Enslavement of Christians, immoral? Enslavement of non-Christians, moral?

[MysticMissMisty]

Salvete, omnes!

I have recently been reading up on the issue of slavery in the teachings of the Catholic Church and have come across a common teaching even by popes starting in the Middle Ages that, while it was moral to enslave non-Christians, it was not permitted for Christians to enslave other Christians.

I am seeing this as I read excerpts from various papal bulls from this time period and onward.

Indeed, what am I missing here? Why was it for some time permitted to Christians to enslave non-Christians but was prohibited to them to enslave fellow Christians? What was the difference in morality here?

Fruthermore, were the documents on which these practices based to be considered infallible? Indeed, many sources for these practices are papal bulls which (apparently?) prohibited Christians from owning other Christian slaves. So, would not these declarations in these bulls be considered infallible teachings on the matter? So, then, it is infallibly taught that Christian enslavement of non-Christians is moral but that Christian enslavement of other Christians is moral?

Again, what, precisely, am I missing here?

Any clarification would be much appreciated.

I suppose a more broad question that relates to this matters is: when are pronouncements/decrees in papal bulls to be considered infallible and when are they not to be considered so?

Gratias multas.

 

[Reepicheep]

Greetings, Miss Misty.

In response to your question:

1. Papal bulls are explicitly not infallible.
2. A Papal bull written many hundreds of years ago should not be taken as proof that the Church today has the same policy as was expressed in the bull.
3. That the Pope permitted something does not mean that he* approved *it.
4. It may be the case (and very likely was) that the Pope had not the power to abolish slavery, but tried to limit the evil by saying that Christians should at least not enslave each other.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Greetings, Miss Misty.

In response to your question:

1. Papal bulls are explicitly not infallible.
2. A Papal bull written many hundreds of years ago should not be taken as proof that the Church today has the same policy as was expressed in the bull.
3. That the Pope permitted something does not mean that he* approved *it.
4. It may be the case (and very likely was) that the Pope had not the power to abolish slavery, but tried to limit the evil by saying that Christians should at least not enslave each other.

This.

I guess it’s like how Moses allowed divorce and when Jesus came he said, yeah that was cos y’all were too dense and he had to.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

… excerpts from various papal bulls from this time period and onward. …

It would be helpful if you cited a passage or two, so we know exactly to what you’re referring. Slavery was condemned by the Church in the encyclical In Plurimis of Pope Leo XIII. It’s not like slavery was just fine until then, and after 1888 it was wrong. The Catholic Encyclopedia has an article which you may find helpful, though I’m not sure it answers your question.

Regarding infallibility, I don’t think we can simply dismiss a papal bull on the grounds that its entire contents are not, in themselves, and as a whole, infallible teaching. As a matter of fact, among the dozen or so types of papal documents (bulls, apostolic constitutions, encyclicals, etc), a bull had the highest level of teaching authority, if I’m not mistaken. In today’s documents, however, we go more by the contents and wording to determine the level of authority exercised, than by the type of document.

Infallible teaching can be set off by such statements as “By our Apostolic authority, we declare, define, and teach,” etc. But it can also happen that an already infallible teaching is simply restated without formalities. So too, if something is believed by the whole Church even for one period, it is considered infallible. There are other cases as well. That said, a document may contain a mixture of infallible and non-infallible teaching. Clear as mud?