Catholics and The History of Slavery

[Trinacria2020]

but why does everyone think that the Catholic church supported slavery?

Hello, this topic is far more nuanced, and many commenters here have given some very good answers and sources. But some additional considerations here;

1. Slavery (a practice as old as humanity) has various forms in history ranging from what in modern English is “indentured servitude” to “chattel slavery”. The ancient Hebraic version was very much the former, wherein one could sell themselves into slavery for a period, but would be freed typically after 7 years. There was no ethnic or racial slavery that passed on generationally.
2. The Spanyards (and Portuguese) were themselves enslaved by mohammedan Africans (the “moors”) for around 700+ years. Since the rise of mohammedanism in the 7th century, it is estimated that over 20 million Europeans (Spanish, Italians, French and even Irish) were enslaved and sent to Africa. The point is at the discovery of the New World, the mohammedan Arabs were already 800 years into the slave trade and in fact dominated it in Africa…the Europeans simply picked up the practice and continued it Westward.
3. Regardless of the above historical context, the institution of generational/ethnic slavery is and was always seen as evil by the Catholic church. As has been referenced, the official stance of the church always forbade enslaving Christians. Racism as a justification for slavery simply did not exist (this was a protestant invention). Yet despite the Papal bulls (plural, since one was not enough) forbidding the practice, so-called Catholics continued the practice throughout the New World. Yet it was only in the US that the practice took on the racial “one-drop” dimension where anyone with African ancestry could be enslaved.
4. Not sure if you are aware, but there was a very powerful kingdom in Africa called Kongo located in what is now Angola, Congo and Gabon . The Kingdom of Kongo actually converted to Christianity very early on in the 15th century (they had ambassadors in the Papal States), and was a very powerful ally of Portugal for 400 years (until it was finally usurped and colonized). The number 1 export was slaves, which made both Catholic Portugal and Catholic Kongo extremely wealthy.

Like I said, the history is not really cut-and-dry, but it absolutely needs to be seen in context; specifically what the church SAID vs what so-called Catholics DID.

 

[AlNg]

why does everyone think that the Catholic church supported slavery?

Because of Pope Nicholas V’s 1452 papal bull “Dum Diversas,” which authorized the European invasion of Africa, Asia and the Americas, and sanctioned perpetual enslavement.
See:

Religious orders owning slaves isn’t new—black Catholics have emphasized this history for years

Black Catholics have been at the forefront of the push to get the Vatican to confront the church’s racist past and present.

www.americamagazine.org

 

[Neithan]

Columbus discovered the Americas in 1492. Dum Diversas as you note was published in 1452. How could this document possibly be authorizing a European invasion of the Americas and perpetual enslavement of its inhabitants? That should be enough to question the same claim for the other two continents.

Rather than parrot intensely biased secondary and tertiary opinions of history (the author of the linked article probably made the same honest mistake), it would be better to look at the primary documents yourself, with a view to context, and compare the intentions behind them with how political powers used the documents later to justify actions, especially when those actions were condemned by the very same office that ostensibly gave them legal title.

There’s a link to an English translation of Dum Diversas on Wikipedia. Please start here. Unam Sanctam Catholicam: Dum Diversas (English Translation)

 

[AlNg]

There’s a link to an English translation of Dum Diversas on Wikipedia. Please start here.

Here is what it says in part:
" Therefore we consider, that those rising against the Catholic faith and struggling to extinguish Christian Religion must be resisted by the faithful of Christ with courage and firmness, so that the faithful themselves, inflamed by the ardor of faith and armed with courage to be able to hate their intention, not only to go against the intention, if they prevent unjust attempts of force, but with the help of God whose soldiers they are, they stop the endeavors of the faithless, we, fortified with divine love, summoned by the charity of Christians and bound by the duty of our pastoral office, which concerns the integrity and spread of faith for which Christ our God shed his blood, wishing to encourage the vigor of the faithful and Your Royal Majesty in the most sacred intention of this kind, we grant to you full and free power, through the Apostolic authority by this edict, to invade, conquer, fight, subjugate the Saracens and pagans, and other infidels and other enemies of Christ, and wherever established their Kingdoms, Duchies, Royal Palaces, Principalities and other dominions, lands, places, estates, camps and any other possessions, mobile and immobile goods found in all these places and held in whatever name, and held and possessed by the same Saracens, Pagans, infidels, and the enemies of Christ, also realms, duchies, royal palaces, principalities and other dominions, lands, places, estates, camps, possessions of the king or prince or of the kings or princes, and to lead their persons in perpetual servitude, and to apply and appropriate realms, duchies, royal palaces, principalities and other dominions, possessions and goods of this kind to you and your use and your successors the Kings of Portugal."

