Abortion and slavery - the voice of the Catholic Church

[ringil]

I believe this is false. In the south, there were “black” Catholic churches and “white” Catholic churches. The fictional story, “The Black Sister” (hope that’s accurate) is a fascinating and poignant story of one local group of religious sisters who tried to integrate the churches in one tiny step by assigning a black sister to a white Catholic church. The story is about the community uproar this caused.

I did a very cursory googling of this historical period and it appears to be based on fact - there was segregation in Catholic parishes in the South.

I have heard that Black folks had to sit in a different section like in the back or in the choir loft.

Blacks were not permitted to join the Jesuits up until the late 19th. c. I would have to look up precisely when.

 

[SGWessells]

Sorry, but the decrees and pronouncements I quoted (and there are others) have just as much authority as the others quoted to the opposite effect. This phenomenon is more common in Catholicism than most Catholics suspect. Just look at the history of Catholic views on ecumenism and religious liberty in the last 200 years. Whenever you read “the Catholic Church has always taught,” it’s time to get out the history books and do some digging. Sometimes it’s true, but often it’s not.
Thanks, though, for the interesting sidelight on the history of the Congo. A good companion piece would be Mark Twain’s savage indictment of Catholic King Leopold of Belgium’s cruelties in the Congo in the early 20th century.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Tantum Ergo wrote: “Jewish slavery was not ‘life long’ and slaves had rights.”

That was true of the Israelite slaves, but not of foreigners: "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you…and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever…" Lev. 25:44-46 RSV-CE. Emphasis mine.

Nor does the Bible necessarily endorse the implication that since what the owner owns is not the slave but the slave’s labor, that mitigates the harshness of slavery: “When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.” Ex. 20:20,21.

So a slave owner could beat his slave to the point of death with impunity, according to the Holy Spirit.

The church’s record on slavery, as in most things, is uneven and varies from age to age, which makes me suspicious whenever I read that “the Church has always taught” something. It ain’t necessarily so. For example, the decree “Dum Diversas” of Pope Nicholas V (15th century) authorized the kings of Spain and Portugal “by these present documents, and with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers…and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery.” Pope Calixtus III confirmed this in 1456 and Sixtus IV in 1481. Alexander VI extended it to America in 1493 and Leo X renewed it in 1514.Paul III reversed it in 1537, but when slaves sought sanctuary on Church property, the same pope declared that anyone of either sex, clerical or non-clerical, “may freely and lawfully buy and sell publicly any slaves whatsoever of either sex…and publicly hold them as slaves and make use of their work, and compel them to do the work assigned to them…slaves who flee to the Capitol and appeal for their liberty shall in no wise be freed from the bondage of their servitude, but…shall be returned in slavery to their owners and if it seems proper…punished as runaways.”
Pius V erversed this in 1566. So whom did God endorse? As late as 1866, the Holy Office could declare that “slavery itself…is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law…for the sort of ownership which a slave owner has over a slave is understood as nothing other than the perpetual right of disposing of the work of a slave for one’s own benefit…”
Understood by whom? Simon Legree?
The above, and more, can be found in Fiedler and Rabben, Rome Has Spoken, Crossroad, 1998, 81-86.

It should be noted that the book you source on this issue was edited by two women who seek to change the Church’s traditional teachings on the celibacy of the priesthood, divorce, abortion, birth control, etc., by claiming that the Church has switched its stance on other issues, so hey, why not ordain a woman?

Many reviewers of “Rome Has Spoken” who were familiar with the original source documents referred to in the book, note that they were selectively edited and grossly taken out of context, the claims often lack citations and footnotes, the original meaning and intent of the documents were changed, and even misquoted, in pursuit of some extremely liberal theological agendas. But what the heck, as long as you can bash the Church, why bother with accuracy or good scholarship?

As one reviewer on Amazon noted: There’s too much to detail any particular topic, but if you’re interested in bad history the weirdest of all the weird commentary set forth in this work probably concerns slavery: a bright undergraduate would find refuting the book on these matters a rewarding exercise in criticism, and all without moving beyond papal documents readily available (these days) at a mere keystroke. True.

