The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1913-05-10

sake of money" (Bullarium Ro-
manum, Vol. III, page 1901
The Church the Defender of the In
dams.
In regard to the infidel Indians in
particular, DR.. j. s. Johnson makes
another notable omission, when deal
ing with the attitude of the Church.
He does something which involves a
grievous sin of omission. And wisely,
for the point omitted would have given
concerning the Church an impression
the direct opposite of what he has con-
veyed; it would have given the
quietus, the coup de grace, to his vain
assertions. He does not tell us that
Pope Paul III in the very beginning
of the sixteenth century, in 1887, and
Pope Urban VIII in 1889, in noble and
courageous language absolutely for
babe the enslavement, spoliation, and
captivity of the Indians. "Our prede-
cessor of happy memory, Pope Paul
ILL.," say Urban VIII in the Brief,
Commissum Nobis, DESTROYS about
the condition of the Western and Mid
land Indians, who, he learned, were
enslaved and despoiled of their goods,
and thus averted from the acceptance
of the Christian faith, forbade under
pain of communication
any kind of enslavement of the afore-
said Indians, or any spoliation of their
property" Pope Urban VIII renews
this prohibition, wishing to check the
audacity of impious men, who deter
from the Christian faith by their in
should be enticed thereto by every
Office of Christian charity and meek
ness" and he prohibits, under pain
of accommodation specially reserved
to the Pope, all, of whatever standing,
sex, or dignity be they lay, or
ecclesiastical, or belonging to re-
ligious order of any kind, from Zen
Shaving in the future the aforesaid In
dams, from buying, selling, exchang-
ing, donating, separating them from
their wives and children, despoiling
them of their goods and chattels,
transferring them to other places, or
in any way depriving them of their
liberty, or retaining them in slavery"
(Bullarium Romanum, Vol. IA, p. 712.)
Although we must vehemently repel
DR.. ]. S. Johnson's calumnies concern
ing the teaching and ruling Church,
we can in some measure offer an ex-
cuse for them on account of the mode
of their origin. They are typical of
a whole class of groundless utter
ances regarding the Church. Asser-
lions such as those which emanate
from him were at one time common.
They are not entirely wanting today.
They are often the result of tradi-
suspecting and uncritical readers;
they proceed, mainly, from lack of
knowledge of the first-hand sources
of history. DR.. Johnson's mistake
may be the occasion of good, furnish
ing the opportunity of bringing into
fuller light the truth concerning the
Church's attitude towards the Indian.
In opposition to his lurid picture of
harsh theologians, the benign influ-
ence of Catholic theology, can be
brought into the foreground. His
error enables us to place in bold re-
lief the Roman Pontiffs as the strong
defenders of natural equity. The dark
period of Spanish conquest is il1um-
mated in some degree by such noble
figures as the good priest, Bartholo-
new Las Casas, the Father of the In
dams, and by the fearless Popes, Paul
III, and Urban VIII. In this affair of
the rights of the Indians as in other
matters, Popes have been the cour-
ageous champions of the broadcast hui
mainly.