Did popes owned slaves?

[Abu]

Reep #39
I am sure our modern sensibilities make it hard to appreciate why it took so many centuries to come to an outright, explicit condemnation of human slavery.

“Our modern sensibilities”? Really?

The so-called Enlightenment? The Soviet and Nazi tens of millions killed? Divorce, abortion, contraception, euthanasia, IVF, rampant child molestation and pornography rings, homomania in sodomy, lesbian/homosexual “marriage”?

Really?

While ex slaves became Popes Pius I and Callistus I in the 2nd and 3rd centuries and the Church led the fight against slavery, the world has digressed from, not progressed in, goodness as Christ and His Church are sidelined by “the modern sensibilities” of slavery under Baal.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The fallacy is evident, as this atheist tries to construct a blameworthy God, myopically blames Christ’s own Church for enslaving, and constructs his own falsities.

What have I said that was false? Repeatedly now I have presented specific points to refute yours. In response you’ve decided to ignore those points and dismiss what I’ve said solely because I’m an atheist.

I showed where you misappropriated a biblical passage to make it seem like it says something it does not. You’ve chosen not to dispute your error or even state whether it was intentional or not.

In post #14 we’ve seen the facts on the condemnation from St Paul, on the former slaves who became Popes Pius I and Callistus I, and the testimony of the non-Catholic Dr Rodney Stark that “Of the major world faiths, only Christianity has devoted serious and sustained attention to human rights, as opposed to human duties”, and “The theological conclusion that slavery is sinful has been unique to Christianity (although several early Jewish sects also rejected slavery).”

The fact that there have been some christians who have spoken out against slavery doesn’t dismiss everything I’ve posted so far in this thread: That the Bible very clearly shows that the character of God does not despise slavery or consider it wrong in a way that even a child knows is wrong.

The reason? The teaching of the Catholic Church from the beginning came to be believed widely as true.

Yet that teaching (only after many centuries) runs 180 degrees counter to what the Bible teaches.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The word used for “avenged” (other translations use “punished”) in the original is “naqam,” which always connotes capital punishment when used in the OT. So the injunction is again that if you beat a servant with a rod (variant translation: staff) and he dies, you will be put to death. In context, the next lines refer to “a life for a life,” denoting that the servant is to be regarded as another human being whose life has value, and that he is not a simple piece of property.

Read what I wrote again. I’m not disputing that the Bible says the punishment must equal the crime (although as I’ve noted repeatedly that the Bible clearly does not considering striking a person who dies the next day a crime). Abu’s error was to try and make it seem that Exodus 21:23 was a continuation of Exodus 21:20. Exodus 21:20-21 is one statement. Exodus 21:22-23 is another. That is abundandly clear. Abu stitched them together and completely ignored the existence of Exodus 21:21 (the verse that so often gets ignored).

The point is Exodus 21:21. Anyone who believes that can’t be against slavery. The character called God says that. Therefore, the character called God is not against slavery.

Then (as in many cultures today), a servant could be struck with a rod for disobeying an order or theft, etc. The man who held the servant under debt bondage would probably argue that he couldn’t fire the bonded servant for misbehavior, and he was not allowed to starve him or her by depriving the servant of food, so how else would he discipline him or her?

I can’t really sympathize with the plight of the slaveowner. The logistics of when to beat a human being and how much is not a dilemma that concerns me.

This is not just in our eyes and from our modern perspective, although many people nowadays, including many Christians, argue for corporal punishment as an option for disciplining their own children, or for children in school. I don’t agree with such policies, but the point is that many modern people [including some atheists] do argue for the use of physical force as reprimand, so it is not an unusual viewpoint even now, and it was common in schools (both public and parochial) within recent memory in our country. I was struck in parochial grade school, and far more severely later in public school, and it was not uncommon for a private to get struck by an NCO as discipline in the military (although officially against regs) until recently. As a trainee in the Army in the early 1980s, I once got whipped repeatedly with a static line (a heavy nylon cord) by an NCO in jump school until I could perform a landing fall to his standards. Older veterans could probably tell you similar stories of times when a punch in the stomach or eye was the lesser, non-judicial alternative to an Article 15. Not a pleasant experience for me, but again, such corporal punishment is not something totally outside our ken today.

