Augustine, slavery, and whipping

[theCardinalbird]

The gist of this teaching is summarized by Cardinal Gerdil (1718-1802):

“Slavery is not to be understood as conferring on one man the same power over another that men have over cattle. Wherefore they erred who in former times refused to include slaves among persons; and believed that however barbarously the master treated his slave he did not violate any right of the slave. For slavery does not abolish the natural equality of men: hence by slavery one man is understood to become subject to the do-minion of another to the extent that the master has a perpetual right to all those services which one man may justly perform for another; and subject to the condition that the master shall take due care of his slave and treat him humanely” (Comp. Instit. Civil., L, vii). The master was judged to sin against justice if he treated his slave cruelly, if he overloaded him with labor, deprived him of adequate food and clothing, or if he separated husband from wife, or the mother from her young children. It may be said that the approved ethical view of slavery was that while, religiously speaking, it could not be condemned as against the natural law, and had on its side the jus gentium, it was looked upon with 'disfavor as at best merely tolerable, and when judged by its consequences, a positive evil.

Slavery was a fact of life in the ancient world --an economic reality (and necessity), and St. Paul and St. Augustine treated it as such. They did not excuse it or say it never existed. They couldn’t destroy slavery in that time period. Therefore, they had to make teachings about slaves and might I add that slaves were not treated all the same in every society, so by you deciding to mash all forms of slavery together and say that all forms of slavery are equally horrible, is an error on your part because as seen, slaves had to be treated well by their masters or else the master was judged to sin against justice if he treated his slave cruelly, if he overloaded him with labor, deprived him of adequate food and clothing, or if he separated husband from wife, or the mother from her young children.

You don’t seem to realize that because you constantly holler slavery is bad! It should never have existed and all those who worked with it were committing horrid acts! Well in those times it was an economic necessity and these people had to deal with it and had to work with it because society was so entangled in it.

I’m tired of putting my hypothesis’ on what they thought of slavery. Debate with the people who agreed with slavery (who are now dead), not me, who is only trying to make sense of how they saw slavery.

 

[theCardinalbird]

How many Christians held young female slaves as their mistresses. Even famous American politicians had black female slaves as mistresses. IMHO, it is wrong for Christians or anyone really, to buy, sell or keep young black female slaves as there is always the possibility that these defenseless young ladies could be used as mistresses against their will. I would not trust the guarantee of a white Christian slavemaster. Who would prosecute him anyway?

Who was that ? What was the time and the place when this event occurred?

An answer for both questions

Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece is what I speak of (not America). Also, slavery in the Greek and Roman world was not like modern slavery. It was not based on race, nor were any one people considered natural slaves or a “slave race.” Slaves were, more often than not, considered part of the master’s family and treated fairly well. A slave in many Greek and Roman cities could actually own property (and, if he was a good businessman, could even potentially become more wealthy than his master), and they could normally buy their freedom or work and earn freedom for their children. What must be appreciated is that our modern concepts of “freedom” did not exist for the overwhelming majority of people in the ancient world. There was very little difference between being a slave and being a poor free person in society. Both were entirely dependent on their “patrons” --that is, wealthy citizens in the cities in which they lived, who financially supported poor free persons, and to whom the poor free persons owed complete loyalty and obedience, and so had to do what the rich patron said, if they didn’t want to starve, etc…just like a slave. Also, if a slave in the ancient world was granted his freedom, this doesn’t mean he could do whatever he wanted. It’s not like he could just go out and find a job and live any way he pleased. Rather, even when granted his freedom, he was still normally dependent on the master (patron) who used to own him. This is simply how life and society operated --the “patron-client” system of Roman society. A slave was merely a very extreme form of “client” (the lowest rung in society). So, it’s very anachronistic and unrealistic to apply modern concepts of freedom vs. slavery to the ancient world.

Keep in mind, I’m only talking about slavery in ancient times when it was an economic necessity for the slave. In America, we should have evolved from that.

 

[Thorolfr]

Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece is what I speak of (not America). Also, slavery in the Greek and Roman world was not like modern slavery. It was not based on race, nor were any one people considered natural slaves or a “slave race.” Slaves were, more often than not, considered part of the master’s family and treated fairly well.

