Abortion and slavery - the voice of the Catholic Church

[razredge]

Ah, do I detect a whiff of good old Church sanctioned historical revisionism in this thread?

The Church has been ok with slavery in the past, in fact it’s stance on abortion and when it was permissible has also changed over the centuries.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Ah, do I detect a whiff of good old Church sanctioned historical revisionism in this thread?

The Church has been ok with slavery in the past, in fact it’s stance on abortion and when it was permissible has also changed over the centuries.

And more than a whiff of historical anti-Catholic “whoppers.”

 

[razredge]

And more than a whiff of historical anti-Catholic “whoppers.”

So you’re actually saying that the Church never tolerated slavery and this is just an anti-Catholic whopper?

 

[Arizona_Mike]

So you’re actually saying that the Church never tolerated slavery and this is just an anti-Catholic whopper?

Nope. I said you retold some anti-Catholic falsehoods. As noted above, the Pope did not send Davis a crown of thorns, Mrs. Davis sent him a crown of thorns. Jefferson Davis and/or his wife held the belief that Jefferson Davis was the incarnation of Jesus. Likewise, the Pope did not officially “recognize Jefferson Davis,” nor did he “grant recognition to the CSA.”

The Church is a made up of fallible humans, and some of those people (including a couple of popes and bishops) have said some very stupid things that were in contradiction to the traditional Catholic teaching I quoted above. (And Catholics, being an often contentious lot, are often in disagreement, as this very forum shows.The bulk of Catholic teaching has opposed slavery.)

None of those statements were made ex cathedra, as they did not refer to matters of faith and doctrine and did not assert the doctrine of infallibility. As an article in This Rock explained the doctrine of papal infallibility:

*We must recognize where the burden of proof lies in this matter. The Code of Canon Law provides that “No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such” (CIC 749 § 3). This means that the propositions in Exsurge Domine must be assumed to have received a non-infallible handling unless proven otherwise.

We must look also at the conditions regarding papal infallibility. According to Vatican I, which defined the doctrine, “The Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra . . . possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of blessed Peter, the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining the doctrine concerning faith or morals” (Pastor Aeternus 4). The passage in the ellipsis explains that the pope speaks ex cathedra “when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church.”

The key word is “defines.” Defining something is not the same as stating, teaching, declaring, condemning, or what have you. The meaning of this term is explained in a relatio on Pastor Aeternus 4. (A relatio is an official interpretation of the text that is presented to the council bishops by a man called the relator so that the bishops will know the official sense of the text on which they are voting. Thus, what is said in a relatio is key to resolving queries about the meaning of a conciliar text.)

On July 16, 1870, Vincent Gasser, the relator for Pastor Aeternus 4, gave a relatio that explained “the word ‘defines’ signifies that the pope directly and conclusively pronounces his sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith or morals and does so in such a way that each one of the faithful can be certain of the mind of the Apostolic See, of the mind of the Roman Pontiff; in such a way, indeed, that he or she knows for certain that such and such a doctrine is held to be heretical, proximate to heresy, certain or erroneous, etc., by the Roman Pontiff” (Gasser & O’Connor, The Gift of Infallibility [Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1986], 74 n.).

This means that, in order for him to define a doctrine to be held by the universal Church, the pope must express himself in such a way that the faithful can know with certitude that he holds a particular proposition to have a particular doctrinal note (de fide, certain, false, proximate to heresy, heretical, et cetera). The faithful are then required to regard it likewise. If the faithful cannot know from what the pope says that a particular proposition is to be regarded in a particular way, then the pope has not defined the matter for the universal Church and thus has not spoken infallibly.*

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109bt.asp

 

[exnihilo]

I think the people who believe this don’t have a real understanding of what recognition of another state entails, or have at best a “folkloric” idea. Addressing someone by their title does not indicate acceptance of the validity of the organization they control, nor does it reflect a recognition of the validity of the organization’s actions or beliefs.

