In 1838, two priests who served as president of the university orchestrated the sale of 272 men, women and children for $115,000, or roughly $3.3 million in today’s dollars, to pay off debts at the school. The slaves were sent from Jesuit plantations in Maryland to Louisiana, “where they labored under dreadful conditions,” and families were broken up, according to a report issued by the school committee.
baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/bs-md-loyola-georgetown-slavery-20160901-story.htmlThe transaction was one of the most thoroughly documented large sales of enslaved people in history, and the names of many of the people sold are included in bills of sale, a transport manifest and other documents. Genealogical research conducted by Georgetown and other organizations, including The New York Times, has identified many living descendants of the slaves.
Because slavery was legal in 1838. The Church was just as economically involved with it as everyone else at that time.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/bs-md-loyola-georgetown-slavery-20160901-story.html
How could a Catholic University and Catholic priests be involved with this practice? People in the church can sin and make mistakes. I get that. But this seems like such an obvious and public error.
Was the church not clear on its position – even in the 19th century?
Mmmm, no.Because slavery was legal in 1838. The Church was just as economically involved with it as everyone else at that time.
We can judge them by 1838 Catholic standards and what they did was sinful, scandalous, and NOT defensible in any way.Taken in historical context, the school had a problem and found a solution. We can’t judge 1838 by 2016 standards.
Then why did so many popes have galley slaves in their navy?Mmmm, no.
“The Church” condemned slavery over and over again from the time of the discovery of the New World until the present day. Pope after pope. The fact that some Jesuits ignored this is shameful.
Ive heard this argument used in similar discussions, and it does make sense, I mean, Im sure lots of things we re doing right now, that many people feel are completely fine, will one day far in the future, be viewed as terrible crimes.We cannot judge historical figures by our present day standards. Slavery was legal virtually everywhere in the world in the early 19th Century.
Most of those in the galley were criminals and prisoners of war conscripted for a period of time, not chattel slaves. This is akin to the “chain gang” not slavery.Then why did so many popes have galley slaves in their navy?
If you read the link I provided, it goes into this. Many of the galley slaves were criminals, and serving on the galleys was akin to a life sentence, as you stated. Also a portion of the the people termed as galley slaves were people who were bribed to volunteer to serve on the ships. Historians do categorize these people as slaves, though they did volunteer. The rest of the slaves on the ships were prisoners of war, and were often used in exchange for Christian slaves.Most of those in the galley were criminals and prisoners of war conscripted for a period of time, not chattel slaves. This is akin to the “chain gang” not slavery.
Yes, some true slaves were bought and sold, and that is wrong. The actions of a few do not constitute church teaching. The Church taught against slavery and continued to do so at the time of the Georgetown events, 200 years removed from the galley ship era.
I think the important piece of all this is that Georgetown is owning up to their past practice and trying to make amends. They are setting an example which seems to me to be honorable.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/bs-md-loyola-georgetown-slavery-20160901-story.html
How could a Catholic University and Catholic priests be involved with this practice? People in the church can sin and make mistakes. I get that. But this seems like such an obvious and public error.
Was the church not clear on its position – even in the 19th century?
The Church has made it known to this day that something can be legal and not right, so slavery’s legality at the time is absolutely in no way an excuse.Because slavery was legal in 1838. The Church was just as economically involved with it as everyone else at that time.
This is moral relativism to a tee, something the Church says to avoid. Also let’s not use the word “solution” in conjunction with shipping out humans.Taken in historical context, the school had a problem and found a solution. We can’t judge 1838 by 2016 standards.
Two interesting thing to note about that document: 1) Some in the Church in the United States interpeted it as saying the slave trade is bad, but not the owning of slaves or the breeding of future generations of slaves. As far as I know there was not anything written by the Church at a later date stating that those who interpreted the document that way were doing so incorrectly. 2) The initial document ues the latin word “injuste” (injustly) as in calling for an end to injust molestation of Blacks, Indians, etc. An 1844 translation includes “injustly” while a 1972 translation conspicuously leaves it out.IN SUPREMO APOSTOLATUS (Apostolic Letter condemning the slave trade, written by Pope Gregory XVI and read during the 4th Provincial Council of Baltimore, December 3, 1839.)
papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16sup.htm
I agree.I think the important piece of all this is that Georgetown is owning up to their past practice and trying to make amends. They are setting an example which seems to me to be honorable.
Jesus Himself couldn’t control the sinful actions of his own 12 chosen friends…so I don’t find it too surprising to see that there were Judases in the 19th century.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/bs-md-loyola-georgetown-slavery-20160901-story.html
How could a Catholic University and Catholic priests be involved with this practice? People in the church can sin and make mistakes. I get that. But this seems like such an obvious and public error.
Was the church not clear on its position – even in the 19th century?