Modern Christian apologists for ancient slavery try to make it sound better than what it was, especially the notion that many people voluntarily became slaves. Here’s some of what Wikipedia has to say about slavery in ancient Rome:

Throughout the Roman period many slaves for the Roman market were acquired through warfare. Many captives were either brought back as war booty or sold to traders,[20] and ancient sources cite anywhere from hundreds to tens of thousands of such slaves captured in each war…

The slaves (especially the foreigners) had higher mortality rates and lower birth rates than natives, and were sometimes even subjected to mass expulsions.[44] The average recorded age at death for the slaves of the city of Rome was extraordinarily low: seventeen and a half years (17.2 for males; 17.9 for females)….

New slaves were primarily acquired by wholesale dealers who followed the Roman armies.[48] Many people who bought slaves wanted strong slaves, mostly men.[49] Child slaves cost less than adults[50] although other sources state their price as higher.[51] Julius Caesar once sold the entire population of a conquered region in Gaul, no fewer than 53,000 people, to slave dealers on the spot.[52]

Within the empire, slaves were sold at public auction or sometimes in shops, or by private sale in the case of more valuable slaves. Slave dealing was overseen by the Roman fiscal officials called quaestors.

Sometimes slaves stood on revolving stands, and around each slave for sale hung a type of plaque describing his or her origin, health, character, intelligence, education, and other information pertinent to purchasers. Prices varied with age and quality, with the most valuable slaves fetching prices equivalent to thousands of today’s dollars. Because the Romans wanted to know exactly what they were buying, slaves were presented naked. The dealer was required to take a slave back within six months if the slave had defects that were not manifest at the sale, or make good the buyer’s loss.[53] Slaves to be sold with no guarantee were made to wear a cap at the auction…

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

 

[theCardinalbird]

This doesn’t even show the dates (from what you posted). When the Christians were around and actually obtained power as I said in my earlier post, It is possible that slavery became somewhat better.

Also from Wikipedia:

Roman slaves could hold property which despite the fact that it belonged to their masters, they were allowed to use as if it were their own.[2] Skilled or educated slaves were allowed to earn their own money, and might hope to save enough to buy their freedom.[3][4] Such slaves were often freed by the terms of their master’s will, or for services rendered. A notable example of a high-status slave was Tiro, the secretary of Cicero. Tiro was freed before his master’s death, and was successful enough to retire on his own country estate, where he died at the age of 99.[5][6][7] However, the master could arrange that slaves would only have enough money to buy their freedom when they were too old to work. They could then use the money to buy a new young slave while the old slave, unable to work, would be forced to rely on charity to stay alive.[8]
Rome differed from Greek city-states in allowing freed slaves to become citizens. After manumission, a male slave who had belonged to a Roman citizen enjoyed not only passive freedom from ownership, but active political freedom (libertas), including the right to vote.[9] A slave who had acquired libertas was thus a libertus (“freed person”, feminine liberta) in relation to his former master, who then became his patron (patronus). As a social class, freed slaves were libertini, though later writers used the terms libertus and libertinus interchangeably.[10][11] Libertini were not entitled to hold public office or state priesthoods, nor could they achieve senatorial rank. During the early Empire, however, freedmen held key positions in the government bureaucracy, so much so that Hadrian limited their participation by law.[12] Any future children of a freedman would be born free, with full rights of citizenship.

 

[theCardinalbird]

@Thorolfr

Both the Stoics and some early Christians opposed the ill-treatment of slaves, rather than slavery itself. Advocates of these philosophies saw them as ways to live within human societies as they were, rather than to overthrow entrenched institutions. In the Christian scriptures equal pay and fair treatment of slaves was enjoined upon slave masters, and slaves were advised to obey their earthly masters, even if their masters are unfair, and lawfully obtain freedom if possible.[105][106][107][108]
Certain senior Christian leaders (such as Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrysostom) called for good treatment for slaves and condemned slavery, while others supported it. Christianity gave slaves an equal place within the religion, allowing them to participate in the liturgy. According to tradition, Pope Clement I (term c. 92–99), Pope Pius I (158–167) and Pope Callixtus I (c. 217–222) were former slaves.[109]

Slavery in ancient Rome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Thorolfr]

This doesn’t even show the dates. When the Christians were around and actually obtained power as I said in my earlier post, It is possible that slavery became somewhat better.