I’ll admit I am not a student in statecraft. Are you?

Nonetheless it seems to me when a foreign monarch refers to a person as the ‘Honorable President’ that is some sort of recognition of that person’s official status.

The level of recognition of the CSA did not go past this letter. Of course a few years later the CSA was defeated and occupied. Are you saying had they succeeded in fending off the invaders the Pope would not have had diplomatic relationships with the CSA? Of course I’m sure that Brazil, which did not end slavery until 25 more years, still had diplomatic relations. I’m quite sure that relations were not broken with the Union, which had slavery until 1865. To say that slavery was a reason to not have diplomatic relations ignores the many slave states that did.

 

[Hastrman]

Well, one thing that needs to be remembered is that even with slavery, Catholics (and the Orthodox—Byzantium was a servile economy up until its fall) were still better than Protestants. Slave families could not be broken up—indeed their marriages were recognized, not that that necessarily meant much for people who couldn’t own property—and a master didn’t have sexual rights to his slaves. Masters still often took sexual advantage of their slaves, of course, but men in power will always do that: they nevertheless don’t do it as much if it’s against the law.

For proof, consider the slave societies of, say, Haiti or the Dominican Republic, or Brazil. And notice how much blacker the people there are, than blacks in America. That’s because their masters didn’t have rights to their bodies.

 

[exnihilo]

Well, one thing that needs to be remembered is that even with slavery, Catholics (and the Orthodox—Byzantium was a servile economy up until its fall) were still better than Protestants. Slave families could not be broken up—indeed their marriages were recognized, not that that necessarily meant much for people who couldn’t own property—and a master didn’t have sexual rights to his slaves. Masters still often took sexual advantage of their slaves, of course, but men in power will always do that: they nevertheless don’t do it as much if it’s against the law.

For proof, consider the slave societies of, say, Haiti or the Dominican Republic, or Brazil. And notice how much blacker the people there are, than blacks in America. That’s because their masters didn’t have rights to their bodies.

I’m not sure of that you are claiming. My memory is not perfect but the general ideas should be true. If you look into it you’ll find that Brazil accounted for something like 60% of the slave trade in the last days of it. The US accounted for something like 6%. Brazilian slaves died at a much higher rate. That is one reason for the high number in the trade.

Masters in the US did not have sexual rights to their slaves.

Haiti most definitely had mixing. In fact the leaders of the slave revolt were mixed. Louisiana definitely had mixing. The word mulatto comes from the latin societies, who were Catholic. Mulattos and other mixed race people often had different rights. In the US the one drop rule was followed.

I dont know enough about slavery outside of the US to say whether Catholic or Protestant slavery was more kind. We can certainly say both were more kind that Roman slavery.

 

[Hastrman]

Masters in the US did not have sexual rights to their slaves.

Haiti most definitely had mixing. In fact the leaders of the slave revolt were mixed. Louisiana definitely had mixing. The word mulatto comes from the latin societies, who were Catholic. Mulattos and other mixed race people often had different rights. In the US the one drop rule was followed.

I dont know enough about slavery outside of the US to say whether Catholic or Protestant slavery was more kind. We can certainly say both were more kind that Roman slavery.

Masters in the US most certainly did have sexual rights to their slaves, because they had the precise same rights to their slaves that Romans did. American slaves had absolutely no legal protections whatsoever. The only reason they treated their slaves better was because Protestants are, however imperfectly, Christian. Not only do they have a more humane worldview than pagan Romans (however admirable pagan Rome was, nobody would deny they were stone-cold mamma jammas), Protestant women expect certain behavior from the men: including that they not fool around with slave-girls.

And I never said there was no mixing—I said just the opposite, that masters still took sexual advantage of their slaves. But there was vastly less. Also you had far more free blacks in those societies, and no Catholic culture had a taboo on “miscegenation”. There was, however, a social stigma to marrying someone of a lower class, and blacks were the bottom of the social hierarchy. Most of the mixed-race people were the children of (usually free) mistresses, although Spanish and to a lesser extent French society held that a man had many obligations to his illegitimate children that he wouldn’t have in Anglo society.

