S
- Status
V
Vouthon
Guest
My dear brothers and sisters in Christ 
The Catholic Church had all but eradicated slavery from the Christian populations of Europe by the 1100s. The Catholic Church kept a consistent campaign against slavery from 1100s until the 1890s. The Protestant historian Rodney Stark once wrote that the Catholic Church should be praised for its sole prophetic voice against slavery during these centuries.
As Catholics we are the proud heirs to this great tradition of upholding and defending human liberty at a time when the rest of the secular world, and indeed humanity at large whether in Islamic lands or India and China, subjugated human beings under the whip of slavery.
It is my desire to demonstrate the truth of what I have said above, if you will give me your earnest attention for some time.
Since I am currently busy I cannot provide you with a full overview at the moment but I am going to, later on today and tommorrow, consult papal bulls, declarations of the Holy Office, Church councils, Church Fathers, the writings of Saints and Doctors and other magisterial documents.
I am also going to analyse the initial quote beginning this thread, which I could find no source for when I first encountered it about two years ago and which is variously attributed to Blessed Pope Pius IX or to the Holy Office (apparently nobody knows which) but which irrespective of this the initial poster has carefully and artfully pruned to give it an interpretation which the full quote does not have, regardless of its source.
It is my sincere hope that I can dissipate the cloud of dismay that has come over some people during the course of this thread, which has been brought to my attention by our beloved brother Portrait. I see in this thread the usual ‘offenders’ - a small but vocal minority.
The Catholic Church had all but eradicated slavery from the Christian populations of Europe by the 1100s. The Catholic Church kept a consistent campaign against slavery from 1100s until the 1890s. The Protestant historian Rodney Stark once wrote that the Catholic Church should be praised for its sole prophetic voice against slavery during these centuries.
As Catholics we are the proud heirs to this great tradition of upholding and defending human liberty at a time when the rest of the secular world, and indeed humanity at large whether in Islamic lands or India and China, subjugated human beings under the whip of slavery.
It is my desire to demonstrate the truth of what I have said above, if you will give me your earnest attention for some time.
Since I am currently busy I cannot provide you with a full overview at the moment but I am going to, later on today and tommorrow, consult papal bulls, declarations of the Holy Office, Church councils, Church Fathers, the writings of Saints and Doctors and other magisterial documents.
I am also going to analyse the initial quote beginning this thread, which I could find no source for when I first encountered it about two years ago and which is variously attributed to Blessed Pope Pius IX or to the Holy Office (apparently nobody knows which) but which irrespective of this the initial poster has carefully and artfully pruned to give it an interpretation which the full quote does not have, regardless of its source.
V
Vouthon
Guest
***PS Pius II encouraged people to “MANUMIT” their slaves, manumit meaning to release from slavery, to free them but because i’m tired I accidentally typed “MANUMATE” 
Pope Pius II also declared the institution of slavery to be a “GREAT CRIME” in that same 1462 letter ***
Pope Pius II also declared the institution of slavery to be a “GREAT CRIME” in that same 1462 letter ***Want to see the evidence? Its coming tonight
S
someperson555
Guest
unfortunately, the damage is already done. ive had some criticisms of the church before, but now, i just dont know what to think anymore. what really gets to me, is the fact that even back then, masterbation was considered a “grave sin”, while slavery was actually considered OK. i find it really disturbing that Thomas Aquinas, a man who said that even eating expensive foods was a sin, said that slavery was OK. Its really hard to fathom this.My dear brothers and sisters in Christ
It is my sincere hope that I can dissipate the cloud of dismay that has come over some people during the course of this thread, which has been brought to my attention by our beloved brother Portrait. I see in this thread the usual ‘offenders’ - a small but vocal minority.
The Catholic Church had all but eradicated slavery from the Christian populations of Europe by the 1100s. The Catholic Church kept a consistent campaign against slavery from 1100s until the 1890s. The Protestant historian Rodney Stark once wrote that the Catholic Church should be praised for its sole prophetic voice against slavery during these centuries.
As Catholics we are the proud heirs to this great tradition of upholding and defending human liberty at a time when the rest of the secular world, and indeed humanity at large whether in Islamic lands or India and China, subjugated human beings under the whip of slavery.
It is my desire to demonstrate the truth of what I have said above, if you will give me your earnest attention for some time.
