' We are
	informed by the texts of the gospels that in this
	Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the
	spiritual and the temporal.  For when the Apostles say:
	'Behold, here are two swords' [Lk 22:38] that is to
	say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking,
	the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but
	sufficient.  Certainly the one who denies that the
	temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not
	listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put
	up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52].  Both,
	therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to
	say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the
	former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the
	latter_ by_ the Church; the former in the hands of the
	priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers,
	but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

	However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the
	other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual
	power.  For since the Apostle said: 'There is no power
	except from God and the things that are, are ordained
	of God' [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if
	one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the
	inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the
	other.

	For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of
	the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest
	place by intermediaries.  Then, according to the order
	of the universe, all things are not led back to order
	equally and immediately, but the lowest by the
	intermediary, and the inferior by the superior.  Hence
	we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power
	surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power
	whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal.
	This we see very clearly also by the payment,
	benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the
	acceptance of power itself and by the government even
	of things.  For with truth as our witness, it belongs
	to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power
	and to pass judgment if it has not been good.  Thus is
	accomplished the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the
	Church and the ecclesiastical power: 'Behold to-day I
	have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms' and
	the rest.  Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it
	will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor
	spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior
	spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err,
	it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according
	to the testimony of the Apostle: 'The spiritual man
	judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no
	man' [1 Cor 2:15].  This authority, however, (though it
	has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not
	human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine
	word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors
	by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to
	Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth,
	shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19].
	Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by
	God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he
	invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false
	and judged by us heretical, since according to the
	testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in
	the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen
	1:1].  Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define
	that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that
	every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

	********

	Boniface VIII's teaching was largely repeated on a number of
	later occasions by both councils and popes.

	"[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches 
	that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not 
	only Pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be 
	artakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire prepared 
	or the devil, and his angels (Mt. 25.41), unless before the close 
	f their lives they shall have entered into that Church:"
	Pope Eugene IV, Bull "Cantate Domino", 1441

	Council of Florence - Decree for the Jacobites (1442) - 
	
	"(The Holy Roman Church).. firmly believes, professes and
	preaches that "no-one remaining outside the Catholic Church,
	not only pagans", but also Jews, heretics or schismatics, can
	become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the
	"eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his angels" 
	(Mt. 25:41), unless before the end of their life they are 
	received into it. For union with the body of the Church is
	of so great importance that the sacraments of the Church
	are helpful only for those remaining in it; and fasts,
	almsgiving, and other works of piety, and exercises of a 
	militant Christian life bear eternal rewards for them alone.
	"And no one can be saved, even if he sheds his blood for the
	name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of
	the Catholic Church", [cf. Fulgentius of Ruspa, De fide liber
	ad Petrum, 38, 79 and 39, 80].
	Denz. 1351, cf. J Neuner and J Dupuis, eds., _The Christian Faith 
	in the Doctrinal Documents if the Catholic Church_, rev. ed. 
	(New York: Alba House, 1981), 1005, {p. 279)

	[other papal documents with the same line are give in Neuner
	and Dupuis, pp 279-285]

	********

	The first signs of change in the hardline doctrine came at the
	First Plenary council of India 1950 [See Neuner and Dupuis
	p. 285].  It was the Second Vatican Council, though, which
	not only saw positive value in other religions, but specifically
	taught that salvation was available to the adherents of other
	religions.

	Even those few conservative Catholics who wish to defend the
	strict "no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church" doctrine
	of Boniface VIII, there is still a problem - the Vatican Council,
	with all its documents approved by popes, taught a completely
	opposite doctrine.

	Here Vatican II in its  Dogmatic Constitution on the Church,
	Lumen Gentium #15-17, (November 21, 1964) effectively
	overturns this entire, and pernicious doctrine.
	[footnotes omitted]
	
	15. The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to
	the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian,
	but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in
	its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion
	under the successor of Peter.[14] For there are many
	who hold sacred scripture in honor as a rule of faith
	and of life, who have a sincere religious zeal, who
	lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in
	Christ, the Son of God and the Savior,[15] who are
	sealed by baptism which unites them to Christ, and who
	indeed recognize and receive other sacraments in their
	own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of
	them possess the episcopate, celebrate the holy
	Eucharist and cultivate devotion of the Virgin Mother
	of God.[16] There is furthermore a sharing in prayer
	and spiritual benefits; these Christians are indeed in
	some real way joined to us in the Holy Spirit for, by
	his gifts and graces, his sanctifying power is also
	active in them and he has strengthened some of them
	even to the shedding of their blood. And so the Spirit
	stirs up desires and actions in all of Christ's
	disciples in order that all may be peaceably united, as
	Christ ordained, in one flock under one shepherd.[17]
	Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that
	this may be achieved, and she exhorts her children to
	purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may
	shine more brightly over the face of the Church.
	
	16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel
	are related to the People of God in various ways.[18]
	There is, first, that people to which the covenants and
	promises were made, and from which Christ was born
	according to the flesh (cf. Rom. 9:4-5): in view of the
	divine choice, they are a people most dear for the sake
	of the fathers, for the gifts of God are without
	repentance (cf. Rom. 11:29-29). But the plan of
	salvation also includes those who acknowledge the
	Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the
	Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham,
	and together with us they adore the one, merciful God,
	mankind's judge on the last day. Nor is God remote from
	those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God,
	since he gives to all men life and breath and all
	things (cf. Acts 17:25-28), and since the Savior wills
	all men to be saved (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4). Those who,
	through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel
	of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God
	with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their
	actions to do his will as they know it through the
	dictates of their conscience--those too many achieve
	eternal salvation.[19] Nor shall divine providence deny
	the assistance necessary for salvation to those who,
	without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an
	explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace,
	strive to lead a good life. Whatever good or truth is
	found amongst them is considered by the Church to be a
	preparation for the Gospel[20] and given by him who
	enlightens all men that they may at length have life.
	



5.	Sixtus V (1585-90) - Declaration that the 1590 version
	of the Vulgate - which was riddled with errors -  was
	forever valid
	by Paul Halsall [Nov. 28, 1995]

	The Council of Trent had called for a an officially
	sponsored critical edition of the Latin Vulgate [April
	8, 1546].  Serious work was undertaken over the next
	thirty years and the so called "Sixtine Vulgate" of
	1590 was issued, and then, because of errors, had to be
	revised and reissued in the so-called Sixto-Clementine
	Text of 1592-98. The Clementine text [under Clement
	VIII] of 1612 became the official catholic text, and
	was reissued as late as 1959.

	Sixtus V was sin fact a highly accomplished man, but he
	was too eager to get the Vulgate published. As a result
	of his highly personal efforts the edition of 1590 was
	riddled with errors. At one point he, as the actual
	editor, decided arbitrarily to omit five verses. He then
	set forth the results of his work as not only official
	but forever unalterable. The mistake was realized
	immediately, and his embarrassed successor Clement VIII
	had to make an effort to recover as many copies as
	possible. In all THREE THOUSAND errors had to be
	corrected! The new edition published in 1592 kept
	Sixtus' name on the title page in an attempt to avoid
	ridicule [The popes never admit to error!].
	
	Even now some Catholic historians, such as Pierre
	Janelle, the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, and Marvin
	O'Connell gloss over the embarrassment of the affair.
	
	The fact remains, Pope Sixtus VI, declared a version of
	the Bible as "official and unalterable", when in fact
	the text was full of errors and had to be replaced
	within two years.
	

	for this section see
	New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 68:146
	Marvin R. O'Connell, The Counter Reformation, 1560-
	1610, (New York: Harper, 1974), 273
	A. G. Dickens, The Counter Reformation, (London: Thames
	and Hudson, 1968), p. 140




6.	PAPAL APPROVAL OF THE CULT OF ST. PHILOMENA IN THE 19TH CENTURY.
	
	The cult of St. Philomena was assiduously promoted in the 19th century
	by the popes. But the whole cult turned out to be based on a mistake. 
	Unfortunately, by the time this was discovered, a number of popes had made 
	rather extreme statements. The texts here are entirely from other sources
	than my writing.
	
	FROM the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913
	http://www.knight.org/advent/cathen/12025b.htm
	On 25 May, 1802, during the quest for the graves of Roman martyrs 
	in the Catacomb	of Priscilla, a
	tomb was discovered and opened; as it contained a glass vessel it 
	was assumed to be the grave of a martyr. The view, then erroneously 
	entertained in Rome, that the presence of such vessels (supposed to 
	have contained the martyr's blood) in a grave was a symbol of 
	martyrdom, has been rejected in practice since the investigations 
	of De Rossi (cf. Leclercq in "Dict. d.archéol. chrét. et de liturg.
	", s.v. Ampoules de sang). The remains found in the above-mentioned 
	tomb were shown to be those of a young maiden, and, as the name 
	Filumena was discovered on the earthenware slabs closing the grave, 
	it was assumed that they were those of a virgin martyr named 
	Philumena. On 8 June, 1805, the relics were translated to the 
	\church of Mungano, Diocese of Nola (near Naples), and enshrined 
	under one of its altars. In 1827 Leo XII presented the church with 
	the three earthenware tiles, with the inscription, which may be seen 
	in the church even today. On the basis of alleged revelations to a 
	nun in Naples, and of an entirely fanciful and indefensible 
	explanation of the allegorical paintings, which were found on 
	the slabs beside the inscription, a canon of the church in 
	Mugnano, named DiLucia, composed a purely fictitious and 
	romantic account of the supposed martyrdom of St. Philomena, who 
	is not mentioned in any of the ancient sources. In consequence of 
	the wonderful favours received in answer to prayer before the 
	relics of the saint at Mugnano, devotion to them spread rapidly, 
	and, after instituting investigations into the question, Gregory 
	XVI appointed a special feast to be held on 9 September, 
	"in honorem s. Philumenae virginis et martyris" (cf. the lessons 
	of this feast in the Roman Breviary). The earthenware plates were 
	fixed in front of the grave as follows: LUMENA PAX TECUM FI. 
	The plates were evidently inserted in the wrong order, and the 
	inscription should doubtless read PAX TECUM FILUMENA. The letters 
	are painted on the plates with red paint, and the inscription 
	belongs to the primitive class of epigraphical memorials in the 
	Catacomb of Priscilla, thus, dating from about the middle or 
	second half of the second century. The disarrangement of the 
	inscription proves that it must have been completed before the 
	plates were put into position, although in the numerous other 
	examples of this kind in the same catacomb the inscription was 
	added only after the grave had been closed. Consequently, 
	since the disarrangement of the plates can scarcely be 
	explained as arising from an error, Marucchi seems justified 
	in concluding that the inscription and plates originally 
	belonged to an earlier grave, and were later employed (now 
	in the wrong order) to close another. Apart from the letters, 
	the plates contain three arrows, either as a decoration or a 
	punctuation, a leaf as decoration, two anchors, and a palm 
	as the well-known Christian symbols. Neither these signs nor 
	the glass vessel discovered in the grave can be regarded as 
	a proof of martyrdom.  J.P. KIRSCH 
	
	From Donald Attwater, Dictionary of Saints, (New York: Pneguin,
	1965). s.v. Philomena.
	- "At length in 1961 the pertinent authority in Rome ordered that
	the feast of Philomena be discontinued, her name removed from any
	calendar, and the shrine at Mugnano discontinued; the shrine, in fact,
	still exists."
	