 

[Neithan]

I see you’ve bolded the impugned phrase for my benefit. Yes, that is the dicta in question. The church long held slavery as a just title in a just war, though without chattel rights. Can you see any nuance in the historical situation there? Place it in the context of the crusades, and then look at other documents that condemned how the Portuguese later applied this apparent licence to enslave.

 

[AlNg]

I see you’ve bolded the impugned phrase for my benefit.

So is it OK to lead Pagans, such as Hindus or Buddhists, into perpetual slavery?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Sublimis Deus in 1537 prohibited any kind of slavery of any kind of person. At least, that’s what I read on Wikipedia.

 

[Aquinas11]

So is it OK to lead Pagans, such as Hindus or Buddhists, into perpetual slavery?

would they be “rising against the Catholic faith and struggling to extinguish the Christian religion”?

" Therefore we consider, that those rising against the Catholic faith and struggling to extinguish Christian Religion must be resisted by the faithful of Christ with courage and firmness, so that the faithful themselves, inflamed by the ardor of faith and armed with courage to be able to hate their intention, not only to go against the intention, if they prevent unjust attempts of force, but with the help of God whose soldiers they are, they stop the endeavors of the faithless, we, fortified with divine love, summoned by the charity of Christians and bound by the duty of our pastoral office, which concerns the integrity and spread of faith for which Christ our God shed his blood, wishing to encourage the vigor of the faithful and Your Royal Majesty in the most sacred intention of this kind, we grant to you full and free power, through the Apostolic authority by this edict, to invade, conquer, fight, subjugate the Saracens and pagans, and other infidels and other enemies of Christ, and wherever established their Kingdoms, Duchies, Royal Palaces, Principalities and other dominions, lands, places, estates, camps and any other possessions, mobile and immobile goods found in all these places and held in whatever name, and held and possessed by the same Saracens, Pagans, infidels, and the enemies of Christ, also realms, duchies, royal palaces, principalities and other dominions, lands, places, estates, camps, possessions of the king or prince or of the kings or princes, and to lead their persons in perpetual servitude, and to apply and appropriate realms, duchies, royal palaces, principalities and other dominions, possessions and goods of this kind to you and your use and your successors the Kings of Portugal."

 

[Neithan]

No, because slavery is pernicious. If we were in a just war and a feudal economy, then perpetual servitude (serfdom) could be part of conquest, unfortunately. Thankfully, we are no longer under those conditions.

 

[tafan2]

It would not have said convincing a slave to flee his master makes that person anathema

When did this get said?

 

[tafan2]

Christopher Columbus committed genocide?

 

[tafan2]

If they were:

rising against the Catholic faith and struggling to extinguish Christian Religion

the Pope said it was ok.

 

[AlNg]

there are Hindus in India who have risen up against oppression by Catholics as I have read in the paper. So it is ok to enslave them forever?

 

[Neithan]

There is a lot of propaganda in India lately. Is that paper online? I’m curious what sort of oppression is happening and what the uprising is about.

Also if you need an official Catholic Answer to your question, it’s in paragraph 2414 of the catechism.

2414 The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings , to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, . . . both in the flesh and in the Lord.”

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

It’s not fully clear what “under pretext of piety” means. But the council was mostly focused on stopping an extreme form of asceticism, so what it was probably condemning was when slaves/servants quit for the purpose of being ascetics.

What would you say is the main reason a slave would want to escape his master? Likely to obtain freedom, to avoid being beaten/killed, (if his family is not with him) to reunite with his family or return to his homeland. I would say extreme asceticism is not high on that list. Also if you look through the Synod of Gangra there are a few canons which explicitly state “under pretence of asceticism” so if that’s what they were trying to avoid then they would have used that same language in the canon about slaves. No, this was about making sure that people didn’t take their slaves away.

SOME Catholics (and a much higher proportion of protestants, by the way) tolerated slavery or even owned slaves themselves.

Can you back up such a claim that Protestants were far more tolerant of slavery? What are your sources?

The Catholic Church has always condemned chattel and racial slavery (i.e. the type of slavery that existed in America from the 16th to 19th centuries) which is what virtually everyone has in mind when they hear the word “slavery”.

This is what is known as a distinction without a difference. Chattel slavery and biblical slavery are peas of the same pod if we follow the rules of slavery as outlined in the Bible. They could be purchased and passed down as property. In fact, God twice calls slaves property in the Bible. They could be beaten to death, so long as it was a lingering death of at least a day. People could be born into slavery and remain slaves in perpetuity. I’m not seeing the bright line that separates the so-called types of slavery.

That does not mean that they tolerated or agreed with slavery. It means that, in accordance with St Paul, Christians should submit to the law even when it treats them unjustly.