Since I am currently busy I cannot provide you with a full overview at the moment but I am going to, later on today and tommorrow, consult papal bulls, declarations of the Holy Office, Church councils, Church Fathers, the writings of Saints and Doctors and other magisterial documents.
I am also going to analyse the initial quote beginning this thread, which I could find no source for when I first encountered it about two years ago and which is variously attributed to Blessed Pope Pius IX or to the Holy Office (apparently nobody knows which) but which irrespective of this the initial poster has carefully and artfully pruned to give it an interpretation which the full quote does not have, regardless of its source.
or is masterbation and eating nice foods really a more serious sin than slavery?
V
Vouthon
Guest
My dear brother
The church has always considered slavery to be “gravely sinful”, and it is the one institution historically which has fought against this evil man-made construct for centuries. No other religion or ancient institution has so venerable and consistent a tradition against slavery and the slave trade. if you will allow me to present the evidence later, and critique it with an open-mind, then I will fully respect what you say above
But, allow me to give the evidence first. That is only fair. Slavery was never considered “natural” nor “ok” by the Church.Also in terms of “masturbation”. The Church does not declare anyone to be living in grave sin. Nor does it declare specific acts of individuals to be mortal sins. Rather it declares certain acts to be “grave matter”, which have the potencial to constitute grave sin.
The Church declares acts to be “objectively” grave matter but it cannot and does not judge “subjectively” whether an act is sinful for that particular person. Only God can do that.
The Catechism specifically mentions the years when a child goes through puberty and young adult adolescence as years when masturbation should be treated lightly and compassion shown to the youngster with raging hormones. It suggests that the youngster should be helped so as to try and bring masturbation to a “culpable level”.
In addition a “habit” is not considered to constitute grave sin, since the person is mired in a routine and may depend upon masturbation. In that case the CHurch clearly teaches it to be venial.
And Saint Thomas Aquinas, despite his great authority, was a man like any other and as with Augustine he got things wrong sometimes, things that the Church never agreed with him on.
We are all fallible even a great mind like his!
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
Vouthon, thank you very much for providing all that information.My dear brothers and sisters in Christ
P
Portrait
Guest
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
This is exactly the problem I am encountering. I know that the Church teaches truth. But over the last 2,000 years (approximately) there have been some things presented as dogma or doctrine which are neither; usually orally (as when I was taught that french kissing was a mortal sin in the second grade). Something is very wrong. I know it isn’t the Church so I believe it is the presentation of fallible “concepts” as being infallible. I’m seeing it in apologists’ answers to questions and that can lead people astray.
Right now I am concentrating on what I know is true: God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, perfectly just, and perfectly merciful. Mary was conceived without Original Sin, was assumed into heaven body and soul, and is the Queen of Heaven and Earth.
I know that God can do anything which does not go against His very nature and that Mary is the most perfect human being who ever existed, with the exception of God Incarnate.
And I’m holding onto those truths as tightly as I can. I can try to research the other “teachings” but right now I’m taking them with a grain of salt until I can be sure.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
This is one of the best posts I have ever read!My dear brother
The church has always considered slavery to be “gravely sinful”, and it is the one institution historically which has fought against this evil man-made construct for centuries. No other religion or ancient institution has so venerable and consistent a tradition against slavery and the slave trade. if you will allow me to present the evidence later, and critique it with an open-mind, then I will fully respect what you say above
Also in terms of “masturbation”. The Church does not declare anyone to be living in grave sin. Nor does it declare specific acts of individuals to be mortal sins. Rather it declares certain acts to be “grave matter”, which have the potencial to constitute grave sin.
The Church declares acts to be “objectively” grave matter but it cannot and does not judge “subjectively” whether an act is sinful for that particular person. Only God can do that.
The Catechism specifically mentions the years when a child goes through puberty and young adult adolescence as years when masturbation should be treated lightly and compassion shown to the youngster with raging hormones. It suggests that the youngster should be helped so as to try and bring masturbation to a “culpable level”.
In addition a “habit” is not considered to constitute grave sin, since the person is mired in a routine and may depend upon masturbation. In that case the CHurch clearly teaches it to be venial.
And Saint Thomas Aquinas, despite his great authority, was a man like any other and as with Augustine he got things wrong sometimes, things that the Church never agreed with him on.
We are all fallible even a great mind like his!
