On the Question of Slavery

[TarkanAttila]

I see some conflicts in the encyclicals with Scripture and within themselves. And I imagine that must be because I don’t understand them properly.

It seems to me slavery is forbidden (Catholicae Ecclesiae, by Pope Leo XIIIl; Sicut Dudum by Pope Eugene IV) but also allowed in some circumstances (the Old Testament; 1 Peter, Philemon, Creator Omnius by Pope Eugene IV). It seems the main concern is with the inhumanity that often accompanies slavery (CCC 2414), but not the forced labour aspect.

I would like to find the text of “Creator Omnius” which is claimed to allow slavery of “enemies of Christ” - though this is offhandedly allowed in Pontifex Romanus and Dum Diversas anyway.

As I currently see it, there is nothing wrong with forced labour. But there is something wrong with treating a human being like an animal, or a tool, or a piece of furniture, and that’s the heart of the reason why slavery is wrong. Am I wrong?

If so, does slavery in the 1400s (when CO, PR, and DD were written) mean something somewhat different than what it means today and when Pope Leo wrote CE?

 

[Allegra]

I see some conflicts in the encyclicals with Scripture and within themselves. And I imagine that must be because I don’t understand them properly.

It seems to me slavery is forbidden (Catholicae Ecclesiae, by Pope Leo XIIIl; Sicut Dudum by Pope Eugene IV) but also allowed in some circumstances (the Old Testament; 1 Peter, Philemon, Creator Omnius by Pope Eugene IV). It seems the main concern is with the inhumanity that often accompanies slavery (CCC 2414), but not the forced labour aspect.

I would like to find the text of “Creator Omnius” which is claimed to allow slavery of “enemies of Christ” - though this is offhandedly allowed in Pontifex Romanus and Dum Diversas anyway.

As I currently see it, there is nothing wrong with forced labour. But there is something wrong with treating a human being like an animal, or a tool, or a piece of furniture, and that’s the heart of the reason why slavery is wrong. Am I wrong?

If so, does slavery in the 1400s (when CO, PR, and DD were written) mean something somewhat different than what it means today and when Pope Leo wrote CE?

I think there is a difference in different kinds of slavery. When Americans think of slavery, we think of the black slavery that took place in our country, which almost anyone would find objectionable. However, in some societies, slavery has been allowed under different circumstances. For example, a person could sell themselves or their children as slaves in order to pay a debt they owned. In theory, this would be a temporary situation and the “slave” would have far more rights than what we think of. Another example would be forcing labor from prisoners of war or for punishment of a crime, which many people would agree is suitable as long as their dignity as a person is not violated.

 

[TK421]

Tarkan:

This video explains our misunderstandings of the concept of “slavery” as it pertains to the ancient world and Christianity (or even Judaism). The video is with an evangelical scholar, but at any rate, everything covered in the topic is in parallel with Magisterial teaching. The Bible at no point ever condones slavery (as we think of the term) as it pertains to man-stealing.

 

[Abu]

Israel was the chosen nation, and the other peoples were not. If they were circumcised, then the servants themselves were considered Israelites, via “adoption.” In other words, nothing better could happen to a pagan than to be made a servant in Israel.

While God allowed divorce, slavery, and polygamy, none of these were positively commanded by God, totally unlike the death penalty. So capital punishment is in an entirely different moral class. For instance, in Exodus 21:2, the Sacred Scripture says: “If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve thee; in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.” Note here that God is not commanding the Israelites to have slaves (servants). Rather, He is merely implicitly permitting them to have slaves. The verse here talks about the regulation of slaves and therefore is an implicit endorsement of slavery. But this is a far cry from God commanding the Israelites to have slaves. This difference is important because the death penalty, unlike slavery, is firmly commanded by God, not merely permitted.

What is referred to in other translations as “slaves” is more correctly rendered as “servants,” as the Douay Bible has it. When we 21st century people think of slaves and slavery, what comes to mind right away is the horrible atrocities committed by white men against blacks in the United States mostly during the 1800’s. But this is not the kind of slavery we read about in the Sacred Scriptures. God asked the Israelites to treat their servants well. Also, as pointed out in Leviticus 22: 10-11, the servants or slaves had some privileges which even some Israelites did not.

