1The “Doctrine of Discovery” and Terra Nullius:
A Catholic Response
The following text considers and repudiates illegitimate concepts and principles used by Europeans to justify
the seizure of land previously held by Indigenous Peoples and often identified by the terms Doctrine of
Discovery and terra nullius. An appendix provides an historical overview of the development of these concepts
vis-a-vis Catholic teaching and of their repudiation. The presuppositions behind these concepts also
undergirded the deeply regrettable policy of the removal of Indigenous children from their families and culturesin order to place them in residential schools. The text includes commitments which are recommended as abetter way of walking together with Indigenous Peoples.
Preamble
The Truth and Reconciliation process of recent years has helped us to recognize anew thehistorical abuses perpetrated against Indigenous peoples in our land. We have also listened
to and been humbled by courageous testimonies detailing abuse, inhuman treatment, andcultural denigration committed through the residential school system. In this brief note,
which is an expression of our determination to collaborate with First Nations, Inuit andMétis in moving forward, and also in part a response to the Calls to Action of the Truth andReconciliation Commission, we would like to reflect in particular on how land was often
seized from its Indigenous inhabitants without their consent or any legal justification. The
Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB), the Canadian Catholic Aboriginal
Council and other Catholic organizations have been reflecting on the concepts of theDoctrine of Discovery and terra nullius for some time (a more detailed historical analysis isincluded in the attached Appendix).
Statement
We believe that now is an appropriate time to issue a public statement in response to theerrors and falsehoods perpetuated, often by Christians, during and following the so-called
Age of Discovery. In light of all this, as Catholics:
1. We firmly assert that Indigenous people, created in the image and likeness of God ourCreator, ought to have had their fundamental human rights recognized and respected in
the past, and that any failure to recognize and respect their humanity and fundamental
human rights past or present is to be rejected and resisted in the strongest possible way;
2. We firmly assert that there is no basis in the Church’s Scriptures, tradition, or theology,
for the European seizure of land already inhabited by Indigenous Peoples;
3. We reject the assertion that the principle of the first taker or discoverer, often describedtoday by the terms Doctrine of Discovery and terra nullius, could be applied to lands
already inhabited by Indigenous Peoples;
4. We reject the assertion that the mere absence of European agricultural practices,
technologies, or other aspects common to European culture, could justify the claiming ofland as if it had no owner;
5. We reject the assertion that Europeans could determine whether land was used or
occupied by Indigenous people without consulting those people.

2

Rationale
We have read the Truth and Reconciliation Report’s treatment of the Doctrine of
Discovery, and understand the connection made by the Report between the injustices
committed in relation to land and resources and those committed through the residential
school system. The attitudes and policies which deprived Indigenous people of their way ofliving on the land were closely related to those which assumed that it was good andappropriate to remove Indigenous children from their families and their own cultural systemof education and place them in residential schools. We are mindful that Catholics werecomplicit in these systems. While many of the priests, brothers, sisters and laypeople who
worked in the residential schools served with generosity, faithfulness and care, the deeply
flawed policies behind the schools, and the abusive actions of some of the personnel among
them, left a legacy of suffering.
In addressing this legacy, we echo the words of Pope Francis, pronounced in Bolivia on
July 9, 2015: “I say this to you with regret: many grave sins were committed against thenative peoples of America in the name of God. . . . Like St. John Paul II, I ask that the
Church ‘kneel before God and implore forgiveness for the past and present sins of her sonsand daughters’.” We are well aware that the flawed policy of assimilation has deeply scarred
many Indigenous people and has wounded the original relationship of welcome offered byso many of the first peoples of this land to newcomers.
As we ask for mercy from the Father of us all, we pray that we might find appropriate
ways to deal with the waves of hurt and pain caused by members of the Catholic community
in the past. We also pray that we might be instilled with the courage which filled Indigenous
Peoples as they sought to find a peaceful way forward, and the courage which inspired thoseprophetic voices in the Church who stood in solidarity with Indigenous Peoples and spokeout against historical injustices, from Bartholomé de Las Casas, who half a millennium ago
proclaimed the dignity and rights of the Indigenous peoples of America, to Pope John PaulII, who recognized and celebrated the dignity and beauty of Indigenous Peoples andcultures. We acknowledge that many among the Catholic faithful ignored or did not speakout against the injustice, thereby enabling the violation of Indigenous dignity and rights. It is
our hope and prayer that by naming and rejecting those erroneous ideas that lie behind what
is commonly called the “Doctrine of Discovery” and terra nullius, we may better recognize
the challenges we face today so that we may overcome them together.