Aquinas was not born a saint, nor was he a saint on earth (as far as I know). Augustine admitted stealing pears, fathering a child out of wedlock, and it goes on and on. They were people; admittedly brilliant in *some *of what they said but they were not infallible. Back then our knowledge of the world around us was poorly understood (it still is) and there was even confusion about when the soul entered the body.I think that both Aquinas and Augustine, if told by the Church that their theories were incorrect, would have deferred to the teaching and authority of the Church. Others, like Feeney and Luther, persisted in their errors.
With all the websites now it’s really hard to find out what actual Church teaching is - the CCC is probably the best place to go and then perhaps checking the footnotes it offers.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Thank you for your response. It’s nice to see us agreeing on something! I want to give your post the attention it deserves; unfortunately today I am completely grogged out on pain medication. I can handle the easy stuff (if anything is really easy) but I do want to read your post and respond when I can keep my eyes open. I hope that later on today I will be a bit more awake. I promise you I will respond.
I do have a question, which admittedly is off-topic, but it would help me understand. We live in different countries and sometimes your language confuses me. I made a complaint in a previous post about your use of the word “jolly” and I did this without seeking clarification from you first. That was very uncharitable of me and I am sorry and ask your forgiveness. I’d never before seen “jolly” used the way you used it. To me it means “happy” and brings to mind thoughts of Santa Claus. Will you please explain to me what it means, when used as an adjective? Thanks.
God’s peace to you!
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear LittleSoldier,
Cordial greetings and hello again. Sorry to hear that you are feeling dazed on account of your medication and I do hope things will improve for you as the day progresses. Please be assured of my prayers.
I do understand that my usage of the word ‘jolly’ can be quite confusing to those overseas! Yes, of course I forgive you and jolly decent of you to apologise. Thankyou.
Now let me answer your question, LittleSoldier. Here in England the term ‘jolly’ also means cheerful and good-humoured. However, it can also be used in a colloquial sense to mean ‘very’ and that is how I intended it to be understood in my post. Thus, when I said, “…an all out and out unsparing attack upon slavery by the leaders of religion…would have been jolly imprudent at that time”, I simply meant by the word ‘jolly’, very imprudent at that time. Nevertheless, upon reflection it was probably a poor choice of word, given the serious nature of the subject matter in which it occured. Therefore, I tender my apologies if it introduced a note of flippancy into my argument, for such was clearly not my intention.
You may be interested to know that the word ‘jolly’ in traditional English usage was frequently used as an expression of hearty approval, especially among those associated with the upper eschelons of society and the ‘Old School Tie Brigade’ (that is, men from a privelliged public school background). These sort of fellows could often be heard saying things like, “Jolly good show, old chap”, to show their approval of, for example, a job well done by someone. Now, I must confess, I do use an adaptation of this lovely quaint phrase here at CAF sometimes when I think a contributor has written a, well, jolly good post with which I heartily concur. Moreover, as I understand it the phrase was also used widely in the Second World War by officers in the armed Forces, especially by those serving in the Royal Air Force. BTW, they would often address a man as “old chap” or “old boy”, which it had nothing to do with the age of the person so addressed, but was just the ‘Hooray Henry’ type speak of upper class Englishmen in those times. Unfortunately, in our eglatarian age these chaps have been given a very bad press and are often held up to derision as spoilt and ineffectual young men who were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. This may have been true in some cases, but it was certainly not true generally. For example, many Royal Air Force officers in WWII were very heroic men, who often ended up in prisoner of war camps for the duration of the war, such as the infamous Colditz, unless they escaped.
LittleSoldier, I must leave it there, but I do hope you found the above jolly interesting and helpful.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait:tiphat:
Pax
S
someperson555
Guest
thank you,My dear brother
The church has always considered slavery to be “gravely sinful”, and it is the one institution historically which has fought against this evil man-made construct for centuries. No other religion or ancient institution has so venerable and consistent a tradition against slavery and the slave trade. if you will allow me to present the evidence later, and critique it with an open-mind, then I will fully respect what you say above
Also in terms of “masturbation”. The Church does not declare anyone to be living in grave sin. Nor does it declare specific acts of individuals to be mortal sins. Rather it declares certain acts to be “grave matter”, which have the potencial to constitute grave sin.
The Church declares acts to be “objectively” grave matter but it cannot and does not judge “subjectively” whether an act is sinful for that particular person. Only God can do that.
The Catechism specifically mentions the years when a child goes through puberty and young adult adolescence as years when masturbation should be treated lightly and compassion shown to the youngster with raging hormones. It suggests that the youngster should be helped so as to try and bring masturbation to a “culpable level”.