An interesting review which focuses on the editors’ fundamental misconceptions:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3429

 

[mark_a]

Did the Catholic Church actively and passionately speak out against black slavery?

Not loudly enough.

Did Paul or any other new testament writers?

The thing is, back in the day slavery was overt and obvious. Today, it’s much more subtle.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Not loudly enough.

Did Paul or any other new testament writers?

The thing is, back in the day slavery was overt and obvious. Today, it’s much more subtle.

Paul spent an entire letter arguing on behalf of a slave. It apparently worked. The Christian values of brotherhood and charity did more to change attitudes towards slavery than any other single factor in history.

I would agree that slavery today still exists, but it’s hardly subtle. The enslavement of the young through commercial sex trafficking is a despicable evil, and the Church (and Protestant and Jewish faith-based organizations) have been in the forefront of fighting it through (for the Church) Catholic Social Services and programs such as Dignity House, which identify and free prostituted children and adults by working with local law enforcement, provide them safe houses, therapeutic and job counseling, and mentor them back into a normal life through one-on-one mentoring, often by women who themselves were former victims.

If any of you are really concerned about the evils of slavery, google “Catholic Social Services” + “prostitution”, find a local agency in your agency, and donate some money or time.

Don’t just decry the evils of slavery in the past - do something about the evils of slavery TODAY.

 

[mark_a]

Paul spent an entire letter arguing on behalf of a slave. It apparently worked. The Christian values of brotherhood and charity did more to change attitudes towards slavery than any other single factor in history.

All true, but Paul stopped short of condemnation of slavery.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

All true, but Paul stopped short of condemnation of slavery.

If you look only at the Bible, which we as Catholics do not. The Deposit of Faith, which includes the oral teachings of the early Church Fathers, including Paul, recognized the equality of all men and women under God, slave and master, gave them all the sacraments, including marriage (which Roman law forbade for slaves), and did not recognize the condition of slavery within the Church. (Indeed, many of the early Christians were slaves, based on their names.) Rather than call for violent uprising, the Church (which would have resulted in the slaughter of most Christians, if Spartacus was any example) including Paul, urged slaves to be such an exemplar of Christianity as to convert their masters by example, and urged Christians who owned slaves out of the practice, or at least, to recognize the humanity of their slaves. By condemning the institutions and framework of slavery through positive afformation of the dignity of slaves, the Church did effectively condemn slavery. By the time of the Christianization of Europe, the practice died out among Christians.

I would argue that Paul was a gentle as a dove but as wise as a serpent in how he handled the issue. It worked.

 

[mark_a]

If you look only at the Bible, which we as Catholics do not. The Deposit of Faith, which includes the oral teachings of the early Church Fathers, including Paul, recognized the equality of all men and women under God, slave and master, gave them all the sacraments, including marriage (which Roman law forbade for slaves), and did not recognize the condition of slavery within the Church. (Indeed, many of the early Christians were slaves, based on their names.) Rather than call for violent uprising, the Church (which would have resulted in the slaughter of most Christians, if Spartacus was any example) including Paul, urged slaves to be such an exemplar of Christianity as to convert their masters by example, and urged Christians who owned slaves out of the practice, or at least, to recognize the humanity of their slaves. By condemning the institutions and framework of slavery through positive afformation of the dignity of slaves, the Church did effectively condemn slavery. By the time of the Christianization of Europe, the practice died out among Christians.

I would argue that Paul was a gentle as a dove but as wise as a serpent in how he handled the issue. It worked.

You’re right. It sure took long enough, but you are right.

On a side note, the Catholic Diocese of Charlston SC once issued an apology because (a) Bishop Lynch had owned slaves. Jefferson Davis recruited Bishop Lynch to try to establish diplomatic ties with the Vatican, where he was met with a “thanks but no thanks”.