 

[exnihilo]

Masters in the US most certainly did have sexual rights to their slaves, because they had the precise same rights to their slaves that Romans did. American slaves had absolutely no legal protections whatsoever.

You are very wrong about this. Can you provide any evidence for these claims?

Roman masters owned the live of their slave and could take it. US masters could not take their slave’s life. Slaves did have rights and legal protections. Obviously the rights were limited to those a slave might have. Accused runaway slaves had the right to a free defense in their trial. Slaves were found not guilty, by White courts, of killing their master when it was in self defense. There were laws obligating masters to provide slaves with certain things like clothing. So slaves most certainly did have rights and the master could not do anything he wished to do with the slave.

No Catholic culture had a taboo on “miscegenation”. There was, however, a social stigma to marrying someone of a lower class, and blacks were the bottom of the social hierarchy. Most of the mixed-race people were the children of (usually free) mistresses, although Spanish and to a lesser extent French society held that a man had many obligations to his illegitimate children that he wouldn’t have in Anglo society.

That might well be so regarding miscegenation. I would agree that this taboo was more common in Protestants.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

It’s hard to argue that “the Church” has not opposed slavery and slave-trading. Certainly individual Catholics, including individual priests and bishops, may have followed local prejudices in accepting the evil of slavery. It is no surprise to any of us that individual priests and bishops can commit and even condone sinful actions. The Church, in her formal teaching authority, did oppose the form of slavery practiced in America. Other forms of slavery were condoned by the Church throughout history, especially against enemy combatants and those who warred against Christendom. As with the practice of the ancient Israelites, it was not feasible to maintain captured enemies in prisons for life, and it was considered imprudent to release them to continue hostile actions, so the choice was basically between ransoming them back to their host country (which was often uninterested in their return), killing them outright, or maintaining them as a captured work force, which while sometimes profitable, was also considered to be more humane than murdering them after capture.

This may seem unusual or harsh to a modern observer, but it’s not really uncommon nowadays. When I was a kid growing up in Phoenix, I lived less than a mile from the old barracks in Papago Park where captured German soldiers were held during WWII. Since most able-bodied men were off fighting in Europe or the Pacific, captured German soldiers were put to work harvesting cotton and oranges in the agricultural fields. From what I’ve read, most didn’t object. A few hardcore Nazis escaped on Christmas Eve, 1945, and apparently exfiltrated out through Mexico, but most German POWs seemed to be happy to be out of the war, enjoyed the warmth and strange beauty of the Arizona desert after enduring winters around Bastogne, and many were former German farm boys who probably didn’t mind the work outdoors. They weren’t ill-treated (the Red Cross reported that they were happy to the German government, which apparently resulted in better reciprocal treatment afterwards for American POWs than the British or French POWs received), but they were “slaves” in the sense of most of the Church’s pronouncements that have been referenced refering to “slavery,” who were placed under slavery as the result of losing a war of aggression (from the point of view of the winners, anyway) or having been convicted of a crime.

It isn’t uncommon today, either. If you are a prisoner in the county, state, or federal penal systems, you don’t lie around on your bunk all day, you are required to work - to keep you out of mischief, to help pay for the cost of your imprisonment and to give to your victims, to give you a little money on the books to buy tunafish packets and shampoo in the prison canteen, and to help you learn a trade that will maybe keep you out of jail in the future. Prison labor is a substantial money-earner for the government. If you work for the federal government, much of what you use on the job, such as safety boots, work cubicles, and legal pads are made by prison - i.e., “slave” labor. You can even go on-line and buy the fruits of slave labor as a consumer. Here’s the on-line catalog for products made with prison (“slave”) labor for the California state penal system, with profits going to the state of California:

pia.ca.gov/

Here’s the on-line catalog for the Federal Prison Industries system, also known as UNICOR:

unicor.gov/

Now, I don’t think this is really a bad thing - if you commit a crime, you should have to help defray the cost of your upkeep, and the work skills learned can help in rehabilitation. But this is, pretty much, the modern version of the “slave” systems that were discussed in many of the earlier referenced posts.

