Is slavery in itself okay?

[severus68]

Christians are called to love. Period.

To use another human being for your own pleasure or your own gain is the opposite of love. This was taught by Blessed Pope John Paul II.

Christians will never use another human being. Period.

-Tim-

Simple and true.

 

[Nate13]

@Baelor
I have a simple question for you. How do you know that someone owns a slave and considers him/her to be their property? You agreed just the act of buying a slave is not intrinsically evil so that doesn’t tell you anything. Just because a slave stays with the person who bought them doesn’t necessarily mean they are being held there against their will either. So how exactly just by outside appearances can you determine whether someone actually owns a slave?

…It is intrinsically disordered to own a slave…can I get any clearer than that for you? You need to define what “own a slave” really means though as I referred to above.

 

[severus68]

That’s great no one denies the fact that slavery can be evil. The question the OP asked is if its intrinsically evil. I would argue it depends on your definition of slavery and how broad it is.

Really???

 

[Nate13]

Really???

My point is in response to people who said “well priests owned slaves”. Now I’m sure some of them really did own slaves, however my question is very simply how do you know that someone owns a slave and considers them their property? It appears to me a lot of priests were being judged as owning slaves just based on the fact that they bought them.

 

[severus68]

Luke 12:47

Jesus did not blush when saying this parable. He did not tell slave owners to repent.

There is a difference between a servant and a slave. In any event, the parables were allegorical. Christ said the greatest commandment is love. I do not see how tslavery can be anything about the love that Christ taught, it is all about evil.

 

[severus68]

My point is in response to people who said “well priests owned slaves”. Now I’m sure some of them really did own slaves, however my question is very simply how do you know that someone owns a slave and considers them their property? It appears to me a lot of priests were being judged as owning slaves just based on the fact that they bought them.

Since a slave is the property of his master, a person who has a servant who is free to leave at any time is by definition not a slave.

The thread is not about who would be considered a slave but about whether slavery is intrinsicly evil or okay.

 

[InJesusItrust]

There is a difference between a servant and a slave. In any event, the parables were allegorical. Christ said the greatest commandment is love. I do not see how tslavery can be anything about the love that Christ taught, it is all about evil.

If owning slaves is naturally evil why weren’t the first Christian condemned for it? Why was slavery practiced until much later? Instead the NT tells masters to be kind and slaves to obey their masters.

We could argue that it is disordered but to call it naturally evil would imply God didn’t mind evil and didn’t bother to tell people so.

Even if it was allegorical He still used that metaphor as though beating servants is okay?

Were the servants hired help or slaves? The way I understand the OT is that they were slaves.

 

[Baelor]

@Baelor
I have a simple question for you. How do you know that someone owns a slave and considers him/her to be their property?

Your question answers itself. If someone owns a slave, he by definition considers him to be property, because that is what owning a slave means.

You agreed just the act of buying a slave is not intrinsically evil so that doesn’t tell you anything.

Buying a slave to transfer ownership of the slave to you is intrinsically evil. Buying a slave to liberate him immediately is to buy his freedom.

Just because a slave stays with the person who bought them doesn’t necessarily mean they are being held there against their will either. So how exactly just by outside appearances can you determine whether someone actually owns a slave?

Outside appearances are irrelevant. Someone either owns or does not own a slave.

…It is intrinsically disordered to own a slave…can I get any clearer than that for you? You need to define what “own a slave” really means though as I referred to above.

The slave is your legal property.

Now I’m sure some of them really did own slaves, however my question is very simply how do you know that someone owns a slave and considers them their property?

See above: to own a slave is to consider them your property, otherwise they would not be your slave.

It appears to me a lot of priests were being judged as owning slaves just based on the fact that they bought them.

:ehh:

If owning slaves is naturally evil why weren’t the first Christian condemned for it? Why was slavery practiced until much later? Instead the NT tells masters to be kind and slaves to obey their masters.

That is a rather weak argument. The Church is always reflecting, considering, and expanding our theological and moral knowledge. We operate on Scripture and Tradition, and we have theologians to help us.

