Catholicism and slavery

  • Thread starter Thread starter snow_white
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

snow_white

Guest
I am taking a US History class with a very liberal textbook. In this textbook it says that Catholics were for slavery just like protestants were. Perhaps they were, I don’t know. But does anybody know what the Church had to say about slavery at this time? I would prefer to see something that was written in that period, rather than from this period looking back. I look forward to your answers!
 
A priest named Father Flum said about this on slavery:

"
Thanks for the question. These types of inquiries direct me to study things that I may not otherwise look into. This question has been in the back of my mind for some time.

Despite our initial sense that neither Jesus nor St. Paul explicitly condemned slavery, I think you will agree with the evidence that they did condemn it in their own way.

First, recall that the sin of Adam was an abuse of freedom that led him into the slavery of sin. That slavery was promptly described by God in the form of curses. These curses they brought on themselves - they were the natural consequences of their actions. Due to the disorder that they introduced into their own lives, Adam and Eve became adversaries of sorts. Among the curses, we hear that Eve will have an urge for Adam and he will “lord it over her”. No longer mutually respectful, the struggle between them threatens to subordinate woman to man in a way that offends her dignity. This subordination is not the natural subordination that God intended between Adam (the “head”) and his wife, but rather a subordination that reduced Eve to the level of property.

Slavery is the treatment of one person as less valuable or of lower natural dignity than another, usually for personal profit. So, we see that slavery was being described by God as he announced the curses that they would suffer due to their sins. They would each seek to get out of the other what they wanted instead of working along the lines of the complimentarity that God intended when he made them male and female.

The identification of sin with slavery occurs early in scripture with Noah (see Gen 9:25).

Also, note that the great prefiguration of man’s redemption in the Old Testament is the flight from Egypt through the Red Sea. The Jews were being freed from their slavery in Egypt. Certainly what they suffered at the hands of the Egyptians was terrible and scripture describes it as such. Here we can see explicit condemnation of the treatment of men and women in slavery. Since this was a prefiguration of the redemption to be wrought by Christ, we can conclude that Christ’s coming as man was precisely to free man from the slavery of sin. The purpose of his coming was to abolish slavery.

Spiritual slavery can refer to the domination that man suffers at the hands of Satan due to man’s original submission to the treachery of the serpent. Original sin binds man’s free will, he is unable to do the good. St. Paul points this out and rejoices in the freedom that is afforded to the sons of men who aided by grace are freed from the yoke of Satan and can take up the yoke of Christ.

So then, there is another form of spiritual slavery! We can willingly become slaves of Jesus Christ and of his holy Mother. Indeed, many of the saints have written pacts where they have given themselves to Christ or our Lady as slaves (i.e. St Louis de Montfort)!

To come to conclusion, it is clear from the way scripture treats slavery that it is not natural or noble and Jesus came to free us from it. What began in spiritual slavery and resulted later in physical bondage was meant to be abolished by Christ (see Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:19). But we still struggle with both."

Hope this helps! 🙂
 
You might mention to your teacher that Christians ended slavery in American and stopped western nations from being a party to the world slave trade.
 
This is an area I did quite a little study in a couple of years ago. The is a book written by a Fr. Panzer called “The Popes and Slavery”. It goes through all the significant encyclicals and pastoral letters etc. dealing with the issue. First you must realize that there is a broad range of working relationships and a certain broad category of those working relationships can be termed by some to be slavery. I will put slavery in to four categories for simplicity but it is much more complicated than this:
  1. Indentured servitiude.
  2. Slavery due to imprisonment.
  3. Slavery due to capture in a just war.
  4. Race or other class based slavery.
The Church has ALWAYS allowed for the first three though they are not the natural state of man. Though not in all cases. If one was forced in to indentured servitude for instance rather than choosing it that was condemned and there are several examples of this where such condemnations have occured with excommunications for those who did not obey the order to release the slaves. Enslaved men from a war had to be a product of a just war.

