L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I heard a sad joke about how whoever next conquers France has to actually keep it.
- Status
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Thanks for providing the link in your signature. I love history but rarely read much and don’t trust any of what I read. I noticed that although the thread is open the last post was almost year ago. Is the thread still active?
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
The more I read on New Advent the more I am beginning to believe that it gives information which is highly inaccurate. There are contradictions; not necessarily with what it states on slavery but on another portion I have read (which I will not post or discuss at this time because it has caused me too much confusion and despair). God is omnibenevolent and I just can’t accept that an omnibenevolent (not to mention perfectly just and merciful) Being would be the way He is portrayed in this site.
I know it’s archaic; it states somewhere that Catholics worship Mary but the language is so old that it doesn’t mean that we worship Mary. That bothered me so much I asked Jimmy Akin about it and he did respond on his blog.
The site needs a huge overhaul. Something is wrong with it and I am running across more problems with it all the time.
The statement from the Holy Office seems clear but I can’t accept it as infallible Church teaching. I just can’t.
I was taught that we belong to God and I believe this. If we belong to God how can another human being own us? Can another human being own our souls? How can it not be intrinsically wrong to deny autonomy to a human being - a lamb of God, created in His love and in His Image? It doesn’t make sense! How could the Church (or anyone else, for that matter) believe that it is morally acceptable to buy and sell human beings? If it’s OK to do that then I guess it’s OK for young Christian women to be kept as slaves and forced to become Muslim. And that is going on right now. It is then OK to circumcise them as they are slaves. It’s OK to rape them as they are slaves.
Something is very wrong here and I know it is not the Church.
P
PumpkinSeed
Guest
In bibical times, people usually sold themselves into slavery. While working for somebody, they would get fed, shelter, a place to sleep, ect.
It was really just a job in exchange for a place to stay and food to eat.
It was really just a job in exchange for a place to stay and food to eat.
L
Lujack
Guest
I don’t think so, but if you want to revive it, go ahead and bring it back. I went inactive on here for about a year or so, so I’m not sure.
A
Andromedus
Guest
Nah, I would rather say that most slaves were prisoners of war. Some people sold themselves or family members into slavery because of starvation, debt etc. And sometimes they got a better life than most, as you say. But often the rulers didn’t want their own subjects to be slaves, they preferred that the slaves came from other people and therefore I doubt that you can say that people usually sold themselves into slavery because then you most likely would have been the slave among your own people, which the rulers disliked. But it also depends on what you mean with biblical times. Early GT times or during the life of Jesus etc?
O
ora_pro_nobis
Guest
I provided a link some pages back to the Vatican website (surely much more reliable than newadvent?) showing that Pope Leo XIII condemned slavery in no uncertain terms. That was in 1888.
here it is again:
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_05051888_in-plurimis_en.html
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear LittleSoldier,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Trust all is well. It has been a while since our paths last crossed on the boards, on a Harry Potter thread, if my memory serves me well.
A state of servitude where one man is the property of another man is odious and incontrovertibly at variance with the spirit of the Gospel. It is utterly opposed to human dignity, which forbids an individual to be treated as a chattel, and it violates a man’s rights to liberty of conscience and the integrity of soul and body. Moreover, as we all know too well, it has a tendency to breed vice and brutality in those who own slaves. Thus our Catechism (para. 2414) quite rightly regards the enslavement of men as contravening the seventh Commandment (‘Thou shalt not steal’).
Therefore, my dear friend, there was no attempt on my part to defend slavery itself, but rather to explain that whilst there is no condemnation of slavery in the N.T. (much to the surprise of some men), the Christian religion did, nevertheless, adopt a whole new radical approach which would gradually revolutionize thinking upon the subject. Thus the spiritual equality of men as children of the same Father, together with the ‘Golden Rule’ and our dear Lord’s affection for the poor and the oppressed, provided the *principles *which were to slowly penetrate the nascent Christian community. As I remarked previously, they were formulated by St. Paul, who recognized neither bond nor free in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3: 28; I Cor. 12: 13; Col. 3: 11), and who, whilst not condemning slavery, did, notwithstanding, strive to imbue both masters and slaves with the new Christian spirit of charity which was to finally abolish the institution itself. St. Paul’s principles would at once undoubtedly mitigate the sad lot of slaves and help them to bear with their afflictions in the present distress, which could not be erradicated in an instant.