The capture, sale, and forced labor of innocent people was condemned, and repeatedly condemned, by the formal teaching of the Church. Individual Catholics, such as the Maryland Jesuits, erred and erred badly (many Catholics also devoted themselves to the cause of abolition and caring for the enslaved). If we look at the teachings of the Church, we see that we were on the right side in this.

People in the Church have been guilty of many sins over the years. We should acknowledge when the Church was right, despite the obfuscations of anti-Catholic propagandists. To accept the poor scholarship that supports anti-Catholic bigotry really is “historical revisionism.”

 

[Arizona_Mike]

As an example of the Church’s authentic traditional teaching in this matter as reflected in the American experience, look at the Church’s response to Bishop Auguste Marie Martin of Louisiana in 1861. Bishop Martin issued a pastoral letter to his diocese “on the occasion of the War of Southern Independence,” in which he argued that slavery was “the manifest will of God” that Catholics should condone “snatching from the barbarity of their ferocious customs thousands of children of Canaan,” who were the descendents of those cursed by Noah. (This was the same argument used by many Protestant slave-owners in justifying the institution of slavery.) Bishop Martin wrote that it was a obligatory that Catholics condemn abolitionists because they “upset the will of Providence” and God’s “merciful plans for unrighteous actions.” Father Napoleon Joseph Perchr, coadjutor of the Archdiocese of New Orleans, gave his imprimatur for the pastoral letter to be published in the local Catholic newspaper.

The Vatican was not happy, and the Roman Congregation of the Index, charged with censoring ideas which were unacceptable to Catholic Doctrine, and which spoke with the direct authority of the Pope (at that time, Pius IX) slapped down Bishop Martin and slapped him down hard.

It’s worth quoting at some length: P. fr. Vincenzo M. Gatti, O.P., wrote that he had read Bishop Martin’s letter “in order to fulfill the task entrusted to me by the Most Reverend Secretary [of State for the Vatican, Cardinal Barnabo].”

Father Gatti further writes:

“Bishop Martin deals with slavery as existing in the Southern Confederate States to which Lousiana, where this diocese is situated, belongs. Among other things he affirms what I quote in full, so that you may judge its meanining, its exactness, and its erroneousness.”

After quoting the pastoral letter in full, he continues:

“Now against these statements I set Pope Gregory’s words which I quote in full, since they sum up and put into force again all that his predecessors the Sovereign Pontiffs have taught on this matter.”

He then quotes the full text of In Supremo Apostalatus, You can read the whole text here: papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16sup.htm, but here’s part:

…We say with profound sorrow - there were to be found afterwards among the Faithful men who, shamefully blinded by the desire of sordid gain, in lonely and distant countries, did not hesitate to reduce to slavery Indians, negroes and other wretched peoples, or else, by instituting or developing the trade in those who had been made slaves by others, to favour their unworthy practice. Certainly many Roman Pontiffs of glorious memory, Our Predecessors, did not fail, according to the duties of their charge, to blame severely this way of acting as dangerous for the spiritual welfare of those engaged in the traffic and a shame to the Christian name; they foresaw that as a result of this, the infidel peoples would be more and more strengthened in their hatred of the true Religion.
(cont.)