Maybe you can find a copy of this: Kyle Harper, Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275-425 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). I’d have to look it up, but I remember Harper mentioning someone who I think was a bishop from this period who admonished some fellow Christians who were slave owners and told them not to beat their slaves so hard that it left visible marks on their skin which could be seen when their slaves were in the baths.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Maybe you can find a copy of this: Kyle Harper, Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275-425 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). I’d have to look it up, but I remember Harper mentioning someone who I think was a bishop from this period who admonished some fellow Christian slave owners and told them not to beat their slaves so hard that it left visible marks on their skin which could be seen when their slaves were in the baths.

As I said. It was possible that slavery had gotten better, I am only guessing because the vast number of Christians who protected slaves can attest to the fact that slavery became somewhat better when Christianity had power. Also if this Bishop did say that, then he like all of us, will be judged for what he had done. He is a mortal man who’s actions in this regard should be condemned.

What I will say on this matter is the fact that Christians (the majority) called for better treatment of slaves (As seen in the wiki source you provide and the source I provided). One bishop’s actions do not speak for the entire Church (unless it is the Bishop of Rome making ex-cathedra statements and is actually speaking on behalf of the entire Church).

 

[Arkansan]

Here’s a quote from the link with a study in it:
“A study published last year in Child Abuse and Neglect revealed an intergenerational cycle of violence in homes where physical punishment was used.”

Or as a normal person would say, people who got spanked as children are more likely to spank their own children.

Big whoop (pun intended).

P.S. People don’t have the time to read an entire year of a publication. If you want to cite a study, cite the name of the study or the volume and page numbers it can be found on.

 

[theCardinalbird]

I feel like I need to stress my opinion on slavery. I believe it is wrong to own humans.
In ancient times however, many early Christians did not condemn slavery but said that slaves are to be treated fairly and with dignity, others probably condemned it outright. We have to understand that their society was full of slavery, and not all forms of slavery were the same. Some people even chose to bond themselves so it is not as simple as it sounds, as voiced in what I posted recently:

We may take as representative de Lugo’s statement of the chief argument offered in proof of the thesis that slavery, apart from all abuses , is not in itself contrary to the natural law. “Slavery consists in this, that a man is obliged, for his whole life, to devote his labor and services to a master. Now as anybody may justly bind himself, for the sake of some anticipated reward, to give his entire services to a master for a year, and he would in justice be bound to fulfil this contract, why may not he bind himself in like manner for a longer period, even for his entire lifetime, an obligation which would constitute slavery?” (De Justitia et Jure, disp. VI, sec. 2. no. 14.)

Therefore, this is not a simple matter to deal with. In today’s world the Church has banned slavery completely (thanks be to God) and we should leave this act in history in the past, but still learn that the dignity of the human person cannot be dismissed. Christianity found slavery in possession throughout the Roman world; and when Christianity obtained power it could not and did not attempt summarily to abolish the institution. From the beginning, however, the Church exerted a steady powerful pressure for the immediate amelioration of the condition of the individual slave, and for the ultimate abolition of a system which, even in its mildest form, could with difficulty be reconciled with the spirit of the Gospel and the doctrine that all men are brothers in that Divine sonship which knows no distinction of bond and free.

 

[neophyte]

Yes it does. Maybe we’re looking at two different pages?

Here’s what the article (again, it’s NOT a study) said:

“A growing body of research has shown that spanking and other forms of physical discipline can pose serious risks to children”. That’s can, not will always, and it’s the first line.

“Many studies have shown that physical punishment — including spanking, hitting and other means of causing pain — can lead to increased aggression, antisocial behavior, physical injury and mental health problems for children.” Again, that’s can, not will always.

“The studies do not discriminate well between non-abusive and overly severe types of corporal punishment,” Larzelere says. “You get worse outcomes from corporal punishment than from alternative disciplinary techniques only when it is used more severely or as the primary discipline tactic.” In other words, the studies referred to were methodologically flawed and are therefore invalid. This is repeated in the article itself when it says things like “People get frustrated and hit their kids” as if that’s the only context.

And finally: “In a meta-analysis of 26 studies, Larzelere and a colleague found that an approach they described as “conditional spanking” led to greater reductions in child defiance or anti-social behavior than 10 of 13 alternative discipline techniques, including reasoning, removal of privileges and time out (Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2005).”

As I said, you’re talking out of your rear end: the article doesn’t actually support what you’re claiming, you have to cherry-pick from it to think otherwise, and you have no clue about how corporal punishment affected me.