Paul is talking about abiding by laws of others that you may not like. That is much different than making laws. If you make a law saying a person is anathema/excommunicated for trying to convince a slave to leave his or her master then the lawmaker is tolerating/agreeing with slavery.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The Church was not against slavery as a whole as an absolute principle, though it certainly took a radically different view of it compared with the ancient world from the very beginning, to which we can now credit the modern departure from a formerly ubiquitous practice.

How was it radically different? Would you consider it moral or merely not as evil as the slavery practiced by other nations?

It’s somewhat like capital punishment. It’s a consequence of a fallen world but was legally permissible if considered strictly as a perpetual contract of service and ownership of labour, not reducing people to chattel or somehow justified by (anti-Christian) ideas of racial inferiority. The moral teaching developed: it’s now never condoned because it’s entirely unnecessary and is always abused.

Read my response to Petergree as to all the abuses God allowed for when it came to biblical slavery. God is said to be all-knowing and all-loving, but couldn’t fathom a world where society could exist without slavery. We don’t teach our children to do evil things and then ween them into doing good.

And a brief aside on claiming that ideas of racial inferioty were anti-Christian. While some were, the idea of the “Curse of Ham” certainly spread in strictly Christian circles.

Sublimis Deus in 1537 prohibited any kind of slavery of any kind of person. At least, that’s what I read on Wikipedia.

It was retracted a year later at the request of Spain. Does the Church get credit for that or is it a testament to capitulation?

Mike_from_NJ:

It would not have said convincing a slave to flee his master makes that person anathema

When did this get said?

This was one of the canons in the Synod of Gangra. The fourth ecumenical council of Chalcedon listed several prior synods as being law, with one of them being Gangra. What’s interesting to me is that the Church considers proper ecumenical councils to be infallible. Since an infallible council calls Gangra law, then its call to make anathema those who would convince a slave to leave his master is also an infallible teaching.

 

[AlNg]

if you need an official Catholic Answer to your question, it’s in paragraph 2414 of the catechism.

How does that relate to what was stated in Dum Diversis?

I’m curious what sort of oppression is happening and what the uprising is about.

Indian nationalists have their own reasons for thinking so. i read that they do not like being called Pagans.

Indian Hindu group accuses Catholics of plotting against government

Country’s Catholic 2.4% under attack from radical Hinduism and Indian nationalism

www.irishtimes.com

Priest assaulted by Hindu nationalists in India

A Catholic priest was attacked by a Hindu mob in northern India, and then arrested by police after Hindus accused him of causing the disturbance.

cruxnow.com

How Hindu Extremists Shut Down Christian Churches

There is no fundamental right to conduct a religious service in India, and Hindu fundamentalist groups are finding ways to ban public Christian worship.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Neithan]

How was it radically different? Would you consider it moral or merely not as evil as the slavery practiced by other nations?

Because ownership of the person in such a way that they are no longer persons in their own right — chattel slavery — that was the practice in the ancient world, could not be reconciled with the Christian belief that all human beings have equal worth and dignity under God.

Forcibly reducing innocent people into chattel slavery is always immoral. As for perpetual servitude, if it is in place of some debt or punishment or if circumstances are such that someone has no other means of subsistence, then separating the ownership of a person’s labour from ownership of the person: a perpetual master—servant relationship, is theoretically moral if it respects the personal rights of the servant; but slavery cannot be condoned in practice because it inevitably leads to abuse.

God is said to be all-knowing and all-loving, but couldn’t fathom a world where society could exist without slavery. We don’t teach our children to do evil things and then ween them into doing good

Replace the word “slavery” with any other kind of suffering. It’s basically the problem of evil. A parent or teacher might permit a child or student to make mistakes, even bad mistakes, in order to avoid a much worse error, or to learn from it. God does not command evil, but permits it for a greater good.

And a brief aside on claiming that ideas of racial inferioty were anti-Christian. While some were, the idea of the “Curse of Ham” certainly spread in strictly Christian circles.

Heresies are anti-Christian by distorting Christianity.

 

[FiveLinden]

What does Christopher Columbus have to do with slavery? He neither enslaved nor owned any slaves. He adopted a Taino son who later went to Spain to inherit 1/3rd of his property (along with his other 2 natural sons). Please study the topic before responding (and by that, I mean the original source material…not the op/ed commentary).

Just Google it.

 

[Neithan]

How does that relate to what was stated in Dum Diversis?

I thought maybe you wanted to know what Catholic teaching is, today. Your questions would be anachronistic if you are asking specifically about the purpose of Dum Diversas and then citing current events. I assume you’re asking in good faith.

Do you believe Catholics are oppressing Hindus in India?