In addition a “habit” is not considered to constitute grave sin, since the person is mired in a routine and may depend upon masturbation. In that case the CHurch clearly teaches it to be venial.
And Saint Thomas Aquinas, despite his great authority, was a man like any other and as with Augustine he got things wrong sometimes, things that the Church never agreed with him on.
We are all fallible even a great mind like his!
i know that the Catholic church out of all other religions was the most anti-slavery. i mean its true that our religion is still far more humane than islam or judaism, even buddhism in that aspect. its just that i expect more the catholic church, even errors like this should be unheard of, especially if im supposed to believe that the pope is “infallible”. i will always be a catholic, but im not always going to trust the church, i will obey the church teaching, but i will criticize a rule evey step of the way if i find it to be illogical. its like my nationality, i will always be an American, but i wont always agree with the goverment.
S
someperson555
Guest
same here. ever since i first heard about it when i was a little kid, i always felt dubius about the wisdom of saying that a man is infallible.
i just dont like it when i argue with fellow modern catholics (i hold a slightly more progressive views than other catholics), they give me this smug attitude and promptly disregard everything i have to say, since their response is always " haha stoopid person, dont you know the pope is infallible?" and thats regardless of how logical and well thought out my arguments are. but im a catholic, and i always will be.
like you, i know that God is all knowing, all wise, and that he personally promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church.
S
severus68
Guest
Well said.My dear brother
The church has always considered slavery to be “gravely sinful”, and it is the one institution historically which has fought against this evil man-made construct for centuries. No other religion or ancient institution has so venerable and consistent a tradition against slavery and the slave trade. if you will allow me to present the evidence later, and critique it with an open-mind, then I will fully respect what you say above
Also in terms of “masturbation”. The Church does not declare anyone to be living in grave sin. Nor does it declare specific acts of individuals to be mortal sins. Rather it declares certain acts to be “grave matter”, which have the potencial to constitute grave sin.
The Church declares acts to be “objectively” grave matter but it cannot and does not judge “subjectively” whether an act is sinful for that particular person. Only God can do that.
The Catechism specifically mentions the years when a child goes through puberty and young adult adolescence as years when masturbation should be treated lightly and compassion shown to the youngster with raging hormones. It suggests that the youngster should be helped so as to try and bring masturbation to a “culpable level”.
In addition a “habit” is not considered to constitute grave sin, since the person is mired in a routine and may depend upon masturbation. In that case the CHurch clearly teaches it to be venial.
And Saint Thomas Aquinas, despite his great authority, was a man like any other and as with Augustine he got things wrong sometimes, things that the Church never agreed with him on.
We are all fallible even a great mind like his!
V
Vouthon
Guest
Hey
Because I don’t have much time, I can’t provide any commentary at the moment. So I have simply compiled a list of quotes in chronological order beginning with the Early Church Fathers, then onto the subsequent Popes, the medeival Popes, the Renaissance popes, the Reformation Popes etc
Vouthon’s Catholic Church and slavery timeline
- Saint Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 6.44
and you make laws in opposition to God, overturning his law for human nature. As though resisting and fighting against divine decrees, you bring under the yoke of slavery one who was made specifically to be the lord of the earth and appointed ruler by the Creator…Irrational animals are the only slaves of human beings…But in dividing human nature into slaves and lords you have caused it to be enslaved to itself and to own itself…He who knew human nature rightly said that the whole world was not worth being given in exchange for a human soul. Therefore, whenever a human being is for sale, nothing less than the Lord of the Earth is led to the marketplace…‘I got me slave-girls and slaves.’ For what price, tell me? What did you find in existence worth as much as this human nature? What price did you put on rationality? How many obols did you reckon the equivalent of the likeness of God? How many staters did you get for selling that being shaped by God? God said, Let us make man in our own image and likeness. If he is in the likeness of God, and rules the whole earth, and has been granted authority over everything on earth from God, who is his buyer, tell me? Who is his seller? To God alone belongs this power; or, rather, not even to God himself. For his gracious gifts, it says, are irrevocable. God would not therefore reduce the human race to slavery, since he himself, when we had been enslaved to sin, spontaneously recalled us to freedom. But if God does not enslave what is free, who is he that sets his own power above God’s?..”