	But the damage was done. Here are the papal actions and texts
	as recorded at the St. Philomena website (which seems not to
	have noticed that Philomena was banned.] The popes made numerous
	errors here. Note especially note the statement of Pius X that 
	the cult was not suppressible. As far as I can gather, within
	one (1) year the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) was becoming edgy, 
	although suppression had to wait until 1961.
	[Comment: those who note that Anglican orders were declared "null 
	and void" might be very happy to read this, as will those who 
	note the excessively dogmatic language around the declaration on 
	papal infallibliity.]

	Devotion of the Popes to Saint Philomena
	http://www.philomena.org/devotion.html

	A most significant feature of Saint Philomena's renown is the 
	remarkable devotion that the Popes have shown to the little 
	Wonder Worker. Since the finding of her relics, Pope after 
	Pope has shown her public honor and fostered a personal devotion 
	to her. It is indeed remarkable that the highest eulogies of the 
	saint have come from the Sovereign Pontiffs. Pope Leo XII 
	(1823-1829), who preceded Pope Gregory XVI in the Pontifical Chair,
	expressed the greatest admiration for this unknown child-saint, and 
	gladly gave his permission for the erection of altars and 
	churches in her honor.

	Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846), who authorized her public veneration, 
	showed his esteem and devotion to the saint by giving her the title 
	of Patroness of the Living Rosary, and donating a magnificent gold 
	and silver lamp to her sanctuary.

	Of all the Popes, however, Pope Pius IX cultivated the most special 
	devotion to the virgin-martyr. As Archbishop of Spoleto, he was 
	one of her devout clients and did much to spread her veneration. 
	Later in life, when Archbishop of Imola, he fell very ill and his 
	cure was attributed to Saint Philomena's intercession. When raised 
	to the throne of St. Peter, this Pope availed himself of his power 
	to bestow still greater luster on the saint at Mugnano, where he 
	offered Holy Mass on the altar of the saint, and afterwards publicly 
	venerated her relics. In 1849, he named her Patroness of the 
	Children of Mary.

	Leo XIII imitated his predecessor in the honor shown Saint 
	Philomena during his pontificate. Before his election to the 
	papacy he made two pilgrimages to her shrine. After he became 
	the Vicar of Christ, he gave a valuable cross to the sanctuary. 
	He approved the Confraternity of Saint Philomena, and enriched 
	it with indulgences. Furthermore, he raised it to an 
	Archconfraternity.

	No less devoted to the little saint was our beloved St. Pius X. 
	Costly gifts, among them the magnificent gold ring already 
	mentioned, were given by him to her shrine. He often spoke 
	warmly of her and manifested his devotion to her in various 
	ways. Pope Saint Pius X raised the Archconfraternity of Saint 
	Philomena to a Universal Archconfraternity and named St. 
	John Vianney its Patron. 

	This Pope and great Saint of Holy Mother the Church solemnly 
	declared: 
		"...to discredit the present decisions and declarations 
		concerning Saint Philomena as not being permanent, stable, 
		valid and effective, necessary of obedience, and in 
		full-effect for all eternity, proceeds from an element 
		that is null and void and without merit or authority." (1912)




7.	PONTIFICAL BIBLE COMMISSION (1906 -1933)- Variety of statements 
	now rejected by all or most Catholic Biblical scholars

	The PBC, nowadays a model of scholarship, in its early decrees
	issued statement after statement which can simply no longer
	be maintained. In 1955 a clarification in German and Latin by
	A. Miller and A. Kleinhans, secretary and asst. secretary of the
	PBC stated that the early PBC decisions could be ignored. It
	seems Pius XII, a long time defender of modern Biblical criticism
	and the real creator of modern Catholic biblical scholarship
	with his encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu", even offered 
	to revoke the PBC degrees officially. He never did this, but
	in fact Rome has acted consistently in the spirit of the
	Miller-Kleinhans "clarification", and has not attacked any of
	the hundreds of Catholic scholars who have contradicted every one
	of the following decrees from a central Roman teaching body!
	[This is, of course, the typical Roman way of dealing with
	mistakes - pretend they never happened].


	PBC Statements 1906 - 1933

	A. 1906 - Moses personally wrote the Pentateuch and there is
	insufficient evident that it was compiled from later sources. 
	There may have been some later editing.

	B. 1909 - Genesis 1-3 is historical, not a fictional or
	mythological narrative, nor derived from pagan mythologies
	nor are they allegories, nor partly historical and partly 
	fictional. Some allowance may be made for figurative language and
	scientific naivete.
	In particular these facts are historical - 1. creation of all
	things by God at the beginning, 2. special creation of man, 
	3. formation of first woman from first man, ... 7. transgression
	of divine command at instigation of the Devil in the form of
	a Serpent.

	C. 1908 - Isaiah contains real prophecies - not discussions after
	the event. The evidence is insufficient to suggest several authors
	living in different centuries.

	D. 1910 - David wrote psalms 2, 16, 18, 32, 69, 110. There is
	no proof any psalms were composed after Ezra-Nehemiah

	E. 1933 - Matthew wrote his gospel first, before 70 AD and not
	necessarily after Paul. He originally wrote in Aramaic. The 
	historical authenticity of some passages is emphasized
	ch. 1-2, 14:33, 16:17-19, 28:19-20

	F. 1912 - The original order is Matt. Mk. Luke, although Greek
	Matt. may be after Mark. Mark writes according to the preaching
	of Peter, Luke of Paul. Mark and Luke are really the authors of
	the Gospels named after them. Catholic authors cannot discuss the
	Synoptic problem but may not advocate the two-source theory [ie
	the notion of "Q"].

	G. 1907 - The apostle John must be acknowledged as the author of 
	the Gospel of John. John's "facts" are historcial are are not
	there to serve as symbols or allegories.

	H. 1913 - Luke wrote Acts, and not later than 63 AD.

	I. 1915 - 1 and 2 Tim and Titus were always counted as
	canonical and were written by Paul himself in 63-66. Hebrews
	is canonical and genuinely Pauline, although it may have been
	reformed since he wrote it.

	******

	It is not going to far to say that these statements by a Central
	Roman Authority are all open to question, and some [eg. F] would
	find virtually no Catholic defenders. Most of the propositions
	are rejected by most Catholic scholars.

	What is particularly interesting is that as constituted from
	1902-1965 the PBC had Cardinals as members and its decrees -
	now known to be wrong, were binding on Catholics to internal
	assent.

	So here we have a case of fairly recent Roman doctrinal 
	pronouncements which have never been formally repudiated,
	but which are acknowledged by all to have been wrong [even Rome,
	which takes no action to defend them, and allows books
	such as the New Jerome Biblical Commentary - which attacks
	virtually every proposition - to be published with imprimateurs
	and nihil obstats.].


	For the entirety of this section see
	New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 72:25-28


8.	WHAT ABOUT AUGUSTINE AND "Roma Locuta, causa finita est"?

	St. Augustine of Hippo is, with reason, taken as an authorative 
	figure by both Catholics and Protestants. One of the most famous
	phrases ascribed to hime is "Roma locuta, causa finita" [Rome has 
	spoken, the case is ended]. Let us examine the events around this
	phrase, which demonstrate rather a lot of papal fallibility!

	First, Augustine never made the remark as it is usually stated. The
	phrase comes from 
	Augustine Sermon 131.10.10 [Serm. cxxxi,10 in P.L., XXXVIII, 734) 
	which ends thus:  
	"redarguite contradicentes, et resistentes ad nos perducite. Iam enim 
	de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam: inde etiam 
	rescripta venerunt.  causa finita est:  utinam aliquando finiatur 
	error! Ergo ut advertant monemus, ut instruantur docemus, ut mutentur 
	oremus."
	
	This sermon concerned part of the process of Augustine's struggle 
	with Pelagius and Caelestius over the issue of free will (not Donatism 
	as no end of people on the internet seem to claim). This sermon, 
	given in Carthage on 23 September, 417 after the receipt of 
	a letter from Pope Innocent I. The crucial phrase is 
	"iam de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam, 
	inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est". ("Two synods 
	having written to the Apostolic See about this matter; the replies 
	have come back; the question is settled.")  This is often read as if 
	Augustine was placing papal authority above that of councils, as if it
	were the last word.

	But in this instance, the case was most certainly not settled. Pope 
	Innocent had actually died on March 12, 417 and the new pope, 
	Zosimus proceeded to *reopen* the case [so much for "causa finita est"],
	and to be favorable, moreover, to Pelagius! It was eventually *the 
	emperor Honorius* who condemned Pelagius and Caelestius, and only then
	did Zosimus finally follow the emperor's lead and condemned Pelagius, 
	which he did in mid 418. 
	
	Thent Zosimus died in late 418 and Pelegius tried to *reopen* the case 
	yet again. This time Augustine used lay contacts [and money] at the 
	imperial court to prevent italian bishops from supporting Pelagius.
	So much for "Roma locuta...". Augustine in fact was prepared to appeal
	to anyone to get his point accepeted

	For a full discussion of all this see Peter Brown, _Augustine of
	Hippo_, (Berkeley: University of Californai Press, 1967), pp. 356-63




B:	MORAL TEACHINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN LATER REVERSED OR IGNORED

	1.	Slavery
	2.	Usury
	3.	Contraception and family planning
	4.	Sex forbidden during Menstruation


1.	SLAVERY
	by Paul Halsall [5 Mar 1994, updated Dec. 1995]
	
	The situation of slavery and how the Roman Church dealt
	with it is rather complicated, and needs more than just
	reading up what the New Catholic Encyclopedia says [in
	a very misleading article by the way.] The account of Catholic
	involvement with slavery given by Leo XIII in 1888 is
	also, shall we say, one sided.
	
	I  Introduction
	
	It must be said right off that the history of the
	Church with respect to slavery is not all bad. But
	neither is it quite as Leo XIII described it in his
	1890s encyclical on slavery. Much of the activity and
	statements of Church officials in the past can be
	convincingly explained by reference to the presumptions
	and biases of the time. The problem with this approach
	is for writers such as the present bishop of Rome who
	wish to argue that moral values are absolute and
	timeless. The gradualist and non-absolutist approach of
	some modern Catholic Apologetics for the Church's
	approach to slavery in the past conveniently ignores
	this absolutism, typically retreating to notions that
	the Church was doing the best it could.
	
	II  What is a slave?
	
	This is not, in fact, an easy question. The harshest
	form of slavery is "chattel slavery" - in which the
	slave ceases [or never was] a legal person and so has
	no rights as a person. Historically such slaves tend to
	be involved in large scale industrial or agricultural
	work. They cannot legally marry and may be sold away
	from their home and relatives. This is the slavery of
	Roman Law and the American South.
	
