Context: Vatican Disowns, but does not rescind, ‘Doctrine of Discovery’^[1]

During Pope Francis’ visit to Canada in 2022, he formally apologised to the country’s indigenous population for the Catholic Church’s cooperation with Canada’s policy of indigenous residential schools. This policy, which forced more than 150,000 native children into the Christian schools, was funded by the Canadian government up to the 1970s. The attempt was to take these children away from their families’ and culture’s influences, and to forcibly Christianise and assimilate them into ‘mainstream’ society. However, the policy resulted in with abuse (both physical and mental) and cultural genocide. ^[2] Following the Pope’s apology, the century-old demand intensified for the Vatican to renounce or repudiate the ‘Doctrine of Discovery’ , a religious and legal concept based on 15th century papal documents used by European colonial powers to legitimize the seizure and exploitation of Indigenous lands in Africa and the Americas, among other places.^[3] Responding to such demands, almost a year later, on 20 March 2023, the Vatican formally repudiated the ‘Doctrine of Discovery’, It must be noted, however,that for the Vatican to ‘disown’ this doctrine doesn’t amount to ‘rescinding’ the same.^[4] So in effect, the Pope’s proclamation would hardly create any structural change in the contemporary world, a world where ‘native’ is never the ‘mainstream’, which was formulated by taking procedural steps derived from the same ‘Doctrine of Discovery’.

The Doctrine of Discovery and Some of its Contemporary Implications in Brief

The Doctrine of Discovery traces its origin to ‘Papal Bulls’, which legitimised or authorised different European powers to conquer the lands of ‘non-Christians’. These Papal Bulls or decrees are considered central to the history of material and intellectual colonialism, slavery, exploitation of resources, ecological crisis, and decline of traditions and tribal populations. The Doctrine of Discovery continues to form the basis of some international and property laws even today.^[5]

The centuries-long history of these decrees began with the Dum Diversas issued by Pope Nicholas V in 1452 to authorise the king of Portugal to subjugate pagans and other non-believers and take their belongings, including land. ^[6] These were followed by many other decrees like Rominus Pontifex and the famous Inter Caetera issued by Pope Alexander VI, which drew a line and gave the Spanish kingdom exclusive rights over resources that lay to its West and the other side to the Portuguese.^[7] The impact of Inter Caetera on the world was subjugation, mass enslavement, dispossession, and cultural genocide of thousands of tribes and millions of individuals from diverse communities across North America, South America, Africa, Asia, Australia and Oceania.

The European colonialists’ self-assumed position of ‘discovery’ gave them a sense of having rights to expropriate the land and properties of the ‘discovered’, philosophically, legally and politically. Their sense of ‘sovereignty’ was formed in turn out of having discovered the indigenous population and land. These edicts issued by popes authorised explorers like Christopher Columbus and John Cabot to claim the lands they ‘found’ for Christian rulers. Their only limitation was that no other Christian monarchy had already claimed their discovered territory.

The Doctrine of Discovery shaped the current world order and has had a deep impact on prevailing international law and economic imbalances. The current order shaped under the European powers and the United States justified their imperial policies in the ‘Third World’ through the Doctrine of Discovery.

The Doctrine of Discovery is also embodied in American constitutional law. As recently as 2005, supreme court justice and liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg, famous for her strong opinions on human rights, invoked the Doctrine of Discovery to argue that indigenous people could not revive their ancient sovereignty over their historic land because they were ‘discovered’ and hence cannot have ‘sovereignty’.^[8] Many argue that the Doctrine secured its modern formulation in the United States in 1823 with the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall that,

“On the discovery of this immense continent, the great nations of Europe ... in order to avoid conflicting settlements, and consequent war with each other … established a principle which all should acknowledge as the law by which the right of acquisition, which they all asserted, should be regulated as between themselves. This principle was that discovery gave title to the government by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was made, against all other European governments …. The history of America, from its discovery to the present day, proves, we think, the universal recognition of these principles.”^[9]

Likewise, the Doctrine of Discovery has also found its way into the legal systems of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. As the centuries-old concept continues to affect laws, attitudes, and relationships among communities in the West today, the Vatican's repudiation of the Doctrine of Discovery is correctly considered to be significant and historic. But what exactly does it mean, and what are its practical implications?