- Saint Gregory of Nyssa (Homilies on Ecclesiastes)
***- Saint Patrick (415-493), Letter to Coroticus ***
“…But the greatest is the suffering of those women who live in slavery. All the time they have to endure terror and threats. But the Lord gave His grace to many of His maidens; for though they are forbidden to do so, many of them follow Him bravely…”
***- Saint Patrick (415-493), Confession ***
- Saint Isidore of Seville (c. 560 – 4 April 636)
Because I don’t have much time, I can’t provide any commentary at the moment. So I have simply compiled a list of quotes in chronological order beginning with the Early Church Fathers, then onto the subsequent Popes, the medeival Popes, the Renaissance popes, the Reformation Popes etc
Vouthon’s Catholic Church and slavery timeline
- Jesus Christ (the big man Himself ):
- Saint Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies 6.44
- c.185-254: Origen says that he favours the Jewish practice of freeing all slaves after seven years.
- c.335-394: Gregory of Nyssa opposes slavery outright:
and you make laws in opposition to God, overturning his law for human nature. As though resisting and fighting against divine decrees, you bring under the yoke of slavery one who was made specifically to be the lord of the earth and appointed ruler by the Creator…Irrational animals are the only slaves of human beings…But in dividing human nature into slaves and lords you have caused it to be enslaved to itself and to own itself…He who knew human nature rightly said that the whole world was not worth being given in exchange for a human soul. Therefore, whenever a human being is for sale, nothing less than the Lord of the Earth is led to the marketplace…‘I got me slave-girls and slaves.’ For what price, tell me? What did you find in existence worth as much as this human nature? What price did you put on rationality? How many obols did you reckon the equivalent of the likeness of God? How many staters did you get for selling that being shaped by God? God said, Let us make man in our own image and likeness. If he is in the likeness of God, and rules the whole earth, and has been granted authority over everything on earth from God, who is his buyer, tell me? Who is his seller? To God alone belongs this power; or, rather, not even to God himself. For his gracious gifts, it says, are irrevocable. God would not therefore reduce the human race to slavery, since he himself, when we had been enslaved to sin, spontaneously recalled us to freedom. But if God does not enslave what is free, who is he that sets his own power above God’s?..”
- Saint Gregory of Nyssa (Homilies on Ecclesiastes)
- Circa 400: St. Augustine speaks of the granting of freedom to slaves as a great religious virtue, and declares the Christian law against regarding God’s rational creation as property.
- 400-425: Acacius of Amida opposes slavery
- 415-493: Saint Patrick, himself a former slave, argues for the abolition of slavery. He particularly is appalled by the treatment of female captives. The Letter to Coroticus is addressed to an Irish chieftan who had taken some of Patrick’s converts into slavery. When Coroticus fails to respond to a plea to to set the captives free, Patrick responds by excommunicating Coroticus. Patrick proclaims that one cannot be a Christian and own slaves. The suffering of women slaves moved Patrick deeply; he remarked on their courage and tenacity. He tells us that “slavery is in and of itself horrific”. Patrick so rejected the practice of slavery that he calls for Coroticus and his soldiers to make reparations and do penance.
***- Saint Patrick (415-493), Letter to Coroticus ***
“…But the greatest is the suffering of those women who live in slavery. All the time they have to endure terror and threats. But the Lord gave His grace to many of His maidens; for though they are forbidden to do so, many of them follow Him bravely…”
***- Saint Patrick (415-493), Confession ***
- 500s: While in power Pope Gregory the Great attempts to repress slave-dealing. He wrote: “Since our Redeemer, the Author of all life, deigned to take human flesh, that by the power of His Godhood the chains by which we were held in bondage being broken, He might restore us to our first state of liberty, it is most fitting that men by the concession of manumission should restore to the freedom in which they were born those whom nature sent free into the world, but who have been condemned to the yoke of slavery by the law of nations”.
- 588-650 - Saint Eligius uses his vast wealth to purchase British and Saxon slaves in groups of 50 and 100 in order to set them free.