As you know, dear friend, in the early days of Christianity slavery was an integral and normal part of the social structure. Thus an all out and out unsparing attack upon slavery by the leaders of religion like St. Paul and St. Peter, would have been jolly imprudent at that time, for such revolutionary doctrine would have surely evoked the hostility and opposition of the authorities. In any event, given that slavery was so a much a part of the social cement of life, any sudden abolition would have reduced the Roman Empire to chaos. However, St. Paul raised the status of a slave to that of a sort of indentured servant, which virtually put him in the same position as a free man under contract. Now this type of ‘slavery’ is far removed from the wretched servitude of the poor serf in your average Roman household. Of course, it was not a perfect situation by any means, dear friend, but it was surely a giant step in the right direction towards eventual abolition. Incidently, when St. Paul implores Philemon to receive the runaway slave, Onesimus, as a beloved brother, he has set the slave in a position where the legal title of slave ceases to be of primary importance.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Yes. And if my memory serves me well you claimed that the words to the Lord’s Prayer became evil if sung to pop music. Didn’t you? The Word of God. Bizarre stuff.
I’ve had to cut your post (as usual) because dude, you just write too much stuff. It makes it hard to respond without multi-page posts. So, I’m sorry, but part of it seems to always have to go.
With all due respect, I am not your dear friend. I love you as a child as God but I am not happy at all with your viewpoints. Here is what you stated:
Now I do realize that masters were not always Christian, nor were they always kind. Nevertheless, the Gospel demanded that even harsh and unjust punishment was to be accepted without outburst of curse or threat. Slaves were to suffer patiently, following in Christ’s footsteps, who although guiltless, meekly submitted to cruel injustice in atonement for the sins of all and as an example to us (I Pet. 2: 18-25). In so doing they would actually be true apostles of Christ by manifesting the attractiveness of their Saviour’s teaching (Titus 2: 9-10). Noble service of God, dear friend, imitation of Christ, the possible conversion of their cruel masters - the implanting of such lofty ideals in the hearts of slaves, was surely a greater triumph for Christianity than any immediate campaingn for the total abolition of slavery could have been. Indeed, the sudden destruction of an institution of so many centuries standing would have scarcely been less unjust and immoral than its maintenance without any qualification or mitigation.
The problem I have with this is that you seem to accept that slaves lost their autonomy - which all men (and women) are given by virtue of being human beings, and that this was acceptable. A slave was a human being, created in God’s image and loved by Him and yet he (or she) was supposed to simply accept his (or her) lot in life patiently and MEEKLY? Raped by the master? OK - fine. Beaten, whipped, scourged within an inch of his (or her) life? Take it meekly! Turn that other cheek so it can be smacked again. Let your master do whatever he wants but you had better take it - EVEN IF SLAVERY IS IMMORAL and the CCC states that we are not required to adhere to immoral laws. Any law that attempts to justify slavery is IMMORAL. And as that is truth, it has always been true and will always be true. Truth does not change because of the passage of time, although the understanding of it does. Slavery has always been wrong, is wrong now, and will always be wrong. It is a Universal Law that all human beings have the right to autonomy.
You have a theory. Fine. I disagree, as is my right.
With all due respect, I am not your dear friend. I love you because you are a child of God and my brother but I have never agreed with you on any point you have made. Why the word “jolly?” I realize you’re British but to me the word “jolly” puts a “gee, golly, gee whiz” spin on a discussion of a particularly odious subject.
First you say that slaves are to take their treatment meekly. Then you bring up the case of a runaway slave. Did Onesimus take his treatment meekly? It appears that he did not as he ran away. So there is a contradiction in what you say.
As for indentured servants, I know a bit about one of them. She became an indentured servant to escape from Germany to the U.S. Her “mistress and master” tried to murder her because they didn’t like the fact that she did not become deathly ill with the same disease their own children had. They made her lie down with them and sleep with them. She still did not die; she didn’t even become ill. She was treated very cruelly and barely made it through those years. She is my ancestor. The laws that allowed her treatment were, again, immoral. She did not have the moral obligation to meekly accept her treatment. She had the right, as slaves did (and do), to do whatever is in their power (as long as it does not break a Commandment) to change the system and get away from the people who mistakenly think they have the right to “own” another child of God.
-----continued in next post-----
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
-----continuation of last post-----
I think this sums it up well, although the practice of slavery was continued in the U.S. for another hundred years after it was written:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men* are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
[Declaration of Independence]
*The word “women” should have been added here. IMHO.
I think this sums it up well, although the practice of slavery was continued in the U.S. for another hundred years after it was written:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men* are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
[Declaration of Independence]
*The word “women” should have been added here. IMHO.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
This post is for Portrait - I want to be sure he sees it.
Portrait, I think I do understand what you are trying to say. And I agree - to a certain extent (which would be a first in our relationship). It’s true that slavery was an integral part of society during both OT and NT times and for much of history thereafter. It took much more manual labor to raise food animals and crops than it does today. People, including some (most?) masters of slaves, probably worked almost as hard as their slaves did.