 

[exnihilo]

On a side note, the Catholic Diocese of Charleston SC once issued an apology because (a) Bishop Lynch had owned slaves. Jefferson Davis recruited Bishop Lynch to try to establish diplomatic ties with the Vatican, where he was met with a “thanks but no thanks”.

I’m was not aware of the Bishop Lynch story but I did know that actually the Pope was the only monarch to officially recognize Jefferson Davis. The Pope corresponded with Davis and referred to him as president thus granting recognition of the CSA. After the war when Davis was imprisoned the Pope sent him among other things a crown of thorns.

Apparently Bishop Lynch was received and in fact for that role was denied, for a while, reentry to his home diocese.

Catholicism and the Old South

 

[Hastrman]

You’re right. It sure took long enough, but you are right.

Took long enough? It only took 300 years. Both times.

Don’t tell me you thought slavery had existed for all the centuries between Rome and the Civil War? It didn’t. It passed out of existence well before Charlemagne, at least in the Western Church.

But slavery, along with several forms of judicial torture and women not being legal adults, was just one of the many things that got “reborn” in the Renaissance.

Indeed, other than a few things in art, not a single good thing comes from the Renaissance—“relapse” would be a more accurate name.

 

[SGWessells]

Took long enough? It only took 300 years. Both times.

Don’t tell me you thought slavery had existed for all the centuries between Rome and the Civil War? It didn’t. It passed out of existence well before Charlemagne, at least in the Western Church.

But slavery, along with several forms of judicial torture and women not being legal adults, was just one of the many things that got “reborn” in the Renaissance.

Indeed, other than a few things in art, not a single good thing comes from the Renaissance—“relapse” would be a more accurate name.

Why do you need slaves when you have serfs, which amounted to about the same thing. When the rise of nations, financiers, and the middle class ended serfdom in much of Europe by the renaissance, slavery was restored, especially in the new world.
Judicial torture and the inferior status of women flourished in Europe long before the renaissance.

 

[SGWessells]

Arizona Mike wrote: “t should be noted that the book you source on this issue was edited by two women who seek to change the Church’s traditional teachings on the celibacy of the priesthood, divorce, abortion, birth control, etc., by claiming that the Church has switched its stance on other issues, so hey, why not ordain a woman?”

I am aware of the liberal bias of that book, which I do not share. I think clerical celibacy benefits the church, and agree with CS Lewis that a church that ordained priestesses would be a different church (and not a better one). I also recognize the faulty logic in saying “the church has changed its mind about X, so why not about Y.” That being said, however, the fact remains that there are some teachings that the church has simply reversed itself upon. A contradiction cannot be a “development.” The teachings about the Blessed Virgin are clearly a development, since the later ones derive from and build upon the earlier. But the teaching on religious liberty and ecumenism are simply a reversal.
All that becomes irrelevant, of course, if the contradictions and absurdities in the Bible call the whole Christian enterprise into question. Still struggling with that issue.

 

[Hastrman]

Why do you need slaves when you have serfs, which amounted to about the same thing. When the rise of nations, financiers, and the middle class ended serfdom in much of Europe by the renaissance, slavery was restored, especially in the new world.
Judicial torture and the inferior status of women flourished in Europe long before the renaissance.

That is just so cute. Do you own any books written after 1957?

Regine Pernoud, curator of France’s national archives, found that in France between 950 and 1300, women owned property, filed lawsuits, practiced trades, and voted in community assemblies, at least as often as men did. They not only learned to read just as often as men, they bought more books. Noblewoman led troops into battle and wielded the exact same power as men did, and abbesses often wielded even more power than bishops.

The medieval middle class was the one that built the cathedrals. They all owned their own property, rather than being “employees”. And it was the medievals who invented “financiers”—the Knights Templar invented modern banking.

As for serfs, serfs had every right free peasants did, except they couldn’t leave without permission—but also couldn’t be drafted into armies. Their lords only received a small, set portion of their harvests, while the rest was theirs to do with as they wished—and many sold their surplus, becoming quite wealthy. A lord could not raise his serfs’ rates without their consent (America’s taxpayers are currently organizing a movement, “the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights”, to get something similar).

