Did popes owned slaves?

[fabio_rocha]

“Although some Catholic clergy, religious orders and Popes owned slaves, and the naval galleys of the Papal States were to use captured Muslim galley slaves,[4] Roman Catholic teaching began to turn more strongly against “unjust” forms of slavery in general, beginning in 1435, prohibiting the enslavement of the recently baptised,[5] culminating in pronouncements by Pope Paul III in 1537.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery

Is this true?

 

[Abu]

fabio rocha #1
"Although some Catholic clergy, religious orders and Popes owned slaves, and the naval galleys of the Papal States were to use captured Muslim galley slaves,[4] Roman Catholic teaching began to turn more strongly against “unjust” forms of slavery in general, beginning in 1435

Don’t rely on Wikipedia for facts on Christ and His Church.

While God allowed divorce, slavery, and polygamy, none of these were positively commanded by God. For instance, in Exodus 21:2, the Sacred Scripture says: “If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve thee; in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.” Note here that God is not commanding the Israelites to have slaves (servants). Rather, He is merely implicitly permitting them to have slaves. The verse here talks about the regulation of slaves and therefore is an implicit endorsement of slavery. But this is a far cry from God commanding the Israelites to have slaves. This difference is important because the death penalty, unlike slavery, is firmly commanded by God, not merely permitted.

God asked the Israelites to treat their servants well. Also, as pointed out in Leviticus 22: 10-11, the servants or slaves had some privileges which even some Israelites did not.

In Ephesians 6:5, 8 Paul is often quoted eagerly, but very seldom ver. 9: “Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no, partiality with Him.” This equality before God encouraged the early Church to convert slaves – Pope Callistus (d. 236) had been a slave. With the demise of the Roman empire, the embrace of those in slavery continued and only ordination to the priesthood was denied.

Christ had not condemned slavery and St Paul told slaves to obey their masters (Col 3:22, et al), but with St Paul, the Church revolutionised the status of the slave from the first: (re Onesimus) “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.” (Philemon 1:16).

 

[Mount_Carmel]

This thread still has me curious about the rowers in the Papal States war/naval galleys. Just how were they treated - considering there was also no Geneva Convention into the treatment of prisoners?

Did the guy who beat out the rowing stroke rate on the drum say, “Now please keep up lads”, or give the ‘slackers’ a taste of the lash?

 

[inocente]

“Although some Catholic clergy, religious orders and Popes owned slaves, and the naval galleys of the Papal States were to use captured Muslim galley slaves,[4] Roman Catholic teaching began to turn more strongly against “unjust” forms of slavery in general, beginning in 1435, prohibiting the enslavement of the recently baptised,[5] culminating in pronouncements by Pope Paul III in 1537.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery

Is this true?

The references in that quote are to the book “Slavery and the Catholic Church” which turns out to have been written by a Catholic priest, Father John F. Maxwell, in 1975 and is online here:

anthonyflood.com/maxwellslaverycatholicchurch.pdf

So far I’ve only read the foreword and one of the pages referred to in your quote, which cites a papal document from 1548 (my emphasis):

“By reason of our pastoral office, we gladly attend to the troubles [due to the lack of slaves] of individual Christians, as far as we can with God’s help; …] [we decree] that each and every person of either sex, whether Roman or non-Roman, whether secular or clerical, and no matter of what dignity, status, degree, order or condition they be, may freely and lawfully buy and sell publicly any slaves whatsoever of either sex, and make contracts about them as is accustomed to be done in other places, and publicly hold them as slaves and make use of their work, and compel them to do the work assigned to them. And with Apostolic authority, by the tenor of these present documents, we enact and decree in perpetuity that slaves who flee to the Capitol and appeal for their liberty shall in no wise be freed from the bondage of their servitude, but that notwithstanding their flight and appeal of this sort they shall be returned in slavery to their owners, and if it seems proper they shall be punished as runaways; and we very strictly forbid our beloved sons who for the time being are conservatori of the said city to presume by their authority to emancipate the aforesaid slaves …]”

But as the foreword says, “the fact is that the history of Catholic teaching concerning the moral legitimacy of slavery is not simple and straightforward”.