From what I understand, when Adam fell the world became tainted and that is why the lion does not lie down with the lamb and why my beloved white cat was killed in January by a coyote or a bobcat. The evil that Adam brought into the world messed up everything - including the relationships between man and woman, husband and wife, brother and brother (and sister and sister and all the rest of the possible relationships between siblings, etc. ad nauseum), and the relationships between all people. Slavery should never have existed and it existed (and still does today) because of Adam.
I can’t say what would have happened if Rome had made an announcement that slavery had been made illegal, and if all other governments had done the same. It might have created problems worse than when the slaves were freed in the former Confederacy. Most of those slaves had no place to go, no paying jobs waiting for them, they were hated by a large segment of society, and they were not even allowed to vote. The problems exist even today, even though they are ignored by many. Look at the KKK - cowards who hide in sheets and masks and have the nerve to use *Amazing Grace *as their theme song. When I was a young teenager I got onto a bus and there was an open seat but people were standing. I didn’t understand why and I had very little self-esteem. I took the seat. I was sitting next to a black gentleman dressed in a suit. He was the best-dressed person on the bus. And people were refusing to sit next to him because he was black. I am Caucasian. I felt torn. I thought I might be doing something wrong because I got dirty looks. And the driver drove right past that man’s stop and laughed as he watched him run back. This happened either in 1969 or right before - the time of the Civil Rights Movement.
But - during the Civil War there was what was called the Underground Railroad - a system by which slaves were helped to escape. Was this a bad thing? Should these slaves have tried to escape or should they have just accepted their role as slaves meekly? Remember, this was in the U.S. The owners of these slaves were most likely Christian and this was going on almost 2,000 years after the Church was formed.
Please also understand that one of my ancestors owned slaves and this was justified by my family. I did not accept the justification and neither did my siblings for one reason:
Slavery is intrinsically wrong. And because of this it is *always *wrong.
What you wrote about gradual changes in society makes sense. But when I read it I thought of abortion. God, through His Church, absolutely condemns abortion. There is no gradual change going on. Abortion is an intrinsic evil and has always been condemned by the Church. So what I am seeing is that apparently in some cases it’s OK to make changes gradually and in other cases it is not, but in both cases intrinsic evils are involved.
I hate slavery. I hate the kidnapping of Christian girls who are then forced to convert to Islam, circumcised (a procedure which sometimes includes removing the entire outer layer of the skin - it’s a lot worse than most people think), and given to a man who has utter control over their lives. Are they supposed to take this treatment meekly? Or should Christians and others make every attempt to release them from the horrible lives they are now being forced to live?
I misunderstood your comment about the runaway slave; I’ve read it again, although I haven’t checked to see the story. I have not yet read the bible (some serious vision problems) although I’ve read some. I don’t know of this story.
I see a contradiction. Do you understand what I am saying here? Or do you need some clarification as to my position? When something is wrong it is wrong and should be stopped - even if people starve. Doesn’t the Church teach us that no evil means can be used even to achieve a good end? Allowing slavery to exist, even with restrictions, is an evil means. I don’t understand why the practice was not utterly condemned in a way that no confusion would have existed. Even if some societies collapsed, it would have been better - they collapsed anyway. All societies collapse; the U.S. is well on its way right now and it’s only been a country for a couple hundred years.
Recently there was a poll here. It asked respondents if they would approve of the killing of one person to stop the extermination of every person on earth. I believe approximately 98% of respondents chose extermination of every person on earth - the correct response. I hope you see why I chose to include this.
Portrait, I think I do understand what you are trying to say. And I agree - to a certain extent (which would be a first in our relationship). It’s true that slavery was an integral part of society during both OT and NT times and for much of history thereafter. It took much more manual labor to raise food animals and crops than it does today. People, including some (most?) masters of slaves, probably worked almost as hard as their slaves did.
From what I understand, when Adam fell the world became tainted and that is why the lion does not lie down with the lamb and why my beloved white cat was killed in January by a coyote or a bobcat. The evil that Adam brought into the world messed up everything - including the relationships between man and woman, husband and wife, brother and brother (and sister and sister and all the rest of the possible relationships between siblings, etc. ad nauseum), and the relationships between all people. Slavery should never have existed and it existed (and still does today) because of Adam.