A ‘Renewed Dialogue’: An Analysis of the Vatican’s Statement

The statement, titled Joint Statement of the Dicasteries for Culture and Education and for Promoting Integral Human Development on the “Doctrine of Discovery”, ^[10] says that papal documents had been “manipulated” for political purposes by colonial powers “to justify immoral acts against indigenous people that were carried out, at times, without opposition from ecclesial authorities.” The statement also highlights the intention of the Catholic Church to promote ‘Universal Fraternity’ and respect for every human being. The document also begins by claiming the contributions made by Christian figures who spoke for and sacrificed their lives to save indigenous people. The statement claims that the announcement was prepared after understanding the pain and suffering of indigenous people through their renewed dialogue with the Catholic Church. Therefore, it proclaims the commitment of the Church to accompany indigenous peoples and to make efforts for reconciliation and healing.

After disowning the Doctrine of Discovery as a teaching of the Catholic Church, the statement reduces or links it to the political questions of those times, which were manipulated by colonial powers to justify their immoral acts against indigenous people. So, if the Catholic Church has nothing to do with this doctrine, why did it issue this statement? Why was it demanded of them specifically to repudiate the same? The Vatican statement effectively handles this matter in the following way.

The statement subtly mentions that such a doctrine was implemented and acts carried out in accord with it without any opposition from the ecclesiastical authorities (authority which the Church has been given by Jesus Christ). This would mean that the Church’s responsibility for the ‘Doctrine of Discovery’ and actions associated with it would be that the Church at that time didn’t oppose them as they are doing now. This means the forgiveness that the Church seeks, for now, is all for not interfering or not making efforts to save indigenous lives. It thus subtly demonstrates the moral superiority the Church holds to protect, steward, transform, or save indigenous communities.

Furthermore, the Pope remarks that “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.” Note that the Pope links the idea of cultural superiority with coercion or force. Here the statement fails to clarify whether coercion or force is mandatory to maintain a sense of moral superiority against another culture. This means the statement still does not explain whether the Church can continue to hold its moral superiority over indigenous communities so long as it no longer uses force on them. But what of the position that the Church holds in these same communities as a result of historical coercion?

Perhaps the ‘renewed dialogue’ that the Vatican has begun with indigenous communities worldwide is based on the same moral superiority, albeit in a non-coercive manner. The document further highlights repeated statements by the Church and the popes who upheld the rights of indigenous people. “For example, in the 1537 Bull Sublimis Deus, Pope Paul III wrote, ‘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 of their property, even though they be outside the Christian faith; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.” The statement concludes by reaffirming the Church’s strong support and consideration for the principles contained in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. But at the end of the day, the question is, on what basis does the Church or the Pope presume a moral authority in the first place, whether to ‘harm’, or to ‘steward’ or ‘protect’ the indigenous peoples of the world? To speak for the indigenous is to garner a special kind of sympathy at the same time that one affirms a ‘moral obligation’ to steward, in itself a kind of authority, which the Church also seems to claim to possess from the beginning, and which remains even in this document produced on behalf of indigenous communities. Hence, even after disowning the doctrine of discovery, the question remains for the Vatican to clarify, how far does this self-positioning amount to holding a cultural superiority?

An Analysis of the Mixed Responses to Vatican’s Statement

Cardinal Michael Czerny, the Canadian Jesuit whose office co-authored the statement, stressed that the statement wasn’t just about setting the historical record straight but was part of an effort “to discover, identify, analyze and try to overcome what we can only call the enduring effects of colonialism today.” ^[11] Likewise, many see this as a historic move from the Church’s side.