 

[Arizona_Mike]

It is at these practices that are aimed the Letter Apostolic of Paul III, given on May 29, 1537, under the seal of the Fisherman, and addressed to the Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo, and afterwards another Letter, more detailed, addressed by Urban VIII on April 22, 1639 to the Collector Jurium of the Apostolic Chamber of Portugal. In the latter are severely and particularly condemned those who should dare ‘to reduce to slavery the Indians of the Eastern and Southern Indies,’ to sell them, buy them, exchange them or give them, separate them from their wives and children, despoil them of their goods and properties, conduct or transport them into other regions, or deprive them of liberty in any way whatsoever, retain them in servitude, or lend counsel, succour, favour and co-operation to those so acting, under no matter what pretext or excuse, or who proclaim and teach that this way of acting is allowable and co-operate in any manner whatever in the practices indicated.

Benedict XIV confirmed and renewed the penalties of the Popes above mentioned in a new Apostolic Letter addressed on December 20, 1741, to the Bishops of Brazil and some other regions, in which he stimulated, to the same end, the solicitude of the Governors themselves. Another of Our Predecessors, anterior to Benedict XIV, Pius II, as during his life the power of the Portuguese was extending itself over New Guinea, sent on October 7, 1462, to a Bishop who was leaving for that country, a Letter in which he not only gives the Bishop himself the means of exercising there the sacred ministry with more fruit, but on the same occasion, addresses grave warnings with regard to Christians who should reduce neophytes to slavery.

In our time Pius VII, moved by the same religious and charitable spirit as his Predecessors, intervened zealously with those in possession of power to secure that the slave trade should at least cease amongst the Christians. The penalties imposed and the care given by Our Predecessors contributed in no small measure, with the help of God, to protect the Indians and the other people mentioned against the cruelty of the invaders or the cupidity of Christian merchants, without however carrying success to such a point that the Holy See could rejoice over the complete success of its efforts in this direction; for the slave trade, although it has diminished in more than one district, is still practiced by numerous Christians. This is why, desiring to remove such a shame from all the Christian nations, having fully reflected over the whole question and having taken the advice of many of Our Venerable Brothers the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, and walking in the footsteps of Our Predecessors, We warn and adjure earnestly in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare to vex anyone, despoil him of his possessions, reduce to servitude, or lend aid and favour to those who give themselves up to these practices, or exercise that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as if they were not men but rather animals, having been brought into servitude, in no matter what way, are, without any distinction, in contempt of the rights of justice and humanity, bought, sold, and devoted sometimes to the hardest labour. Further, in the hope of gain, propositions of purchase being made to the first owners of the Blacks, dissensions and almost perpetual conflicts are aroused in these regions.

We reprove, then, by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, all the practices abovementioned as absolutely unworthy of the Christian name. By the same Authority We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this traffic in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth in this Apostolic Letter.

Father Gatti then broke down the opposition between Bishop Martin’s theories and “the teaching of the Supreme Pontiffs,” using a very Thomist outline of Propositions and Observations.

(cont.)

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Fr. Gatti observes that God in no way approves of slavery, as Bishop Martin suggested:

*OBSERVATION: Here I make two remarks: 1) The Bishop attributes to God what is an execrable violence of men, since he affirms that God “for centuries has been snatching from the barbarity of their ferocious customs thousands of childen of the race of Canaan.” By these words he seems to approve of the slave trade of Negroes and to accept it in principle. Had he stated that God derives good for these unfortunate people, or at least fro some of them, from this iniquity and this violation of the natural and ecclesiastical law, no objection could be made against it. But we see no intention of saying this. On the contrary, it appears to be just the opposite from what follows. 2) The Bishop supposes that there exists a naural difference between the Negroes, whom he calls the children of Canaan, and the Whites, when he says that the latter are the privilged ones of the great human family and the former are still now lying under the curse of Noah. And he makes it the latter’s duty to be the Negroes’ sheperds, fathers, and masters…we also must observe that both the ancient and the modern supporters of the theory of slavery advanced as one of the reasons for its acceptability the fact that the Negroes have been subjected to others by the curse of Noah. But those who oppose this tehory, besides denying its validity, at least after the Christian era when the curse would not be valid any longer, deny the fact itself, i.e., that the Negroes descend from Canaan. *