These are all very good points. I too am against corporal punishment in schools. Is there a bright line between hitting someone under you and slavery? I say there is.

I would note that in the officially atheist societies in the 20th century and the 21st century, the punishment for failure to follow orders or theft by one in the approximate position of the bonded servants/slaves which you bring up - such as slave laborers in the gulags of the former Soviet Union, the political prisoners who were forced to work in the agricultural fields after the Chinese Cultural revolution or after Pol Pot’s Year Zero in Cambodia - the penalties for infractions were likely to be far more severe, and final, than a blow from a staff or rod. And these instances happened in recent memory, not ancient history, so while you as an individual atheist embrace views based on “love, compassion, sympathy, and honesty” it would be difficult to make any claim that atheism as a worldview supports any such laudable goals.

I completely agree that there have been atheist regimes that have used slaves in the way that some religious regimes have. At no point was I arguing that atheism is a viewpoint that by its nature is free from the deficiencies which allow for exploiting others. I am willing to admit faults of others who share my religious viewpoint. And christians will often do the same with people who share their religious views and have exploited others in much the same way.

You see, I’m not here to point at popes and other christians who have owned slaves, while at the same time ignoring regime’s like Pol Pot’s. No, I fully realize that times were different then. I know that slavery – which is and has been morally wrong at its very core no matter the time or place – was far more common. The reason why I’m here is because when the subject of slavery comes up the same old canards are dragged out:

• Slavery in biblical times was different than “chattel slavery”
• Slavery then was so much better because eventually they would be let go
• The Bible says to treat slaves decently
• God – the purported all-powerful creator and determiner of right and wrong – simply couldn’t outright abolish slavery.

It becomes tiresome to see and read apologists twist and ignore the plain meaning of words, to undercut the scriptures they supposedly hold so dearly, in an effort to remove the stench of evil that comes from reading passages which encourage and regulate man’s inhumanity against man. I don’t blame the popes so much as blame the viewpoint which should condemn the practice and utterly fails to so, despite allegedly being the pinnacle of truth and light.

(cont.)

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

In the ancient culture of the Israelites, if a man struck the servant badly enough to maim him or her, such as by knocking out a tooth or damaging an eye, his or her remaining debt was discharged and he or she was to be set free immediately. This would seem to serve as a powerful incentive NOT to abuse your servants, as you would forfeit any financial right to their services.

There are a multitude of ways to abuse someone that don’t involve knocking a person’s eye or tooth. A slave owner would surely know this.

Compare this Jewish law to a preeminent secular code of the ancient world, the Code of Hammurabi /snip/

When trying to defend an action as not evil there’s not much sense in pointing out that the actions of another are more evil. Less evil is still evil.

Regarding the rather troubling passage, “for the slave is his money,” does this mean the indentured servant was considered his property? Ancient Near Eastern scholar Harry Hoffner of the University of Chicago argues that a superior translation of that passage is “that [fee] is his money/ silver.” Hoffner offers that the “fee” reading is based on the context of the previous passage, Exodus 21:18–19 (which is part of a section on punishments dealing with quarrels and accidental killing): “If men have a quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but remains in bed, if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall go unpunished; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed.” This reading makes sense to me.

Yet, slaves could be passed down from generation to generation like a favorite toy. Slaves were clearly objects.

Like the modified Hittite law that required masters who had harmed their slaves to pay a physician to provide medical treatment, so here the employer had to pay the medical bills for the servant he had wounded. As evidence, in verse 21, the Hebrew pronoun “hu” refers not to the servant (“he”) but to the fee (“that”) paid to the doctor tending to the wounded servant. Hoffner wrote in his 2008 article Slavery and Slave Laws in Ancient Hatti and Israel, “The fact that the master provided care at his own expense would be a significant factor when the judges respond to a charge of intentional homicide.” So, if you abuse someone but not kill them (debt servant or free man), you were not to be put to the death or to be beaten up as you did them, but would instead be required to pay them a fine, and provide or pay for their medical care. That sounds more than a little like…our current system. If I beat up my butler, I will not be executed by the state (unless he dies), nor is my butler allowed to beat me up, but I have to pay his medical bills and a civil fine so that I don’t continue to abuse butlers.

