Topic: The Vatican repudiates 'Doctrine of Discovery'

[jambutty]

The Vatican repudiates 'Doctrine of Discovery,' which was used to justify colonialism
March 30, 20231:38 PM ET
By

Bill Chappell


People protest as Pope Francis meets young people and elders at Nakasuk Elementary School Square in Iqaluit, Canada, last July. The Vatican on Thursday formally repudiated the "Doctrine of Discovery." The theory is backed by 15th century papal decrees that legitimized the colonial-era seizure of Native lands and form the basis of some property laws today.
Gregorio Borgia/AP
Nearly 500 years after papal decrees were used to rationalize Europe's colonial conquests, the Vatican repudiated those decrees on Thursday, saying the "Doctrine of Discovery" that was used to justify snuffing out Indigenous people's culture and livelihoods is not part of the Catholic faith.

The doctrine was invoked as a legal and religious standing by Europeans who "discovered" new lands and violently seized it from people who had been living there for generations. It has been cited in different arenas for centuries, including by the U.S. Supreme Court — as early as 1823 and as recently as 2005.

"The statement repudiates the very mindsets and worldview that gave rise to the original papal bulls," the Rev. David McCallum, executive director of the Program for Discerning Leadership based in Rome, told NPR.

"It renounces the mindset of cultural or racial superiority which allowed for that objectification or subjection of people, and strongly condemns any attitudes or actions that threaten or damage the dignity of the human person."

Here's a brief guide to the Discovery Doctrine, and why the Vatican's move is historic:

The doctrine came from papal "bulls" in the 15th century
The doctrine was laid out in a series of papal "bulls," or decrees; the first one was issued in 1452. They authorized colonial powers such as Spain and Portugal to seize lands and subjugate people in Africa and the "New World," as long as people on the lands were not Christians.

Scholars widely note three bulls: Pope Nicholas V's Dum diversas (1452) and Romanus Pontifex (1455); and Pope Alexander VI's Inter caetera (1493).

Later popes revoked the decrees, but the damage was done
The papal bulls "were not considered valid just 30 to 40 years after they were first issued. They were in fact abrogated legally and nullified by the Vatican by the late 1530s," McCallum told NPR.

The Vatican's nullification was too late to stop the destructive impact of colonialism, McCallum said, noting that European expansion was fueled by a "sort of missionary sense that the Western monarchies had a right to go to these new lands and to take from them their resources and if necessary to put down people, including enslaving them."

The doctrine made its way into the U.S. legal system
"Back in the in the 19th century, it was used as a precedent which gave people a sense of title to land that had not been owned with an official title in deed," McCallum said.

So what began as a religious decree in the 1400s then became the basis for a legal concept in the U.S., when the Doctrine of Discovery was invoked in an 1823 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that Indigenous people had only rights of "occupancy," not ownership, over lands they had long lived on. The land, then, was open for the taking.

"As a result of this being written into the American property law, it was actually considered a precedent," McCallum said, including citations as recent as a 2005 case in upstate New York, involving the Oneida Indian Nation.

Indigenous advocates have previously called on the Catholic Church to issue a formal repudiation of the doctrine, saying personal apologies fell short, given the magnitude of the policy's effects.

Last year, the pope stunned observers when he personally apologized to Taylor Behn-Tsakoza, a youth delegate with the Assembly of First Nations who lives in British Columbia, for the Catholic Church's role contributing to years of suffering.

Behn-Tsakoza welcomed the pope's action. But she also noted the irreparable harm done to her culture by centuries of subjugation and to families like her own by decades of forced assimilation — and she called on Francis to renounce the Doctrine of Discovery.

Months later, the pope apologized to Indigenous peoples for the systemic abuse inflicted upon Native children at Catholic-run residential schools. But he stopped short of formally rescinding the doctrine.

Invoking the Christian mandate to respect the dignity of every human being, the Vatican said on Thursday, "The Catholic Church therefore repudiates those concepts that fail to recognize the inherent human rights of indigenous peoples, including what has become known as the legal and political 'doctrine of discovery.' "

The Church also said it stands with Indigenous peoples now and strongly supports the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which it says can help protect Indigenous rights as well as improving living conditions and development "in a way that respects their identity, language and culture."

The Vatican also invoked the pope's words from his visit to Canada last year: "Never again can the Christian community allow itself to be infected by the idea that one culture is superior to others, or that it is legitimate to employ ways of coercing others."