 

[RPRPsych]

This thread still has me curious about the rowers in the Papal States war/naval galleys. Just how were they treated - considering there was also no Geneva Convention into the treatment of prisoners?

Did the guy who beat out the rowing stroke rate on the drum say, “Now please keep up lads”, or give the ‘slackers’ a taste of the lash?

The latter, I would guess. I don’t think people in those positions had either the time or the inclination to consider Christ’s message, especially in high-pressure, battle situations.

 

[SpidersfromMars]

Christ had not condemned slavery…

Why* didn’t *Christ condemn slavery? It seems like exactly the sort of thing He would want to speak out against.

 

[Abu]

Israel was the chosen nation, and the other peoples were not. If they were circumcised, then the servants themselves were considered Israelites, via “adoption.” In other words, nothing better could happen to a pagan than to be made a servant in Israel.

While God allowed divorce, slavery, and polygamy, none of these were positively commanded by God.

For instance, in Exodus 21:2, the Sacred Scripture says: “If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve thee; in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.” Note here that God is not commanding the Israelites to have slaves (servants). Rather, He is merely implicitly permitting them to have slaves. The verse here talks about the regulation of slaves and therefore is an implicit endorsement of slavery. But this is a far cry from God commanding the Israelites to have slaves. This difference is important because the death penalty, unlike slavery, is firmly commanded by God, not merely permitted.

What is referred to in other translations as “slaves” is more correctly rendered as “servants,” as the Douay Bible has it. When we 21st century people think of slaves and slavery, what comes to mind right away is the horrible atrocities committed by white men against blacks in the United States mostly during the 1800’s. But this is not the kind of slavery we read about in the Sacred Scriptures. God asked the Israelites to treat their servants well. Also, as pointed out in Leviticus 22: 10-11, the servants or slaves had some privileges which even some Israelites did not.
See: A Matter of Justice by Mario Derksen:
catholicapologetics.info/morality/deathpenalty/punishment.htm

“Under Roman Law the slave was a chattel with no more rights than an animal. His master might seduce, mutilate, torture or kill him without any interference by the law.” [Sir Arnold Lunn, *Is The Catholic Church Anti-Social?, Burns & Oates 1946, p 186, 188].

The Church revolutionised the status of the slave long before there could be any thought of abolishing slavery. The inalienable rights of the slave to marriage and then family were safeguarded from the first by the precepts of the Church, and were later secured by legal enactment in the Theodosian code, which was later revised and classified by Justinian (A.D. 527-565). The law followed where the Church had led. The granting of religious equality to slaves was a silent but tremendous revolution – emancipated slaves were often raised to the priesthood and even to the very Chair of St Peter, Pius I and Callistus I in the second and third centuries. (Ibid. p 187).
[See *The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 30].

 

[mikekle]

I just wonder if this debate is just another case of mankind trying to make it seem our views and ideas on what is generally right and wrong is universal and ‘most likely’ God would see it the same way? I think we would be surprised at some of things God considers to be ‘right and/or wrong’ in HIS opinion, and really that is all that matters, how mankind feels about something is not relevant, or Gods opinion would always trump mans.

Something else Ive wondered about regarding slavery, does anyone know if african american people were even mentioned in the bible? and how they were viewed by people back then?

in todays world, 99.5% of people would say ANY type of slavery is wrong and should be criminalized, but in as recent times as the early 1960s, many people had a different opinion, so when you look at the big picture, historically slavery has not been considered morally wrong for that long, and for all we know, at some time in the future, our world could possibly go back to old beliefs…none of us knows what the future holds, so anything is possible.

 

[pensmama87]

I think it’s also complicated by the fact that slavery has looked very different in different times and places. Most Americans think of the enslavement of black people on cotton plantations, but that’s far from the only way slavery has existed. It’s my understanding that slavery in Biblical times had more in common with indentured servitude during the colonial period.

There is an interpretation of the Bible that Africans came from the descendants of Ham, one of Noah’s sons, but I don’t know how old that interpretation is or where it comes from, or if it’s considered OK for Catholics to subscribe to. (Shem, one of Noah’s other sons, is where we get the word “Semite”, as in Jewish and Arabic peoples.)