The fact that a slave owner would pay for the upkeep of his slave is no different than the farmer who maintains his tractor. There were a limited number of slaves. There were only so many conquests, only so many fathers selling their daughters, only so many slaves birthing children the slave owners could keep for life. It was financially sound and not kind-hearted.

Regarding beating up your butler, there would also be possible criminal charges. Your butler can leave if he doesn’t like working for you. Your butler can’t be shackled to prevent escape. Please don’t try to equate one with the other.

Hope this is somewhat helpful to you.

While I know my tone is unpleasant I do appreciate your willingness to lay out your position in a manner that, frankly, is kinder and pleasanter than I have laid out mine. That being said I find it helpful only in that it’s clear in its presentation and not in a way that negates the overall unpleasantness of your position.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

You see, I’m not here to point at popes and other christians who have owned slaves, while at the same time ignoring regime’s like Pol Pot’s. No, I fully realize that times were different then. I know that slavery – which is and has been morally wrong at its very core no matter the time or place – was far more common. The reason why I’m here is because when the subject of slavery comes up the same old canards are dragged out:

• Slavery in biblical times was different than “chattel slavery”
• Slavery then was so much better because eventually they would be let go
• The Bible says to treat slaves decently
• God – the purported all-powerful creator and determiner of right and wrong – simply couldn’t outright abolish slavery.

It becomes tiresome to see and read apologists twist and ignore the plain meaning of words, to undercut the scriptures they supposedly hold so dearly, in an effort to remove the stench of evil that comes from reading passages which encourage and regulate man’s inhumanity against man. I don’t blame the popes so much as blame the viewpoint which should condemn the practice and utterly fails to so, despite allegedly being the pinnacle of truth and light.

You’re presenting your points articulately and well, I just can’t agree with your conclusions. We both agree that slavery is a moral wrong, whenever it occurred. But it’s important not to get locked into the semantics of a term (such as “slavery”) by saying there is a “plain meaning” and ignore the fact that a single word in English is describing different societal structures throughout history.

Debt-Bondage is different than the Russian feudal system where peasants were legally tied to the land, and that’s different than a P.O.W. who must work for the people he waged war against, or the “slavery” of a soldier drafted by the state, or the “slavery” of a prisoner who is held by the state because of the crimes he committed, and that’s different than the Roman Imperial system, which is similar to, but still different from the slavery practiced in the American South.

Some of those systems are not as bad as others, and some can even be considered “just,” or at least just at a particular time and place. All are bad, but some are worse than others, and you would be hard-pressed to identify a people in the ancient world (or even the more recent world) who did not practice some form of slavery. That the Israelite system, although imperfect, was so much better than the systems of which we know, lends credence (in my eyes) to the idea that the Jews were a more morally advanced people than any other in the ancient world.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

It’s also difficult for me to justify a belief that because you and I share a largely modern perspective, that we occupy a position of moral superiority to the hardscrabble people of other times. Aside from the fact that it’s a little too easy to say that we would never have done all those horrible things committed by bronze-age savages in the past (as we sip our gingerbread lattes inside our local Starbuck’s and peruse the news on our iPad, which was assembled by people in countries experiencing something very much like some of the forms of slavery we are discussing…). From your screen-name, Mike, I would guess that we are both Americans. Our country in the not too distant past imprisoned people whose ancestors came from Japan, even if they were loyal U.S. citizens. I drove past the remains of one of those camps yesterday, in the Gila River Indian Community. They were not exactly prisoners, but they were not free to live and had to do exactly what the government told them to do. They could be shot if they tried to leave the camps in which they were confined. I would call that slavery.

