Church and Slavery

[dominikus28]

I have found many references saying that the Council of Toledo made children of priests be treated as slaves.

This is one of the references:

(655 CE): In an attempt to persuade priests to remain celibate, the 9th Council of Toledo decided that all children of clerics automatically become slaves. This decision was subsequently incorporated into the canon law of the church.

romancatholicresources.com/2009/05/where-the-catholic-priests-who-can-marry/

If the Church was so against slavery, how can Catholics explain this away?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Explain it away? You’ll never get to the truth of the matter if you approach it with an attitude like that.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

I read your referenced artical and found that its author has fallen prey to one of the great contemporary mistakes in quoting history: judging historical behavior by modern standards.
From ancient times until the early 19th century most of Western Society felt there was nothing wrong with slavery. Slavery is non-perjoritively mentioned in the Old Testiment several times. It is not even nevatively mentioned in the New Testament.
The first protests to civil authorities against slavery came from the early Spanish Missionaries in South America-especially in what is now Peru who protested the enslavement of the Indian population. Of course, the Civil Authorities in Spain paid them no attention, and the whole issue was forgotten by the Civil Authoritie who were not controlled by the Church.
So, just like executing a murderer today is not considered a sin, enslaving someone as a punishemnt or as a preventive measure was not considered either sinful or wrong.
You have to realize that until the Quakers in England became slavery abolitionists in the late 1700’s, no one thought that slavery was wrong. Their influence in British politics led to the British abolution of Slavery in 1833. This led to the Abolition Movement in the US and ultimately the American Civil War. The Catholic Church did not condone Slavery except as a punishment after the 1400’s but it had very little influence over the civil acceptance of the practice.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

This article could be one part of one’s research into the history of the Catholic Church’s historical positions on slavery, focusing on periods of partial opposition. It doesn’t, if I recall, address the idea of one’s socio-political status, including that of slavery, being inherited or otherwise determined by one’s birth, which was an ubiquitous part of Western Civilization for far too long and may explain why some bishops apparently assumed an accident of birth was a perfectly just reason for someone to be a slave.

catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=1008

 

[wcknight]

I’ve read that many priests during the civil war were partial to the south. There were a lot of southern Catholics. Slavery was condoned (or at least tolerated as a fact of life during those times) in the Bible. It was an accepted practice among jews that folks became slaves as debtors or as captives.

As far as I can tell there is no condemnation of slavery in the Bible. And there is even some reference for slaves to accept their fate. There was no call to revolt or disobey their masters,

 

[Rolltide]

I read your referenced artical and found that its author has fallen prey to one of the great contemporary mistakes in quoting history: judging historical behavior by modern standards.
From ancient times until the early 19th century most of Western Society felt there was nothing wrong with slavery. Slavery is non-perjoritively mentioned in the Old Testiment several times. It is not even nevatively mentioned in the New Testament.
The first protests to civil authorities against slavery came from the early Spanish Missionaries in South America-especially in what is now Peru who protested the enslavement of the Indian population. Of course, the Civil Authorities in Spain paid them no attention, and the whole issue was forgotten by the Civil Authoritie who were not controlled by the Church.
So, just like executing a murderer today is not considered a sin, enslaving someone as a punishemnt or as a preventive measure was not considered either sinful or wrong.
You have to realize that until the Quakers in England became slavery abolitionists in the late 1700’s, no one thought that slavery was wrong. Their influence in British politics led to the British abolution of Slavery in 1833. This led to the Abolition Movement in the US and ultimately the American Civil War. The Catholic Church did not condone Slavery except as a punishment after the 1400’s but it had very little influence over the civil acceptance of the practice.

See this thread for an explanation of slavery from the historical point of view, including the changes that took place at the time of the discovery of the New World:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=678945

I should correct you however. The first protests in the New World came in the Caribbean and Central America. (I detail the chronology at length in the other thread.)

I should also explain that while the church condoned slavery (to a point), it was not really seen as a positive thing. Much like the death penalty today, it was permitted in certain circumstances and tolerated, but it was certainly wasn’t seen as a moral good.