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Israel was the chosen nation, and the other peoples were not. If they were circumcised, then the servants themselves were considered Israelites, via “adoption.” In other words, nothing better could happen to a pagan than to be made a servant in Israel.

Today, is it better to live in chains, be beaten, and have your children taken from you in a first world country or to be free in a third world country?

While God allowed divorce, slavery, and polygamy, none of these were positively commanded by God.

For instance, in Exodus 21:2, the Sacred Scripture says: “If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve thee; in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.”

You left out a few of the nastier parts. For example, that this is only for male slaves and that non-Hebrews were slaves for life. Then there is this from just two verses later, “If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.” That is absolutely vile. The man is then given two choices, either leave without his family or to have his ear run through with an awl and agree to be a slave for life. So a Hebrew family man would most likely not be free after the seventh. No matter what the wife and children will be slaves for life.

Note here that God is not commanding the Israelites to have slaves (servants). Rather, He is merely implicitly permitting them to have slaves. The verse here talks about the regulation of slaves and therefore is an implicit endorsement of slavery. But this is a far cry from God commanding the Israelites to have slaves.

Let’s change the wording around. Let’s say that the bible gave rules to when a Hebrew man could rape a woman, stating that it had to be an unmarried woman and could not be done on the Sabbath. In my scenario, is God permitting rape but not endorsing it? And just because he’s not forcing people to have slaves, that doesn’t mean he is against it.

This difference is important because the death penalty, unlike slavery, is firmly commanded by God, not merely permitted.

Again, God is permitting slavery and the fact that it’s optional doesn’t mean a hill of beans. He’s not silent on the matter and he’s certainly not forbidding it.

What is referred to in other translations as “slaves” is more correctly rendered as “servants,” as the Douay Bible has it.

Incorrect. You can’t beat servants to death.

When we 21st century people think of slaves and slavery, what comes to mind right away is the horrible atrocities committed by white men against blacks in the United States mostly during the 1800’s. But this is not the kind of slavery we read about in the Sacred Scriptures. God asked the Israelites to treat their servants well.

That last statement is completely and absolutely the most wrong statement you’ve written. Check out Exodus 21:20-21, "“If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.” There is simply no way on earth the square the fanciful notion that slaves were to be treated well yet there was simply no punishment to killing a slave so long as it lived for a day. None whatsoever.

The Church revolutionised the status of the slave long before there could be any thought of abolishing slavery.

God is God, right? God commanded that all Hebrew men were to be circumcised, and he almost killed Moses when his son wasn’t circumcised in a timely enough fashion. He commanded what fringes were to be worn and what food to eat. He commanded them to rest once every seven days. He commanded so many things, yet time after time after time people try to suggest that God simply couldn’t command the Hebrews not to keep slaves – that somehow he had to consider the pagan people even though in all of his other commands there were no such considerations. It’s ridiculous on its face.

 

[mikekle]

Today, is it better to live in chains, be beaten, and have your children taken from you in a first world country or to be free in a third world country?

You left out a few of the nastier parts. For example, that this is only for male slaves and that non-Hebrews were slaves for life. Then there is this from just two verses later, “If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.” That is absolutely vile. The man is then given two choices, either leave without his family or to have his ear run through with an awl and agree to be a slave for life. So a Hebrew family man would most likely not be free after the seventh. No matter what the wife and children will be slaves for life.

Let’s change the wording around. Let’s say that the bible gave rules to when a Hebrew man could rape a woman, stating that it had to be an unmarried woman and could not be done on the Sabbath. In my scenario, is God permitting rape but not endorsing it? And just because he’s not forcing people to have slaves, that doesn’t mean he is against it.

Again, God is permitting slavery and the fact that it’s optional doesn’t mean a hill of beans. He’s not silent on the matter and he’s certainly not forbidding it.

Incorrect. You can’t beat servants to death.

That last statement is completely and absolutely the most wrong statement you’ve written. Check out Exodus 21:20-21, "“If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.” There is simply no way on earth the square the fanciful notion that slaves were to be treated well yet there was simply no punishment to killing a slave so long as it lived for a day. None whatsoever.