Not far from where I grew up and now live were old military barracks (in what is now Papago Park) which we used to ride to on our bikes and explore. They were POW camps where the American government interned captured German soldiers during that same war. It was felt that since they had fought against our country, it was fitting that they should have to work in the fields and harvest the citrus crops and dig ditches and do other agricultural work, since most able-bodied men were overseas. This was a situation not too different from what we are talking about. They were, technically, slaves. This was morally a much more just position than what happened to the Japanese-Americans, who were morally faultless.

If I drive south down to Florence, I can see a prison where those convicted of a crime work to provide profit to prison industries. They committed arguably worse crimes than many of the German soldiers did, but they are essentially slaves of the state. I don’t think that is unjust.

My maternal ancestors came into this country as debt-bondage slaves from Ireland. That was a bad system, but it was one they entered into willingly because the alternative was starvation and death. It’s bad that the social system forced them to have to make that decision, but their lot was better in many ways than the African slaves who were captured and brought into this country as chattel slaves, and I am glad that English common law afforded them some human-right protections, however minimal, or I would not be here to write this. The Irish plight was analogous in many ways to the Israelite debt-bondage system we are discussing, perhaps worse. The African plight was much more like the Roman Imperial form of slavery. Both were bad, but the latter was worse.

This is not to argue that “other people did worse,” but to understand the historical context and to understand gradations of moral behavior. Some forms of control of humans by other humans have always existed, and probably always will, I regret to say, as long as man rules this earth. I don’t doubt your sincerity or your essential goodness, Mike, but both of us have benefitted from a world where people work in slave-like conditions to provide us with cheap merchandise and food. Who are you or I to point a finger at the Israelites?

Much of what the Israelites did was wrong, to our eyes and our culture, but in the Christian worldview, God works to change us incrementally, through history, because as humans, we are fundamentally fallen and resistant to change for the good. I realize this is a viewpoint you probably don’t hold, but we have different starting premises. More on this in a bit.

 

[Reep]

“Our modern sensibilities”? Really?

The so-called Enlightenment? The Soviet and Nazi tens of millions killed? Divorce, abortion, contraception, euthanasia, IVF, rampant child molestation and pornography rings, homomania in sodomy, lesbian/homosexual “marriage”?

Really?

While ex slaves became Popes Pius I and Callistus I in the 2nd and 3rd centuries and the Church led the fight against slavery, the world has digressed from, not progressed in, goodness as Christ and His Church are sidelined by “the modern sensibilities” of slavery under Baal.

The modern sensibility to which I refer is the notion that human slavery is absolutely wrong under all circumstances and is roundly condemned throughout the modern world. It has not always been so, whether in the Church or the world. Christians have owned slaves. Catholic Christians even.

Obviously, the world is still a sick sinful place, but not always in exactly the same ways.

 

[Abu]

All, some Catholics included, need to acquaint themselves with the facts so that they can bear true witness, and not false witness.

Let My People Go
The Catholic Church and Slavery
By Mark Brumley
“Slavery” is the condition of involuntary servitude in which a human being is regarded as no more than the property of another, as being without basic human rights; in other words, as a thing rather than a person. Under this definition, slavery is intrinsically evil, since no person may legitimately be reduced to the status of a mere thing or object and thus become capable of being the property of another person. This form of slavery can be called “chattel slavery.” (There are other ways in which the term can be used, such as in reference to biblical slavery, where slaves were regarded as property but nonetheless as bearers of human rights.)

However, there are circumstances in which a person can justly be compelled to servitude against his will. Prisoners of war or criminals, for example, can justly lose their circumstantial freedom and be forced into servitude, within certain limits. Moreover, people can also “sell” their labor for a period of time (indentured servitude).

These forms of servitude or slavery differ in kind from what we are calling chattel slavery. While prisoners of war and criminals can lose their freedom against their will, they do not become mere property of their captors, even when such imprisonment is just. They still possess basic, inalienable human rights and may not justly be subjected to certain forms of punishment – torture, for example.

