Civil rights/ Slavery

[dmar198]

These are instances where Church authorities were against slavery. However, it seems like you omitted the cases where the Church authorities came out in favor of slavery. Why not include both?
For example, the Council of Gangra.

First of all, re: the Council of Gangra :: that council only mentions slavery once, and that is to say, “Slaves [have been caught] leaving their masters, and, on account of their own strange apparel, acting insolently towards their masters.” The Council condemns this. This is not at all incompatible with the Church’s condemnations of the enslavement of free persons, or its efforts to ransom slaves, or its teaching that slaves and their masters are equals. To be a slave isn’t always unjust, and so the Church has always told slaves who are justly under the dominion of another person to make the best of their condition, not to run away from it. When a person has slaves unjustly, or where slaves are treated as inferior to their masters, that is where slaves have a right to get away, and the Church has always helped them do so.

Second of all, re: why I omitted cases where Church authorities came out in favor of slavery :: because they were acting or teaching against the Catholic teaching on slavery. (Except the ones who talked about “just title” slavery.) I also don’t include Nanci Pelosi in a timeline of Catholic teaching on abortion. She may be an influential Catholic, but she goes against Church teaching, so her views shouldn’t be included in a presentation of the Catholic teaching on abortion. In this timeline, the topic is the historical roots of the Church’s teaching against slavery. Some Catholic leaders disagreed with this, especially royal officials (a bunch of the Catholic kings of Spain and France, for example), and some Catholic bishops misunderstood the doctrine and therefore taught a contrary thing in good faith. But I don’t include them in my document because they don’t reflect what the Catholic teaching was, but rather a departure from it.

 

[Darryl_B]

First of all, re: the Council of Gangra :: that council only mentions slavery once, and that is to say, “Slaves [have been caught] leaving their masters, and, on account of their own strange apparel, acting insolently towards their masters.” The Council condemns this. This is not at all incompatible with the Church’s condemnations of the enslavement of free persons, or its efforts to ransom slaves, or its teaching that slaves and their masters are equals. To be a slave isn’t always unjust, and so the Church has always told slaves who are justly under the dominion of another person to make the best of their condition, not to run away from it. When a person has slaves unjustly, or where slaves are treated as inferior to their masters, that is where slaves have a right to get away, and the Church has always helped them do so.

Second of all, re: why I omitted cases where Church authorities came out in favor of slavery :: because they were acting or teaching against the Catholic teaching on slavery. (Except the ones who talked about “just title” slavery.) I also don’t include Nanci Pelosi in a timeline of Catholic teaching on abortion. She may be an influential Catholic, but she goes against Church teaching, so her views shouldn’t be included in a presentation of the Catholic teaching on abortion. In this timeline, the topic is the historical roots of the Church’s teaching against slavery. Some Catholic leaders disagreed with this, especially royal officials (a bunch of the Catholic kings of Spain and France, for example), and some Catholic bishops misunderstood the doctrine and therefore taught a contrary thing in good faith. But I don’t include them in my document because they don’t reflect what the Catholic teaching was, but rather a departure from it.

So if the Catholic Church didn’t support raw slavery (by raw I mean treating people like posessions) who did? It existed in the last 400 years and was a struggle to get rid of?

Sorry I am thinking of William Wilberforce and the Nigerian immigration to America.

 

[Abu]

Darryl B #22
So if the Catholic Church didn’t support raw slavery (by raw I mean treating people like posessions) who did? It existed in the last 400 years and was a struggle to get rid of?

Those without sound morals and who saw personal gain in it did.

There existed the practice of various types of slavery before the 15th century. However, it was not until the 15th century, and with growing frequency from the 16th to the 19th centuries, that racial slavery as we know it became a major problem. It is this form of servitude that is called to mind when we think today of the institution of slavery, and is the type which was to prevail in parts of the New World for over four centuries.

The Magisterium condemned from the beginning the colonial slavery that developed in the newly discovered lands.

Fr Joel Panzer:
“The pontifical decree known as The Sublime God has indeed had an exalted role in the cause of social justice in the New World. Recently, authors such as Gustavo Gutierrez [liberation theologian] have noted this fact: 'The bull of Pope Paul III, Sublimis Deus (June 2, 1537), is regarded as the most important papal pronouncement on the human condition of the Indians.’ It is, moreover, addressed to all of the Christian faithful in the world, and not to a particular bishop in one area, thereby not limiting its significance, but universalizing it.”