I am not an apologist for God’s motives. For all I know, God did not feel that a condemnation of slavery would be helpful to His plan at that time for any number of reasons. The fact that slavery was practiced until much later is, of course, irrelevant. What is relevant, however, is whether slavery is consistent with Catholic teaching as a whole. If it is not, then clearly we must reconcile that fact with the Bible.

And as a final note, do not think that ancient slavery was identical to modern slavery.

We could argue that it is disordered but to call it naturally evil would imply God didn’t mind evil and didn’t bother to tell people so.

Or that God is in some cases a pragmatist.

 

[severus68]

If owning slaves is naturally evil why weren’t the first Christian condemned for it? Why was slavery practiced until much later? Instead the NT tells masters to be kind and slaves to obey their masters.

We could argue that it is disordered but to call it naturally evil would imply God didn’t mind evil and didn’t bother to tell people so.

Even if it was allegorical He still used that metaphor as though beating servants is okay?

Were the servants hired help or slaves? The way I understand the OT is that they were slaves.

Christ did not come out with all the specifics… It does not mean that if he did not expressly condemn slavery, slavery is right.

The parable was about Christ’s return and good stewardship. You need to read commentaries on that passage.

God did not create evil and God minds but God did/does not (always) interfere with evil things that were/are done.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Quote:
The issue remains: Do you believe that the idea of owning someone else is something that is consistent with Church teaching?

No I do not. We don’t “own” the people in jail anymore than prisoners of war back then were “owned” though.

Then they were not slaves.
Being owned is a feature of being a slave.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

When we are talking back in the past when you don’t have prisons that are worth anything and your alternatives are: “death penalty or they work through their prison time” then I believe what could be called slavery would be a plausible choice.

What is different about having prisoners of war work during their prison time, and having criminals in jail do work in today’s world?

We do not consider our prisoners property.
They have rights and cannot be bought, sold, traded, etc.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

But see Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical of 1888:

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_05051888_in-plurimis_en.html

"In the presence of so much suffering, the condition of slavery, in which a considerable part of the great human family has been sunk in squalor and affliction now for many centuries, is deeply to be deplored; for the system is one which is wholly opposed to that which was originally ordained by God and by nature. The Supreme Author of all things so decreed that man should exercise a sort of royal dominion over beasts and cattle and fish and fowl, but never that men should exercise a like dominion over their fellow men. "

I can’t believe there are people on this forum trying to defend slavery.

I can unfortunately.
I participated in a very long (now closed) thread where posters avidly defended dictatorship and genocide (as long as the right kind of people were being murdered):
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=400868&highlight=Franco+was+Right

I also participated in a more recent thread where someone went on and on about how women should be judged more harshly (than men) when it comes to sex:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=654039&highlight=AngryAtheist8

 

[AngryAtheist8]

@Baelor
I have a simple question for you. How do you know that someone owns a slave and considers him/her to be their property? You agreed just the act of buying a slave is not intrinsically evil so that doesn’t tell you anything. Just because a slave stays with the person who bought them doesn’t necessarily mean they are being held there against their will either. So how exactly just by outside appearances can you determine whether someone actually owns a slave?

…It is intrinsically disordered to own a slave…can I get any clearer than that for you? You need to define what “own a slave” really means though as I referred to above.

What does this have to do with anything?
If someone effectively frees their slave how does that make slavery itself any less wrong?
Why are you defending the idea that people can be owned as property?

 

[Portrait]

If owning slaves is naturally evil why weren’t the first Christian condemned for it? Why was slavery practiced until much later? Instead the NT tells masters to be kind and slaves to obey their masters.

We could argue that it is disordered but to call it naturally evil would imply God didn’t mind evil and didn’t bother to tell people so.

Even if it was allegorical He still used that metaphor as though beating servants is okay?

Were the servants hired help or slaves? The way I understand the OT is that they were slaves.

Dear InJesusItrust,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. A jolly warm welcome to the world of CAF and trust that you will have a happy conversion to the Catholic Church soon.