Though the Church Church allowed these forms of slavery it eventually obtained near eradication of them (except for the prisoner form) by the late 1800’s. The fourth type of slavery was very rare before I belive it was about the middle of the 15th Century when the slave trade from Africa began. based slavery, has always and consistently been condemned by the Church. It was even condemned as I recall about 50-60 years before columbus discovered america.’

Here is an article with more detail.

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/FREECAPT.TXT

We may get quesy about slavery but we have to remember that indentured servitude was a major economic force until it was replaced with serfdom in the middle ages which was only slightly better. Men had to have ways of assuring that they had work and that the landowners had laborers in an equitable manner.

I hope that helps. Let me know if you need more. I have Fr. Panzer’s book and would be glad to review it a bit.

Blessings
 
I would also add that yes there were Catholics who involved themselves in illicit forms of slavery just as today there are 80% of the Catholics who involve themselves in contraception and sterilization. What’s new.

Blessings
 
I just recently read a post in which someone was discussing the Jesuits at Georgetown who held slaves. So, I looked it up and found this article:

“When Pope Pius VI in 1823 ordered the society to surrender the slaves, the American Jesuits turned to an international rule that prevented Rome, a foreign power, to intervene in American affairs.”

Here is the source: thehoya.com/features/020299/features1.htm
 
40.png
Eden:
I just recently read a post in which someone was discussing the Jesuits at Georgetown who held slaves. So, I looked it up and found this article:

“When Pope Pius VI in 1823 ordered the society to surrender the slaves, the American Jesuits turned to an international rule that prevented Rome, a foreign power, to intervene in American affairs.”

Here is the source: thehoya.com/features/020299/features1.htm
I’ve read about that as well. It’s a mixed bag for the Jesuits as the ones in Paraguay actually protected the natives from slavery for as long as they could.
 
40.png
David_Paul:
You might mention to your teacher that Christians ended slavery in American and stopped western nations from being a party to the world slave trade.
It is a mixed historical tale
Slavery was part of Jesus’ cultural milieu and not much changed for centuries after that

The US stopped the importation of slaves 60 years before it abolished the institution and it had the schizophrenic policy of having naval ships intercepting slave ships abroad while existing slaves stayed where they were in the US

But it seems that the Protestant nations, especially Brittan banned slavery first.

While slavery and peonage lingered on for a few more generations in some Catholic nations

Of course in the Grand scheme of things having “only” 1820 years of slavery is not a whole lot better than 1865 years. And the most protestant South was responsible for the Jim Crow laws in the US

Then again serfdom was abolished between 1848 and 1863 in central and eastern Europe and there doesn’t seem to be any difference between the Catholic, Lutheran, or orthodox nations as to when that occurred.

So there doesn’t seem to be a pattern.
 
Mr. Anderson,
Of course in the Grand scheme of things having “only” 1820 years of slavery is not a whole lot better than 1865 years. And the most protestant South was responsible for the Jim Crow laws in the US
Historically this statement is inaccurate. There was indendured servitiude until around the turn of the first millenium. There was some slavery due to war around Aquinas’s time but not much. The race based slavery which is and always was condemned by the Church did not begin in earnest until the mid 15th century.

Please see my post above.
 
40.png
thessalonian:
Mr. Anderson,

Historically this statement is inaccurate. There was indendured servitiude until around the turn of the first millenium. There was some slavery due to war around Aquinas’s time but not much. The race based slavery which is and always was condemned by the Church did not begin in earnest until the mid 15th century.

Please see my post above.
I wasn’t talking only about race based slavery

Slavery in one form or another has been with us for millennium
To concentrate solely on race based slavery is myopic at best

Plato in his “Republic” doesn’t say that to create the perfect society his readers must abolish slavery…he just suggested that they stop enslaving fellow Greeks

As for Aquinas’s time, I don’t know the numbers and while slavery was indeed limited in Europe (not other parts of the world) at least according to your 4 classes of slavery, there was peonage, and other forms of thralldom aplenty which you didn’t count. Societies with hereditary ruling classes and the vast majority of its people tied to the land really didn’t need that much slavery.
 
