The Absence of Memory and the Thrill of Ignorance.

Undoubtedly, Reuters is just trading in "conventional wisdom" in Reutersthis article about Venezuala's Chavez chiding Pope Benedict for comments about Catholicism "purifying" the Indians of the New World. Reuters offers the following mini-editorial in its "news" artcle:

Millions of tribal Indians are believed to have died as a result of European colonization backed by the Church, through slaughter, disease or enslavement.

One problem with this toss-away comment is its ambiguity. How did the Church "back" European colonization? Are we to read the sentence in the sense suggested by the ambiguity of the sentence structure that the Church "backed" European colonization "through slaughter, disease or enslavement"?

The other problem with this gratuitous conventional wisdom is that it is wrong. The sentence fails to do justice to complex history of the Church's interaction with state power in the context of European colonization. It encourages readers to ignore the instances of the Church's opposition to those aspects of European colonization that actually involved "slaughter, disease or enslavement."

One such example involves the Jesuit Republic of Paraguay, which protected Indians from "slaughter, disease or enslavement" until the Jesuits were forcibly expelled by the Spanish.

Another example involves a series of Papal Bulls that defined the native population of America as "rational" and therefore not legally subject to enslavement. Here is Paul III's Sublimus Dei from 1537, which contains the following sentiments:

We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, 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. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, 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 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.

Did I mention that those words were written in 1537? Sadly, the world would probably have to wait another 250 years to catch up to the "medieval" church.

But for some reason "progressives" can't celebrate the reality of the Papacy being in the vanguard of the development of ideas about human liberty. For example, feminist blogger Pseudo-Adrienne" displays a firm grasp of irony by summarizing her view of the Pope's comments as: "Racist, superstitious douchebag. The previous pope was much better." Former Edwards blogger Amanda Marcotte returns to the wellspring with this "nuanced" post.

But what are we to expect? Do we really expect Reuters or feminist bloggers to have ever heard of the "Jesuit Republic of Paraguay" or "Sublimus Dei"? Probably not, because the conventional wisdom is self-reinforcing; since it feels good, it must be right.