Christianity in general – and Catholicism in particular – contributed greatly to the abolition of slavery and the emergence of a common appreciation for fundamental human rights. Catholics, not Protestants, worked for the abolition of slavery in Latin American countries like Brazil. The Catholic appreciation of natural law – as opposed to the Protestant principle of sola scriptura (when Scripture tells slaves to obey their masters) – has always made slavery less reconcilable with Catholicism than Protestantism. The Church’s consistent teaching that all men are made in God’s image and are called to redemption in Christ has helped give rise to the modern notion of human rights and equality – ideas diametrically opposed to chattel slavery that have led to a great diminishment in its practice.
archive.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp

 

[Arizona_Mike]

So let me examine a couple of points you wish to contradict:

• The Bible says to treat slaves decently
• God – the purported all-powerful creator and determiner of right and wrong – simply couldn’t outright abolish slavery.

If we look at what we Christians regard as the ultimate moral authority - the teachings of Christ and his apostles - then, yes, the New Testament clearly says to treat slaves decently. That really can’t be denied.

What many secularists take issue with is why Jesus supposedly didn’t “explicitly” abolish or condemn slavery.

This brings up a question I have never heard adequately answered - if you think Jesus had authority as a moral teacher (whether you believe He was Divine or not), why weren’t you at Mass with me this Sunday, partaking of the Eucharist?

Clearly, Jesus commanded many things - we are not to look at women with lust in our hearts, we are to follow the Commandments, we are to treat the least among us as we would treat Him, we are not to gossip, we are to give alms every time we see that homeless guy under the overpass, and we are to consume His transubstantiated body and blood in the form of the Eucharist and enter into a communion with all your fellows. Do you (or anyone you know) do all those things?

(I’m not saying I do consistently, by the way, or that I am any better than you - I’m a sinner, as are we all.)

Even if we set aside all those other messy teachings about His Body and the Blood which you probably don’t believe - if you, or anyone else, occupying a position of, as you said, “love, compassion, sympathy and honesty” can’t consistently do all those things…what makes you think everyone would obey His rule regarding slavery?

Some would, clearly, just on the basis of His command. But not all.

This is often a fundamental failing in the arguments of some (not all) atheists - the belief that to know is all we need to do. That all we need is to have the right path pointed out to us, and we will choose it and then become better persons. St. Paul was a far better judge of human nature - he recognized that we know the right thing to do, but still fail to do it: “For that which I do I know not: for not what I would, that do I practise; but what I hate, that I do.”

(The same failing to understand human nature occurs in the atheist argument that “If God wanted us to be good, why doesn’t he just appear over Times Square?”, or “If God wanted all people to follow him, why did he appear in bronze age Jerusalem instead of in modern times?” Again, we have shown no propensity as a species to consistently act with love, compassion, sympathy, and honesty…even when we know we should. What difference would a divine light show over Times Square make?)

Clearly, Jesus disliked slavery.

Clearly also, he did explicitly condemn it.

Clearly also, his padawans condemned it. Both St. Paul and St. John did explicitly condemn it, and they weren’t known for freelancing their ideas. The times Jesus spent before his death and after it were obviously spent discussing Important Things, and the fact that both these key figures condemned slavery (although neither were themselves slaves) is the best evidence that an anti-slavery position was part of the Deposit of Faith left to His followers.

Clearly, also, the Early Fathers of the Church and the Saints condemned it, passing on the Deposit of Faith.

(I realize many atheists aren’t comfortable with the Catholic doctrine of the Deposit of Faith, as many are as legalistic and literalistic about scripture as the most died in the wool Young Earth Creationist. Many feel more comfortable if all they have to argue is what is available to them is a text, and they can argue that if “it wasn’t written down, it didn’t happen!” In many cases, it’s because they were formerly in a sola scriptura faith tradition and they are more comfortable arguing when they have a known doctrine to dispute. They often feel the Deposit of Faith gives too much wiggle room to their opponents in a debate, or discussion. But that’s how Catholicism works, and always has.)