Steve Andersen:
I wasn’t talking only about race based slavery

Slavery in one form or another has been with us for millennium
To concentrate solely on race based slavery is myopic at best

Plato in his “Republic” doesn’t say that to create the perfect society his readers must abolish slavery…he just suggested that they stop enslaving fellow Greeks

As for Aquinas’s time, I don’t know the numbers and while slavery was indeed limited in Europe (not other parts of the world) at least according to your 4 classes of slavery, there was peonage, and other forms of thralldom aplenty which you didn’t count. Societies with hereditary ruling classes and the vast majority of its people tied to the land really didn’t need that much slavery.
Race based slavery was a rarity before Aquinas.
 
40.png
thessalonian:
This is an area I did quite a little study in a couple of years ago. The is a book written by a Fr. Panzer called “The Popes and Slavery”. It goes through all the significant encyclicals and pastoral letters etc. dealing with the issue. First you must realize that there is a broad range of working relationships and a certain broad category of those working relationships can be termed by some to be slavery. I will put slavery in to four categories for simplicity but it is much more complicated than this:
  1. Indentured servitiude.
  2. Slavery due to imprisonment.
  3. Slavery due to capture in a just war.
  4. Race or other class based slavery.
The Church has ALWAYS allowed for the first three though they are not the natural state of man. Though not in all cases. If one was forced in to indentured servitude for instance rather than choosing it that was condemned and there are several examples of this where such condemnations have occured with excommunications for those who did not obey the order to release the slaves. Enslaved men from a war had to be a product of a just war.

Though the Church Church allowed these forms of slavery it eventually obtained near eradication of them (except for the prisoner form) by the late 1800’s. The fourth type of slavery was very rare before I belive it was about the middle of the 15th Century when the slave trade from Africa began. based slavery, has always and consistently been condemned by the Church. It was even condemned as I recall about 50-60 years before columbus discovered america.’

Here is an article with more detail.

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/FREECAPT.TXT

We may get quesy about slavery but we have to remember that indentured servitude was a major economic force until it was replaced with serfdom in the middle ages which was only slightly better. Men had to have ways of assuring that they had work and that the landowners had laborers in an equitable manner.

I hope that helps. Let me know if you need more. I have Fr. Panzer’s book and would be glad to review it a bit.

Blessings
Do you know what Church documents those quotes are in? To quote a first hand source would do well to prove this textbook wrong.
 
Steve Andersen:
But it seems that the Protestant nations, especially Brittan banned slavery first.
The US was founded as a protestant nation, was a largely protostant natio in the 1800’s and for the most part, still IS a protestant nation.

The Catholic Church always condemed the slavery in America, I believe this is why the KKK is anti-catholic.
 
Paul never objected to slavery in his day, because that was the everyday norm. I don’t believe he ever thought it would someday be abolished. As a matter of fact, he exhorted slaves to be obedient to their masters and to show forth the love of Christ.
 
40.png
Andrew_11:
The US was founded as a protestant nation, was a largely protostant natio in the 1800’s and for the most part, still IS a protestant nation.

The Catholic Church always condemed the slavery in America, I believe this is why the KKK is anti-catholic.
Might be part of it but protestant abolitionists were known for their rabid anti-Catholicism. Against the church as much as they were against slavery.

The only contact I ever had with the KKK (and it was only to have some members pointed out to me) was in a town of less than 200 in New Hampshire near the Canadian border. “Huh?”, I thought. “There aren’t any blacks up here.” Turned out the motivation in the Granite State to join was anti-Catholicism.

This is slightly off topic but in defense of my WASP ancestors, check out this thread posted yesterday.Atlantic Magazine article from 1868. Written by a prot. Effusive in his praise of the Catholic church its laity and its clergy in NYC.
 