	It is fair to say that such slavery was never approved
	of in the Bible or by the Church. Ancient Israel was
	not a society, apart from a couple of large building
	projects, which used chattel slaves. The early Church
	regarded all people as equal, in some sense, and
	refused to regard slaves as without rights and dignity.
	In Catholic Latin American countries the *legal*
	condition of slaves was far removed from the chattel
	slavery of the US. [American clergy did, however, hold
	Black slaves under American law, and some defended
	slavery vigorously.]  But slavery as a concept also
	embraces milder forms of servitude. In these forms a
	slave is the property, to be bought and sold, of the
	master, but has some legal rights. Serfdom is a typical
	example, as was the legal type of slavery in colonial
	Latin America. Such slavery was real slavery and was,
	for instance, passed on to the children of those in
	servitude. [There are, I should emphasize a number of
	variations of this pattern].
	
	Finally, there is personal slavery whereby a person
	sells his or her entire life's labor to another.
	
	Distinct from slavery, but complicating the issue, is
	the slave trade. It has almost always been recognized
	that whether slavery is justifiable or not, the
	conditions of the slave trade are such that the trade
	can be immoral while the holding of slaves is not.
	
	So, "slavery" is a complex issue in definitional terms.
	In practice many of these distinctions meant very
	little. Some chattel slaves were treated as people and
	with care by their masters, while many serfs and slaves-
	who-were-legal-persons were treated as property and
	with contempt. Russian nobles for instance were known
	to gamble away serfs in card games.
	
	As far as we are concerned, I hope, we all share the
	view that *any* form of tied servitude is
	intrinsically immoral, both in the relationships it
	sets up between master and slave, and because
	historically the abuse of the person in servitude is
	frequent and, it seems, inevitable. OTOH, I think we
	must also admit that chattel slavery - where the person
	is no longer regarded as a person, is worse than other
	forms.

	[BTW It is sometimes argued that the variations in the 
	types of slavery justifies St. Paul in having returned
	the slave Oneismus to his owner - see Philemon.  It is true
	that some domestic slaves may have had better lives than
	some freemen in Roman society, and that Paul was hinting
	strongly that the slave ought to be freed. Still, Paul also
	must have known about the worst chattel slavery of the Roman
	empire, and as far as we know never spoke out about it. To
	me at least this represents a blindness on his part. ]

	
	III  Some odd points from the various Catholic
	apologists
	
	A
	The NCE, CE and Caravaglios [citations given in full
	below] all argue that "slavery in its full sense"
	disappeared from medieval Europe because of Church
	activity. This is not strictly true. Chattel slavery
	continued on the fringes of Christendom, and had a
	revival in the late middle ages. Recent researches has
	also indicated that it continued in what is now France
	to a considerable later date that used to be thought.
	It is true, however, that serfdom largely replaced
	agricultural slavery, and that serfs *were* regarded as
	human beings. The Church, or its various parts, was
	often a major holder of serfs, and records do not
	indicate that it was a kinder holder. In fact Church
	serfs often did not get the breaks that the serfs of
	secular individuals did as the Church kept better
	records and did not die [noble families die out with
	remarkable regularity, and the confusion probably
	helped serfs].
	
	No one seems to have challenged this tied servitude
	which varied in severity. The change also cam about not
	entirely due to Church activity: the collapse of public
	authority, and its conflation with private power in the
	"dark ages" led to a situation where the only law was
	customary law. This more or less abolished slavery in
	itself. Slavery is a legal condition requiring a legal
	superstructure and legal notion of status. This ceased
	to be the case in early medieval Western Europe and so,
	since slaves were actually human beings, custom came to
	give them an existence and rights denied by the
	principles of Roman law.
	
	B
	Second odd point: slavery was never understood by
	Christian authors to be a good thing. Augustine for
	instance regarded it as a result of sin [typical
	Augustine!], just like the state I suppose, but not in
	itself as sinful. Manumission was always encouraged.
	Still Catholic theorists who considered slavery always
	thought that it was legal. The central legal problem
	was how does one person obtain title over another. War,
	capture, purchase from parents could all establish
	title. It was admitted by some authors that in amny
	cases such titles were originally defective, but that
	the passage of time made the title effective in order
	to preserve social harmony [similar principles govern
	title over landed property]. The last Catholic theorist
	to discuss the issue while it was still a real living
	issue - Archbishop Kenrick of Baltimore - came down in
	defense of the slave-owner's rights.
	
	C
	Third odd point: Slavery is still not condemned in some
	versions by the Church. Unfree servitude where a person
	has sold his or herself is still considered, if
	inadvisable, as consistent with natural law.
	
	
	IV  Church Authorities and Slavery
	
	A: Councils
	
	Early councils, such as a Gangra, which addressed the
	issue of slavery did not even consider condemning it.
	They did argue that slaves must be well treated, but
	they also condemned slave rebellions and any one who
	encouraged slaves to rebel or desert their masters.
	Such prohibitions on slaves trying to free themselves
	are repeated frequently. It can only be argued that
	such condemnations legitimatized slave-holding and
	slave-holders. [Such decrees would condemn the American
	Underground Railroad and the activities of people like
	Sojourner Truth]. These canons were passed in a time
	when the full legal provisions of Roman chattel slavery
	were in force.
	
	B: Medieval Popes
	
	Many popes condemned the enslavement by Muslims of
	Christians after a variety of raids. Several religious
	orders were organized to redeem such enslaved
	Christians. There was no condemnation of slavery or
	tied servitude in general
	
	C: The New Slavery of the 15th Centuries and After.
	
	The African slave trade began long before the discovery
	of America. The Portuguese began an extensive
	importation of Black slaves from the 1440s on.  Because
	of later treaties between Portugal and Spain, it was
	the Portuguese who supplied slaves to much of the
	Spanish American Empire.
	
	Attempts were made to enslave American Indians from the
	beginning, but such attempts largely failed - due to
	resistance and the effects of disease. Bartolemeo de la
	Casas, whose works form our major source for early
	Caribbean history, condemned the enslavement of Indians
	and called for the use of Black slaves instead,
	although he later recanted this call.
	
	Some popes condemned both the slave trade and the
	enslavement of [hitherto free] Indians. Examples of
	such Papal actions include:
	Eugenius IV 1434 vs enslavement of Canary Island inhabitants
	Paul III 1537, "Sublimus Deus" -condemned the slave trade
	Pius V 1568
	Urban VIII 1639  Condemned the slave trade and  forbade
	Catholics to take part in it.
	Benedict XIV 1741
	
	Urban VIII's ban was reiterated By Pius VIII in 1815,
	Gregory XVI in 1839, Pius IX in 1850 and Leo XIII in
	1888 and 1890. Such activity is highly commendable, but
	note that slavery itself was not condemned, and that
	the Church itself, as well as the Clergy continued to
	hold slaves in both Latin America and the United States
	before Emancipation. Furthermore, I am not sure just
	how much activity this displays, given the enormous
	amount of slaving that was going on.
	
	But Papal activity was not always benign -
	
	*THE ACTIVITY OF POPE NICHOLAS V*
	The Portuguese were concerned that their slaving be
	legitimate and they appealed to Rome for legitimation.
	Thus they appealed for, and were successful in
	obtaining bulls of crusade for their activities in
	Africa. In 1442 Dom Henrique wished to elevate his
	raids to a crusade and so received the bull _Illius
	qui_. Ten years later the Portuguese sought
	confirmation that they could enslave infidels in a
	crusade. Pope Nicholas V in his bull "Dum Diversas"
	authorized the King of Portugal to conquer and reduce
	to perpetual slavery all "Saracens and pagans [i.e.
	Blacks] and other infidels and enemies of Christ" in
	West Africa. In "Romanus Pontifex" 1455 he extended
	this authorization to all territories acquired by
	Portugal before and after 1452. With these *Papal*
	decrees the Portuguese could claim that they had
	engaged in war and acquired the slaves morally and
	legally. At first the justification of Christianization
	was not used, but eventually it became dominant. [These
	facts, and some words, come from both Caravaglios, p45
	and Saunders, p37: they are not mentioned in the NCE
	and CE articles though.]
	
	It is important to note that unlike in the US, where
	slaves were often considered less than human, the law
	in Latin American countries gave them rights. The
	Church also treated them as fully human as regards the
	sacraments - they could marry in church for example.
	Pope Leo X, in response to a request from Portugal
	issued a Papal Brief _Exponi Nobis_. This allowed non-
	Europeans to be invested with Holy Orders. But Race was
	maintained as an issue: such priests could not act as
	priest to Europeans, but only when they returned to
	their "homeland", nor were they allowed to control a
	beniface or ecclesiastic property. Such rights were
	reserved to white Portuguese [see Saunders p157].
	
	In Spanish America there were initial qualms in the
	early 16th century - by Queen Isabella amongst others.
	Spanish clerics such as Thomas Mercado in 1587 claimed
	that slavery fostered falsehoods and deceptions.
	Nevertheless the Council of the Indies [the Spanish
	office in Madrid which dealt with the Americas]
	reported in 1685 to the king "The can be no doubt as to
	the necessity of those slaves for the support of the
	kingdom of the Indies....; and [that] with regard to
	the point of conscience the trade may continue because
	of the reasons expressed, the authorities cited, and
	its long lived and general custom in the kingdoms of
	Castile, America and Portugal, without any objection on
	the part of his Holiness or ecclesiastical estate, but
	rather with the tolerance of them all"  [See Elkins, 68-
	72]. The Church mitigated the effects of slavery in
	Latin America, but also legitimised it both at the
	beginning and for hundreds of years afterwards.
	
	There was an attempt by about 70 fathers at the Vatican
	Council in 1870 to remove one of the common
	justifications  for Black slavery - the so called
	"curse of Ham". This undertaking was a complete failure
	[see Caravaglios p 47] but the majority of the Council
	fathers proved indifferent. Despite the continuation of
	slavery in Brazil and other Catholic colonial areas,
	they had more important things to consider - like papal
	"infallibility".
	
	D:   The Holy Office in 1866
	
	In 1866 a request for an opinion on slavery was made to
	the Holy Office [the forerunner of the current
	Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith]. It
	responded and stated that slavery was in accord with
	the natural law, and that slaves could be legitimately
	bought and sold. [See Kaufman].
	
	E:   The Second Vatican Council
	
	In the 1965 Pastoral Constitution, _The Church in the
	Modern World_, the Council condemned slavery in a
	general discussion in #27.
	
	   #27. Coming down to practical and particularly
	   urgent consequences, this council lays stress on
	   reverence for man; everyone must consider his
	   every neighbor without exception as another self,
	   taking into account first of all his life and the
	   means necessary to living it with dignity,[8] so
	   as not to imitate the rich man who had no concern
	   for the poor man Lazarus.[9]
	   [...]
	   Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself,
	   such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion,
	   euthanasia or willful self-destruction, whatever
	   violates the integrity of the human person, such
	   as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind,
	   attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever
	   insults human dignity, such as subhuman living
	   conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation,
	   *slavery*, prostitution, the selling of women and
	   children; as well as disgraceful working
	   conditions, where men are treated as mere tools
	   for profit, rather than as free and responsible
	   persons; all these things and others of their like
	   are infamies indeed. They poison human society,
	   but they do more harm to those who practice them
	   than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover,
	   they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator.