"What was significant today is the way that the statement repudiates the very mindsets and worldview that gave rise to the original papal bulls," McCallum said. "It renounces the mindset of cultural or racial superiority which allowed for that objectification or subjection of people, and strongly condemns any attitudes or actions that threaten or damage the dignity of the human person."

Bishop Douglas Lucia of the Diocese of Syracuse, N.Y., said he believes the statement will lead to more dialogue.

"The call 'to walk side by side' is especially poignant in this land of the Onondaga and Haudenosaunee where there exists the 'Two Row Wampum,' " Lucia told NPR via email. "It is a 1613 agreement of how the Haudenosaunee would treat the new settlers on their land based on friendship, peace, and forever."

With the Vatican taking a formal stance, Lucia added, the Christian community can acknowledge its own failings and work with Indigenous peoples to embody that 1613 agreement.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-vatican-has-rejected-the-doctrine-of-discovery-will-king-charles-iii-follow-suit/ss-AA11Tavo?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=c7bd5528ecee48c1b72e863db9be1176&ei=15

[Bioluminescence]

Long overdue, obviously. I came across the Doctrine of Discovery again a couple of days ago while reading about the role of Indigenous societies in maintaining healthy land and seas over thousands of years thanks to an intimate knowledge of weather, plants, animals, etc. It's the type of knowledge we're having to rediscover now to face ongoing crises. I'm definitely going to look into it a bit more. Thanks for posting this.

[So… Howard Philips]

No surprise the US Supreme Court using it , no doubt, to justify their slaughter of Indigenous people.

Always amuses me when they criticise British Imperialism in India. We had to travel thousands of miles for our I’ll gotten gains, all they had to do was get a wagon train rolling.

[west_london_red]

No surprise the US Supreme Court using it , no doubt, to justify their slaughter of Indigenous people.

Always amuses me when they criticise British Imperialism in India. We had to travel thousands of miles for our I’ll gotten gains, all they had to do was get a wagon train rolling.

They were very different endeavours. The British were primarily motivated by money, and as brutal and bloody episodes of British rule in India were, there wasn’t anything I am aware of that you could say came close to ethic cleansing. However, when you get to the British and Australia and the treatment of indigenous peoples there, I’m not sure it was that different to the Americans and their treatment of indigenous people.

[Bioluminescence]

I have to admit it's not a period/subject I know much about so I've been reading up on it. Something I've found interesting is the contradictions we see. We have a situation where the Doctrine of Discovery was used to justify all sorts of horrors. At the same time, because some Indigenous societies had already developed democracies and mechanisms of peace and coexistence centuries before colonisation, they were actively involved in the formation and development of the United States. This was officially acknowledged by the US Senate in 1988. So these Indigenous communities were simultaneously not "civilised" enough but their civilisation formed part of the basis for the United States.

[Sangria]

They were very different endeavours. The British were primarily motivated by money, and as brutal and bloody episodes of British rule in India were, there wasn’t anything I am aware of that you could say came close to ethic cleansing. However, when you get to the British and Australia and the treatment of indigenous peoples there, I’m not sure it was that different to the Americans and their treatment of indigenous people.

How much direct responsibility does Britain have?

[So… Howard Philips]

How much direct responsibility does Britain have?

Well we did colonise Australia and treat the natives badly until Australia became independent and continued the bad treatment. As did the Canadians.

[Sangria]

Well we did colonise Australia and treat the natives badly until Australia became independent and continued the bad treatment. As did the Canadians.

Most of the really atrocious behaviour dated from when they were self-governing. Might as well blame the UK for the US doctrine of manifest destiny.

[Kashinoda]

I blame the bloody Beaker Folk myself.

[So… Howard Philips]

Most of the really atrocious behaviour dated from when they were self-governing. Might as well blame the UK for the US doctrine of manifest destiny.

Maybe but we certainly treated the Māori like shit;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Wars

[A Red Abroad]

Maybe but we certainly treated the Māori like shit;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Wars

Let's be honest, British colonialists treated everyone like sh!t.

[Sangria]

Maybe but we certainly treated the Māori like shit;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Wars

The article you linked to doesn't support your assertion. There were disputes, conflicts, wars. But they mostly involved the warriors, not civilians. And when arbitration was resorted to, as was often the case, the Europeans were found by the British governor to be as fault as much as the Maoris. Not much different from your standard inter-tribal wars, scaled up to involve nations. Perhaps even a bit more civilised than the Maori inter-tribal wars of legend (see the story behind the haka for an example).