So: Jesus wants to end the evil of slavery. Just condemning it outright does not work, anymore than condemning adultery does. He has to do something far harder than changing minds - he has to change hardened hearts - both the slavers, and perhaps even more difficult, the slaves, who are rightly angry at the system that holds them, and the people who have claimed ownership of them. How does He do it, when other slave revolts, such as that of Spartacus, left thousands dead and crucified and the same bloody system still in place?

Jesus doesn’t work through military overthrow or revolution. He has another secret weapon.

His own Body and Blood.

 

[paulrxp]

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.

This is an excellent point. Many of the practices and things society accepts today could to us seem morally and ethically just. Will that be the case in a 1000 years? Who today in writing can say what will and what will not be socially accepted in the future. If we’re not able to know, we shouldn’t be held responsible for what unfolds before or during that time in the future.

The slaves in Biblical times aren’t necessarily the type of slaves we understand them to be, yes there was slavery that was brutal and vicious. that was probably the norm, but there were slaves that were more like indentured servants.

If we went to war, my tribe vs your tribe. I win the war, your army wiped out, what do I do with your civilians? Leave them to die in the wilderness, or make them my servants? Now obviously we’d know today you take them in and you care for them with dignity, they’re innocent,but those times were barbaric, we can’t view them from our perspective today, anymore than we can view the distant future. They may look back and look at us as barbarians.

Not sure about the history of Popes and slaves, I know about Presidents and slaves

 

[Arizona_Mike]

As the early Church pulled together both slave-owner and slave, they celebrated the fundamental Catholic (and catholic) rite - the Eucharist, in which all are called together to participate in the Mystical Body of Christ.

The Sacrament is a social leveler at a spiritual plane - how can you believe in It, share in It with the slaves in your household, and see them in the same light?

As Paul was able to do with Philemon, a slave-holding new Christian, whom Paul enjoins to treat with charity an escaped Christian slave from his household, with whom Philemon would have shared the Eucharist . Paul, a Jew, has the unenviable task of changing the mind of Philemon, while Paul is about as powerless as a man could be - a prisoner in a Roman jail. Paul uses all his considerable rhetorical gifts, and apparently it worked, as Onesimus, the slave, later pops up a a bishop in Ephesus.

Where men’s hearts are hardened, their souls can be changed by Grace. And perhaps only by that.

 

[Abu]

Arizona Mike #48
Clearly, Jesus disliked slavery.
Clearly also, he did explicitly condemn it.

Reference for a condemnation?

Post #2:
Christ had not condemned slavery and St Paul told slaves to obey their masters (Col 3:22, et al),

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Reference for a condemnation?

Post #2:
Christ had not condemned slavery and St Paul told slaves to obey their masters (Col 3:22, et al),

Citing Isaiah 61:1, Jesus clearly described his mission: [14 Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. 15 He was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.

16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”.

This mission statement can be understood to refer to both the oppressed of the Roman slave state, and the spiritual slavery of Satan.

Paul condemned slave trading among other vices in 1 Timothy: *8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Paul also he affirmed the full human dignity and equal spiritual status of slaves; and encouraged slaves to acquire their freedom whenever possible (1 Cor. 7:20–22). Again, he was passing on Jesus’ teachings.

John wrote in Revelation 18:11–13, that doomed Babylon (Rome) stands condemned because she had treated humans as “cargo,” having trafficked in “slaves [literally ‘bodies’] and human lives.”

Again, this wasn’t a doctrine they pulled out of nowhere. It was a teaching of Jesus.

 

[Abu]

Nowhere did Jesus actually condemn slavery and no evidence can be found for that.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

See the post above yours. We will have to agree to disagree about our interpretation of scripture, and the Deposit of Faith whose source was Jesus.

 

[Abu]

The reality is that Jesus did not actually condemn slavery – as attested also by eminent Catholic scholars.

1. Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J., held the Laurence J. McGinley Chair in Religion and Society at Fordham University.