	F.	The New Code of Canon Law

		2414    The seventh commandment forbids acts or 
		enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, 
		commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement 
		of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged 
		like merchandise, in disregard of their personal dignity ...  

	
	G.   John Paul II
	
	John Paul II, in contrast to all previous catholic
	tradition has said that slavery is an intrinsic
	disorder. In his 1994 encyclical Veritatis Splendor, he
	addresses the issue twice. In #80 he quotes Vatican II,
	but comments that an "intrinsic disorder" is involved -
	a significant stringer position than that of the
	Council itself..
	
	   80. Reason attests that there are objects of the
	   human act which are by their nature "incapable of
	   being ordered" to God, because they radically
	   contradict the good of the person made in his
	   image. These are the acts which, in the Church's
	   moral tradition, have been termed "intrinsically
	   evil" ("intrinsece malum"): they are such "always
	   and per se," in other words, on account of their
	   very object, and quite apart from the ulterior
	   intentions of the one acting and the
	   circumstances. Consequently, without in the least
	   denying the influence on morality exercised by
	   circumstances and especially by intentions, the
	   Church teaches that "there exist acts which "per
	   se" and in themselves, independently of
	   circumstances, are always seriously wrong by
	   reason of their object".[131] The Second Vatican
	   Council itself, in discussing the respect due to
	   the human person, gives a number of examples of
	   such acts: "Whatever is hostile to life itself,
	   such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion,
	   euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever
	   violates the integrity of the human person, such
	   as mutilation, physical and mental torture and
	   attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is
	   offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman
	   living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment,
	   deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking
	   in women and children; degrading conditions of
	   work which treat laborers as mere instruments of
	   profit, and not as free responsible persons: all
	   these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as
	   they infect human civilization they contaminate
	   those who inflict them more than those who suffer
	   injustice, and they are a negation of the honor
	   due to the Creator".

	Later on he adds in #100
	
	   100. The "Catechism of the Catholic Church"
	   affirms that "in economic matters, respect for
	   human dignity requires the practice of the virtue
	   of "temperance," to moderate our attachment to the
	   goods of this world; of the virtue of "justice,"
	   to preserve our neighbor's rights and to render
	   what is his or her due; and of "solidarity,"
	   following the Golden Rule and in keeping with the
	   generosity of the Lord, who 'though he was rich,
	   yet for your sake... became poor, so that by his
	   poverty you might become rich' (2 Cor 8:9)".[157]
	   The Catechism goes on to present a series of kinds
	   of behavior and actions contrary to human
	   dignity: theft, deliberate retention of goods lent
	   or objects lost, business fraud (cf. Dt 25:13-16),
	   unjust wages (cf. Dt 24:14-15), forcing up prices
	   by trading on the ignorance or hardship of another
	   (cf. Am 8:4-6), the misappropriation and private
	   use of the corporate property of an enterprise,
	   work badly done, tax fraud, forgery of checks and
	   invoices, excessive expenses, waste, etc.[158] It
	   continues: "The seventh commandment prohibits
	   actions or enterprises which for any reason
	   selfish or ideological, commercial or totalitarian-
	   -lead to the 'enslavement of human beings,'
	   disregard for their personal dignity, buying or
	   selling or exchanging them like merchandise.
	   Reducing persons by violence to use-value or a
	   source of profit is a sin against their dignity as
	   persons and their fundamental rights. Saint Paul
	   set a Christian master right about treating his
	   Christian slave 'no longer as a slave but... as a
	   brother... in the Lord' (Philem 16)".[159]
	   
	John Paul is here quoting the new Catechism of the
	Catholic Church, which sets the current Catholic
	position. As can be seen, this is a new position which
	radically rejects older Church accommodation to the
	practice of slavery.
	
	   CCC 2414 The seventh commandment forbids acts or
	   enterprises that for any reason - selfish or
	   ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to
	   the enslavement of human beings, to their being
	   bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in
	   disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin
	   against the dignity of persons and their
	   fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to
	   their productive value or to a source of profit.
	   St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his
	   Christian slave "no longer as a slave but more
	   than a slave, as a beloved brother, . . . both in
	   the flesh and in the Lord."[193]
	
	
	V Conclusion
	
	It would be wrong to state that the Church finally
	condemned slavery in 1888. In fact some forms of
	slavery might still be considered legitimate, including
	as far as I can see, slavery incurred voluntarily to
	pay off a debt. John Paul II,  seems to have decisively
	reject all forms of buying and selling human beings.
	This is a novelty, which points to error in the past.
	
	For, although the Church has in many respects mitigated
	the effects of slavery, and has refused to treat slaves
	as chattels, it has also a: continually inhibited
	attempts by slaves to escape and gain their own
	freedom, b: justified the  legal basis of slavery - the
	title of one person over another - and continued in
	this justification as long as slavery was a living
	social reality, c: [probably the most serious problem]
	actually provided the legal and moral basis, in the
	bulls of Nicholas V, for the onset and legitimatization
	of the Portuguese slave trade, d: participated in the
	racial distinctions made between Blacks and whites.
	
	*Works consulted*
	
	The Catholic Encyclopeadia [1913], articles sub. "Slavery"
	
	The New Catholic Encyclopeadia, articles sub. "Slavery"

	Stanley Elkins, Slavery 2nd Ed. [Chicago: 1968]

	Maria Genoino Caravaglios, The American Catholic Church
	   and the Negro Problem in the XVIII-XOX Centuries
	   [Charleston S.C.:1974]

	Phillip S. Kauffman, Why You Can Disagree and Remain a
	   Faithful Catholic, rev. ed., [New York: Crossroad, 1995]

	A.C. de C.M. Saunders, A Social History of Black Slaves
	   and Freedmen in Portugal 1441-1555 [Cambridge: 1982]

	Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States [NY: 1980]

	I was unable to access
	R.W. Logan, 'The Attitude of the Church toward Slavery
	   prior to 1500', Journal of Negro History 17 (1932), 466-80

	John Francis Maxwell, Slavery and the Catholic Church [Chichester
	   1976]



2.   USURY
	by Paul Halsall

	The Roman Church has changed, or developed, its
	teaching on many occasions. Few are as clear as the
	case of Usury. Talk of the "subtleties of Medieval
	theologians" does not get Catholic fundamentalists off
	the hook. This is the exception which  refutes those
	who say the Church never changes.
	
	Usury was addressed by the first pope to issue
	"encyclicals", Benedict XIV,1740-58. Note those dates -
	long after money-lending became vital for commerce. In
	Vix Pervenit, 1745 Benedict addressed "new opinions"
	and rejected them: all interest was forbidden.  This
	would include interest on bank deposits. Benedict, by
	the way, was no old-fashioned or dimwit pope - he was
	the leading papal intellectual of the post-Counter-
	Reformation period. There has never been an official
	theological revision of this teaching. It was just
	"forgotten" and then in the Code of Canon Law of 1917
	Religious Orders were obliged to keep there money in
	interest-bearing accounts. {I guess St. Francis took that
	one well}.
	
	Usury ["tokos" in Greek] is not much mentioned in
	the New Testament but the OT addresses it many more
	times than anything that can be construed as
	condemnation of homosexuality [of which I only really
	accept as a true reading Leviticus 18 and 20], a topic of
	much more concern to modern Catholic authorities.
	
	*******
	
	Biblical Texts

	Here are the OT texts:
	
	Exo 22:25 (KJV)  If thou lend money to any of my people
	that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an
	usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.
	
	Lev 25:36-37 (KJV)  Take thou no usury of him, or
	increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live
	with thee. 37 Thou shalt not give him thy money upon
	usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.
	
	Deu 23:19-20 (KJV)  Thou shalt not lend upon usury to
	thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury
	of any thing that is lent upon usury: 20 Unto a
	stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy
	brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD
	thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine
	hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
	
	Neh 5:7 (KJV)  Then I consulted with myself, and I
	rebuked the nobles, and the rulers, and said unto them,
	Ye exact usury, every one of his brother. And I set a
	great assembly against them.
	
	Neh 5:10 (KJV)  I likewise, and my brethren, and my
	servants, might exact of them money and corn: I pray
	you, let us leave off this usury.
	
	Psa 15:5 (KJV)  He that putteth not out his money to
	usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that
	doeth these things shall never be moved.
	
	Prov 28:8 (KJV)  He that by usury and unjust gain
	increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him
	that will pity the poor.
	
	Isa 24:2 (KJV)  And it shall be, as with the people, so
	with the priest; as with the servant, so with his
	master; as with the maid, so with her mistress; as with
	the buyer, so with the seller; as with the lender, so
	with the borrower; as with the taker of usury, so with
	the giver of usury to him.
	
	Jer 15:10 (KJV)  Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast
	borne me a man of strife and a man of contention to the
	whole earth! I have neither lent on usury, nor men have
	lent to me on usury; yet every one of them doth curse me.
	
	Ezek 18:8 (KJV)  He that hath not given forth upon
	usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath
	withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true
	judgment between man and man,
	
	Ezek 18:13 (KJV)  Hath given forth upon usury, and hath
	taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live:
	he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely
	die; his blood shall be upon him.
	
	Ezek 18:17 (KJV)  That hath taken off his hand from the
	poor, that hath not received usury nor increase, hath
	executed my judgments, hath walked in my statutes; he
	shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall
	surely live.
	
	Ezek 22:12 (KJV)  In thee have they taken gifts to shed
	blood; thou hast taken usury and increase, and thou
	hast greedily gained of thy neighbours by extortion,
	and hast forgotten me, saith the Lord GOD.
	
	The NT texts are purely in the context of Jesus
	parables: there is no approval.
	
	Mat 25:27 (KJV)  Thou oughtest therefore to have put my
	money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should
	have received mine own with usury.
	
	Luke 19:23 (KJV)  Wherefore then gavest not thou my
	money into the bank, that at my coming I might have
	required mine own with usury?
	
	*******

	Church Tradition

	There is no doubt that council after council, and pope after
	pope condemned usury. One correspondent asserted that in
	the early Church, bishops were allowed to lend at 12%
	interest, but I have seen no documentation of this. As
	soon as the Church could meet openly and publically [after
	312 AD] the long series of conciliar condemnations of usury
	began.

	Nicea I (325) Canon 17 - forbids usury to clergy 
	Carthage (348) - canon 3
	Laodicea (343-381) - canon 4 - forbids usury to clergy
	African Code (419) - usury reprehensible in laymen and forbidden
	    to clergy
	[See also Elvira, canon 2; Arles, canon 1; Tours, canon 3]
	
	It is not certain that the early councils forbade usury to
	the laity. Later councils certainly did

	Theodore's Penitential (690)	- three years bread & water penance
	Egbert's Penitential 			- same penalty
	Council of Mainz(813)			- forbade both clergy and laity
	Counil of Rheims (813)			- same
	Council of Chalons(813)			- same
	Council of Aix (816)			- same

	The fathers were united
	Athanasius, Expos in Ps. xiv
	Basil the Great, Hom in Ps. xiv
	Gregory Naz., Orat xiv, in Patrem tacentum
	Epiphanius, adv. Haeres, epilog, c. 24
	John Chrysostom, Hom 41 in Genes
	Theodoret, Interpr. in Ps. xiv.5 and liv.11
	Hilary of Poitiers, in Ps. xiv
	Ambrose, de Tobia liber unus
	Jerome, in Ezech vi.18
	Augustine, de Baptismo contra. Donatistas, iv.19
	Leo the Great, Epist. iii.4
	Cassiodorus, in Ps.xiv 10

	[For these references see Henry Percival, ed, _The Seven Ecumenical
	Councils_, pp. 36-38]

	Peter Lombard, Aquinas, Bonaventure and other Medieval theolgians 
	all condemned any taking of interest. Aquinas on the grounds that 
	it was an "unnatural" form of reproduction.