I can’t say what would have happened if Rome had made an announcement that slavery had been made illegal, and if all other governments had done the same. It might have created problems worse than when the slaves were freed in the former Confederacy. Most of those slaves had no place to go, no paying jobs waiting for them, they were hated by a large segment of society, and they were not even allowed to vote. The problems exist even today, even though they are ignored by many. Look at the KKK - cowards who hide in sheets and masks and have the nerve to use *Amazing Grace *as their theme song. When I was a young teenager I got onto a bus and there was an open seat but people were standing. I didn’t understand why and I had very little self-esteem. I took the seat. I was sitting next to a black gentleman dressed in a suit. He was the best-dressed person on the bus. And people were refusing to sit next to him because he was black. I am Caucasian. I felt torn. I thought I might be doing something wrong because I got dirty looks. And the driver drove right past that man’s stop and laughed as he watched him run back. This happened either in 1969 or right before - the time of the Civil Rights Movement.
But - during the Civil War there was what was called the Underground Railroad - a system by which slaves were helped to escape. Was this a bad thing? Should these slaves have tried to escape or should they have just accepted their role as slaves meekly? Remember, this was in the U.S. The owners of these slaves were most likely Christian and this was going on almost 2,000 years after the Church was formed.
Please also understand that one of my ancestors owned slaves and this was justified by my family. I did not accept the justification and neither did my siblings for one reason:
Slavery is intrinsically wrong. And because of this it is *always *wrong.
What you wrote about gradual changes in society makes sense. But when I read it I thought of abortion. God, through His Church, absolutely condemns abortion. There is no gradual change going on. Abortion is an intrinsic evil and has always been condemned by the Church. So what I am seeing is that apparently in some cases it’s OK to make changes gradually and in other cases it is not, but in both cases intrinsic evils are involved.
I hate slavery. I hate the kidnapping of Christian girls who are then forced to convert to Islam, circumcised (a procedure which sometimes includes removing the entire outer layer of the skin - it’s a lot worse than most people think), and given to a man who has utter control over their lives. Are they supposed to take this treatment meekly? Or should Christians and others make every attempt to release them from the horrible lives they are now being forced to live?
I misunderstood your comment about the runaway slave; I’ve read it again, although I haven’t checked to see the story. I have not yet read the bible (some serious vision problems) although I’ve read some. I don’t know of this story.
I see a contradiction. Do you understand what I am saying here? Or do you need some clarification as to my position? When something is wrong it is wrong and should be stopped - even if people starve. Doesn’t the Church teach us that no evil means can be used even to achieve a good end? Allowing slavery to exist, even with restrictions, is an evil means. I don’t understand why the practice was not utterly condemned in a way that no confusion would have existed. Even if some societies collapsed, it would have been better - they collapsed anyway. All societies collapse; the U.S. is well on its way right now and it’s only been a country for a couple hundred years.
Recently there was a poll here. It asked respondents if they would approve of the killing of one person to stop the extermination of every person on earth. I believe approximately 98% of respondents chose extermination of every person on earth - the correct response. I hope you see why I chose to include this.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Thanks. Last night I thought I would search through the thread to see if the link had been provided. You saved me some time.
I don’t know if it’s more reliable than NewAdvent - just from its name it appears to be. I’m very confused about infallible teaching vs. non-infallible teaching (or if that even exists). Recently I PMd an apologist here on CAF about a response he made to a question. He never responded to my PM. I’m very afraid that people are being led astray. Surely if what the apologist says is true he should be able to back it up with Church teaching. But either he can’t, is way too busy to respond to a simple question from me, or doesn’t care (and I’m sorry to say I think that both the first and third are true).
I’ll check the link. I’m running into some serious contradictions - not just about slavery. And, as of this date, I still cannot find out exactly what comprises the Magisterium and how they get together and write the CCC and what authority the USCCB has in the U.S. (I actually phoned the USCCB and neither of the two people I talked to could even tell me what the Magisterium is; I find that very sad and rather shocking).
But that is a subject for another thread and I don’t want to derail this one.
Thanks again for your help. I really do appreciate it.
Pope Leo XIII was certainly correct to condemn slavery. Good for him!
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear LittleSoldier,
Cordial greetings and thankyou for the above response.
First, I am truly sorry that my use of those words of endearment, ‘dear friend’, has evidently upset you and I will refrain from using then in any subsequent post to you. However, I am bound to say that in all the time that I have been a member of CAF, no one, apart from yourself, has objected to my use of this expression of affection. Nevertheless, I will respect your wishes. Yes, I do tend to write very lengthy and discursive posts, which I can certainly appreciate makes it difficult for those endeavouring to repond to me. Please forgive me for that, but I do find it well-nigh impossible to brief and succinct.