In Ephesians 6:5, 8 Paul is often quoted eagerly, but very seldom ver. 9: “Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no, partiality with Him.” This equality before God encouraged the early Church to convert slaves – Pope Callistus (d. 236) had been a slave. With the demise of the Roman empire, the embrace of those in slavery continued and only ordination to the priesthood was denied.

“Priests urged owners to free their slaves, and by the seventh century there was considerable evidence of unions of free men and female slaves. In 649 Clovis II, king of the Franks, married his British slave Clotilda. After his death, Clotilda campaigned to halt the slave trade and to redeem those in slavery. On her death she was declared a saint by the Church.

“By the ninth century Charlemagne opposed slavery and the pope and many influential clerics strove for the freedom of slaves. During the eleventh century both St Wulfstan and St Anselm campaigned to remove the last vestiges of slavery from most of Christendom.”
See: *A Matter of Justice *By Mario Derksen
catholicapologetics.info/morality/deathpenalty/punishment.htm

It was not until the 15th century, and with growing frequency from the 16th to the 19th centuries, that racial slavery as we know it became a major problem. It is this form of servitude that is called to mind when we think today of the institution of slavery, and is the type which was to prevail in parts of the New World for over four centuries.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I did some looking around, and it seems, according to some threads, that… some papal bulls are not infallible?

There seem to be criteria, of course. According to Lumen Gentium, #25, Paragraph 3:

…And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff … enjoys in virtue of his office, when, [1]as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, [2]who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) [3]by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable

This makes sense to me, especially in light of this line from the opening of Catholicae Ecclesiae:

As you know, venerable brother, the Church from the beginning sought to completely eliminate slavery, whose wretched yoke has oppressed many people…

It would seem strange to me that Pope Leo, erudite man though he was, would in an encyclical for the whole church (the missionaries of Africa in 1890 were a diverse lot), for the faithful, would go to declare as morally unacceptable something which was different yet called by the same name as something a previous pope had declared to be allowed. I assume the Popes to be fairly clear-speaking individuals so that there might be no confusion.

So it seems strange to me that Pope Leo would call a “wretched yoke” that has “oppressed many people” what Pope Nicholas and Pope Eugene should be what “enemies of Christ” should be put into - even if they meant different things, because these Popes are supposed to clarify, not muddle. Our God is not a God of confusion.

Also it seems to me that Pope Eugene’s encyclicals were 1) addressed to the King of Portugal rather than the Church Universal, 2) political rather than moral or faith-based in nature, and 3) had nothing to do with the confirmation of our faith. So they don’t qualify as infallible teaching at all, if I am reading Lumen Gentium correctly.

Furthermore, other papal bulls of similar kind to Popes Eugene and Nicholas were made by successive popes to Spain and Portugal - this would seem to say to me that the issue of slavery in Africa and the New World was considered by the Popes on a case-by-case basis rather than a universally scoping moral teaching. In other words, they were acting like earthly kings in these bulls, not the “supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful” which Lumen Gentium demands of infallibility.

So in conclusion it makes more sense to me that Pope Leo and Pope Nicholas were referring to much the same kind of thing - though I will certainly admit there were vast differences between medieval slavery and modern slavery, both are to some extent dehumanising, as per the Catechism - and that Pope Eugene’s bull was simply of the wrong sort to be infallible, than to say that Pope Leo and Pope Nicholas were speaking of radically morally different things using the same term.

Is this correct? Is it making any sense?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Claim 1. People can be ‘owned.’
Claim 2. ‘Owned’ people can (and perhaps even ‘should’) be beaten, though not all the way to death.

I see nothing in the New Testament that explicitly denies these two statements. I do see verses in the New Testament that at the very least accept them implicitly, perhaps even explicitly.

Furthermore, we know that the institution of slavery was widespread in the Christian world (Catholic and Protestant) 17, 18 or even 19 centuries after the death of Christ. So apparently many (or even most) Christians saw no problem with this.