- Circa 610: St. Isidore of Seville writes:
- Saint Isidore of Seville (c. 560 – 4 April 636)
- 626 – 680: Saint Bathilde (wife of King Clovis II) becomes famous for her campaign to stop slave-trading and free all slaves
- 851: Saint Anskar begins his efforts to halt the Viking slave trade
V
Vouthon
Guest
- 1000s: Church teaches that no Christians are allowed to be slaves to other Christians. That the Church willingly baptized slaves is claimed as proof that they have souls, and so both kings and bishops—including William the Conqueror (1027-1087) and Saints Wulfstan (1009-1095) and Saint Anselm (1033-1109)—forbid the enslavement of Christians. The Protestant Rodney Stark wrtites, “Since, except for small settlements of Jews, and the Vikings in the north, everyone was at least nominally a Christian, that effectively abolished slavery in medieval Europe, except at the southern and eastern interfaces with Islam where both sides enslaved one another’s prisoners. But even this was sometimes condemned: in the tenth century, bishops in Venice did public penance for past involvement in the Moorish slave trade and sought to prevent all Venetians from involvement in slavery”.
- 1167: Pope Alexander III condemns slavery and declares it unnatural:
***- Pope Alexander III, Papal Bull (concerning the Muslim King of Valencia’s enslavement of captives), 1167 ***
*1100s: According to the historian James Bowden, “[By this time] mainly by the voice of the Church, slavery had been extinguished in western Europe”. For the first time in history we have basically an entire continent where no European is permitted to enslave another European.
- 1200s: “…Saint Thomas Aquinas deduced that slavery was a sin, and a series of popes upheld his position. It is significant that in Aquinas’s day, slavery was a thing of the past or of distant lands. Consequently, he gave very little attention to the subject per se, paying more attention to serfdom, which he held to be repugnant.However, in his overall analysis of morality in human relationships, Aquinas placed slavery in opposition to natural law, deducing that all “rational creatures” are entitled to justice. Hence he found no natural basis for the enslavement of one person rather than another, “thus removing any possible justification for slavery based on race or religion.” Right reason, not coercion, is the moral basis of authority, for “one man is not by nature ordained to another as an end.” Here Aquinas distinguished two forms of “subjection” or authority, just and unjust. The former exists when leaders work for the advantage and benefit of their subjects. The unjust form of subjection “is that of slavery, in which the ruler manages the subject for his own [the ruler’s] advantage.” Based on the immense authority vested in Aquinas by the Church, the official view came to be that slavery is sinful…” - Rodney Stark
- 1400s: Unable now, because of the Church, to enslave fellow Christian Europeans, the emerging Spanish and Portugese Empires look abroad to find slaves in other countries. Thus begins the new “racial”, “chattel” slave trade of Africans and natives from around the world. The Church condemns this from the very beginning.
- 1435: Pope Eugene IV condemns the enslavement of native peoples in the newly colonized Canary Islands. His bull Sicut Dudum rebuked European enslavers and commanded that:
- 1462: Pope Pius II (1405-1464) announces in a papal encyclical that slavery is a ‘great misfortune’ and a ‘great crime’ - meaning that it was not a natural condition for mankind - and encourages individual Catholics to release their slaves.
- 1464 - 1448: Rodney Stark: “…Pope Pius II (1458 to 1464) and Pope Sixtus IV (1471 to 1484) followed with additional bulls condemning enslavement of the Canary Islanders, which, obviously, had continued. What this episode displays is the weakness of papal authority at this time, not the indifference of the Church to the sin of slavery…”
- 1519: Bartholomew De Las Casas, a Dominican, now being considered for sainthood, argues against slavery and becomes “The Defender of the Native Americans”:
- 1514: James Bowden writes: “The rapid development of this atrocious system, under the fostering influences of Spanish and Portugese avarice and cruelty, did not pass without strong and decided censure. It was emphatically denounced by the highest authorities in the Catholic Church and at times by the most powerful men in the state. Pope Leo X declared against slavery at a very early stage of its existence, and he did so under somewhat extraordinary circumstances. The Dominicans, an order of the Church who witnessed the horrors of this cruel bondage, held that it was utterly repugnant to the Gospel, and pleaded for its entire abolition. Another order of the church took a different view and eventually an appeal was made by the contending parties to the Pope, as head of the Church. His reply was a memorable one…”
“Not only the Christian religion, but nature herself, cries out against slavery”
- Pope Leo X, 1514
*(continued…) *
V
Vouthon
Guest
- 1537: Pope Paul III Pope Paul in the bull **Sublimis Deus /B] described the enslavers as allies of the devil and declared attempts to justify such slavery “null and void.” Accompanying the bull was another document, Pastorale Officium, which attached a latae sententiae excommunication remittable only by the pope himself for those who attempted to enslave the Indians or steal their goods.