By the very nature of things, slaves had lost their autonomy in the ancient world because that was the situation in the Roman Empire in which they lived and moved and had their being. Of course I do not approve of that and find it unacceptable but that was, nonetheless, the situation that obtained in those days. Moreover, the slaves had to live with that situation, since slavery was not going to be erradicated or abolished in the immediate future. Now it stands to reason that in an age where slavery was so much a part of the social fabric, the leaders of religion had to deal with the reality of the situation in which they found themselves, doing whatever they could to mitigate the evils of slavery and, at least, improve the the lot of the poor slaves.
True, a slave was a human being created in the image of God and loved by Him, for sure. However, that slave lived in a society where those truths were either not held dear or were simply not believed at all. Now in these unhappy circumstances, which could not be changed overnight, the slave had to find comfort, encouragement and grace to sustain him in his afflictions. Thus a passage such as I Pet. 2: 18-25 would have helped him greatly to submit meekly to any harsh and unjust treatment by his master. He would know that he was following in the steps of his true Master, who also meekly submitted to cruel injustice, but that is surely being a true Christian whilst undergoing the most bitter trials; It was being a true apostle of Christ by demonstrating the attractive power of the Saviour’s teaching (Titus 2: 9-10). What a dynamic testimony and a monument to the grace of God. Now none of this is to condone or excuse the odious institution of slavery itself, but it is to deal with the reality of the then existing situation and to seek to bring good out of much evil.
With respect to Onesimus, It should be noted that Onesimus did not run away from any harsh treatment, but probably because he had stolen from Philemon - “If he has wronged you at all, or owes you anything, charge that to my account” (Phil. 18, added emphasis mine). Restitution must needs be made and St. Paul graciously pledges himself as the guarantor for the repayment of the debt. Moreover, you will observe that St. Paul freely accepts that Onesimus must return to Philemon, which is odd if the latter had acted brutally and harshly towards him. Indeed, St. Paul requests that Onesimus be received back “…on longer as a salve but more than a slave, as a beloved brother…if you consider me your partner, receive him as you would receive me” (Phil. 16,17). Here is an excellent example of how St. Paul’s principles radically transformed the position of slaves within that unjust and cruel system; the master/slave relationship is not denied, but it is caught up into a new relationship which transmutes the former. Dear Onesimus is to be received no longer as a slave but as a brother. In Christ both master and slave stand together, for they are both one in Him. This was surely marvelous stuff in the pagan Roman Empire.
Whilst St. Paul endeavoured to mitigate the evils of slavery, he never encouraged slaves to run away from their masters but he did try to transform that relationship and put it on a more humane footing (Eph. 6: 5-9; Col 3: 22-25). He knew that man’s inhumanity to man would not go unpunished - “For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality” (Col. 3: 25).
LittleSoldier, I am sorry to hear of the terrible sufferings of your ancestor and in those circumstances, it was right that she should try to escape her oppressors and change her sad plight. However, the case of slavery in the Pagan Roman Empire was clearly different because if the leaders of religion had encouraged slaves to run away from their masters, then that would have evoked much hostility and oppostion against the nascent Church. Moreover, it would have most probably given the Church a reputation for fostering insurrection, at a time when it wanted to show the powers that be that its was not yet another group with hostile intentions against the Senate and people of Rome.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
PS. There, I have done it again - another missive!
Portrait
Pax
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear LittleSoldier,
Hello again and thankyou for the above. I am pleased that you understand some of the things I have been trying to say and forgive me if I have not always made my meaning clear. It is good that we are in some agreement, at least.
LittleSoldier, I will respond to your post tommorow when I am a little more awake, so please stand by.
God bless and goodbye for now.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait:tiphat:
Pax
S
severus68
Guest
Excellent post! I am glad your ancestor survived.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Thank you! I’m glad she survived, too. I wouldn’t be here if she hadn’t (or perhaps I would be - who knows what goes on in the mind of God?)
I wish that part of the Declaration of Independence was taken seriously because to me those rights pretty much define autonomy.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
Am I the only one who thinks it’s a travesty that this thread has 15 pages? 
S
someperson555
Guest
its funny how the church deems masterbation as “gravely immoral” and “depraved”, yet it says that slavery is “ok”. Are you kidding me? Even thomas aquinas who said that “eating costly foods is a sin”, said that “slavery is ok”. How do these people reason??
S
someperson555
Guest
its funny how the church deems masterbation as “gravely immoral” and “depraved”. yet at the same time it says that slavery is ok. are you kidding me?? how does the church reason?
ya gotta love that logic lol.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
LOL Yeah. Somehow, masturbation doesn’t seem quite as bad as slavery. I guess the Church knows better but sometimes it’s ludicrously hard to believe…
- Status