The whole thing seems to be quite a mess, and I’m not sure how to make sense of it. It surely seems to be contrary to the general ‘spirit’ of Christianity, for it denies the dignity of our fellow human beings. We were, afterall, made in the image of our Creator. Yes? And yet, there it is…

 

[Jozefo]

People selling themselves into slavery, knowing full well its implications, ought not to be dishonored, in my opinion. After all, that’s what Christians do when they accept being redeemed.

But any other kind of slavery is a wretched thing, and fit for nothing.

 

[Abu]

TarkanAttila #1
does slavery in the 1400s (when CO, PR, and DD were written) mean something somewhat different than what it means today and when Pope Leo wrote CE?
VeritasLuxMea #6
The whole thing seems to be quite a mess, and I’m not sure how to make sense of it. It surely seems to be contrary to the general ‘spirit’ of Christianity, for it denies the dignity of our fellow human beings. We were, afterall, made in the image of our Creator. Yes? And yet, there it is…

That’s why the Catholic Church relentlessly taught, and acted, to reduce and condemn slavery, and is the key to the condemnation and eradication of slavery as post #4 shows

U.S. Economist, Stanford University professor, and Hoover Institute Senior Fellow, African Thomas Sowell, in Black Rednecks & White Liberals, in an essay titled The Real History of Slavery, declares:
“Slavery is almost as old as humanity, and as widespread as the globe. The Islamic world was notorious for its slave trade. Slavs were notoriously slaves. In fact the word “slave” comes from slav. Arabs and North Africans enslaved Europeans, Europeans enslaved other Europeans, Africans enslaved other Africans. Everyone enslaved someone. It was all the rage. While slavery was common to all civilizations, as well as to peoples considered uncivilized, only one civilization developed a moral revulsion against it, very late in its history — Western civilization…”

Sixty years before Columbus “discovered” the New World, Pope Eugene IV condemned the enslavement of peoples in the newly colonized Canary Islands. His bull *Sicut Dudum *(1435) rebuked European enslavers and commanded that “all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of [the] Canary Islands . . . who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money.”

A century later, Pope Paul III applied the same principle to the newly encountered inhabitants of the West and South Indies in the bull *Sublimis Deus *(1537). Therein he 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.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Yes, Abu, though it seems Pope Eugene affirmed a practise that seems to have been commonplace in the same bulls: to enslave so-called “enemies of Christ”, Saracens particularly, but some have also implied the natives who refused to convert were also counted in this.

Although it seems there’s a question up in the air about whether all papal bulls are infallible anyway.

 

[Abu]

As for the level of authority, there is a difference between the ordinary Magisterium and the ordinary and universal Magisterium. The latter is infallible. The former isn’t. A bull addressed only to one nation does not rise to the level of infallibility, as an encyclical letter to the universal Church does. That is why Paul III’s bull is of far greater importance than Nicholas V’s.
the-american-catholic.com/2012/04/30/slaverymeme/

What we need to understand here is the context of a bull written at a time of severe Muslim persecution of Christendom - Byzantine/Constantinople was under threat of attack and takeover by Muslims. In fact it was written just one year before the Muslims defeated Christian Byzantine (100-200K invaders against a mere 8,000 or so defenders). To give a context let me say that the Muslim invaders looted, pillaged and slaughtered Christians for a number of days before giving the few hiding survivors terms for their subjugation and homage if they surrendered as vassals to Islam.

The call by Pope Nicholas V (who authored this bull) was to rally Christendom to come to the aid of its members and confront Islam (the Saracens and pagan mercenaries they gained by conquering W. African pagan countries) head on. But he failed to get the European Kings to help and that is why Byzantine fell. This bull was directed to the Spanish only and was an authorization to engage the conquering Muslims and make war with them to stop their encroachment and aggression and conversion of Pagan Africa into homage by providing a quota of men of war - mercenaries . It was a time of war and at this time the Church had a definite voice of influence in government secular affairs and had to assert itself to defend innocent lives being slaughtered by the Muslim hordes. The pope uses the language and emotion of the day. Christians were terrorized by what looked like Satan himself waging war against Christendom. So the pope authorized the taking of prisoners of war and their enslavement/incarceration as a life sentence for crimes against Christendom. This was a mercy since the war convention at the time was to kill enemies due to the high cost of maintaining them and guarding or else holding the noble ones (knights/lords) as hostage for payment from their Christian families.