God is God, right? God commanded that all Hebrew men were to be circumcised, and he almost killed Moses when his son wasn’t circumcised in a timely enough fashion. He commanded what fringes were to be worn and what food to eat. He commanded them to rest once every seven days. He commanded so many things, yet time after time after time people try to suggest that God simply couldn’t command the Hebrews not to keep slaves – that somehow he had to consider the pagan people even though in all of his other commands there were no such considerations. It’s ridiculous on its face.

Hard to dispute that!! Another point, I went to catholic school for almost 8 years and am in a catholic family, and to this day, I have never heard of these verses. It makes me wonder why we were never taught about this…or other things in the bible, is starting to make me feel catholic school and church in general is only interested in talking about verses that IT feels is important and just ignores everything else, or if it doesnt ‘mesh’ well enough with our modern world and ideas.

Very interesting.

 

[Abu]

In ancient Israel, the slaves were prisoners of war, criminals, or indentured servants. Relative to the time, slavery was a humane alternative to slaughter, cruel punishment, starvation, or debt imprisonment.

The Old Testament regulates divorce, but it also says that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16). And Jesus tells us that the Father tolerated divorce among the Israelites because of the hardness of their hearts (Mk 10:4-5; Mt 19:8) Thus, though the Old Testament regulated slavery, it did not approve of it.

Anyone who abducted another person and sold them into slavery (cf. the story of Joseph and his brothers in Genesis): “A kidnapper, whether he sells his victim or still has him when caught, shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:16).

The Mosaic Law recognizes that slaves are human beings, not merely property. The punishment for killing a slave is the same as for killing a free person, i.e. death: “When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished…. But if injury, ensures you shall give life for life….” (Exodus 21:20, 23). This was unique in the ancient world at that time.

The purpose of the lex talionis was the enforcement of rigorous justice, and the prevention of greater penalties than would be just. Christ refers to this passge in Mt 5:38ff.

The defects of some atheists are exemplified by their inability to know or understand the reality of the Fall and the subsequent degradation of humanity by it, or to understand God’s helps to humanity to recover.

As former atheist Antony Flew attests:
“Two noted philosophers, one an agnostic (Anthony Kenny) and the other an atheist (Nagel), recently pointed out that Dawkins has failed to address three major issues that ground the rational case for God. As it happens, these are the very same issues that had driven me to accept the existence of a God: the laws of nature, life with its teleological organization and the existence of the Universe. Another relatively recent change in my philosophical views is my affirmation of the freedom of the will.”
tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm

 

[livingwordunity]

Even if a there was ever a Pope that owned a “slave”, is being a “slave” such a bad deal if a “slave” is treated justly and fairly? “Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.” (Colossians 4:1)

 

[Abu]

Quoting St Paul is salutary as the facts need exposure since this has been a favourite misconception.

In Ephesians 6:5, 8, Paul is often quoted eagerly, but very seldom ver. 9: “Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no, partiality with Him.” This equality before God encouraged the early Church to convert slaves – Pope Callistus (d. 236) had been a slave. With the demise of the Roman empire, the embrace of those in slavery continued and only ordination to the priesthood was denied.

Priests urged owners to free their slaves, and by the seventh century there was considerable evidence of unions of free men and female slaves. In 649 Clovis II, king of the Franks, married his British slave Clotilda. After his death, Clotilda campaigned to halt the slave trade and to redeem those in slavery. On her death she was declared a saint by the Church.

By the ninth century Charlemagne opposed slavery and the pope and many influential clerics strove for the freedom of slaves. During the eleventh century both St Wulfstan and St Anselm campaigned to remove the last vestiges of slavery from most of Christendom.

Dr Rodney Stark: “The theological conclusion that slavery is sinful has been unique to Christianity (although several early Jewish sects also rejected slavery).”