Thus, UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, José Francisco Calí Tzay hailed the Vatican’s rejection of the 500-year-old Catholic decree, calling it “an important step towards reconciliation and healing,” UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, José Francisco Calí Tzay and that Pope Francis’ call to abandon colonising and embrace mutual respect and dialogue must be welcomed. “The Holy See has taken an important step towards reconciliation and healing with Indigenous Peoples by rejecting all concepts that fail to recognise their inherent human rights.” He urges all states that still uphold the ‘Doctrine of Discovery’ to follow the Vatican’s lead in formally repudiating the decree and reviewing all jurisprudence and legislation that relies on it.

As part of the UN Human Rights Council’s special procedures, the council has assigned independent experts to monitor and produce reports on specific thematic issues or country situations. ^[12] This is what we should be watching in the way that reaction to the papal statement unfolds. Now that the Vatican has disowned the concept from the viewpoint of Christian theology by reducing it to a political doctrine, and bodies like the UN have welcomed the change, it will be interesting to see how it develops further. For one thing, by the Church’s action of disowning the Doctrine, the ‘discovery’ framed by it becomes a universal-political or secular (non-religious) phenomenon, not particular to any culture, say Christianity. Hence, a possibility has opened up to extend the idea of ‘discovery’ to be deployed against non-Western cultures as well.

For instance, in the case of India, the already presumed Orientalist classification of ‘Aryans’ and ‘Dravidians’ could be now narrated as the former having ‘discovered’ the latter for subjugation. The narrative of this subjugation now could effectively be placed within the prism of the now-repudiated Doctrine of Discovery. The tribal communities of India, their laws, and language of rights could then be assimilated under such categorisation. Earlier, since the Doctrine of Discovery was strongly associated with Christian theology, the scope for such a narrative was nominal, as the ancient ‘Aryans’ were not Christian. But now that the Church has disowned (but not rescinded) the doctrine, many narratives on Western and non-Western cultures could be repackaged under this new conceptualisation and parallels to the Christian assertion of ‘discovery’ could be drawn on behalf of indigenous communities once ‘discovered’ by some other group not Western or Christian.

However, some indigenous groups have wholeheartedly welcomed the Vatican’s statement, though they feel it is late.^[1] The National Congress of American Indians, the oldest and largest organization representing Indigenous peoples in the United States, praised Pope Francis and the Catholic Church for the statement.^[4] However, many independent authors and researchers, like Steven Newcomb, co-founder of the Indigenous Law Institute, have displayed mixed feelings about the Vatican’s repudiation.^[15] The National Native American Boarding School Healing Coalition (NABS), for its part, was openly critical of the Vatican’s announcement and demanded more accountability. Their response says that the Vatican’s statement downplays the role of the Church for the harm it has caused to native people. The response went on to list many other demands, including access to documents on Catholic-run Indian boarding schools in the U.S. and the return of the lands on which these schools were placed, for Tribal sovereignty and Indigenous ways of being, and support for the Truth and Healing Commission Bill in the U.S.^[16]

The author of ‘Unsettling Truths: The Ongoing, Dehumanizing Legacy of the Doctrine of Discovery’, Mark Charles, who also ran in the U.S. Presidential election in 2020, sees a missed opportunity in the Vatican’s announcement. He says,

“In what could have been a groundbreaking and historic repudiation of the Doctrine of Discovery, the Vatican instead released a series of political statements that sought to rewrite history, shield the Catholic Church from legal liability and shift the blame for the Doctrine of Discovery to governmental and colonial powers.”^[17]

On similar grounds, many other scholars doubted to what extent the Church could wash its hands of the Papal Bulls, which were clearly issued in the name of God. .^[18] According to them, the question remains even as the Vatican attempts to reach out to indigenous communities.