Shall we discuss the scholars of the Paris schools, like Jean Buridan, who formulated Newton’s 1st Law of Motion in the 14th century, and yet (unlike Newton) did not posit that God had to make minor corrections to celestial motion? Or Nicole Oresme, who invented Cartesian coordinates 200 years before Descartes?

Or how the medievals invented eyeglasses, the glider (Elmer of Malmesbury, 1010), the camshaft, the harnesses that let horses be used for plowing, a plow that turns the earth as it furrows it, and the mechanical saw? By the 1100s the Byzantines were sending engineers to France and Italy for training.

Medieval surgeons routinely got “union by first intention” (minimal scarring), they understood the rudiments of sanitation, and they occasionally (probably something they learned from the Kurds) used laudanum, opium mixed with wine, as an anesthetic.

 

[mark_a]

I’m was not aware of the Bishop Lynch story but I did know that actually the Pope was the only monarch to officially recognize Jefferson Davis. The Pope corresponded with Davis and referred to him as president thus granting recognition of the CSA. After the war when Davis was imprisoned the Pope sent him among other things a crown of thorns.

Apparently Bishop Lynch was received and in fact for that role was denied, for a while, reentry to his home diocese.

Catholicism and the Old South

Thanks for the link!!

 

[mark_a]

Don’t tell me you thought slavery had existed for all the centuries between Rome and the Civil War?

A presumption on my part.

It passed out of existence well before Charlemagne, at least in the Western Church

“at least in the Western Church”? Hmmmm…

I would be interested to know if the previous version of the CCC contained the articulate condemnation of slavery that is contained in the current one.

I would be ecstatic if it did.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I’m was not aware of the Bishop Lynch story but I did know that actually the Pope was the only monarch to officially recognize Jefferson Davis. The Pope corresponded with Davis and referred to him as president thus granting recognition of the CSA. After the war when Davis was imprisoned the Pope sent him among other things a crown of thorns.

Apparently Bishop Lynch was received and in fact for that role was denied, for a while, reentry to his home diocese.

Catholicism and the Old South

This is basically atheist (or Protestant) (or pro-Confederate) urban folklore.

Pro-Confederate sympathizers have long claimed that by addressing Davis as “President,” it was a de facto recognition of the CSA by the Pope, but that is ludicrous from a historic and diplomatic viewpoint, as legitimate historians recognize:

fathersforgood.org/ffg/en/big_four/civil_war_catholic.html

The Crown of Thorns was not sent by the Pope, but by Jefferson Davis’s wife Varina Davis. See the following:

cwmemory.com/2009/09/10/so-it-was-a-holy-cause-after-all/

cwmemory.com/2009/09/27/update-on-jefferson-daviss-crown-of-thorns/

The Confederacy did seek diplomatic relations with the Vatican (they wanted any foreign recognition they could get), the Pope was interested in what was going on, particularly as Davis opposed the anti-Catholic Know-Nothing Movement, but ultimately didn’t recognize the Confederate States as slavery was a deal-killer for the Vatican.

 

[exnihilo]

This is basically atheist (or Protestant) (or pro-Confederate) urban folklore.

Pro-Confederate sympathizers have long claimed that by addressing Davis as “President,” it was a de facto recognition of the CSA by the Pope, but that is ludicrous from a historic and diplomatic viewpoint, as legitimate historians recognize

It is certainly not folklore that the Pope wrote a letter to Davis addressing him as ‘Honorable President of the Confederate States of America’. I believe an autographed picture accompanied this. Apparently Robert E. Lee kept a picture of Pope Pius IX and acknowledged he was the only sovereign who recognized the confederacy.

I seriously doubt the Pope, a European monarch himself, would so sloppily address men as president who were not legitimate governing authorities. I doubt if I wrote a letter claiming to be president of some country the Pope would so honor me. The view that addressing Davis as the honorable president is meaningless is disrespectful to the Pope and would be cause to question the accuracy of his statements and writings.