3

Walking Forward Together
Here our concern moves beyond specific references to the Doctrine of Discovery and terra
nullius, to address other areas which are part of the legacy of colonialism and the residential
school system. The Truth and Reconciliation Report stressed that a recognition of pastwrongs ought to be accompanied by a practical commitment to heal enduring injustices.
As representatives of the Catholic faithful in Canada, and counting on the full collaborationof the Canadian Catholic Aboriginal Council, we appeal to all our Catholic brothers andsisters -- laity, members of institutes of consecrated life and of societies of apostolic life,
deacons, priests, and Bishops -- to make their own the following commitments, as
recommended by the Commission for Justice and Peace of the Canadian Conference ofCatholic Bishops, in order to continue to walk together with Indigenous Peoples in building
a more just society where their gifts and those of all people are nurtured and honoured:
1. Continue to work with Catholic educational institutions and programs of formation inlearning to tell the history of Canada in a way that is truthful, ensuring proper treatment of
the history and experience of Indigenous Peoples, including the experience of oppression
and marginalization which resulted from the Indian Act, the Residential School system, andfrequent ignoring or undermining of signed treaties.
2. Work with centres of pastoral and clergy formation to promote a culture of encounter by
including the study of the history of Canadian missions, with both their weaknesses andstrengths, which encompasses the history of the Indian Residential Schools. In doing this, itwill be important to be attentive to Indigenous versions of Canadian history, and for thesecentres to welcome and engage Indigenous teachers in the education of clergy and pastoral
workers, assuring that each student has the opportunity to encounter Indigenous cultures aspart of their formation.
3. Call upon theological centres to promote and continue to support Indigenous reflection
within the Catholic community, and include this as part of the national ecumenical andinterreligious dialogues in which the CCCB is involved.
4. Encourage partnerships between Indigenous groups and existing health care facilities toprovide holistic health care, especially in areas where there are significant health needs.
5. Encourage initiatives that would establish and strengthen a restorative justice model
within the criminal justice system. Incarceration rates among Indigenous people are manytimes higher than among the general population, and prisons are not sufficiently places ofreconciliation and rehabilitation. Such initiatives include the renewal of the criminal justicesystem through sentencing and healing circles and other traditional Indigenous ways ofdealing with offenders where appropriate and desired by Indigenous peoples.
6. Support the current national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and4girls and work with others towards a healthier society where just relations flourish in families
and communities, and where those most vulnerable are protected and valued.
7. Support Bishops and their dioceses and eparchies, as well as superiors of institutes ofconsecrated life and societies of apostolic life, together with lay Catholic organizations, indeepening and broadening their relationships, dialogue and collaboration with Indigenous
Peoples; in developing programs of education on Indigenous experience and culture; and intheir efforts to follow up on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action,
especially those that address faith communities.
8. Encourage Bishops, as well as the superiors of institutes of consecrated life and societiesof apostolic life, together with lay Catholic organizations, to invite a greater acquaintancewith the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in their dioceses andeparchies, in their parishes and educational institutions, and in their communities andpastoral work, thus fostering continuing reflection in local contexts on how various aspectsof the Declaration can be implemented or supported.
March 19, 2016
Solemnity of Saint Joseph, husband of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Principal patron of Canada

5Catholic Signatories

Most Rev. Douglas Crosby, O.M.I.
Bishop of Hamilton and President,
Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops

Most. Rev. Donald Bolen
Bishop of Saskatoon and Chairman,
CCCB Commission for Justice and Peace

Deacon Rennie Nahanee
Chair, Canadian Catholic Aboriginal Council

Sister Rita Larrivée, S.S.A.
President, Canadian Religious Conference

Deacon Jean-Denis Lampron
President, Canadian Catholic Organization
for Development and PeaceRev. Timothy Scott, C.S.B.
Executive Director, Canadian Religious Conference

Mr. David Leduc
Executive Director, Canadian Catholic
Organization for Development and Peace

6

APPENDIXThe Doctrine of Discovery, Terra Nullius, and the
Catholic Church: An Historical Overview
A Working Paper Developed by the Commission for Justice and Peaceof the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops

As we look closely at the specific concepts of the “Doctrine of Discovery” and “terra
nullius,” it will become apparent that European colonists did not use these particular terms tojustify their land claims. In fact there appears to be no clear, universally held set of beliefs
about land rights held by all Europeans during the Age of Discovery. The reality is that inmany cases, European nations and colonists simply took what they could and attempted tojustify it afterwards. The concepts of the “Doctrine of Discovery” and terra nullius are among
these justifications.
I.