	In one thirty year period (1569-1586) there were no fewer than
	three papal bulls uniquivocally denouncing and condemning
	usury. [See Richard O'Brien, _Catholicism: Study Edition_ {San 
	Francisco: Harper, 1981), p. 120
	
	
	*******
	
	A Papal Encyclical

	Benedict XIV - 
	[extracts]
	ON USURY AND OTHER DISHONEST PROFIT (Vix Pervenit)
	Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on November 1, 1745.

	#3.	 
	
	I. The nature of the sin called usury has its proper
	place and origin in a loan contract. This financial
	contract between consenting parties demands, by its
	very nature, that one return to another only as much as
	he has received. The sin rests on the fact that
	sometimes the creditor desires more than he has given.
	Therefore he contends some gain is owed him beyond that
	which he loaned, but any gain which exceeds the amount
	he gave is illicit and usurious.
	
	II. One cannot condone the sin of usury by arguing that
	the gain is not great or excessive, but rather moderate
	or small; neither can it be condoned by arguing that
	the borrower is rich; nor even by arguing that the
	money borrowed is not left idle, but is spent usefully,
	either to increase one's fortune, to purchase new
	estates, or to engage in business transactions. The law
	governing loans consists necessarily in the equality of
	what is given and returned; once the equality has been
	established, whoever demands more than that violates
	the terms of the loan. Therefore if one receives
	interest, he must make restitution according to the
	commutative bond of justice; its function in human
	contracts is to assure equality for each one. This law
	is to be observed in a holy manner. If not observed
	exactly, reparation must be made.
	
	III. By these remarks, however, We do not deny that at
	times together with the loan contract certain other
	titles-which are not at all intrinsic to the contract-
	may run parallel with it. From these other titles,
	entirely just and legitimate reasons arise to demand
	something over and above the amount due on the
	contract. Nor is it denied that it is very often
	possible for someone, by means of contracts differing
	entirely from loans, to spend and invest money
	legitimately either to provide oneself with an annual
	income or to engage in legitimate trade and business.
	From these types of contracts honest gain may be made.
	
	IV. There are many different contracts of this kind. In
	these contracts, if equality is not maintained,
	whatever is received over and above what is fair is a
	real injustice. Even though it may not fall under the
	precise rubric of usury (since all reciprocity, both
	open and hidden, is absent), restitution is obligated.
	Thus if everything is done correctly and weighed in the
	scales of justice, these same legitimate contracts
	suffice to provide a standard and a principle for
	engaging in commerce and fruitful business for the
	common good. Christian minds should not think that
	gainful commerce can flourish by usuries or other
	similar injustices. On the contrary We learn from
	divine Revelation that justice raises up nations; sin,
	however, makes nations miserable.
	
	V. But you must diligently consider this, that some
	will falsely and rashly persuade themselves-and such
	people can be found anywhere-that together with loan
	contracts there are other legitimate titles or,
	excepting loan contracts, they might convince
	themselves that other just contracts exist, for which
	it is permissible to receive a moderate amount of
	interest. Should any one think like this, he will
	oppose not only the judgment of the Catholic Church on
	usury, but also common human sense and natural reason.
	Everyone knows that man is obliged in many instances to
	help his fellows with a simple, plain loan. Christ
	Himself teaches this: "Do not refuse to lend to him who
	asks you." In many circumstances, no other true and
	just contract may be possible except for a loan.
	Whoever therefore wishes to follow his conscience must
	first diligently inquire if, along with the loan,
	another category exists by means of which the gain he
	seeks may be lawfully attained.
		
	#5. Therefore We address these encyclical letters to all
	Italian Archbishops, Bishops, and priests to make all
	of you aware of these matters. Whenever Synods are held
	or sermons preached or instructions on sacred doctrine
	given, the above opinions must be adhered to strictly.
	Take great care that no one in your dioceses dares to
	write or preach the contrary; however if any one should
	refuse to obey, he should be subjected to the penalties
	imposed by the sacred canons on those who violate
	Apostolic mandates.
	
	********
	
	CHANGE IN TEACHING

	The change in teaching was initiated by none other than
	John Calvin. It was he who first made the *modern* distinction
	between "usury" and "interest". This was rejected by Luther
	and Melanchthon, but gradually gained acceptance among both
	Protestants and Catholics.

	Although Benedict XIV condemned usurym and interest, he
	also allowed some books on the laxwe side to be dedicated
	to him.

	In 1830 the Holy Office, with the approval of Pius VIII, decided
	that those who conisidered the taking of interest allowed by
	state law to be justifiable were "not to be disturbed"

	[This Holy Office opinion, by the way, completely ignores the
	fact that the fathers had discussed whether or not the State
	could make the receiving of interest just, or fix its rate -
	and denied that it could.]
	
	********

	*The Code of Canon Law*

	The first code of canon law in Church history was issued in 1917.
	It included a provision that religious orders were to keep
	there assets on deposit in interest bearing accounts. A wise
	measure, perhaps, but one at odds with all previous history.

	A new Code of Canon Law was issued in 1983. 
	Canon 639:5 specifically allows religious inistututes to
	contact debts on which they must pay interest.

	Chapter V of the code [on the temporal goods of the Church], 
	in several places calls for the "investment" of money. It
	does not, specifically, call for the money to be lent [or
	deposited] in interest bearing accounts, but does not
	forbid it either.

	********

	There seem to be no way round the Biblical or magisterial 
	tradition, except to say either the tradition was appropriate 
	for its time, but not ours, or our understanding of money has 
	improved.  

	Here, for example, is the _Catholic Dictionary_, {New York:
	Macmillan, 1949), q.v.

	"USURY (Lat. *usura*, use of money lent). Usury is strictly
	speaking profit exacted on a loan of money just because it is
	a loan. This is injust, because money as oney has no value
	save in its use. But interest may be justly charged for
	reasons extrinsic to the loan itself, such as the danger of
	non-repayment or loss of opportunities of other profit. In
	modern times this latter extrinsic title always exists owing to
	economic conditions. The amount of interest that may be 
	reasonably charged is determined by the common estimation of
	the intelligent man; in the sin of usury this amount is exceeeded. 
	It may be committed by moneylenders, pawnbrokers, and persons 
	selling goods by the installment method of payment, as well
	as others"
	
	But even if one makes this argument, there is the fact, carefully
	ignored by the _Catholic Dictionary_ that Benedict XIV was writing 
	*after* modern banking had made it appearance. It may be true to 
	say that "money" means something different between the agricultural 
	society of ancient Israel and modern industrial society, but such 
	a distinction cannot be maintained between 1745 and today. 

	The only way round the ancient teachers, who forbade all
	interest, cannot be to argue that circumstance have changed. It
	must be to argue that, while not wrong about the need to love
	one's neighbor, were simply wrong about the facts. Leaving
	aside the biblical injunctions [for presumably God knows
	the facts!]They fathers and councils based theie arguments on 
	the principle, derived from Aristotle, that money was in itself
	barren. If this is not the case, then there are grounds for
	overturning the long-standing prohibition, and going along
	with Calvin. [see Percival, op cit, for this opinion], But if 
	*facts* can be held to invalidate longstanding conciliar and
	papal moral teaching in this area, then presumably they
	can be used in other area [human sexuality for instance] where
	the ancients where even less well informed than they
	were about the fairly simple ace of the economy?

	Given the problematics of the history if usury - from
	being among the most commonly reprobated crime in the Middle
	ages, to actual approval in canon law [at least in the form
	of interest], it is interesting to note that the new
	_Catechism of the Catholic Church_, even in its discussion
	of the commandment 'thou shalt not steal' does not discuss
	the issue of usury or interest *at all*.

	It might also be noted that even though defenders of
	"no essential change" in teaching on usury insist that the
	Church still condemns "excessive" interest, there is
	absolutely no evidence that it does in practice. The leading
	members of banks charging consumer credit rates of 30%
	plus are not threatened with excommunication for instance.

	And, needless to say, the poor in many agricultural countries with 
	large Catholic populations [Brazil, Mexico, India (which as 6 times
	as many Catholics as Ireland!)] continue to be exploited by 
	usurers, but the Church now says nothing.

	At the moment I cannot think of other issues as
	important as usury where the church has doen such an
	about face. But in liturgical practice - which from an
	anthropological viewpoint is not less important - such
	changes are common: e.g. mass in Latin or communion in
	both kinds.
	
	But the point stands. The Church can, has, and does,
	change its teaching on vital points of ethics, even
	overturning a papal encyclical!
	

	*Bibliography on Usury*
	
	Baldwin, John, "The Medieval Theories of the Just
	   Price: Romanists, Canonists and Theologians", The
	   American Philosophical Society, New Series, #49.4
	
	De Roover, Raymond,  La Pensee Economique des
	   Scholastiques: Doctrines et Methodes, Universite
	   de Montreal Conference Albert-le-Grand 1970.
	   Montreal: Inst. d'Etudes Medievales, 1971.
	
	Helmholz, R. H.  "Usury and Medieval English Church
	   Courts."  Speculum 61 (1986): 364-80.
	
	Langholm, Odd,  Price and Value in the Aristotelian
	   Tradition: A Study in Scholastic Economic Sources,
	   Bergen: Universitetsfolaget, 1979.
	
	Langholm, Odd, Wealth and Money in the Aristotelian
	   Tradition: A Study in Scholastic Economic Sources,
	   Bergen: Universitetsfolaget, 1983.
	
	Langholm, Odd, The Aristotelian Analysis of Usury,
	   Bergen Universitetsforlaget, 1984.
	
	Langholm, Odd, "Economics in the Medieval Schools:
	   Wealth, Exchange, Value, Money and Usury According
	   to the Paris Theological Tradition 1200-1350",
	   Studien und Texte zue Geschichte des Mittelalters
	   29.  Leiden: Brill, 1992.
	   This is Langholm's *summa*--truckloads of info!
	
	New Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v.  [v. good article]

	Noonan, John, "The Amendment of Papal Teaching by
		Theologians", in Charles E. Curran, ed., _Contaception:
		Authority and Dissent_, (New York: Herder & Herder, 
		1969), 41-75



3.   CONTRACEPTION AND FAMILY PLANNING
	[This section needs expanding]

	Under the so-called "Alexandrine" rule the only
	permissible sex for Catholics was that directed at
	procreation. Use of a "safe period" was condemned" - in
	fact such a had been condemned by Augustine explicitly.
	