This bull was not a general edict to enslave people willy-nilly. It was no different than giving a life sentence to criminals with hard labor to pay back society as is done to this very day in the USA.

 

[Brendan_64]

As I currently see it, there is nothing wrong with forced labour. But there is something wrong with treating a human being like an animal, or a tool, or a piece of furniture, and that’s the heart of the reason why slavery is wrong. Am I wrong?

And what happens if that person refuses to work? They are forced, against their will, to work. Forcing someone to work, is treating them like a beast of burden. It also denies that person the opportunity to exercise God’s gift of free will.

 

[Abu]

Christ had not condemned slavery and St Paul told slaves to obey their masters (Col 3:22, et al), but with St Paul, the Church revolutionised the status of the slave from the first: (re Onesimus) “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.” (Philemon 1:16).

“Under Roman Law the slave was a chattel with no more rights than an animal. His master might seduce, mutilate, torture or kill him without any interference by the law.” [Sir Arnold Lunn, *Is The Catholic Church Anti-Social?, Burns & Oates 1946, p 186, 188].

The Church revolutionised the status of the slave long before there could be any thought of abolishing slavery. The inalienable rights of the slave to marriage and then family were safeguarded from the first by the precepts of the Church, and were later secured by legal enactment in the Theodosian code, which was later revised and classified by Justinian (A.D. 527-565). The law followed where the Church had led. The granting of religious equality to slaves was a silent but tremendous revolution – emancipated slaves were often raised to the priesthood and even to the very Chair of St Peter, Pius I and Callistus I in the second and third centuries. (Ibid. p 187).
[See *The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 30].

 

[Arizona_Mike]

VeritasLuxMea:
Claim 1. People can be ‘owned.’
Claim 2. ‘Owned’ people can (and perhaps even ‘should’) be beaten, though not all the way to death.

I see nothing in the New Testament that explicitly denies these two statements. I do see verses in the New Testament that at the very least accept them implicitly, perhaps even explicitly.

In the New Testament, Christ (and St. Paul, and St. John) explicitly condemned slavery (if we read the Bible in context, which we are required to do) - the slavery that was based on the capture and/or breeding of men for ownership, over whom the slaveowner had the power of life and death.This was the normal state of affairs for pagan Rome, where 85% to 90% of the population were slaves.

Jesus explicitly said his mission was to “proclaim release to the captives…to set free those who are oppressed.” (Luke 4:18), quoting Isaiah 61:1 - not simply slaves of Satan, but slaves of man - He did not differentiate the two. This was spoken in the context of Imperial Rome’s slave society. Having proclaimed his mission, he set about the process of changing the hearts and minds of men to create a state where slavery would no longer be acceptable. He succeeded.

Jesus and the apostles created a “velvet revolution” which succeeded where more violent attempts to overthrow the slave state, such as that of Spartacus’s slave revolution, failed. By proclaiming that the status of slave or freeman was irrelevant (a truly revolutionary notion) in Gal. 3:28 and Col. 3:11; Paul affirmed not simply the humanity and spiritual self-equality of slaves, but required that both slave and slave-owner each be responsible for the other’s well-being (Eph, 6:19), in the same way a man and wife were bound to be subordinate to each other, and that both slave and slave-owner were fellow slaves to a good master (Gal 3:28, Col. 3:11) - a far more radical notion than simply claiming “slavery is bad,” and one that ultimately caused the institution to wither away. Paul also, of course, also encouraged slaves to seek their freedom whenever possible (1 Cor. 7:20-22), and from prison, deprived of all resources but the formidable powers of rhetoric, saved the life of a runaway slave, Origen - who was in fact freed and became a bishop of the Church.

And, Paul did explicitly condemn slave trading:

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly:9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. (1 Timothy 1:8-11)

There were numerous slave revolts and false messiahs who attempted to end the Roman institution of slavery. Josephus describes several of them. We have the examples of other men who attempted to end slavery by violence. Eunus, a false prophet and slave led a revolt whose purpose was to turn the tables and to enslave his masters. He failed, and caused the death of about 200,000 of his followers. The slave Salvius challenged Rome and cost the lives of 22,000 of his followers. Spartacus’s slave revolt in 71 B.C. accomplished nothing but the crucifixion of 8,000 of his followers. That Jesus’ revolution worked and the others didn’t is proof that His was the correct path.