"…The exalted God loved the human race so much that He created man in such a condition that he was not only a sharer in good as are other creatures, but also that he would be able to reach and see face to face the inaccessible and invisible Supreme Good…Satan, the enemy of the human race, who always opposes all good men so that the race may perish, has thought up a way, unheard of before now, by which he might impede the saving word of God from being preached to the nations. He has stirred up some of his allies who, desiring to satisfy their own avarice, are presuming to assert far and wide that the Indians of the West and the South who have come to our notice in these times be reduced to our service like brute animals, under the pretext that they are lacking in the Catholic faith. And they reduce them to slavery, treating them with afflictions they would scarcely use with brute animals. Therefore, We…noting that the Indians themselves indeed are true men…by our Apostolic Authority decree and declare by these present letters that the same Indians and all other peoples—even though they are outside the faith…should not be deprived of their liberty or their other possessions…and are not to be reduced to slavery, and that whatever happens to the contrary is to be considered null and void. …" [Ibid., pp.79-81 with original critical Latin text]**
Pope Paul not only condemned the slavery of Indians but also “all other peoples.” Furthermore they are to have complete liberty “even though they are outside the faith”, not Catholics. The Protestant historian James Bowden writes: “In two separate briefs, Pope Paul III imprecated a curse on any Europeans who should enslave the Indians or any other class of men”.
- 1591: Pope Gregory XIV condemns slavery in the Bull, “Cum Sicuti”
- 1639: Pope Urban VIII (1623 to 1644), at the request of the Jesuits of Paraguay, issues a bull Commissum nobis reaffirming the ruling by “our predecessor Paul III” that those who reduced others to slavery were subject to excommunication.
- 1686: the Congregation of the Holy Office (the Roman Inquisition now ‘Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’) takes up the matter. On March 20, 1686, it ruled in the form of questions and answers:
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
*(continued…) *
V
Vouthon
Guest
- 1741: Benedict XIV condemns slavery and the slave trade in the bull Immensa Pastorum
- 1815: Pope Pius VII - At the Congress of Vienna after the Napoleonic Wars, the pope demanded of the victorious Congress powers the immediate suppression of the slave trade and the outlawing of slavery itself.
- 1839: Pope Gregory XVI’s 1839 bull, In Supremo, reiterated papal opposition to enslaving “Indians, blacks, or other such people” and forbade “any ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this trade in blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse”. It clearly condemned slavery:
- In the Bull of Canonization of the Jesuit Peter Claver, named the “Slave of the slaves”, one of the most illustrious adversaries of slavery, Pius IX spoke of the “supreme villainy” (summum nefas) of the slave trade.
- In 1888 and again in 1890, Pope Leo XIII forcefully condemned slavery and sought its elimination where it persisted in parts of South America and Africa.
“…The maternal love of the Catholic Church embraces all people. As you know, venerable brother, the Church from the beginning sought to completely eliminate slavery, whose wretched yoke has oppressed many people. It is the industrious guardian of the teachings of its Founder [Jesus] who, by His words and those of the apostles, taught men the fraternal necessity which unites the whole world. From Him we recall that everybody has sprung from the same source, was redeemed by the same ransom, and is called to the same eternal happiness. He assumed the neglected cause of the slaves and showed Himself the strong champion of freedom. Insofar as time and circumstances allowed, He gradually and moderately accomplished His goal. Of course, pressing constantly with prudence and planning, He showed what He was striving for in the name of religion, justice, and humanity. In this way He put national prosperity and civilization in general into His debt. This zeal of the Church for liberating the slaves has not languished with the passage of time; on the contrary, the more it bore fruit, the more eagerly it glowed… St. Gregory the Great, Hadrian I, Alexander III, Innocent III, Gregory IX, Pius II, Leo X, Paul III, Urban VIII, Benedict XIV, Pius VII, and Gregory XVI stand out. They applied every effort to eliminate the institution of slavery wherever it existed. They also took care lest the seeds of slavery return to those places from which this evil institution had been cut away…”
- Pope Leo XIII, CATHOLICAE ECCLESIAE, 1890
- 1965 Pope Paul VI wrote in Gaudium et Spes, “Whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery . . . the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed . . . they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator."
. There are tons of other popes, saints, fathers and theologians who opposed slavery but I just don’t have the time to speak about them
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
It should have, but remember that women didn’t even get suffrage (the right to vote) until over a hundred years later. Women were obviously not considered equal for the first half of (independent) American history.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
In other words, Saint Paul essentially condoned slavery:shrug:
- Status