	However in 1853 [privately] and 1867 [also privately]
	Vatican officials had indicated that couple using  safe
	periods ought not to be disturbed until further study
	was undertaken. In  1880 Rome agreed that such a method
	could be used as a way of preventing  onanism  [i.e.
	masturbation] - but it was not recommended. No useful method 
	of finding safe periods was discovered for some time though.
	
	In  Casti Connubii  [1933?] Pius XI made a passing
	reference to avoiding births  through "natural causes"
	there was no systematic recommendation or teaching  of
	how this might be achieved. In the late 1920s methods
	[time/temperature  based] were discovered in Japan and
	Europe as a way of ascertaining fertility. These were
	promoted in books with imprimaturs published in 1932
	and 1933.
	
	In the 1930s and 1940s, in the US in particular, so
	called "Rhythm methods" were promoted as acceptable
	forms of birth control. Such a position, it must be
	understood, went directly against a long standing
	Church tradition against such practices.
	
	It was only in October 1951 that Pius XII in an address
	to Catholic midwives  made the first reference by any
	roman authority to the rhythm method as a method open
	to all christian couples!!

	[From a post by John Vogel] Prior to Pius XII, marital 
	sexuality was only for the creation of new life.  People 
	who should have had more to do with their lives actually 
	defined what constituted the sex act.  (In order to exclude 
	both oral sex and condoms, the husband must leave some 
	fluid in the appropriate place.  The reason for the rule 
	had nothing to do with the acts themselves but were to 
	constitute a list of acts that would bar contraception.)
    Pius was the first pope to allow ANY method of contraception. 
	Old line catholics from before WWII would be shocked to see 
	NFP being taught to prospective married couples.
	
	Various methods [the "Rhythm Method", the sympto-
	thermal method and so on] were taught in the 1950s-
	1970s. Now a variety of better mucus examination
	methods are used. They are quite effective.
	
	In all the fuss over Paul VI's attack on "artificial"
	birth control in 1968, however, the novelty of allowing
	any form of birth control was overlooked.
	
	As John Vogel observed: The church has changed its understanding 
	of the purpose of marital sexuality.  First when Pius XII 
	allowed fertile couples to have relations with the intention 
	of not concieving children and second when the laity rejected 
	Humanae Vitae.


	References
	The most important book on this entire subject in John
	T. Noonan's, Contraception



4.   SEX DURING MENSTRUATION
	By Paul Halsall
	
	THE BIBLE
	Here are the three Passages from the Jewish Bible which
	condemn sex during menstruation [KJV].
	
	I
	Lev 18:19  Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to
	uncover her  nakedness, as long as she is put apart for
	her uncleanness.
	Lev 18:20  Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy 
	neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.
	Lev 18:21  And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass 
	through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane 
	the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
	Lev 18:22  Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with 
	womankind: it is abomination.
	Lev 18:23  Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to 
	defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand 
	before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
	Lev 18:24  Defile not ye yourselves in any of these
	things: for in all these  the nations are defiled which
	I cast out before you:
	Lev 18:25  And the land is defiled: therefore I do
	visit the iniquity thereof  upon it, and the land
	itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
	Lev 18:26  Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my
	judgments, and shall not commit any of these
	abominations; neither any of your own nation,
	nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
	Lev 18:27  (For all these abominations have the men of
	the land done, which  were before you, and the land is
	defiled;)
	Lev 18:28  That the land spue not you out also, when ye
	defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.
	Lev 18:29  For whosoever shall commit any of these
	abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be
	cut off from among their people.
	Lev 18:30  Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that
	ye commit not any one of these abominable customs,
	which were committed before you, and that
	ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.
	
	[note this is the same passage in which "homosexuality"
	is declared an abomination. To the extent that
	homosexual acts are a capital offense here,  so are
	acts of sex during menstruation].
	
	II
	Lev 20:18  And if a man shall lie with a woman having
	her sickness, and shall  uncover her nakedness; he hath
	discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered  the
	fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut
	off from among their people.
	
	III
	Ezek 18:5  But if a man be just, and do that which is
	lawful and right, Ezek 18:6  And hath not eaten upon
	the mountains, neither hath lifted  up his eyes to the
	idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his
	neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman,
	Ezek 18:7  And hath not oppressed any, but hath
	restored to the  debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none
	by violence, hath given his bread  to the hungry, and
	hath covered the naked with a garment;
	Ezek 18:8  He that hath not given forth upon usury,
	neither hath taken  any increase, that hath withdrawn
	his hand from iniquity, hath executed  true judgment
	between man and man,
	Ezek 18:9  Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my
	judgments,  to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely
	live, saith the Lord GOD.
	
	This passage is interesting as it specifically relates
	a prophet seeing sex during menstruation as a moral
	violation comparable to idolatry and adultery and
	usury, something that does not occur with respect to
	homosexuality in the Jewish Bible.
	
	IV - The New Testament
	The New Testament does not explicitly repeat the
	prohibition although all early Christians understood it
	as applying to them. There are references. The Woman
	with a flow of blood who touches Jesus to get cured
	shows the continued importance of menstrual problems as
	a source of disgust and impurity. In ACTS 15, the early
	Church lays down the rules for gentile converts; the
	converts are told to abstain from "porneia" [a general
	term which can mean adultery, fornication, or perhaps
	illegal marriages!], strangled meat, and "from blood" -
	this last probably means from eating blood [not
	something which modern Christians seem to avoid btw,
	despite a seemingly direct command they eat bloody
	steaks and sausage with little feeling of gulit], but
	it could also mean, perhaps, to maintain all the
	prohibitions of the Mosaic Law concerning blood,
	inlcuding abstaining from menstrual sex.
	
	The evidence is overwhelming that the Bible condemns as
	a moral offense - not just a matter of ritual purity -
	sex during menstruation.
	
	THE PATRISTIC AND PENITENTIAL TRADITION
	How did the Christian Fathers, our major source for the
	views of the early Church read this: in other words
	what was the tradition?
	
	No father said that it was permissible to have sex
	during menstruation. Some  saw it as a major sin,
	others as a venial violation.
	
	References:
	
	Repeated condemnation without comment:-
	John Chrysostom, On I Corinthians 7, PG 51
	Disascalia 6;28
	
	Saw it as a major offense:-
	Jerome, Commentary on Ezekial 6:18, PL 25:173
	[sees it not just as an ordinance, but a way of
	protecting a child from the menses]
	Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 2.10.91.
	
	Saw it as a minor offense
	Augustine [I cannot determine the reference in Noonan.]
	
	Penitentials treat it as a sin - generally a minor sin
	Canons of Gregory, 107		-40 day bread and water penance
	Bede 3.37				-40 day bread and water penance
	Merseberg A 96			-40 day bread and water penance
	Ps-Cummean 3.31			-40 day bread and water penance
	Ps-Theodore 2.2.5			-30 day bread and water penance
	Old Irish Penitential		-20 day bread and water penance
	
	Thus the practice and the tradition of the Church
	upheld the Levitical prohibitions.
	
	THE MEDIEVAL WESTERN CHURCH
	Christian writers in the middle ages all condemned sex
	during menstruation. They varied into how seriously
	they saw it. The more common opinion was that sex
	during menstruation was a mortal sin:
	
	Raymond, Summa 4.2.6
	Thomas Aquinas, On the Sentences 4.32.1.2.2.
	John Duns Scotus,  On the Sentences/Oxford Report 4.32
	
	This strong condemnation was explained with the faulty
	science that children conceived during this period
	might be harmed. But note that even though the science
	was faulty [as it was with homosexuality], the
	condemnation was based on the Biblical text and Church
	tradition.
	
	The only exception, made by Thomas, was where
	menstruation was prolonged - this was justified by a:
	assuming the women was sterile [although this has
	nothing  to do with the blood purity issues of
	Leviticus] and b: the husbands conjugal  rights were
	put over any possible injury to a child.
	
	Jewish authors did, however, comment that Christians
	did have sex during  menstruation: the reference - A
	fourteenth-century Spanish-Jewish rabbi, Rabbi Shlomo
	ben Adret (the RASHBA) claimed that Christians were red-
	headed because  they had sex during menstruation [this
	information was given by an Internet  correspondent -
	but an exact reference has not yet been located].
	
	There is no doubt then that the Universal tradition of
	the Church, based on  Biblical, patristic, pastoral,
	and scholastic evidence treated sex during
	menstruation as wrong, very wrong according to most
	authors. No one treated  it as OK.
	
	There seems to have been no change by the moral
	theologians of the 16th and  17th centuries. This is
	not surprising as Catholic theologians were determined
	not to be laxer than the Protestant moralists of the
	time.
	
	REVERSAL IN TEACHING
	A writer called De Lignoir in 1774 published a book
	called *De l'homme et de la femme considere'
	physiquement dans l'etat de mariage* had refuted the
	ancient idea that sex during menstruation damaged
	children. This was cited by August Joseph Lacomte who
	in 1873 published the first support *ever* for use of a
	safe period to prevent conception [note the late date
	for that  particular development!]
	
	There was still no Catholic teaching on the
	permissibility of the safe period  - which had been
	condemned by Augustine explicitly. However in 1853
	[privately] and 1867 [also privately] Vatican officials
	had indicated that couple using  safe periods ought not
	to be disturbed until further study was undertaken. In
	1880 Rome agreed that such a method could be used as a
	way of preventing  onanism  [i.e. masturbation] - but it
	was not recommended. No useful method of  find safe
	periods was discovered for some time though. Thus even
	though in  Casti Connubii  [1933?] Pius XI made a
	passing reference to avoiding births  through "natural
	causes" there was no systematic recommendation or
	teaching  of how this might be achieved. In the late
	1920s methods [time/temperature  based] were discovered
	in Japan and Europe as a way of ascertaining fertility.
	These were promoted in books with imprimaturs published
	in 1932 and 1933.
	
	It was only in October 1951 that Pius XII in an address
	to Catholic midwives  made THE FIRST REFERENCE BY ANY
	ROMAN AUTHORITY TO THE RHYTHM METHOD AS A METHOD OPEN
	TO ALL CHRISTIAN COUPLES!!
	
	The method [the "Rhythm Method"] taught in the 1950s-
	1970s [before the better Mucus/Billings method was
	developed] explicitly taught that sex during
	menstruation was appropriate.
	
	I have been unable to find ANY modern Catholic
	condemnation of the practice.  [Other western
	Christians also seem to find no problem with the
	practice in the moral guidance books I have looked at].
	Nor have I found any awareness  amongst heterosexual
	Catholics or other Christians that there may be a
	Biblical/patristic/scholastic/penitential condemnation
	of their actions..
	
	CONCLUSION
	It seems then that heterosexual Catholics and other
	Christians who persist in  seeing the Biblical
	condemnations of homosexuality as eternal, but not
	condemnations of menstrual sex; who persist in asking
	which saints supported  homosexual sex as moral,
	without citing any saint or Church figure who argued
	in favor of menstrual sex; who persist against all the
	evidence in seeing  Church tradition and teaching on
	sex as unchanging and irreversible; that  such
	heterosexual Catholics are speaking from a position of
	ignorance, and, I  must add heterosexual privilege.
	What they are not speaking is the truth.
	