Explict, shmexplicit - Jesus’s method worked!

I should also point out that Revelations 18:11-13 explicitly condemns “Babylon” (Imperial Rome) because she trafficked in slaves:

9 “When the kings of the earth who committed adultery with her and shared her luxury see the smoke of her burning, they will weep and mourn over her. 10 Terrified at her torment, they will stand far off and cry:

“‘Woe! Woe to you, great city,
you mighty city of Babylon!
In one hour your doom has come!’

11 “The merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her because no one buys their cargoes anymore— 12 cargoes of gold, silver, precious stones and pearls; fine linen, purple, silk and scarlet cloth; every sort of citron wood, and articles of every kind made of ivory, costly wood, bronze, iron and marble; 13 cargoes of cinnamon and spice, of incense, myrrh and frankincense, of wine and olive oil, of fine flour and wheat; cattle and sheep; horses and carriages; and human beings sold as slaves.

Not often mentioned as Christ’s secret weapon against slavery, if you will, was the Eucharist - as a slaveholder, it would be kind of hard to continue the Roman culture of slavery when you are sharing the actual Body and Blood of Christ in your household with your slaves, some of whom may even hold leadership positions in your Church.

 

[TarkanAttila]

So it’s sort of like: slavery is OK, but brotherhood is far better?

This bull was not a general edict to enslave people willy-nilly.

Exactly; it was limited to the King of Portugal, not addressed to Christendom at large.

It was no different than giving a life sentence to criminals with hard labor to pay back society as is done to this very day in the USA.

Would that they had chosen a better word than slavery. But I suppose that is what it is effectively, no?

 

[Abu]

From 1435 to 1890, we have numerous bulls and encyclicals from several popes written to many bishops and the whole Christian faithful condemning both slavery and the slave trade. The very existence of these many papal teachings during this particular period of history is a strong indication that from the viewpoint of the Magisterium, there must have developed a moral problem of a different sort than any previously encountered.

The reality:
In fact *Instructio *Number 1293 signed by Bl Pius XI is in Collectanea, Vol. 1, pp. 715-720 and is an “Instructio” of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office on some disputed questions, including questions of “servitude,” issued in 1866.
The *Instructio *itself, right at the point at which it declares even “servitude itself considered in itself and all alone (per se et absolute), is by no means repugnant to the natural and divine law,” acknowledges that “the Roman Pontiffs have left nothing untried by which servitude be everywhere abolished among the nations”
This SERVITUDE is of three kinds:
(a) penal servitude;
(b) indentured servitude; and
(c) the servitude of prisoners captured in just wars.
Slavery, Sodomy, Sullivan, by Ramesh Ponnuru August 10, 2003
[nationalreview.com/corner/67739/slavery-sodomy-sullivan/ramesh-ponnuru]](http://nationalreview.com/corner/67739/slavery-sodomy-sullivan/ramesh-ponnuru])

To continue to promote the gross error that doctrine can change and has changed to contradiction, although it may develop, merely shows the lengths to which some will go to attack what the Magisterium declares has not occurred and never can occur.

Papal condemnation of slavery persisted throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Pope Gregory XVI’s 1839 bull, In Supremo, for instance, 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.” 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.

Despite this evidence, critics still insist the Magisterium did too little too late regarding slavery. Why? One reason is the critics’ failure to distinguish between just and unjust forms of servitude. The Magisterium condemned unjust enslavement early on, but it also recognized what is known as “just title slavery.” That included forced servitude of prisoners of war and criminals, and voluntary servitude of indentured servants, forms of servitude mentioned at the outset of this article. But chattel slavery as practiced in the United States and elsewhere differed in kind, not merely degree, from just title slavery. For it made a claim on the slave as property and enslaved people who were not criminals or prisoners of war. By focusing on just title servitude, critics unfairly neglect the vigorous papal denunciations of chattel slavery.
archive.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp