Catholic Church and Race/Slavery?

[HabemusFrancis]

I just want to clarify what the Catholic Churche’s role in abolition/ racial in equality was in the United States?

From what I have heard, it is something of a complicated, contradictory role.

I know the two states that had a Catholic majority ( Louisiana and Maryland) were slave holding states. I know before Lincoln, few bishops called for slaverys abolition per se.

Yet there attitude was different from protestant slave holding clergy. Is it true, Catholic leaders never taught that blacks were inherently inferior to whites, and did not say blacks were a cursed race “the children of Ham” etc?

It seems in Catholic areas of the south, free blacks had somewhat more opprotunities and less discrimination than in protestant areas. Is it not also true, that rarely, if ever, did Catholic schools bar minority children from attending?

But on the other hand, I know that many Irish Catholic immigrants were virulently opposed to abolition and generally did not like black people.

Can someone clarify this situation?

 

[robwar]

The Irish riots that you might be referring to (they happen in NYC) were do to the fact that they saw free black as rivals for jobs. You are making a generalization of Irish Catholic immigrants in stating they were opposed to abolition. Irish Catholic immigrants at the time of the civil war were seen by the general society in not a great light. Any conflict and tension between free black slaves and them would be over the lower level jobs which was not very plentiful yet because the industrial revolution was just beginning. When one is looking at the past, we need to sometimes understand that time period in the light and standards of that time, not be using our standards and understanding of today. Today we would want to lump it as “they just didn’t like blacks” but the reality was that they saw free black that were immigrating to northern cities as rivals for low paying industrial jobs and it is nothing more than that. Slavery is a complex topic but you can be confident that the Catholic Church has always preached against it.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Whether or not there can be improprieties found in an individual Catholic in history, the Catholic Church has been a pioneer against slavery from the beginning and of mankind’s whole expedition to the New World. For example:*We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands, and made captives since the time of their capture, and who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free, and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of money. If this is not done when the fifteen days have passed, they incur the sentence of excommunication by the act itself, from which they cannot be absolved, except at the point of death, even by the Holy See, or by any Spanish bishop, or by the aforementioned Ferdinand, unless they have first given freedom to these captive persons and restored their goods. We will that like sentence of excommunication be incurred by one and all who attempt to capture, sell, or subject to slavery, baptized residents of the Canary Islands, or those who are freely seeking Baptism, from which excommunication cannot be absolved except as was stated above.
(Sicut Dudum, Pope Eugene IV Against the Enslaving of Black Natives from the Canary Islands, January 13, 1435)

[T]he said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved. (Pope Paul III, Sublimus Dei, On the enslavement and evangelization of Indians, 1537)

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. (Pope Gregory XVI, In Supremo Apostolatus, Apostolic Letter condemning the slave trade, 1839)*That’s just a sampling. Some of the above mention other letters of their predecessors echoing the same tradition. Click the links for more.

 

[weller2]

Whether or not there can be improprieties found in an individual Catholic in history, the Catholic Church has been a pioneer against slavery from the beginning and of mankind’s whole expedition to the New World.

So where’s the decree excommunicating Christopher Columbus – or anyone for that matter – for the treatment of natives?

 

[robwar]

So where’s the decree excommunicating Christopher Columbus – or anyone for that matter – for the treatment of natives?

The question on this thread is about slavery and the attitudes of Irish immigrants during the civil war. Poor treatment of Native Americans is one thing and different from being involved in the slave trade and owning slaves. If you wish to discuss treatment of native Americans during the early years of exploration by the Spanish then that could be another thread.

 

[HabemusFrancis]

Well, you see, Columbus, Pizarro and others may have done a few bad things here and there, but ultimately they did good.

Not only did Columus et al discover America, but they were very kind and helpful to the native people they met. For the very first time, those natives were able to go to heaven, receive the sacraments and know about Jesus!!

So excommunication is out of the quesiton for either one!

 

[PaulfromIowa]

The Civil War is a very complex issue. The Popes had condemned slavery but most American bishops would have been too shy of partisan politics to speak publicly about the issue. Most Protestant churches split north vs. south before the war over the slavery issue but not the Catholic Church. I doubt that either Louisiana or Maryland would have had a Catholic majority in 1860. Most American Catholics would have been recent immigrants in the Northeast. Immigrants came to the free states of the North because they did not want to compete with slave labor. That does not mean that they wanted the southern slaves to go free, Many Irish immigrants feared free blacks competing for low paid jobs.

 

[Honorius]

Well, you see, Columbus, Pizarro and others may have done a few bad things here and there, but ultimately they did good.

I do hope you are being sarcastic.

 

[HabemusFrancis]

I was being sarcastic.

I also wondered though, in the slave holding states that had substantial Catholic populations (Louisiana, Maryland), weren’t the white Catholics there somewhat less racist than the Protestatns?

I hear that sometimes the Church carried out mixed race marriages in spite of anti- miscegenation laws. I also hear there were no seperate black and white catholic churches?

I know that New Orelans had a long tradition of rich free blacks, perhaps influenced by the french catholic culture of the region?

 

[robwar]

I always get concerned when posters say, “i hear this or that” and not state the sources. You have to realize that Catholics were the minority in the country during the 1800’s and often treated with contempt. Now there were pockets of Catholics like in Louisiana and yes that was a slave holding state. Likewise, it seems like you are trying to judge a complex time period by today’s standards and I think you are wondering if the Catholic church in America did speak out enough or why about slavery. As one of the other posters linked to, the Catholic Church has always spoken out and against slavery. Now did every Catholic follow that in America? Probably not, but look at Catholics today voting for pro-abortion political figures and the Church is pretty clear about it’s stance on abortion.
Not every Catholic followed or follows today the Church on a number of social issues and realize that has always been true in 2000 years.

 

[HabemusFrancis]

Im not trying to judge the Church by today’s standards.

I am not implying the Catholic Church was “racist” or anything of the sort.

I just sort of wondered where the RCC stood in the abolition issue, in the grand scheme of things, along with the Quakers, Baptists, Methodists etc?

I think I have the answer: Catholics were a small, despised minority by many people. Many Catholics were recent immigrants who had many problems on their mind, never mind abolition of slavery. It could be the RCC was so beset by problems and “taking care of its own” that it never really took up abolition in the 1850s.

I think part of it may have been that there were very few black Catholics.

I am not trying to paint the RCC as bad in anyway, because as we all know, it is exactly the opposite!

 

[robwar]

I think again in trying to understand maybe why the Catholic church didn’t just jump into the abolition movement was again the minority status in society. Lets say if the bishops tried to take a major role in the abolition movement, due to the general anti-catholic feeling in a large Protestant society may have been more counter productive than helpful. during WWII, the bishops in the Netherlands issued a very strong statement condemning the Nazi persecution of Jews, the nazis in turn became worst towards the Jews. Pope Pius then decided that to help save more people, it would be better to work quietly behind the lines. Even if Catholics in the south tried to take a bigger role in the abolition movement, would the others Protestant Christians welcome and work with those Catholics? While you had a large pocket in New Orleans, Catholics are very much a minority in the South even today. Help from Catholics might not have been welcomed or wanted. Like I said, we are trying to judge a complex time period with today’s ideas about speaking out and standing up against something. Some of the best work on behalf of black, mulatos etc was by the Catholic church in places like New Orleans. One of the first black universities was Xavier University in New Orleans. People forget that before the civil war, the south had more anti-slavery and abolition groups than the north. The people that lived in slavery States were working to eliminate and call attention to it. A Catholic though and due to large anti-Catholic feelings in the 1800’s, might not have been very welcome at abolition groups and these things need to be factored together when trying to understand the 1800s.

 

[livingwordunity]

I think again in trying to understand maybe why the Catholic church didn’t just jump into the abolition movement was again the minority status in society. Lets say if the bishops tried to take a major role in the abolition movement, due to the general anti-catholic feeling in a large Protestant society may have been more counter productive than helpful. during WWII, the bishops in the Netherlands issued a very strong statement condemning the Nazi persecution of Jews, the nazis in turn became worst towards the Jews. Pope Pius then decided that to help save more people, it would be better to work quietly behind the lines. Even if Catholics in the south tried to take a bigger role in the abolition movement, would the others Protestant Christians welcome and work with those Catholics? While you had a large pocket in New Orleans, Catholics are very much a minority in the South even today. Help from Catholics might not have been welcomed or wanted. Like I said, we are trying to judge a complex time period with today’s ideas about speaking out and standing up against something. Some of the best work on behalf of black, mulatos etc was by the Catholic church in places like New Orleans. One of the first black universities was Xavier University in New Orleans. People forget that before the civil war, the south had more anti-slavery and abolition groups than the north. The people that lived in slavery States were working to eliminate and call attention to it. A Catholic though and due to large anti-Catholic feelings in the 1800’s, might not have been very welcome at abolition groups and these things need to be factored together when trying to understand the 1800s.

This, and Catholics were one of the minority groups that was hated by the KKK.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

First, the largest slave rebellion in American history was led by Catholics, the Stono Rebellion.

Secondly, Christ, our Founder, spoke against all forms of oppression, including the Roman form of slavery (at the time of Christ’s birth, the Jews no longer held slaves). St. Paul explicitly condemned the slave trade. St. John explicitly condemned the slave trade. St. Augustine proudly reported that his parish led direct-action missions to free those held by African slavers from their ships and drop-houses, used his parish’s funds to buy their freedom, used Roman law to try to free them, and interviewed freed slaves to provide us with the first written text on how the African slave trade worked. St. Patrick condemned slavery and called out the pagan Irish kings by name for continuing the practice. . A long succession of papal bulls condemned the slave trade, and excommunicated those involved in it. If you want, I can cut and paste them all for you.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225/7 - 1274) said “slaves are not obliged to obey their masters.” And: “Human law is law only in virtue of its accordance with right reason: and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence.” Source: “Summa Theologica,” I-II, Q.93, Art. 3 ad 2.

St. John Chrysostom [345 A.D. - 407 A.D.], Patriarch of Constantinople, said “Slavery is the fruit of covetousness, of extravagance, of insatiable greediness” in his Epist. ad Ephes., Homil. XXII. 2.

The Byzantine Emperor Justinian [527 A.D. - 565 A.D.] said this about slavery in 533 A.D.: “Captivity and servitude are both contrary to the law of nature; for by that law all men are born free.” (Institutes, 21 November 533 A.D.)

In 873, John VIII wrote to the rulers of Sardinia ordering them to restore freedom to slaves bought from the Greeks

Pope Eugene IV condemned slavery in the Canary Islands in 1435 and ordered immediate manumission (within 15 days): “All and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of the Canary Islands … who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money.”

On Oct. 7, 1462 Pius II issued a condemnation of the slave trade.

Pope Paul III in 1537 explicitly attributed slavery to “the enemy of the human race, Satan.” He excommunicated slavers. His declaration, Sublimus Dei, stated 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 faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect."

Popes Gregory XIV (1591); Innocent XI (1686); Benedict XIV (1741), and Pius VII (1815) all condemned slavery.

In 1794, during the French Revolution, at the instigation of a Catholic priest, the Abbé Henri Grégoire [1750-1831], the National Assembly decreed the abolition of slavery and the slave trade in all French colonies.

In 1829, outgoing Pope Leo XII (1823-1829) or incoming Pope Pius VIII (1829-1830) told Mexico to abolish slavery “for the glory of God and to distinguish mankind from the brute creation.” Mexico followed Church teaching to end slavery. By law, Mexico banned slavery. In retaliation, the United States invaded Mexican territory. Sadly, Protestant churches became cheer-leaders for the U.S. war of aggression.

In 1838, Gregory XVI condemned all forms of colonial slavery and the slave trade, calling it inhumanum illud commercium, condemned slavery and the slave trade, and forbade all Catholics to propound views contrary to this.

In a letter to the bishops of Brazil on May 5, 1888, Leo XIII recalled the Church’s unceasing efforts in the course of centuries to get rid of colonial slavery and the slave trade and expressed his satisfaction that Brazil had at last abolished it.

Secondly, there were numerous prominent Catholic abolitionists in America. Archbishop Hughes of New York acted as a leader to call Catholic northerners to the abolitionist side, calling for the national flag to be displayed at churches, and advocating conscription, a practice that would prove to be unpopular with the Irish Catholic working class. He wrote that “anything that will put an end to their drenching with blood the whole surface of the county, that will be humanity.” He also went on a diplomatic mission to Europe to ensure neutrality among the papal and Catholic majority nations.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

As noted at the time even by Protestant abolitionists who were normally hostile to the Catholic Church for sectarian reasons, “To the credit of Roman Catholics, it must be said [despite being in the midst of a pro-slavery nation, the U.S.A.], that they maintain no arrangements of caste founded in color, in their Churches,” - Rev. William Goodell, Slavery and Anti-Slavery: A History of the Great Struggle In Both Hemispheres; With A View of The Slavery Question In The United States (New York: William Harned Pub, 1852), p 201.

Thirdly, the Magisterium clearly condemned slavery in America and prohibited American bishops from preaching in favor of slavery. While some Catholics supported the pro-slavery Democratic Party in the south, due to opposition to Catholics from the Know-Nothing Party which migrated into the Republican Party, the official voice of Rome was clear on the issue when bishops or priests allowed local sympathies to stray from official Church teachings. I can quote you the Vatican’s official statement to the bishops on this, which condemns American slavery in no uncertain terms, if you’d like.

Fourthly, the Catholic Irish in America largely supported the Union, despite misgivings about anti-Catholic sentiment, and fought and died to end slavery in America in numbers far out of proportion to their demographic representation in their new country. Daniel O’Connell, the Catholic leader of the Irish in Ireland, supported the abolition of slavery in the British Empire and in America, and played a leading role in securing Catholic Emancipation (the removal of the civil and political disabilities of Roman Catholics in Great Britain and Ireland). O’Connell, the black abolitionist Charles Lenox Remond, and the temperance priest Theobald Mathew organized a petition with 60,000 signatures urging the Irish of the United States to support abolition. The Catholic Thomas Francis Meagher, a former Irish revolutionary leader who escaped execution by the British Empire, helped organize several ethnic Irish Union regiments into the famed “Irish Brigade.” “Although the Federal government was reluctant to organize ethnic brigades, it relented in order to encourage immigrant enlistment and thwart British attempts to aid the Confederacy. The Irish Brigade consisted of the 63rd, 69th, and 88th, New York regiments, along with the 28th Massachusetts from Boston, and the 116th Pennsylvania from Philadelphia. The Brigade served with distinction in combat, losing over half of its numbers at both Antietam and Fredericksburg. Further casualties at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg reduced its size to mere regimental strength. By 1864, the Irish Brigade was disbanded, but not before winning the praise of the northern public and encouraging the enlistment of many more Irish Americans.” acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-21-number-4/onward-catholic-soldiers-catholic-church-during-am

“Along with the thousands of soldiers that fought in the ranks were hundreds of priests who ministered to the troops and Catholic Sisters who assisted as nurses and sanitary workers. Catholic soldiers were at a religious disadvantage compared to the Protestant comrades, as the church lacked enough priests to both serve in the army and minister to the congregations at home. Nevertheless, Catholic priests heard confession, comforted the men, and celebrated Mass prior to battle. More than eight different orders of nuns served the soldiers during the war. Before the organization of the American Red Cross, nuns were among the most organized and experienced nurses available to serve the army. Catholic sisters were praised for their assistance to all soldiers, North and South, Catholic or Protestant. When observing this ministry, a Protestant doctor remarked to a Catholic bishop that “there must be some wonderful unity in Catholicity which nothing can destroy, not even the passions of war.”” (ibid)

137 Irish immigrants were awarded the Medal of Honor for Civil War valor, far more than any other immigrant group.