Understanding the Terminology
The concepts of the “Doctrine of Discovery” and terra nullius are foreign to many people.
Yet even when people know the terms, they are often not understood in the same way. For
this reason, we will begin by attempting to clarify, from our understanding and perspective,
what these terms mean, beginning with the “Doctrine of Discovery.”
The Doctrine of Discovery
The “doctrine” of discovery is a legal convention or principle that was not codified until
1823 by a decision of the US Supreme Court,1 thereby making its way into Americancommon law. This particular ruling made frequent reference to the rights that accrued toEuropean nations by virtue of “discovery,”2 effectively establishing a new legal doctrine.
This is why we speak of the “Doctrine of Discovery.” While this principle can beunderstood in various ways, today it is usually taken to mean that ownership of orsovereignty over land passed automatically to Europeans by virtue of their having“discovered” it, irrespective of the presence of previous Indigenous occupants. However,
the actual discovery doctrine is more narrowly circumscribed than this. A later decision of
the US Supreme Court summarizes the meaning of the doctrine clearly:

1 The Johnson v. M’Intosh decision, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that private citizens could notpurchase land from Native Americans. Such purchases could only be made by the United States, which had received thisexclusive right of sovereignty from Great Britain, which had obtained it by discovery. The Native Americans wereconsidered to hold a right of occupancy, but were not considered to have complete sovereignty over their land.
2 For example, “The exclusion of all other Europeans necessarily gave to the nation making the discovery the sole right ofacquiring the soil from the natives and establishing settlements upon it. It was a right with which no Europeans could
interfere. . . . In the establishment of these relations, the rights of the original inhabitants were in no instance entirely
disregarded . . . but their rights to complete sovereignty as independent nations were necessarily diminished, and theirpower to dispose of the soil at their own will to whomsoever they pleased was denied by the original fundamental
principle that discovery gave exclusive title to those who made it.” (emphasis added)

7This principle, acknowledged by all Europeans because it was the interest of
all to acknowledge it, gave to the nation making the discovery, as its inevitableconsequence, the sole right of acquiring the soil and of making settlements on
it. It was an exclusive principle which shut out the right of competition among
those who had agreed to it, not one which could annul the previous rights of
those who had not agreed to it. It regulated the right given by discovery
among the European discoverers, but could not affect the rights of thosealready in possession, either as aboriginal occupants or as occupants by virtueof a discovery made before the memory of man. It gave the exclusive right topurchase, but did not found that right on a denial of the right of the possessor
to sell.3
In other words, the legal “Doctrine of Discovery” is, in the strict sense, a constraint on
European nations and individuals and does not legally affect the rights of Indigenous
peoples. It does, however, negatively affect their ability to sell their land to Europeans since
they could in theory sell only to whichever European nation had “discovered” theirterritory.4 We are well aware, however, that in reality lands belonging to Indigenous peoples
were often simply taken and were not freely sold by their Indigenous owners. This brings us
to the more dangerous but related concept of terra nullius.
Terra nullius
Terra nullius (literally: no one’s land) is a term that attempts to explain how Europeans
often justified their seizure of Indigenous lands. In effect, Europeans often treated theterritories of Indigenous Peoples in the New World (particularly in North America andAustralia) as if they were unoccupied and belonging to no one, and therefore free to be taken
by whoever discovered them. It seems that in recent years, this idea has become virtuallysynonymous with the “Doctrine of Discovery” even though the two are distinct issues.
The challenge, from a historical point of view, is that the term terra nullius is not as old as
its Latin name suggests. While the “law of the first taker” existed in Roman Law, it generally
applied to things like wild animals. The term terra nullius, however, was not used at all until
the late 19th century and was at that time mainly confined to disputes over Antarctica and theNorth Pole.5 While we will discuss terra nullius more later in this paper, at this point we cansay that the term terra nullius is of quite recent origin and we should be cautious about
assuming that there is a single, common legal principle underlying European expansion in
the New World. However, it cannot be doubted that the term terra nullius does point to ahistorical reality, namely that Europeans, because of their own limited understandings ofagriculture, technology, property, and culture, often did see Indigenous land as being
essentially unused and therefore free for the taking. That these same Europeans often seizedthese lands without the consent of the land’s rightful owners was a profound injustice.
3 US Supreme Court, Worcester v. State of Georgia, pg 31, US 544.
4 Cf. Miller et al., Discovering Indigenous Lands: The Doctrine of Discovery in the English Colonies (New York: Oxford University

Press, 2010), 5.
5 Andrew Fitzmaurice, “The Genealogy of Terra Nullius,” in Australian Historical Studies 129 (2007), 13.