“Eugene IV and Paul III did not hesitate to condemn the forced servitude of Blacks and Indians, and they did so once such practices became known to the Holy See. Their teaching was continued by Gregory XIV in 1591 and by Urban VIII in 1639.”
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM

‘Sixty years before Columbus “discovered” the New World, Pope Eugene IV condemned the enslavement of peoples in the newly colonized Canary Islands. His bull *Sicut Dudum *(1435) rebuked European enslavers and commanded that “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.”

‘A century later, Pope Paul III applied the same principle to the newly encountered inhabitants of the West and South Indies in the bull *Sublimis Deus *(1537). Therein he described the enslavers as allies of the devil and declared attempts to justify such slavery “null and void.” Accompanying the bull was another document, Pastorale Officium, which attached a latae sententiae excommunication remittable only by the pope himself for those who attempted to enslave the Indians or steal their goods.

‘When Europeans began enslaving Africans as a cheap source of labor, the Holy Office of the Inquisition was asked about the morality of enslaving innocent blacks (Response of the Congregation of the Holy Office, 230, March 20, 1686). The practice was rejected, as was trading such slaves. Slaveholders, the Holy Office declared, were obliged to emancipate and even compensate blacks unjustly enslaved.

‘Papal condemnation of slavery persisted throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Pope Gregory XVI’s 1839 bull, In Supremo, for instance, reiterated papal opposition to enslaving “Indians, blacks, or other such people” and forbade “any ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this trade in blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse.” In 1888 and again in 1890, Pope Leo XIII forcefully condemned slavery and sought its elimination where it persisted in parts of South America and Africa.’
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp

 

[Darryl_B]

Those without sound morals and who saw personal gain in it did.

There existed the practice of various types of slavery before the 15th century. However, it was not until the 15th century, and with growing frequency from the 16th to the 19th centuries, that racial slavery as we know it became a major problem. It is this form of servitude that is called to mind when we think today of the institution of slavery, and is the type which was to prevail in parts of the New World for over four centuries.

The Magisterium condemned from the beginning the colonial slavery that developed in the newly discovered lands.

Fr Joel Panzer:
“The pontifical decree known as The Sublime God has indeed had an exalted role in the cause of social justice in the New World. Recently, authors such as Gustavo Gutierrez [liberation theologian] have noted this fact: 'The bull of Pope Paul III, Sublimis Deus (June 2, 1537), is regarded as the most important papal pronouncement on the human condition of the Indians.’ It is, moreover, addressed to all of the Christian faithful in the world, and not to a particular bishop in one area, thereby not limiting its significance, but universalizing it.”

“Eugene IV and Paul III did not hesitate to condemn the forced servitude of Blacks and Indians, and they did so once such practices became known to the Holy See. Their teaching was continued by Gregory XIV in 1591 and by Urban VIII in 1639.”
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM

‘Sixty years before Columbus “discovered” the New World, Pope Eugene IV condemned the enslavement of peoples in the newly colonized Canary Islands. His bull *Sicut Dudum *(1435) rebuked European enslavers and commanded that “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.”

‘A century later, Pope Paul III applied the same principle to the newly encountered inhabitants of the West and South Indies in the bull *Sublimis Deus *(1537). Therein he described the enslavers as allies of the devil and declared attempts to justify such slavery “null and void.” Accompanying the bull was another document, Pastorale Officium, which attached a latae sententiae excommunication remittable only by the pope himself for those who attempted to enslave the Indians or steal their goods.

‘When Europeans began enslaving Africans as a cheap source of labor, the Holy Office of the Inquisition was asked about the morality of enslaving innocent blacks (Response of the Congregation of the Holy Office, 230, March 20, 1686). The practice was rejected, as was trading such slaves. Slaveholders, the Holy Office declared, were obliged to emancipate and even compensate blacks unjustly enslaved.

‘Papal condemnation of slavery persisted throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Pope Gregory XVI’s 1839 bull, In Supremo, for instance, reiterated papal opposition to enslaving “Indians, blacks, or other such people” and forbade “any ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this trade in blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse.” In 1888 and again in 1890, Pope Leo XIII forcefully condemned slavery and sought its elimination where it persisted in parts of South America and Africa.’
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp

Thank you.