40.png
snow_white:
Do you know what Church documents those quotes are in? To quote a first hand source would do well to prove this textbook wrong.
Check out this article. It has the significant quotes.

Many of the documents can be found online if you do a search or go to papalencyclicals.com.

cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a003.html

One example:

“They have deprived the natives of their property or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery (subdiderunt perpetuae servituti), sold them to other persons and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them… Therefore We … exhort, through the sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ shed for their sins, one and all, temporal princes, lords, captains, armed men, barons, soldiers, nobles, communities and all others of every kind among the Christian faithful of whatever state, grade or condition, that they themselves desist from the aforementioned deeds, cause those subject to them to desist from them, and restrain them rigorously. And no less do We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their pristine liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands … who have been made subject to slavery (servituti subicere). These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money.”

The date of this Bull, 1435, is very significant. Nearly 60 years before the Europeans were to find the New World, we already had the papal condemnation of slavery as soon as this crime was discovered in one of the first of the Portuguese geographical discoveries.

Eugene IV was clear in his intentions both to condemn the enslavement of the residents of the Canary Islands, and to demand correction of the injustice within 15 days. Those who did not restore the enslaved to their liberty in that time were to incur the sentence of excommunication ipso facto.
 
40.png
Andrew_11:
The US was founded as a protestant nation, was a largely protostant natio in the 1800’s and for the most part, still IS a protestant nation.

The Catholic Church always condemed the slavery in America, I believe this is why the KKK is anti-catholic.
This is not entirely true. Some Bishops did and some did not. A Synod just before the Cival War said little or nothing about it. Bishop England I think of New York as I recall was in favor of slavery at the time.

There may have been a reason for some of the silence. Part of the problem was that it was obvious that if these slaves were turned loose there would be alot of poverty among them. That is exactly what happened after the cival war. Suddenly there were 4 million men, women, and children in need of the help of Charitable organizations. Blacks ended up impoverished in Ghettos. They are still suffereing today because of the effects of slavery and also the years of poverty from underemployment after the war, which also caused the breadkup of families and a weekend family structure in the black community. The issue wasn’t as simple as “let’s just abolish slavery”.

God bless
 
from wht i understand, i believe hte kkk are anti catholic for the same reason the ‘know nothings’ were anti - catholic, along with most protestants through the 1800s, they believed we slavishly obeyed our pastors and owed more alleigance to the pope in rome than our own nation (you know the same jack chick tracts - one says something like “helen is now a citizen of two countries, with two allegiences ect”), and would obey him, and allow his ‘dictatorship’ to control america if a catholic ever came into power. they thought we would undermine their democracy :rolleyes:

as for slavery, well my guess is catholics as a people, not as a rule in the vatican, were divided on the issue. but i do know that many of the irish catholics were notorious for getting in fights and mobs against blacks because we were told they were gonna take our jobs. in the 1800s we were basically in teh same class as the slaves, just without the title. other catholics, german, italian, ect. i dont really know tho
 
The following is from the Catholic Encyclopedia article “Slavery & Christianity”

“…in 1462, Pius II declared slavery to be “a great crime” (magnum scelus); that, in 1537, Paul III forbade the enslavement of the Indians; that Urban VIII forbade it in 1639, and Benedict XIV in 1741; that Pius VII demanded of the Congress of Vienna, in 1815, the suppression of the slave trade and Gregory XVI condemned it in 1839; that, in the Bull of Canonization of the Jesuit Peter Claver, one of the most illustrious adversaries of slavery, Pius IX branded the “supreme villainy” (summum nefas) of the slave traders. Everyone knows of the beautiful letter which Leo XIII, in 1888, addressed to the Brazilian bishops, exhorting them to banish from their country the remnants of slavery – a letter to which the bishops responded with their most energetic efforts, and some generous slave-owners by freeing their slaves in a body, as in the first ages of the Church.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top