8

II.

Some Historical Background
Before examining the historical background, we would like to recall that tension between
Church and State has existed from the foundations of Christian history. The notion
sometimes put forward that missionaries and European conquerors all had the same goals is
contradicted by the historical record, as Christian missionaries were in many instances inconflict with the governments and commercial interests of their own nations.6 It is true thathorrific injustices were committed by nations that considered themselves Christian, and thatmany Christians during this period failed to witness to the dignity of the human person. Yet
there were important voices within the Church as well who cried out in the name of the
dignity of Indigenous peoples. To learn from history requires that we listen to the many anddiverse voices from the past, some of which invite repentance, others which inspire and help
us to discern what the Holy Spirit has been saying, and continues to say, to the Church
concerning the Indigenous peoples of Canada and the world.
We turn now to an examination of several historical developments that will help us better
understand the concepts of the “Doctrine of Discovery” and terra nullius. These include themedieval understanding of the rights of non-Christians to possess sovereignty or dominium,
three Papal Bulls that are often associated with the “Doctrine of Discovery,” some later
developments in European thought on Indigenous peoples and the rationalizations used to
seize Indigenous land, and the early response of the Catholic Church to the abuses beingcommitted against Indigenous peoples.
The Rights of Non-Christians
Within the Church in Europe, there had already been a lively debate during the Middle
Ages on whether non-Christians could possess dominium or lordship (the ability to possess
authority, property, land, etc.). Pope Innocent IV (1243-54) considered the conditions underwhich war could be waged against non-Christians, and concluded that these could not be
deprived of their property or lordship simply because they were not Christian. 7 However, if anation violently prevented peaceful missionaries from entering that land, then Christiansoldiers could be sent to ensure the security of the missionaries, even deposing the nonChristian ruler if he were intent on persecuting Christians within his borders.8 But it could
never be licit to invade or seize the property of a peaceful non-Christian people.

6 Examples include the famous sermon of the Dominican Antonio de Montesinos, preached (after being approved by

his whole community) on the 4th Sunday of Advent, 1511, to the Spanish colonists of Hispaniola (the island which today
contains Haiti and the Dominican Republic), informing them that unless they recognized the humanity of the native
people and ceased abusing them, they would continue to be in mortal sin and could not be saved. An example closer tohome would be Saint François de Laval, the first Bishop of Quebec, who struggled continually to prevent the practice oftrading in alcohol with the Indigenous peoples due to the intense social devastation it brought.
7 Innocent IV, Commentary on Quod super his [which was itself a commentary by Innocent III on the Decretales of
Gregory IX] (1245).
8 Innocent IV also held that the Pope had authority to judge secular rulers who carried out or tolerated violations of thenatural law against his own people. Although similar principles are used today by the United Nations when determining
whether to intervene in a sovereign state to stop serious human rights abuses, this particular criterion was
misappropriated by the Spanish to justify their conquest of Indigenous peoples.

9

In opposition was a canon lawyer known as Hostiensis, who declared that “with thecoming of Christ every office and all governmental authority and all lordship and jurisdiction
was taken from every infidel lawfully and with just cause and granted to the faithful throughHim who has the supreme power and who cannot err.”9 His idea was that since nonbelievers are not in a state of grace, their sin prevents them from legitimately holding office.
This ultimately derived from an old heresy which held that ministers in a state of sin could
not validly dispense the Sacraments or hold authority in the Church.10 The view of Innocent
IV prevailed, however, and in 1415 the Council of Constance condemned this idea.11 It was
now effectively heretical to hold that anyone could be deprived of land or possessions
simply for not being a Christian. Yet while the position of Innocent IV held sway in the
Church, in the world of geopolitics there was a lingering temptation to prefer Hostiensis’
position.12

The Papal Bulls and the Age of Discovery

Sometimes, a connection is drawn between the legal principle of the “Doctrine of
Discovery” and certain papal statements issued during the 15th century, by which the Popegave Spain and Portugal the right to claim new territory that fell within certain describedboundaries.13 These statements, called “Bulls” to describe the seal that was affixed to them,predate the language of “Doctrine of Discovery” and terra nullius, but there are traces of
9 Hostiensis, Lectura quinque Decretalium, 2 vols (Paris, 1512), 3.34.8, fol. 124v.
10 The heresy of Donatism arose in the fourth century and was opposed vigorously by Augustine and other Church