Father Gatti then uses the Bible to show the tribes of Africa were not the cursed descendents of Canaan. Afterwards, he notes in regards to Bishop Martin’s claim that the slaves benefit from their conversion to Christianity:

OBSERVATION: The Bishop calls the Negroes poor children, while they are not such. As I stressed above, Noah did not curse Canaan…but even if they were cursed by Noah, they are not cursed any longer after the coming of Jesus Christ when, as the Apostle says, there is no distinction between Jew and gentile, between freeman and slave, between man and woman, since we are all sons of the same divine Father. In contrast, Bishop Martin seems to consider the opposite teaching to be the teaching of the Gospel. Did Jesus Christ say: “Go snatch them by force from their native country, drag them to your countries, and convert them?” No, He did not. But He sad: “Go throughout the world; teach all the people…and preach the Gospel to every man.” And did He say: “In exchange for the spiritual good that you will do, exploit them as instruments for your material interests?” No, He did not, but rather he said: “Freely give what you have freely received.” As we know from history, the Negroes are sold by the chiefs who put them on the market after snatching them by force from their native land. These unfortunates are brought by slave traders who take advantage of them as their own property. The aim of teaching the Christian Faith, even if it exists, which very often it does not, is a trifling matter and it does not justify the iniquity which they commit in this trade."

Father Gatti defends some very specific and narrow forms of slavery I noted, including the Catholic orders that willingly sold themselves into slavery in order to free other (a degree of virtue that I find staggering), the continues:

(cont)

 

[Arizona_Mike]

So we ought not to confuse or to condemn en masse every kind of slavery; neither do we justify it. The philanthropists of the last and of this century are not mistaken when they criticize and condemn the slave trade of the Negroes and their subjection to ill treatment and to slavery, since they agree with the Catholic doctrine in this respect; yet at least some of them err if they extend this principle too far and if they mistake slavery deriving from a just title, and which does not harm other people’s rights, for slavery originating in violence and in violation of the natural law. The slavery of the Negroes belongs precisely to this latter kind of slavery; against this Sovereign Pontiffs have risen up very often and have reproved and condemned it. The bishop deals with this kind of slavery and defends it!

Father Gatti attacked Bishop Martin’s arguments that slaves’ “original degradation” justifies their slavery. Father Gatti notes that both blacks and whites can be learned and virtuous people with the proper education and Catholic education.

From this treatment one can easily infer that the Bishop favors the enemies of the Catholic Church who accuse her of approving slavery, which is the origin of the vile trade and of the brutal treatment of the Negroes from Africa. It makes the Church unjustly odious; it promotes the mistake of those who believe that the slave trade of the Negroes is lawful and who try to avoid condemnation of the Sovereign Pontiffs with every kind of cavil [argument].

Such a mistake is condemned by the natural law, by the Gospel, by the Pontifical Constitution, and is reproved with the common sense of the Christian peoples, though self-interest and corruption reduce it to silence in some of them, This mistake favors the preservation of slavery in the Southern states in opposition to the will of the Sovereign Pontiffs who, as is clear from the words I have quoted above, have condemned not only the slave trade but slavery itself: “to reduce to slavery, to retain in slavery.” And they have condemned also those who favor it, or those who teach it to be lawful, "or lend counsel, succor, favor, and co-operation to those acting, under no matter what pretext or excuse, or who proclaim and teach this way of acting is allowable or co-operate in any manner whatever with the practices indicated."/ (Emphasis in the original.)

Not very ambiguous, huh?

From 2011 back across the gulf of years to 1864, I have to admire Father Gatti’s clear reason and humanity.

 

[razredge]

Nope. I said you retold some anti-Catholic falsehoods. As noted above, the Pope did not send Davis a crown of thorns, Mrs. Davis sent him a crown of thorns. Jefferson Davis and/or his wife held the belief that Jefferson Davis was the incarnation of Jesus. Likewise, the Pope did not officially “recognize Jefferson Davis,” nor did he “grant recognition to the CSA.”