Dr. Edward Butler, author of several academic works and Director of Indic Academy’s Center for Global Polytheist and Indigenous Traditions, points out that respecting indigenous people’s identity, language, and culture is fundamentally incompatible with ongoing attempts to convert them, and with continuing to exercise the power gained through historical conversion, whatever its circumstances. While many critics demand more from the Vatican on behalf of indigenous communities, which in a way re-asserts the moral authority of the Church over them, Dr. Butler calls for a different response. According to him, “the only way to make amends to any degree for the wholesale destruction of these cultures would be the active promotion of precisely what the Church … sought to eradicate—namely the indigenous polytheist traditions.”^[19]

Conclusion: Anticipated Ramifications

It is hard to accept that the Pope’s statement will result in substantial changes as these ‘discoveries’ happened long ago and have already affected the world in various ways for centuries. The statement is also devoid of any official legal standing. Furthermore, the statement only renounced the doctrine, and did not rescind it. It would also be naïve not to recognize as in some sense irrevocable the migration of the existing European settlers from the areas that their ancestors had settled in from 1493 to the mid-19th century. However, in the wake of the Vatican’s declaration, there is a possibility that indigenous activists would be emboldened in their fight for land rights. The Church and indigenous groups may also work together in the future for truth and reconciliation, conflict resolution through dialogue, with seemingly fresh narratives, and possibly even reparations, monetary if not involving the restoration of lands.

In other words, the repudiation of the Doctrine of Discovery could foster a renewed dialogue between the Church and indigenous/tribal communities around the world, including countries, like India. It might call to a new tenor in the native-White relationship around the language of rights, sympathy, law, entitlements, etc. This could in turn lead to older narratives being repackaged in a way acceptable to contemporary discourses, with ramifications that would affect non-Western lands like India and descriptions of its tribal populations. Parallel stories of ‘discovery’ and indigenous subjugation could be imposed on non-Western lands through such narratives.

It would be incorrect to assume that the doctrine of discovery or the statement by the Vatican doesn’t have implications for the non-Western countries like India. For instance, already the words like ‘adivasi’, which is popularly used to refer to the tribal communities in India even today has its roots in the doctrine of discovery. Though ‘adivasi’ sounds like an Indian terminology, it is germinated from British and Missionary accounts, directly translated from words, like primitive or aboriginal. These terms aren’t neutral and are embedded with value propositions that are rooted in the doctrine of discovery by understanding ‘adivasis’ as primitive inhibitors of India, who were ‘discovered’ and exploited by the settlers. However, without any reflection, the term adivasi continues to be popular in India, especially on political grounds. Arguably, the lack of reflection could be due to India’s absence of knowledge about the doctrine of discovery, Western culture or Church history and theology in general.

The recent attempt for ‘renewed dialogue’ by the Vatican to the indigenous communities has opened up room for reproducing such problematic assumptions in the contemporary world. As mentioned earlier, now that the Doctrine of Discovery is disassociated from a Christian theological setting, it would be viewed as a universal phenomenon applicable to all cultures or religions across the globe and throughout history, without proper recognition of the profound differences involved, and ironically helping to obscure the role of Christian theology.

Endnotes :