Fathers.
11 Council of Constance, Sentence concerning 260 articles of Wyclif, n. 29, 31: “Everyone habitually in mortal sin lacks
dominion of any kind and the licit use of an action, even if it be good in its kind. . . . In order to have true seculardominion, the lord must be in a state of righteousness. Therefore nobody in mortal sin is lord of anything.” NB: these
propositions were condemned by the Council, not supported by it.
12 For example, one of the ten elements of the “Doctrine of Discovery,” as described by Robert J. Miller, is that “under
Discovery, non-Christian peoples did not possess the same human and natural law rights to land, sovereignty, and selfdetermination as Christian peoples. Indigenous peoples were assumed to have lost many rights upon their discovery by
Christians.” (Miller, Discovering Indigenous Lands: The Doctrine of Discovery in the English Colonies [New York: Oxford
University Press, 2010], 8) This is clearly the position of Hostiensis, which had been effectively condemned by the
Church, precisely because it was seen that it could lead to widespread abuses of non-Christians.
13 While the Johnson v. M’Intosh decision makes explicit mention of the charter given by Henry VII to John Cabot, it
does not mention any Papal Bulls, except to make the point that “Spain did not rest her title solely on the grant of thePope. Her discussions respecting boundary, with France, with Great Britain, and with the United States all show that sheplaced it on the rights given by discovery. ” In this way, the decision implies that “discovery” is more important indetermining title than any papal grant.
Some see a connection between certain Papal Bulls and the Doctrine of Discovery in Joseph Story’s Commentaries on theConstitution of the United States (1833). Story, who had been a member of the court that issued the M’Intosh decision, has
an interesting discussion of the origin of title to territory in the colonies. He begins by remarking that the original native
inhabitants claimed sovereignty and asserted this claim. He then declares that he will simply ignore “the question of theactual merits of the titles claimed by the respective parties upon principles of natural law” since natural law is not his
purview – in other words, he is not concerned with whether what European nations did was just or not. He then statesthat “the European nations found little difficulty in reconciling themselves to the adoption of any principle, which gave
ample scope to their ambition, and employed little reasoning to support it.” Then, after explaining how, in his opinion,
the native peoples were religiously and culturally inferior to Europeans, he notes that “The Papal authority, too, wasbrought in aid of these great designs . . . Alexander the Sixth, by a Bull issued in 1493 [i.e., Inter Caetera, discussed below],
granted to the crown of Castile the whole of the immense territory then discovered, or to be discovered, between thepoles, so far as it was not then possessed by any Christian prince” (Commentaries, Book I, Chap 1, n. 5).
The Johnson v. M’Intosh decision, however, is not based on any Papal Bulls.

10those concepts present here, and it is worth looking in greater detail at three of these Papal
Bulls.
Dum Diversas (1452)
This Bull, issued by Pope Nicholas V, granted the King of Portugal “full and freepermission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and anyother unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms,
duchies, counties, principalities, and other property . . . and to reduce their persons into
perpetual servitude.” In effect, it offered Portugal exclusive trading rights in newlydiscovered parts of West Africa in exchange for its ongoing military efforts against theSaracens. It followed a request from the Byzantine Emperor for military help from the Pope,although Constantinople would still fall less than a year later.
The practice of enslaving non-Christian prisoners captured in a just war was common
practice at the time, and conquering people often made slaves of those they conquered. This
practice was considered more merciful than execution and allowed the victor to extract some
economic benefit for his losses.
Romanus Pontifex (1455)
Also issued by Nicholas V, this bull confirmed the dominion that the King of Portugal
had by now attained along the coast of Africa and repeated Dum Diversas’ authorization to
subdue and enslave Saracens, pagans and “any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ.”
This authorization of course implies that Nicholas believed the Portuguese claims that thepeoples they encountered really were violent and hostile to Christianity. The main point of
this Bull was to forbid other nations from engaging in trade with the areas now under thesway of Portugal, a particular concern being the prevention of trade in war material with theSaracens.
Inter Caetera (1493)
Issued immediately after the return of Christopher Columbus from the West Indies, thisBull, issued by Alexander VI, granted to Spain all lands discovered west of a meridian 100
leagues west of the Azores, provided they were not already in the possession of any Christianruler, and therefore directly applied to the land now known as the Americas, even if at thattime no European had any idea how vast and populated these lands would be. There was no
mention of enslavement. However, it is clear from the introduction to the Bull that the chief
intent is the spread of the Catholic faith to the natives, who were thought to be strongly
disposed to accept Christianity. The purpose of the Bull was to establish ecclesiasticaljurisdiction regarding missionary work. The monopoly on trade given to Spain was intended
to compensate Spain for its investment in the evangelization of the newly-discovered lands.
The question of the right of Indigenous peoples to their own lands was not raised at all inInter Caetera.