Slavery in the early days of Christianity was a long- established institution that was accepted by all as a normal feature of the social structure and slaves were an integral part of home life, provided one could afford them. However, nowhere does the slow, leavening power of Christianity mainifest itself better than in the history of slavery. St. Paul, an inspired apostle, could say “there is neither slave nor free…for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3: 28), without vociferously being a reformer for Emancipation. Nevertheless he laid down such principles as would at once mitigate the lot of the slaves of Christian masters, gradually lead the State to recognize a slave’s inherent rights and finally abolish the institution wherever Christian civilisation has had its way and has not yet been repudiated.

Thus whilst it is true that the N.T. writers did not attack the essential element of salvery, what they did say revolutionized the thinking of the Christian upon the subject. As you say, masters were taught that they had a responsibility towards their slaves. Thus in Philemon the master-servant relationship is not denied, but is caught up into a new relationship which transmutes the former. Onesimus is now to be received no longer as a slave but as a brother. In Christ both master and slave stand together, for they are one in Him. When St. Paul urges Philemon to receive 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

 

[Nate13]

What does this have to do with anything?
If someone effectively frees their slave how does that make slavery itself any less wrong?
Why are you defending the idea that people can be owned as property?

No, I’m not defending that at all… I thought I asked a pretty simple question. How do you determine if someone is actually owned?

1. Its not the loss of freedom, because people in prison have lost their freedom or at least most of it. This of course only applies if someone has chosen to commit a crime, and their punishment is loss of most of their freedom such as in the case of prisoners of war.
2. Its not the actual technical “ownership” or purchase, because like I said a Northerner might have bought a slave and then let him/her go about whatever they wanted to do while technically they still owned them. Just because the law says you own a slave doesn’t necessarily mean you own one in other words.

Can you give a clear objective way in which to determine if someone is owned, because I’m not seeing it. I’m completely against owning another human being, but it seems hard to describe exactly what that looks like.

Maybe you could describe it as withholding someone’s freedom without just cause?

We do not consider our prisoners property.

So its ok to have people working for me by force as long as I don’t consider them my property… The only difference I’m hearing from you between people in jails and prisoners of war way back when is not considering them property in my mind. Even if lets say someone has a prisoner of war and they supposedly “sell him” to another person you could argue they aren’t actually selling the person, they are selling the rights to watch over the person. We might do something similar today where the State contracts out to private prisons to purchase the rights to hold prisoners there. You would never consider that selling people would you?

 

[LittleSoldier]

I can unfortunately.
I participated in a very long (now closed) thread where posters avidly defended dictatorship and genocide (as long as the right kind of people were being murdered):
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=400868&highlight=Franco+was+Right

I also participated in a more recent thread where someone went on and on about how women should be judged more harshly (than men) when it comes to sex:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=654039&highlight=AngryAtheist8

Oh wow. I just checked out the second one and read a few posts and I have to say that it reminds me of a very nasty “immodesty” thread in which women were blamed for the lust than men feel - women who are so immoral that they show their necks or elbows or knees (gasp!) while men walk around on the beach completely topless and that’s just fine.

I agree with you here. This is just awful.

 

[Nate13]

Oh wow. I just checked out the second one and read a few posts and I have to say that it reminds me of a very nasty “immodesty” thread in which women were blamed for the lust than men feel - women who are so immoral that they show their necks or elbows or knees (gasp!) while men walk around on the beach completely topless and that’s just fine.

I agree with you here. This is just awful.

Actually as someone who read 99% of the posts in that thread I can tell you, there was a lot of misunderstanding. One atheist argued virginity, purity, innocence should not be valued. Many people took that to mean not valued at all. You then had 7 pages of the thread based on refuting that claim which ended up to not be what was meant I believe.

 

[Baelor]

No, I’m not defending that at all… I thought I asked a pretty simple question. How do you determine if someone is actually owned?

Legally. Legal ownership.

1. Its not the loss of freedom, because people in prison have lost their freedom or at least most of it. This of course only applies if someone has chosen to commit a crime, and their punishment is loss of most of their freedom such as in the case of prisoners of war.