Political involvement during the Civil War

The Confederacy did seek diplomatic relations with the Vatican (they wanted any foreign recognition they could get), the Pope was interested in what was going on, particularly as Davis opposed the anti-Catholic Know-Nothing Movement, but ultimately didn’t recognize the Confederate States as slavery was a deal-killer for the Vatican.

Did the Pope not recognize the Union in which slavery was legal? Did the Pope not recognize Brazil as a nation which was largely Catholic and did not end slavery until 1888 which was 25 years after this letter to Davis? What you are saying does not seem to correspond to all the facts.

 

[Hastrman]

Actually the first foreign recognition of the Confederacy was in England—some MP said something about “Jeff Davis founding a new nation” and it got reported on in the papers, and apparently that was enough.

Wow. Nice work there, Britain, you even started our Civil War. Aside from Neville Chamberlain, the Prussians in World War I came right out and said they never would’ve invaded Belgium if the previous British election hadn’t been won by a pacifist/isolationist ticket.

 

[exnihilo]

Actually the first foreign recognition of the Confederacy was in England—some MP said something about “Jeff Davis founding a new nation” and it got reported on in the papers, and apparently that was enough.

Well I guess the British took more seriously the ideas of the Declaration of Independence than did the North. The British finally accepted the right of the people to form their own government. The Union took view of King George.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

It is certainly not folklore that the Pope wrote a letter to Davis addressing him as ‘Honorable President of the Confederate States of America’. I believe an autographed picture accompanied this. Apparently Robert E. Lee kept a picture of Pope Pius IX and acknowledged he was the only sovereign who recognized the confederacy.

I seriously doubt the Pope, a European monarch himself, would so sloppily address men as president who were not legitimate governing authorities. I doubt if I wrote a letter claiming to be president of some country the Pope would so honor me. The view that addressing Davis as the honorable president is meaningless is disrespectful to the Pope and would be cause to question the accuracy of his statements and writings.

Political involvement during the Civil War

Did the Pope not recognize the Union in which slavery was legal? Did the Pope not recognize Brazil as a nation which was largely Catholic and did not end slavery until 1888 which was 25 years after this letter to Davis? What you are saying does not seem to correspond to all the facts.

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 (or the U.S. State Department) can refer to the current chairman of the PFLP, without recognizing the PFLP as the legitimate government of Israel/Palestine, or recognizing that their goals of victory through terrorism are correct. Why? Because that is the person’s title. Jefferson Davis was the President of the CSA. Whether you recognize the CSA’s legitimacy or not, that’s what he was. The U.S. State Department does this all the time without recognizing outlaw states.

You also have to be able to distinguish between Diplomatic Recognition, in which countries formally enter into a treaty, open consulates in each other’s countries, and exchange ambassadors, which the Vatican never came close to doing with the CSA, and simple Recognition of states, their governments, and leaders, which happens all the time and is necessary for any kind of interaction between governments, even those for which the legitimacy is in question as a point of international law, such as insurrectionist governments and governments that violate human rights. You can’t even send a letter to another country is you don’t recognize it as a state. Simple recognition doesn’t imply acceptance of its stated goals, legitimacy or human rights record.

States involved in insurrection or civil war can also be recognized as belligerent states, or states that have illegally occupied or conquered sovereign territories, without formally recognizing them. This was the form of recognition that the Brits gave the CSA, that France and Mexico extended to the FMLN in El Salvador, and that Bolivia, Ecuador and others states extended to the Sandinistas.

De Facto recognition of a new state may be extended without formal (de jure) recognition, which usually requires a formal written declaration. De facto recognition just requires the recognition that a country controls territory, through means commonly recognized (military occupation, establishment of civil government and taxation, etc.). Governments have to extend de facto recognition to have any kind of dealings with governments, even if only for postal communication. The UK provided de facto recognition of the USSR in 1921, and finally offered de jure recognition in 1924. By neither act did they accept the brutal actions of the communist government.

So no, simply addressing the leader of a government by his the title he claimed was hardly recognizing the legitimacy of the CSA.