11

Spain was prohibited by the Bull from claiming lands already possessed by any Christian
prince. However, this was not because it was assumed that only Christians could possess
dominium – rather, it was simply because the obligation to evangelize the Indigenous peoples
would then rest with another Christian ruler.14 This, in fact, presents an argument forviewing this Bull more as a missionary document than as a political one, even if its major
effects were political. It should not be surprising, however, that Spanish colonizers
subsequently interpreted the Bull as broadly as possible, even if some in the Church argued
against this.15
Considering the historical context of the above Papal Bulls provides a better picture of
their actual intent. For example, the Popes during the age of Discovery knew that they
lacked any military ability to enforce their will. The “grants” accorded to Portugal and Spain
were one tool the Popes used to attempt to ensure that the European expansion, which they
could not prevent, would be as peaceful as possible and at least include Christian
missionaries to provide for the spiritual needs of the native inhabitants. Yet in spite of all
this, we cannot ignore that these Bulls do appear manifestly unjust to us today: they make nomention of the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and they appear to transfer the ownership ofland to European nations without the consent of those living on that land, even if Bulls like
Inter Caetera admit of varying interpretations. We should therefore recall that such Papal Bulls
do not enjoy any element of infallibility. Further, as they do not deal with theological themes,
from a Church perspective they are rightly seen as political declarations, and therefore
subject to retraction and revision. In the case of Inter Caetera, the Holy See, in response toquestions from the international community, declared at the United Nations in 2010 that
“Inter Coetera has already been abrogated” and is “without any legal or doctrinal value.”16
According to the Holy See, this abrogation occurred on several levels, starting the year after
the Bull was issued.
Later Developments and the Question of the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples
The Charter Given by Henry VII to John Cabot (1496)
Shortly after Inter Caetera, the King of England granted Letters Patent to Giovanni
Caboto (John Cabot), giving him authority to conquer for England any lands he may
discover as long as these were not known to any Christians. This charter made frequent
reference to the goods and profits which could be reaped but made no mention of Christ or
14 James Muldoon, Popes, Lawyers, and Infidels (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979), 138. “The lawyers

who actually drafted these bulls were careful to avoid a direct denial of infidel dominium.”
It should also be pointed out that by the end of the 16th century, explorers sailed with letters authorizing them to occupy
lands not occupied by any other European ruler – i.e., the reference to Christianity was abandoned once papal approval
was no longer seen as useful.
15 For example, the Bishop Bartholomé de las Casas, in his 1552 work In Defense of the Indians (Translated and edited by
Stafford Poole, DeKalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press, 1974), pp 349-60, argued that Inter Caetera did not
permit war against native peoples or the removal of their rulers and was simply an authorization of missionary work,through which the native peoples, if they so chose, might come to freely subject themselves to Spain’s rule.
16 Statement by Holy See Permanent Observer to the United Nations (New York, April 27, 2010). The Holy See’s
intervention lists multiple ways in which the varying aspects of the Bull have been abrogated.