1. Its not the actual technical “ownership” or purchase, because like I said a Northerner might have bought a slave and then let him/her go about whatever they wanted to do while technically they still owned them. Just because the law says you own a slave doesn’t necessarily mean you own one in other words.

That is not true. I picked apart the problems with that thinking. It runs as follows:

There are two types of purchase:

1. Purchase for immediate liberation, which is not so much the purchase of a slave but the liberation of one.
2. Purchase that is not for immediate liberation, which is inherently problematic because even if the people do not treat slaves badly, they are still legally the owners of another person, and therefore are recognizing and buying into a system that acknowledges others as property.

Can you give a clear objective way in which to determine if someone is owned, because I’m not seeing it.

Someone is legally the slave of another.

So its ok to have people working for me by force as long as I don’t consider them my property…

No, because compulsion by physical/psychological force is at best iffy. The two issues are not the same because one involves legal ownership and the other is not.

You are arguing against a mirage that is your own construction. I have not seen force, compulsion, making people work for you, etc. mentioned by anyone recently but you. What people have problems with is the idea that a human can own another human as property.

The only difference I’m hearing from you between people in jails and prisoners of war way back when is not considering them property in my mind.

Wrong. You are harping on a point no one wants to discuss because it is totally irrelevant. That difference is everything – slavery involving legal ownership is enough to condemn it as intrinsically evil, or so the argument goes. There is no need to talk about jails, POWs, or anything else for this reason.

 

[Portrait]

Correct.

One of the most difficult thing a Christians has to contend with is that socio-political influence over Church position. It is very difficult to explain your allegiance to the Church when things like the position on slavery are cast up to you. And it is very easy to want to turn your back on the Church based on these.

Dear keeponkeepingon,

Cordial greetings and avery good day.

It is only difficult, dear friend, when one is unaware of the full historical facts regarding the Catholic Church’s opposition to slavery.

Slavery, you must remember, was a deeply interwoven part of Roman civilisation when the Church first began her Gospel labours. The Church did in fact work hard to improve the lot of slaves, even from the outset. She taught their equal human dignity; later laboured for emancipation; ordained them as priests and by the year 225 AD even had a fugitive slave as Pope. Moreover, the Church implored those owners who were converted to the Christian religion to release their slaves, and within some 200 years of the Emperor Constantine’s conversion she had all but eradicated the pagan concept of slavery. Later in history the inroads of Islam revived slavery, for the Moors regarded it as a duty to enslave captive Christians. Religious Orders also emerged, dedicated to the ransom of slaves and from 1198 to 1632 the Trinitarians and the Order of Mercy redeemed from slavery over 1, 400,000 slaves.

When Spain and Portugal captured their American colonies, the Popes did their very utmost to prevent slavery. Pius II, in 1482, Paul III, 1537, Urban VIII, 1639, and Benedict XIV in 1741 - all actively denounced and resisted slavery. Again, both Gregory XVI and Leo XIII fought the later African slave trade. However, you must remember that it was chiefly being fostered in the American colonies founded from Protestant England. Indeed, Catholics themselves were not emancipated from penal laws in England until as late as 1829.

Therefore, my dear friend, there is no valid reason for a Catholic to feel embarrassed about his loyalty to the Church, given this excellent record of its prolonged engagement against slavery from the beginning of its very inception.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Nate13]

@Baelor
Yes I believe that is obvious. Any laws that view another person as a piece of property are by definition unjust. I would also add that taking away another persons freedom unjustly in general would also be wrong even if they are not considered property. That would seem to cover all the bases agreed?

If I’m reading what you said right, you would say that buying a slave to let them literally go free even if the law still sees them as being your legal property is wrong? In other words if its not possible to legally emancipate a slave, your not allowed to buy them and let them go free? That is an interesting position to take but you could be right. The only way it would wrong to ever do so though, would be if legally owning a slave was intrinsically evil. If it is not, then it would fall to the principle of double effect and whether you are doing more harm than good buy buying a slave that you cannot set free legally. I would think the Church would have spoken on this point so that people who lived in places where slavery was still legal would know what to do though.