While Christian theologians could develop St Paul’s understanding of God’s will concerning slavery, such a development was and is essentially precluded in other faiths, except as heresies. “Of the major world faiths, only Christianity has devoted serious and sustained attention to human rights, as opposed to human duties.”
[See *The Victory of Reason, Random House, 2005, p 29-31].
christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/julyweb-only/7-14-53.0.html

 

[SpidersfromMars]

Even if a there was ever a Pope that owned a “slave”, is being a “slave” such a bad deal if a “slave” is treated justly and fairly? “Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.” (Colossians 4:1)

Being ‘owned’ by anyone would be dehumanising.

 

[Honorius]

Why* didn’t *Christ condemn slavery? It seems like exactly the sort of thing He would want to speak out against.

Perhaps because He didn’t feel like starting a slave revolt?

 

[_Abyssinia]

“Although some Catholic clergy, religious orders and Popes owned slaves, and the naval galleys of the Papal States were to use captured Muslim galley slaves,[4] Roman Catholic teaching began to turn more strongly against “unjust” forms of slavery in general, beginning in 1435, prohibiting the enslavement of the recently baptised,[5] culminating in pronouncements by Pope Paul III in 1537.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery

Is this true?

If the above claim is correct, did Pope Urban VIII, Pope Innocent X, and Pope Alexander VII own slaves and the naval galleys capture slaves because they wanted slaves to work for them so to speak or were these slaves bought because of the following

The most serious of the historical errors relates to the three popes mentioned above as buying galley slaves. Pope Urban VIII in 1639 condemned all forms of slavery. More important, it was common practice for popes and some Christian princes and prelates to devote money to the purpose of buying galley slaves to free them from their servitude. The three pontiffs in question each engaged in this practice, just as they supported the work of the Trinitarians, the Mercedarians, and the Congregation of the Mission in their efforts to curb the slave trade and ransom slaves in the Islamic world.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=303085&language=en

Papal condemnations of slavery go back to before 1435

Pope John VIII said in 837 AD

There is one thing about which we should give you a paternal admonition, and unless you emend, you incur a great sin, and for this reason, you will not increase gain, as you hope, but guilt. . . . many in your area, being taken captive by pagans, are sold and are bought by your people and held under the yoke of slavery. It is evident that it is religious duty and holy, as becomes Christians, that when your people have bought them from the Greeks themselves, for the love of Christ they set them free, and receive gain not from men, but from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Hence we exhort you and in fatherly love command that when you redeem some captives from them, for the salvation of your soul, you let them go free.

The references in that quote are to the book “Slavery and the Catholic Church” which turns out to have been written by a Catholic priest, Father John F. Maxwell, in 1975 and is online here:

anthonyflood.com/maxwellslaverycatholicchurch.pdf

So far I’ve only read the foreword and one of the pages referred to in your quote, which cites a papal document from 1548 (my emphasis):

“By reason of our pastoral office, we gladly attend to the troubles [due to the lack of slaves] of individual Christians, as far as we can with God’s help; …] [we decree] that each and every person of either sex, whether Roman or non-Roman, whether secular or clerical, and no matter of what dignity, status, degree, order or condition they be, may freely and lawfully buy and sell publicly any slaves whatsoever of either sex, and make contracts about them as is accustomed to be done in other places, and publicly hold them as slaves and make use of their work, and compel them to do the work assigned to them. And with Apostolic authority, by the tenor of these present documents, we enact and decree in perpetuity that slaves who flee to the Capitol and appeal for their liberty shall in no wise be freed from the bondage of their servitude, but that notwithstanding their flight and appeal of this sort they shall be returned in slavery to their owners, and if it seems proper they shall be punished as runaways; and we very strictly forbid our beloved sons who for the time being are conservatori of the said city to presume by their authority to emancipate the aforesaid slaves …]”

But as the foreword says, “the fact is that the history of Catholic teaching concerning the moral legitimacy of slavery is not simple and straightforward”.

That was from Pope Paul lll. In 1537 in the document Pastorale Officium it was issued by him that Catholics would be exommunicated if involved in slavery and in the document Sublimis Deus slavery was denounced so how does that fit with the above statement?

 

[inocente]

That was from Pope Paul lll. In 1537 in the document Pastorale Officium it was issued by him that Catholics would be exommunicated if involved in slavery and in the document Sublimis Deus slavery was denounced so how does that fit with the above statement?