Vastly different to how the US treated the native Americans.

[Sangria]

Let's be honest, British colonialists treated everyone like sh!t.

Not really. Certainly not when compared with other empires.

[bradders1011]

I had Doctrine of Discovery on CD.

[A Red Abroad]

Not really. Certainly not when compared with other empires.

Righto.

I'm not interested in looking at a 'league table' of 'terrible empires'.

The British ruling classes have a lot to answer for - regardless of who you want to compare them to.

[bradders1011]

Righto.

I'm not interested in looking at a 'league table' of 'terrible empires'.

The British ruling classes have a lot to answer for - regardless of who you want to compare them to.

Belgium are punching well above their weight - this year's Brighton.

[Sangria]

Righto.

I'm  not looking at a 'league table' of 'terrible empires'.

Look at each of the continents where Britain had territories, and most of the native empires in their heyday were worse. Maybe you may feel a liberal's shame at being the sons of empire. But people from these colonies who've learned about their native histories would be able to regale you with the glorydays of their own empires, and they'd got up to. You reckon it's trendy to talk about Iraq and a war for oil? There's little evidence that war was fought for oil. Compare, instead, with the War of the Heavenly Horses, celebrated by China, where the Chinese empire subjugated a foreign territory for the sole purpose of gaining access to war horses. The Chinese lost most of their expeditionary force in the process, but it was deemed a victory worth celebrating, as China received a regular tribute in prized horses, and people were worth less than horses. The loss of 20,000 soldiers was a price well worth paying for securing an annual tribute of 1,500 horses.

If people want to talk about Britain's terrible history, maybe they should broaden their horizons a bit and learn at least a tad about the history of other parts of the world too. Howard Phillips said the British treated the Maori like shit, linking to the wiki article about the New Zealand wars, which didn't support his assertion. As a comparison with that article, try reading about the creator of the Ka Mate. He was in dispute with Britain towards the end of his life, but the British decided not to pursue matters as he was elderly. In contrast, in earlier years he engaged in pretty vicious inter-tribal wars.

[A Red Abroad]

Look at each of the continents where Britain had territories, and most of the native empires in their heyday were worse. Maybe you may feel a liberal's shame at being the sons of empire. But people from these colonies who've learned about their native histories would be able to regale you with the glorydays of their own empires, and they'd got up to. You reckon it's trendy to talk about Iraq and a war for oil? There's little evidence that war was fought for oil. Compare, instead, with the War of the Heavenly Horses, celebrated by China, where the Chinese empire subjugated a foreign territory for the sole purpose of gaining access to war horses. The Chinese lost most of their expeditionary force in the process, but it was deemed a victory worth celebrating, as China received a regular tribute in prized horses, and people were worth less than horses. The loss of 20,000 soldiers was a price well worth paying for securing an annual tribute of 1,500 horses.

If people want to talk about Britain's terrible history, maybe they should broaden their horizons a bit and learn at least a tad about the history of other parts of the world too. Howard Phillips said the British treated the Maori like shit, linking to the wiki article about the New Zealand wars, which didn't support his assertion. As a comparison with that article, try reading about the creator of the Ka Mate. He was in dispute with Britain towards the end of his life, but the British decided not to pursue matters as he was elderly. In contrast, in earlier years he engaged in pretty vicious inter-tribal wars.

I'm not disputing this - and indeed 'evil empires' have (nearly) always been around.

But I wrote:

Let's be honest, British colonialists treated everyone like sh!t.

And it's a fact. They did.

I wasn't comparing to other empires - just posting a fact.

I'll leave you to enjoy your history lessons.

PS: 'liberal's shame' - nope. I'm not part of any ruling class mate. None of it was done in my name.

[lobsterboy]

My issue is that many people still hark back to our glorious empire, still swallow the shite about british exceptionism and values and its still used by statue loving, flag shagging, fascist twats to further nationalism of the sort thats just made most of us poorer for the rest of our lives.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Belgium are punching well above their weight - this year's Brighton.

When it comes to colonial atrocities, Belgium are multiple League Champions. Some truly horrific practices. Much/most of it at the behest or approval Belgium's then King (the present King issued a limp apology a couple of years ago). Of course, like the UK, the Belgian family 'firm' still exists. It is ghoulishly funny how people are so upset or busy discussing Nike using a trans woman to market their goods, but we still have these family businesses, with horrific histories behind them, taking advantage of their intergenerational stolen wealth - the needle never seems to shift for them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State