I never said that - my point was that saying the Church never tolerated slavery is historical revisionism.

The Church is a made up of fallible humans, and some of those people (including a couple of popes and bishops) have said some very stupid things that were in contradiction to the traditional Catholic teaching I quoted above. (And Catholics, being an often contentious lot, are often in disagreement, as this very forum shows.The bulk of Catholic teaching has opposed slavery.)

Good, I agree - the Catholic Church has done some horrible things over the centuries

None of those statements were made ex cathedra, as they did not refer to matters of faith and doctrine and did not assert the doctrine of infallibility. As an article in This Rock explained the doctrine of papal infallibility:

The problem with papal infallibility is that it is usually defined after the fact what teachings are infallible and which are not infallible. (Since the teachings that have changed are defined as fallible, while the teachings which haven’t are defined as infallible)

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I never said that - my point was that saying the Church never tolerated slavery is historical revisionism.

My apologies, you’re right - I referred to another poster’s post as if it was yours.

Good, I agree - the Catholic Church has done some horrible things over the centuries

Hey, just because I made a mistake, don’t you go and do likewise. I obviously **don’t **agree with you, and showed the reasons why. Individual Catholics can and do screw up, in this case, the historical and documented history of the Church’s teaching on slavery in America - that is, what the Pope and the Magisterium taught, not some crazed apostate Bishop in Louisiana - was correct and humane.

As I said, to deny that the Church was morally correct in its opposition to the conditions of slavery in America really is historical revisionism of the worst kind.

See my posts just before your last post (#50 through #54) for documentation.

To argue that an individuals priest or bishop’s views, when they clearly differs from that of Rome’s, is somehow also an action of the “Catholic” Church is clearly wrongheaded. As an analogy, consider Feeneyism. Father Leonard Feeney, a popular Catholic radio evangelist, taught that ONLY Roman Catholics can go to Heaven. He persisted in this belief and was excommunicated by the Vatican (he reconciled before his death in 1978). We can’t say that such a heretical view is “the position of the Catholic Church” just because a Catholic, even a Catholic priest or bishop, pronounced it.

In fairness, it should be noted that after being rebuked by Rome, a chastened Bishop Martin begin an apostolic mission to care for freed slaves.

 

[razredge]

Hey, just because I made a mistake, don’t you go and do likewise. I obviously **don’t **agree with you, and showed the reasons why. Individual Catholics can and do screw up, in this case, the historical and documented history of the Church’s teaching on slavery in America - that is, what the Pope and the Magisterium taught, not some crazed apostate Bishop in Louisiana - was correct and humane.

As I said, to deny that the Church was morally correct in its opposition to the conditions of slavery in America really is historical revisionism of the worst kind.

See my posts just before your last post (#50 through #54) for documentation.

To argue that an individuals priest or bishop’s views, when they clearly differs from that of Rome’s, is somehow also an action of the “Catholic” Church is clearly wrongheaded. As an analogy, consider Feeneyism. Father Leonard Feeney, a popular Catholic radio evangelist, taught that ONLY Roman Catholics can go to Heaven. He persisted in this belief and was excommunicated by the Vatican (he reconciled before his death in 1978). We can’t say that such a heretical view is “the position of the Catholic Church” just because a Catholic, even a Catholic priest or bishop, pronounced it.

In fairness, it should be noted that after being rebuked by Rome, a chastened Bishop Martin begin an apostolic mission to care for freed slaves.

I wasn’t talking about slavery in America (I don’t know what the Church did or did not do then), more on slavery in ancient and medieval times which the Church was perfectly fine with at various times. (even St Paul seemed to be fine with the status quo - ‘slaves obey your masters’).

My objection is to people who think the Church has always known what the right thing to do is and taught and acted on those beliefs - which is clearly not the case.