12

Christianity whatsoever, leading one commentator to describe it as “licensed piracy.”17 While
England was at this time a Catholic nation, this charter contains no justification, theologicalor otherwise, for the seizure of these lands save for the will of Henry VII.
Bending the Rules: Inventing Justifications for the Seizure of Indigenous Territory
Despite the Papal Bulls mentioned above, European nations knew that they could not,on the basis of theology or canon law, simply claim sovereignty over land inhabited by nonChristians. For this reason, new justifications were invented. We have already spoken about
the concept of terra nullius which, even if not actually employed during the Age of Discovery,
seems to represent what became an all-too common assumption by many Europeans. This
assumption derived from the ancient idea that an unowned land, object, or animal, could beclaimed by whoever first discovered it. However, Europeans knew that the New World was
well-inhabited. Thus, the claim was sometimes made, particularly by the English, that theselands could be considered empty or unowned because their inhabitants were not fully
utilizing them – an argument that simply did not exist prior to the Age of Discovery.18 The
idea was that if the land was not being put to “civilized” use – which generally meant
widespread agriculture – then it could be considered unused and free to be claimed.19 Thisidea, of course, contained certain presuppositions about what constitutes use and ownership– presuppositions which certainly did not favour the Indigenous inhabitants.
It is clear that this argument had been employed very early on by the Spanish, because it
was explicitly contradicted by the Dominican priest and theologian Francisco de Vitoria in
his 1532 work On the Indians. After establishing that the native peoples possessed true
dominium prior to the arrival of the Spanish, Vitoria notes that
This title by right of discovery . . . was the only title alleged in the beginning,
and it was with this pretext alone that Columbus of Genoa set sail . . . But on
the other hand, against this third title, we need not argue long; as I proved
above . . . the barbarians possessed true public and private dominion. The lawof nations, on the other hand, expressly states that goods which belong to noowner pass to the occupier. Since the goods in question here had an owner,
they do not fall under this title.20
Interestingly, Vitoria here uses the argument of the first taker – what is now often called terra
nullius – to argue against the Spanish occupation. Since the Indigenous peoples were the first
17 L. C. Green and Olive P. Dickason, The Law of Nations and the New World (Edmonton: University of Alberta Press,

1993), 228.
18 Law of Nations, 234.
19 This idea is exemplified by John Locke’s essay “Of Property” in his Two Treatises of Government (1690), where hecontends that only labour can provide ownership. For this reason, if land is not cultivated it cannot be claimed.
20 Francisco de Vitoria, Vitoria: Political Writings, Translated by Anthony Pagden (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1992), 264-65. It should be noted that the term “barbarians” was used to indicate non-Europeans and did nothave the same connotations it does today. For additional context, the explicit argument Vitoria contradicts is thefollowing: “All things which are unoccupied or deserted become the property of the occupier by natural law and the lawof nations, according to the law Ferae bestiae [i.e., wild animals] (Institutions II.1.12). Hence it follows that the Spaniards,
who were the first to discover and occupy these countries, must by right possess them, just as if they had discovered ahitherto uninhabited desert.”

13takers of the land and sovereign over it, it belonged to them and could not be claimed by
European “discovery.”
Most damaging of all, however, was the argument employed explicitly by Spanish
colonists that the Indigenous peoples of the Americas were in effect subhuman, or createdfor natural servitude.21 In this case, they could not only be enslaved, but their land was seen
as free for the taking since they were considered incapable of properly occupying it.
Spain and the Requerimiento
At the very beginning of the Spanish conquest of the Americas, there was still a concern
to maintain a veneer of respect for canon law concerning the rights of non-Christians. A
Spanish lawyer22 thus composed the “Requerimiento” (requirement), which was a
proclamation read (in Spanish) to Indigenous Peoples upon initial contact with Spanish
explorers.23 It effectively informed the natives that they must accept Christianity and theauthority of the Pope, as well as that of the Spanish monarchy (to whom the Pope had
granted their land). They must also accept missionaries sent to preach to them, or theywould be considered hostile. While the Requerimiento was clearly a farce, it was neverintended to provide a real option to the native peoples but rather to serve as a legalistic
justification for premeditated conquest disguised as a just war. In this sense, its proper
audience was not the Indigenous inhabitants, but rather other European powers who might
contest Spain’s claims on canonical grounds. By the 1540s, however, Spain’s domination of
the Americas was so advanced and its power so consolidated that the Requerimiento was nolonger bothered with.
Las Casas and the Humanity of Indigenous Peoples
Many Spanish colonists used specious arguments in order to justify the seizure of
Indigenous lands, goods, and even people. As mentioned above, the most pernicious ofthese was based on an Aristotelian theory that some people were by nature fit for servitude.
Among those who opposed this denial of the full humanity of Indigenous people wasBartolomé de Las Casas (1484-1566), a Bishop from the New World who had firsthandexperience of the abuses suffered by the Indigenous Peoples there.24 Las Casas argued
forcefully for the full humanity and rights of the Native American peoples. The conflictcame to a head in the famous Valladolid debate (1550-51) which pitted Las Casas, whoargued on the basis of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Church Fathers, against Juan Ginés de
Sepúlveda, a humanist who argued using Aristotle that the native peoples were fit for natural
servitude. At various times, laws protecting Indigenous people were passed by the Spanish
King, but these were so forcefully opposed by the colonies that they had little effect.