	NOTE:
	For most of the references, and many of the phrases
	used above, see John T. Noonan, Contraception



C:   ERRORS OF MORAL ACTION OR INSIGHT BY ROME [POPES AND OFFICIALS]

	This list could be extended almost indefinitely: these
	are a mere sampling of the errors.

	1.	Urban II - Calling for the Crusades
	2.	Gregory IX - Allowing the use of torture by the Inquisition
	3.	Benedict XIV - calling for the ghettoization of Polish Jews
	4.	Papal attacks on availability of the Bible to the laity

1.	URBAN II and later popes - Calling for the Crusades

	There are too many documents to quote here. Pope Urban
	II called for the first crusade in 1095. After that,
	until the Reformation in fact, pope after pope called
	upon Christian armies to attack Muslim lands.  Perhaps
	Urban can be forgiven - he did not know how the
	crusaders would behave, and thought he was defending
	Christians in the East. Subsequent popes knew full well
	that the first crusade had resulted, as the chroniclers
	said, to the blood of Muslims flowing over the temple
	mount. Yet for centuries these extremely violent
	conflicts were initiated by the popes, and indeed
	imposed as a moral condition on monarchs who faced
	excommunication if they refused to go.




2.	GREGORY IX (1227-41)- Allowing the use of torture by
	the Inquisition

	Faced with a rise of Cathar and Waldensian groups, the
	fairly tolerant Catholicism of 12th Century Europe,
	became less tolerant. Under Innocent III, a crusade was
	in fact launched against the Cathars in Southern
	France, a crusade which effectively destroyed the
	flourishing Provencal culture of the region. Under Pope
	Gregory IX a new stage was reached: the Inquisition was
	authorized, and along with it the use of torture.

	See Edward Peters, Inquisition, (New York: Free Press,
	1988; reissued in pb. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
	University of California Press, 1989)

	This conflicts directly with the position of Vatican II
	that human dignity prohibits coercion in matters of
	religion - again a complete reversal in Church
	teaching. No one reading this document can reconcile it
	with the actual practices of the Church in the past.
	
	extracts from
	
	DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM (DIGNITATIS HUMANAE)
	Proclaimed By His Holiness, Pope Paul VI on December 7,
	1965.
	
	1. [...]Truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of
	its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind
	at once quietly and with power.
	
	Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as
	necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to
	do with immunity from coercion in civil society.
	Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic
	doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward
	the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.
	
	Over and above all this, the council intends to develop
	the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights
	of the human person and the constitutional order of
	society.
	
	2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person
	has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means
	that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part
	of individuals or of social groups and of any human
	power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act
	in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether
	privately or publicly, whether alone or in association
	with others within due limits.
	
	The council further declares that the right to
	religious freedom has its foundation in the very
	dignity of the human person as this dignity is known
	through the revealed word of God and by reason
	itself.[2] This right of the human person to religious
	freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law
	whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a
	civil right.
	
	It is in accordance with their dignity as persons--that
	is, beings endowed with reason and free will and
	therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility--
	that all men should be at once impelled by nature and
	also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth,
	especially religious truth. They are also bound to
	adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order
	their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth.
	However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a
	manner in keeping with their own nature unless they
	enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as
	psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious
	freedom has its foundation not in the subjective
	disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In
	consequence, the right to this immunity continues to
	exist even in those who do not live up to their
	obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and
	the exercise of this right is not to be impeded,
	provided that just public order be observed.
	
	3.  {....] Truth, however, is to be sought after in a
	manner proper to the dignity of the human person and
	his social nature. The inquiry is to be free, carried
	on with the aid of teaching or instruction,
	communication and dialogue, in the course of which men
	explain to one another the truth they have discovered,
	or think they have discovered, in order thus to assist
	one another in the quest for truth.
	
	Moreover, as the truth is discovered, it is by a
	personal assent that men are to adhere to it.
	
	
	4. [....] Provided the just demands of public order are
	observed, religious communities rightfully claim
	freedom in order that they may govern themselves
	according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being
	in public worship, assist their members in the practice
	of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction,
	and promote institutions in which they may join
	together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in
	accordance with their religious principles.
	
	Religious communities also have the right not to be
	hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative
	action on the part of government, in the selection,
	training, appointment, and transferal of their own
	ministers, in communicating with religious authorities
	and communities abroad, in erecting buildings for
	religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of
	suitable funds or properties.
	
	Religious communities also have the right not to be
	hindered in their public teaching and witness to their
	faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word.
	However, in spreading religious faith and in
	introducing religious practices everyone ought at all
	times to refrain from any manner of action which might
	seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of
	persuasion that would be dishonorable or unworthy,
	especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people.
	Such a manner of action would have to be considered an
	abuse of one's right and a violation of the right of
	others.
	
	In addition, it comes within the meaning of religious
	freedom that religious communities should not be
	prohibited from. freely undertaking to show the special
	value of their doctrine in what concerns the
	organization of society and the inspiration of the
	whole of human activity. Finally, the social nature of
	man and the very nature of religion afford the
	foundation of the right of men freely to hold meetings
	and to establish educational, cultural, charitable and
	social organizations, under the impulse of their own
	religious sense.
	
	
	6. [...] The protection and promotion of the inviolable
	rights of man ranks among the essential duties of
	government.[5] Therefore government is to assume the
	safeguard of the religious freedom of all its citizens,
	in an effective manner, by just laws and by other
	appropriate means.
	[...]
	Finally, government is to see to it that equality of
	citizens before the law, which is itself an element of
	the common good, is never violated, whether openly or
	covertly, for religious reasons. Nor is there to be
	discrimination among citizens.
	
	It follows that a wrong is done when government imposes
	upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the
	profession or repudiation of any religion, or when it
	hinders men from joining or leaving a religious
	community. All the more is it a violation of the will
	of God and of the sacred rights of the person and the
	family of nations when force is brought to bear in any
	way in order to destroy or repress religion, either in
	the whole of mankind or in a particular country or in a
	definite community.
	



3.	BENEDICT XIV 1751 - calling for the ghettoization of
	Polish Jews
	
	In 1751, Pope Benedict XIV, the first pope to issue
	encyclical letters, addressed the issue of Jews and
	Catholics living together in Poland. The result was a
	shameful call for the ghettoization of Polish Jews. The
	letter contains a papal summary  and approval of a long
	history of Catholic anti-Semitism.
	
	All this has now been, thankfully, rejected by the
	Church. Pope john Paul II has been most careful in
	reaching out to the Jewish people - he visited a Roman
	Synagogue and ended the long Vatican refusal to
	recognize the State of Israel.
	
	Here are some extracts from Benedict's document:
	
	ON JEWS AND CHRISTIANS LIVING IN THE SAME PLACE (A Quo Primum)
	Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on June 14, 1751.
	
	1.  ....Another threat to Christians has been the
	influence of Jewish faithlessness; this influence was
	strong because Christians and Jews were living in the
	same cities and towns. However their influence was
	minimized because the Polish bishops did all they could
	to aid the Poles in their resistance to the Jews. What
	the bishops did is recorded in the large tome which
	contains the constitutions of the synods of the
	province of Gniezno. These facts establish most clearly
	and plainly the great glory which the Polish nation has
	won for its zeal in preserving the holy religion
	embraced by its ancestors so many ages before.
	
	2. In regard to the matter of the Jews We must express
	our concern, which causes Us to cry aloud: "the best
	color has been changed." Our credible experts in Polish
	affairs and the citizens of Poland itself who
	communicated with Us have informed Us that the number
	of Jews in that country has greatly increased. In fact,
	some cities and towns which had been predominantly
	Christian are now practically devoid of Christians.
	The Jews have so replaced the Christians that some
	parishes are about to lose their ministers because
	their revenue has dwindled so drastically. Because the
	Jews control businesses selling liquor and even wine,
	they are therefore allowed to supervise the collection
	of public revenues. They have also gained control of
	inns, bankrupt estates, villages and public land by
	means of which they have subjugated poor Christian
	farmers. The Jews are cruel taskmasters, not only
	working the farmers harshly and forcing them to carry
	excessive loads, but also whipping them for punishment.
	So it has come about that those poor farmers are the
	subjects of the Jews, submissive to their will and
	power. Furthermore, although the power to punish lies
	with the Christian official, he must comply with the
	commands of the Jews and inflict the punishments they
	desire. If he doesn't, he would lose his post. Therefore 
	the tyrannical orders of the Jews have to be carried out.
	
	3. In addition to the harm done to Christians in these
	regards, other unreasonable matters can result in even
	greater loss and danger. The most serious is that some
	households of the great have employed a Jew as
	"Superintendent-of-the-Household"; in this capacity,
	they not only administer domestic and economic matters,
	but they also ceaselessly exhibit and flaunt authority
	over the Christians they are living with. It is now
	even commonplace for Christians and Jews to intermingle
	anywhere. But what is even less comprehensible is that
	Jews fearlessly keep Christians of both sexes in their
	houses as their domestics, bound to their service.
	Furthermore, by means of their particular practice of
	commerce, they amass a great store of money and then by
	an exorbitant rate of interest utterly destroy the
	wealth and inheritance of Christians. Even if they
	borrow money from Christians at heavy and undue
	interest with their synagogues as surety, it is obvious
	to anyone who thinks about it that they do so to employ
	the money borrowed from Christians in their commercial
	dealings; this enables them to make enough profit to
	pay the agreed interest and simultaneously increase
	their own store. At the same time, they gain as many
	defenders of their synagogues and themselves as they
	have creditors.
	
	4. The famous monk, Radulph, inspired long ago by an
	excess of zeal, was so inflamed against the Jews that
	he traversed Germany and France in the twelfth century
	and, by preaching against the Jews as the enemies of
	our holy religion, incited Christians to destroy them.
	This resulted in the deaths of a very large number of
	Jews. What must we think his deeds or thoughts would be
	if he were now alive and saw what was happening in
	Poland? But the great St. Bernard opposed this
	immoderate and maddened zeal of Radulph, and wrote to
	the clergy and people of eastern France: "The Jews are
	not to be persecuted: they are not to be slaughtered:
	they are not even to be driven out. Examine the divine
	writings concerning them. We read in the psalm a new
	kind of prophecy concerning the Jews: God has shown me,
	says the Church, on the subject of my enemies, not to
	slay them in case they should ever forget my people.
	Alive, however, they are eminent reminders for us of
	the Lord's suffering. On this account they are
	scattered through all lands in order that they may be
	witnesses to Our redemption while they pay the just
	penalties for so great a crime" (epistle 363). And he
	writes this to Henry, Archbishop of Mainz: "Doesn't the
	Church every day triumph more fully over the Jews in
	convicting or converting them than if once and for all
	she destroyed them with the edge of the sword: Surely
	it is not in vain that the Church has established the
	universal prayer which is offered up for the faithless
	Jews from the rising of the sun to its setting, that
	the Lord God may remove the veil from their hearts,
	that they may be rescued from their darkness into the
	light of truth. For unless it hoped that those who do
	not believe would believe, it would obviously be futile
	and empty to pray for them." (epistle 365).
	