**October 2005
Development or Reversal?
Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J. **
Review of:
A Church That Can and Cannot Change: The Development of Catholic Moral Teachingby John T. Noonan, Jr.
University of Notre Dame Press
“Jesus, though he repeatedly denounced sin as a kind of moral slavery, said not a word against slavery as a social institution. Nor did the writers of the New Testament. Peter and Paul exhort slaves to be obedient to their masters. Paul urges Philemon to treat his converted slave Onesimus as a brother in Christ. While discreetly suggesting that he manumit Onesimus, he does not say that Philemon is morally obliged to free Onesimus and any other slaves he may have had.”
firstthings.com/article/2007/01/development-or-reversal-37

1. **Answer by Fr. John Echert (EWTN) on 08-28-2003: **
   Slavery is not intrinsically evil, but it falls short of the manner in which God intended us to live in relationship with others. In such matters, God sometimes tolerated such evils or shortcomings for a time, working through time and circumstances with grace to eventually bring us beyond such behaviors. An excellent example was the allowance for divorce and remarriage, which is now strictly forbidden for those in a valid sacramental Christian marriage. With slavery, I do believe that the circumstances of the ancient world were such that God did not immediately demand a universal change in this matter, but provided the theology in the New Testament and the grace to win the world away from such enslavement and into the freedom of the Gospel. The Gospels forbid Christians from cruel treatment of their slaves but do not forbid absolutely the institution itself. But have no doubt but that in the Roman Empire, a slave was property of his owner and could be punished even with death, for certain offences, including attempted escape. On the other hand, many slaves were more like household servants, and some were even treated like members of the family.
   tinyurl.com/kca5dv9

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Abu, do you think I made up the scriptural quotes?

Do you not think both St. Paul and St. John clearly denounced slavery as moral evils in the Bible?

Does not Jesus accept the liberation of men from oppression as part of his public declaration of His ministry?

As Catholics, we accept the sources of both the Bible and the Deposit of Faith, which includes the Catechism, and which supersedes the opinions of Fr. Echert and Father Dulles. The teachings of St. Paul and St. John clearly condemn slave trading, and this was part of the Deposit of Faith, yes?

The Catechism clearly forbids slavery: "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.”

 

[Abu]

Abu post #2:
“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).”

Abu post #7:
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

The simple fact is that Christ Himself did not actually condemn slavery.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

No, the simple fact is that He did, Abu. I have provided you scriptural cite where he did. Simply repeating a blanket assertion to the contrary or making an appeal to authority does not help your case if you do not address the relevant scriptures. Do you deny that both Paul and John, his disciples, clearly repudiated the Roman system of slavery in the examples I provided? If so, from Whom did they receive this teaching?

I think you have conflated two forms of subjugation in the two posts above. Christ and His followers were condemning the Roman system of chattel slavery. It is not as clear whether they repudiated the Israelite system of debt-bondage under the Mosaic Law, which is an interesting issue. I don’t know if it still existed at the time of Christ’s birth - as a people under military rule, they would not have had POW slaves but could have still been practicing debt-bondage.

 

[Abu]

The reality is that Jesus Himself cannot be shown to actually condemn slavery and has not been so shown – no words of Jesus can be given – as attested by eminent Catholic scholars.

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).”

Sir Arnold Lunn in his debate with Professor G G Coulton also attests to this fact:
“Christ had not condemned slavery, and St Paul had said, ‘Slaves obey your masters,’ and it was therefore inevitable that only experience could convince Christians that slavery was wholly incompatible with Christianity.” Is The Catholic Church Anti-Social, Burns Oates, 1946, p 187].

The revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., also faces the reality of the fact that neither did St Paul, using Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians:
“Christ’s affection for the poor and oppressed provided the principles that were slowly to penetrate the nascent Christian society.
“**These principles were formulated by St Paul, though he did not condemn slavery **but rather strove to imbue both masters and slaves with the new Christian spirit of charity, which was finally to abolish the institution itself.” The Catholic Catechism, Double day 1975, p 323].