^[1]The subtitle is taken from the following article Elise Ann Allen “Vatican disowns, but does not rescind, ‘Doctrine of Discovery’” Crux Catholic Media
“https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2023/03/vatican-disowns-but-does-not-rescind-doctrine-of-discovery Accessed April 10, 2023.
^[2]Nicole Winfield and Peter Smith “Pope Apologizes for ‘catastrophic’ school policy in Canada” AP News https://apnews.com/article/pope-francis-canada-apology-visit-137ad23719603e9d370257f257ec0163 Accessed April 10, 2023.
^[3]Rob Gillies and Nicole Winfield “ ‘Rescind the Doctrine’ protest greets Pope in Canada” AP News https://apnews.com/article/pope-francis-latin-america-canada-world-news-religion-9e266815081da9f7b38710b6b6e4dec6 and Nicole Winfield “Pope’s Indigenous tour signals rethink of mission legacy” AP News https://apnews.com/article/pope-francis-canada-religion-vatican-city-2c2fbd7e29f871c1cdbc5308a0c7ab4 4 Accessed April 10, 2023.
^[4]Nicole Winfield “Vatican rejects doctrine that fueled centuries of Colonialism” AP News https://apnews.com/article/vatican-indigenous-papal-bulls-pope-francis-062e39ce5f7594a81bb80d0417b3f902Accessed April 10, 2023.
^[5]Miller, Robert J.; Ruru, Jacinta; Behrendt, Larissa; Lindberg, Tracey (2010). Discovering indigenous lands, the doctrine of discovery in the English colonies. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 12.
^[6]See the English translation of Dum Diversas in
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/02/dum-diversas-english-translation.html Accessed April 10, 2023.
^[7]See Inter Caetera: Division of the undiscovered world between Spain and Portugal as issued by Pope Alexander VI - 1493 in https://www.papalencyclicals.net/Alex06/alex06inter.htm Accessed April 10, 2023.
^[8]In ruling against land claimed by the Oneida Indians of the New York and Great Lakes Region, Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court invoked the doctrine. See Michael Leroy Oberg, “RBG’s Notorious Opinion in the Native American Sovereignty Case Is Also Part of Her Legacy” The Wire
https://thewire.in/world/ruth-bader-ginsburg-sherrill-v-oneidaAccessed April 10, 2023
^[9]The statement was made for the Johnson V. M’Intosh Case. See in
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/21us543 Accessd April 10, 2023
^[10]See the Joint Statement of the Dicasteries for Culture and Education and for Promoting Integral Human Development on the “Doctrine of Discovery”, 30.03.2023.
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2023/03/30/230330b.html Aceessed April 10, 2023
^[11]Nicole Winfield “Vatican rejects doctrine that fueled centuries of Colonialism” AP News https://apnews.com/article/vatican-indigenous-papal-bulls-pope-francis-062e39ce5f7594a81bb80d0417b3f902 Acessed April 10, 2023.
^[12] “Rights expert welcomes Vatican’s rejection of ‘Doctrine of Discovery’” UN News
https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/04/1135462 Accessed April 10, 2023.
^[13]Frank Vaisvilas “Wisconsin tribes applaud Vatican’s repudiation of ‘Doctrine of Discovery’: It’s good to hear that recognition, however late it is’”
https://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/native-american-issues/2023/04/03/wisconsin-tribes-pplaud-vatican-repudiation-of-doctrine-of-discovery/70069742007/ Accessed April 10, 2023.
^[14]See NCAI Statement on Vatican's Repudiation of "Doctrine of Discovery". National Congress of American Indians
https://www.ncai.org/news/articles/2023/03/30/ncai-statement-on-vatican-s-repudiation-of-doctrine-of-discoveryAcessed April 10, 2023.
^[15]Emily McFarlen Miller “Indigenous activists share mixed feelings on Vatican repudiation of Doctrine of Discovery” Religion News Service
https://religionnews.com/2023/04/05/indigenous-activists-share-mixed-feelings-on-vatican-repudiation-of-doctrine-of-discovery/ Accessed April 10, 2023.
^[16]See NABS Statement on Vatican Renouncing Doctrine of Discovery https://boardingschoolhealing.org/media-statementnabs-believes-vaticans-statement-renouncing-discovery-doctrine-lacks-accountability/ Accessed April 10, 2023.

^[17]Emily McFarlen Miller “Indigenous activists share mixed feelings on Vatican repudiation of Doctrine of Discovery” Religion News Service
https://religionnews.com/2023/04/05/indigenous-activists-share-mixed-feelings-on-vatican-repudiation-of-doctrine-of-discovery/ Accessed April 10, 2023.
^[18]Emily McFarlen Miller “Indigenous activists share mixed feelings on Vatican repudiation of Doctrine of Discovery” Religion News Service
https://religionnews.com/2023/04/05/indigenous-activists-share-mixed-feelings-on-vatican-repudiation-of-doctrine-of-discovery/ Accessed April 10, 2023.
^[19]https://twitter.com/EPButler/status/1641461989447815169?s=20 Accessed April 10, 2023

(The paper is the author’s individual scholastic articulation. The author certifies that the article/paper is original in content, unpublished and it has not been submitted for publication/web upload elsewhere, and that the facts and figures quoted are duly referenced, as needed, and are believed to be correct). (The paper does not necessarily represent the organisational stance... More >>