From what little I’ve so far read of Fr. Maxwell’s book, it seems there were different rules for different peoples. Enemies of Christendom could be enslaved but those who might convert could not.

So as long as native peoples of the Americas were peaceful they were not to be enslaved, but Fr. Maxwell writes on page 68 “if the Indians behave as the enemies of Christendom, they may be treated like Moors and Turks. And even the putting down of a rebellion of the Indians provides a sufficient title for enslavement in just warfare”.

On page 73, he writes “It is noticeable that not one of this series of Papal Briefs makes any reference to the enslavement of the Negroes in West Africa nor to the transatlantic trade in Negro slaves. It was not until the nineteenth century, after the European exploration of the continent of Africa and after first-hand descriptions of the sufferings of African slaves had become widely known, that this omission was rectified.”

I’m no expert but Fr. Maxwell cites lots of references so he seems to have done his homework.

 

[SpidersfromMars]

Perhaps because He didn’t feel like starting a slave revolt?

Well that’s true. I suppose certain things were very entrenched in that society.

 

[_Abyssinia]

From what little I’ve so far read of Fr. Maxwell’s book, it seems there were different rules for different peoples. Enemies of Christendom could be enslaved but those who might convert could not.

So as long as native peoples of the Americas were peaceful they were not to be enslaved, but Fr. Maxwell writes on page 68 “if the Indians behave as the enemies of Christendom, they may be treated like Moors and Turks. And even the putting down of a rebellion of the Indians provides a sufficient title for enslavement in just warfare”.

On page 73, he writes “It is noticeable that not one of this series of Papal Briefs makes any reference to the enslavement of the Negroes in West Africa nor to the transatlantic trade in Negro slaves. It was not until the nineteenth century, after the European exploration of the continent of Africa and after first-hand descriptions of the sufferings of African slaves had become widely known, that this omission was rectified.”

I’m no expert but Fr. Maxwell cites lots of references so he seems to have done his homework.

Wasn’t enslaving Africans in the Canary Islands part of the transatlantic trade?

On January 13, 1435, Eugene IV issued from Florence the bull . Sent to Bishop Ferdinand, located at Rubicon on the island of Lanzarote, this bull condemned the enslavement of the black natives of the newly colonized Canary Islands off the coast of Africa. The Pope stated that after being converted to the faith or promised baptism, many of the inhabitants were taken from their homes and enslaved:

“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 (), 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 (). 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.

With , Eugene was clearly intending to condemn the enslavement of the people of the Canaries and, in no uncertain terms, to inform the faithful that what was being condemned was what we would classify as gravely wrong. Thus, the unjust slavery that had begun in the newly found territories was condemned, condemned as soon as it was discovered, and condemned in the strongest of terms.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM

Soon, in addition to the brutal exploitation of the Indians, Spanish and Portuguese slave ships began to sail between Africa and the New World. And just as overseas Catholic missionaries had aroused Rome to condemn the enslavement of Indians, similar appeals were filed concerning imported black slaves. On April 22, 1639, Pope Urban VIII (1623 to 1644), at the request of the Jesuits of Paraguay, issued a bull Commissum nobis reaffirming the ruling by “our predecessor Paul III” that those who reduced others to slavery were subject to excommunication. Eventually, the Congregation of the Holy Office (the Roman Inquisition) even took up the matter. On March 20, 1686, it ruled in the form of questions and answers:

It is asked:

Whether it is permitted to capture by force and deceit Blacks and other natives who have harmed no one?

Answer: no.

Whether it is permitted to buy, sell or make contracts in their respect Blacks or other natives who have harmed no one and been made captives by force of deceit?

Answer: no.

Whether the possessors of Blacks and other natives who have harmed no one and been captured by force or deceit, are not held to set them free?

Answer: yes.

Whether the captors, buyers and possessors of Blacks and other natives who have harmed no one and who have been captured by force or deceit are not held to make compensation to them?

Answer: yes.

ctlibrary.com/ct/2003/julyweb-only/7-14-53.0.html