	5. Peter, abbot of Cluny, likewise wrote against
	Radulph to King Louis of France, and urged him not to
	allow the destruction of the Jews. But at the same time
	he encouraged him to punish their excesses and to strip
	them of the property they had taken from Christians or
	had acquired by usury; he should then devote the value
	of this to the use and benefit of holy religion, as may
	be seen in the Annals of Venerable Cardinal Baronius
	(1146). In this matter, as in all others, We adopt the
	same norm of action as did the Roman Pontiffs who were
	Our venerable predecessors. Alexander III forbade
	Christians under heavy penalties to accept permanent
	domestic service under Jews. "Let them not continually
	devote themselves to the service of Jews for a wage."
	He sets out the reason for this in the decretal <Ad
	haec, de Judaeis>. "Because Jewish ways do not
	harmonize in any way with ours and they could easily
	turn the minds of the simple to their own superstitions
	and faithlessness through continual intercourse and
	unceasing acquaintance." Innocent III, after saying
	that Jews were being received by Christians into their
	cities, warns that the method and condition of this
	reception should guard against their repaying the
	benefit with evildoing. "They on being admitted to our
	acquaintance in a spirit of mercy, repay us, the
	popular proverb says, as the mouse in the wallet, the
	snake in the lap and fire in the bosom usually repay
	their host." The same Pope stated that it was fitting
	for Jews to serve Christians rather than vice versa and
	added: "Let not the sons of the free woman be servants
	of the sons of the handmaid; but as servants rejected
	by their lord for whose death they evilly conspired,
	let them realize that the result of this deed is to
	make them servants of those whom Christ's death made
	free," as we read in his decretal <Etsi Judaeos>.
	Likewise in the decretal <Cum sit nimis> under the same
	heading <de Judaeis, et Saracenis>, he forbids the
	promotion of Jews to public office: "forbidding Jews to
	be promoted to public offices since in such
	circumstances they may be very dangerous to
	Christians." Innocent IV, also, in writing to St.
	Louis, King of France, who intended to drive the Jews
	beyond the boundaries of his kingdom, approves of this
	plan since the Jews gave very little heed to the
	regulations made by the Apostolic See in their regard:
	"Since We strive with all Our heart for the salvation
	of souls, We grant you full power by the authority of
	this letter to expel the Jews, particularly since We
	have learned that they do not obey the said statutes
	issued by this See against them" (Raynaldus, Annals,
	A.D. 1253, no. 34).
	
	6. But if it is asked what matters the Apostolic See
	forbids to Jews living in the same cities as
	Christians, We will say that all those activities which
	are now allowed in Poland are forbidden; these We
	recounted above. There is no need of much reading to
	understand that this is the clear truth of the matter.
	It is enough to peruse decretals with the heading <de
	Judaeis, et Saracenis>; the constitutions of Our
	predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs Nicholas IV, Paul IV,
	St. Pius V, Gregory XIII and Clement VIII are readily
	available in the Roman Bullarium. To understand  these
	matters most clearly, Venerable Brothers, you do not
	even need to read those. You will recall the statutes
	and prescripts of the synods of your predecessors; they
	always entered in their constitutions every measure
	concerning the Jews which was sanctioned and ordained
	by the Roman Pontiffs.
	
	7. The essence of the difficulty, however, is that
	either the sanctions of the synods are forgotten or
	they are not put into effect. To you then, Venerable
	Brothers, passes the task of renewing those sanctions.
	The nature of your office requires that you carefully
	encourage their implementation. In this matter begin
	with the clergy, as is fair and reasonable. These will
	have to show others the right way to act, and light the
	way for the rest by their example. For in God's mercy,
	We hope that the good example of the clergy will lead
	the straying laity back to the straight path. You will
	be able to give these orders and commands easily and
	confidently, in that neither your property nor your
	privileges are hired to Jews; furthermore you do no
	business with them and you neither lend them money nor
	borrow from them. Thus, you will be free from and
	unaffected by all dealings with them.
	
	8. The sacred canons, prescribe that in the most
	important cases, such as the present, censures should
	be imposed upon the recalcitrant; and that those cases
	which bode danger and ruin to religion should be
	reckoned as reserved cases in which only the bishop can
	give absolution. The Council of Trent considered your
	jurisdiction when it affirmed your right to reserve
	cases. It did not restrict such cases to public crimes
	only, but extended them to include more notorious and
	serious cases, provided they were not purely internal.
	But we have often said that some cases should be
	considered more notorious and serious. These are cases,
	to which men are more prone, which are a danger both to
	ecclesiastical discipline and to the salvation of the
	souls which have been entrusted to your episcopal care.
	We have discussed these at length in Our treatise <On
	the diocesan synod>, Book 5, 5.
	
	9. In this matter We will help as much as possible. If
	you have to proceed against ecclesiastics exempt from
	your jurisdiction, you will doubtless encounter
	additional difficulties. Therefore We are giving Our
	Venerable Brother Archbishop Nicaenus, Our Nuncio
	there, a mandate appropriate for this business, in
	order that he may supply for you the necessary means
	from the powers entrusted to him. At the same time We
	promise you that when the situation arises, We will
	cooperate energetically and effectively with those
	whose combined authority and power are appropriate to
	remove this stain of shame from Poland. But first
	Venerable Brothers, ask aid from God, the source of all
	things. From Him beg help for Us and this Apostolic
	See. And while We embrace you in the fullness of
	charity, We lovingly impart to you, Our brothers, and
	to the flocks entrusted to your care, Our Apostolic
	Blessing.
	
	Given at Castelgandolfo on the 14th of June 1751 in the
	eleventh year of Our Pontificate.


4.	Papal attacks on the Availability of the Bible to the laity

This is not so much a moral or theological error, but a demonstration
of the failure of insight and of the overuse of authority. The information here
was first assembled by [Robert Weiss <rweiss@KRYPTON.CHEM.BUFFALO.EDU>]
and posted on the  CHRISTIA <CHRISTIA%ASUACAD.BITNET
@ARIZVM1.ccit.arizona.edu> maillist.
*****

"...Pope Innocent III was of the opinion that the Scriptures were too deep
for the common people, as they surpassed even the understanding of the
wise and learned. Several synods in Gaul, during the 13th century, prohibited
the reading of the Romanic translation, and ordered the copies to be burnt.
Archbishop Berthold, of Mainz, in an edict of January 4th, 1486, threatened
with excommunication all who ventured to translate and circulate the
translations of sacred books, especially the Bible without his permission.

"The Council of Constance (1415), which burnt John Hus and Jerome of Prague,
condemned also the writings and the bones of Wycliff, the first translator
of the whole Bible into the English tongue, to the flames; and Arundel,
archbishop of Canterbury and chancellor of England, denounced him as
that `pestilent wretch of damnable heresy who, as a complement of his
wickedness, invented a new translation of the Scriptures into his mother
tongue.'

"Pope Pius IV (1564), in the conviction that indiscriminate reading of Bible
versions did more harm than good (plus detrimenti quam utilitiatis), would
not allow laymen to read the sacred book except by special permission of
a bishop or an inquistor. Clement VIII (1598) reserved the right to grant
this permission to the Congregation of the Index. Gregory XV (1622), and
Clement XI (in the bull _Unigentius_, 1713), repeated the conditional
prohibition. Benedict XIV, one of the liberal popes, extended the
permission to read the Word of God in the vernacular to all the faithful,
yet with the provisio that the translation be approved in Rome and
guarded by explanatory notes from the writings of the fathers and
Catholic scholars (1757).

"This excludes, of course, all Protestant versions, even the very best.
They are regarded as corrupt and heretical and have often been committed
to the flames in Roman Catholic countries, especially in connection
with the counter-Reformation of the Jesuits in Bohemia and elsewhere. The
first edition of Tyndale's New testament had to be smuggled into England
and was publicly burnt by order of Tunstall, bishop of London,
in St. Paul's church-yard near the spot from which Bibles are now
sent to all parts of the globe.

"The Bible societies have been denounced and condemned by modern popes
as a `pestilence which perverts the gospel of Christ into a gospel
of the devil.' The Papal Syllabus of Pius IX (1864), classes `Societates
Biblicoe' with Socialism, Communism, and Secret Societies, calls
them, `pests frequently rubked in severst terms,' and refers for proof,
to several Encyclicals from November 9th, 1846, to August 10th, 1863.
[_History of the Christian Church_, Schaff, v. VII, p18-19]


D:	ERRRORS OF MORAL ACTION BY COUNCILS

	1.	Gangra - (325-381) - Anathematizing women who cut off hair
	2.	Lateran VI (1215) - Imposition of symbol on the Jews


1.	GANGRA (325-381) - Anathematizing women who cut off hair

	Canon 17 of the Council of Gangra, and important although not 
	"ecumenical" early council, read "If any woman from pretended
	asceticism shall cut off here hair, which God gave her as the 
	remainder of her subjugation, thus annulling as it were the 
	ordinance of subjugation, let her be anathema".
	
	It hardly needs to be said that throwing a women out of Church for
	wearing short hair is hardly a matter for conciliar regulation. 	There are multiple examples of conciliar decisons which clearly 	reflect local prejudice being passed as universally valid. This 	particular regulation made it into Gratian's _Decretum_ [the most 	important canon law book until the 1917 Code of Canon Law], and 	into Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis.

	The explanation for the canon, btw, was with regard to certain 
	women - from a group known as the Eustathians - renounced 
	subjugation to husbands by cutting off their hair.
	[See Percival, ed, _The Seven Ecumenical Councils_, p. 99]



2.	LATERAN IV 1215 - Calling for the labeling of Jews and
	Muslims by a special sign.

	Canon 68 of the Fourth Lateran Council - the most
	important of the Western Middle ages required that
	"we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in
	every Christian province and at all times shall be
	marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples
	through the character of their dress"

	This law led to the imposition of the "rouelle" on Jews
	throughout Europe - marking them off as a stigmatized
	group. It was the first European precursor to the
	Nazi's use of the Yellow star.



Appendix: Another View of Papal Errors

By  Marlo White <whitemd2@OKRA.MILLSAPS.EDU>
posted on the Internet mailist DIGNITY@AMERICAN.EDU on Nov.28, 1996


		ANDREW OF AMERICA's Top Ten Papal Errors

10.	Pius XII -- Wore white after Labor Day

9.	Leo III -- Once misspelled "whose" for "who's" in knock knock joke

8.	Gregory the Great -- Said BVM wore blue, but looked better in teal

7.	John Paul II --Thought predecessor was named "George Ringo"

6.	Boniface I -- Wore belt *and* suspenders

5.	John XXIII -- Used wrong salad fork

4.	Urban III -- That infamous "Damned if you do, Damned if
	you don't" encyclical

3.	Paul VI -- Said Louisville, not Frankfort, was capital of Kentucky, 
	thus losing Trivial Pursuit game to Archbishop of Canterbury

2.	Suburban I -- Hipster name alienated downtown crowd

1.	Innocent V -- Everybody knows you can't use fresh kiwi
	in a jello salad!

Quick! Pull out Hans Kung's Indefectability Doctrine
ANDREW OF AMERICA
Oh, Auntie Em, there's no place like Rome!