21 Arguments put forward in favour of this position included observations of cannibalism in some Indigenous cultures,

as well as the fact that some of these often wore no clothing.
22 Probably Juan Lopez de Palacios Rubios.
23 The Requerimiento was in use from 1512 until the 1540s.
24 Las Casas, originally a Spanish colonist, was present during the preaching of the famous sermon of Montesinos in
1511 which he later described as instrumental in his conversion.

14

Paul III’s Sublimis Deus (1537) and the Church’s Position Today
Already during the 1530s, Las Casas and other missionaries had asked the Pope to speakout in defense of Indigenous peoples. In 1537, Paul III issued the powerfully-worded Bull
Sublimis Deus,25 which begins by stating that God so loved the human race that he gave all
people the ability to know him and come to faith in him. It then responds directly to theargument that the native peoples were subhuman and therefore could be deprived of theirpossessions or enslaved, considering this a lie perpetuated by Satan:
The enemy of the human race . . . inspired his satellites who, to please him,
have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and theSouth, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should betreated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they areincapable of receiving the Catholic Faith.
We . . . consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not
only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our
information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. . . . We define and declare . .
. that . . . the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by
Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession[dominio] of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus
Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty
and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved;
should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.
In the political and cultural context of the day, this was a forceful declaration of the rights ofIndigenous people. Paul III not only flatly rejected the theory of their subhumanity but
prohibited the seizure of their property and their enslavement “in any way.” He also declared“null” and of “no effect” anything to the contrary, thereby abrogating any previous
authorizations of the enslavement of Indigenous people or the seizure of their property.
While it may be objected that Paul III seems to view native peoples here only in terms of
their value as potential converts, by declaring their ability to know God he was asserting as
vigorously as possible their equality with Europeans and all other human beings.

25 The issuing of this Bull can be confusing, as a Papal Brief with very similar text, called Pastorale Officium (May 29, 1537),

was also issued the same year. Pastorale Officium, however, was partly based on erroneous information. Addressed to the
Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo, it mentions approvingly the outlawing of slavery by the King of Spain (something hehad done in 1530), but seems unaware of the fact that he had rescinded the ban in 1534. The Brief imposed
excommunication on anyone who violated the ban. This Brief understandably irritated the King, and upon learning that
the Spanish ban on slavery was no longer in effect, Paul III rescinded the Brief in 1538. It is notable, however, that
Sublimis Deus was dated several days after Pastorale Officium and is addressed not to any particular cleric or ruler, but to theChristian faithful in general. Sublimis Deus has never been rescinded. Curiously, subsequent Popes who have cited Paul
III’s teaching have almost always cited Pastorale Officium, even renewing and confirming it along with its canonicalpenalties. For a detailed explanation of the relationship between Sublimis Deus and Pastorale Officium, see Gustavio
Gutierrez, Las Casas: In Search of the Poor of Jesus Christ (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2003), 308-312; for an even moredetailed exposition of the history behind Sublimis Deus, see Michael Stogre, That the World May Believe: The Development of
Papal Social Thought on Aboriginal Rights (Sherbrooke, QC: Éditions Paulines, 1992), 77-93.

15Paul III’s declaration was echoed and reaffirmed by subsequent Popes, including Urban
VIII in his Bull Commissum Nobis (1639), concerning the abuse of Indigenous people by thePortuguese; Benedict XIV in his Bull Immensa Pastorum (1741) in which he condemned theenslavement and abuse of Indigenous peoples, confirmed the teaching of Paul III explicitly,and declared the automatic excommunication of any Catholic involved in the slave trade;
Gregory XVI in his apostolic letter In Supremo (1839) condemning slavery in Africa and theIndies; and by Leo XIII in his encyclical In Plurimis (1888).
When Saint John Paul II visited Canada in 1987, he addressed a gathering of Indigenous
people at Fort Simpson, recalling again the words of Paul III:At the dawn of the Church's presence in the New World, my predecessor PopePaul III proclaimed in 1537 the rights of the native peoples of those times. He affirmed
their dignity, defended their freedom and asserted that they could not beenslaved or deprived of their goods or ownership. That has always been the
Church's position . . . My presence among you today marks my reaffirmation
and reassertion of that teaching.26© Concacan Inc., 2016. All rights reserved.
Dioceses, parishes and religious communities may reproduce the document without written permission, for noncommercial purposes. For all other usage, please contact the publisher at permissions@cccb.ca.

26 John Paul II, Address at Fort Simpson, NWT (September 20, 1987). John Paul II made a very similar statement, also

citing Paul III, at the Yellowknife Airport on September 18, 1984 when fog prevented his plane from landing in Fort
Simpson during his first papal visit to Canada.