Religion's role in slavery, and other topics

[ericc]

**
The Council of Gangra stated
(The link above goes to page 5 where the first quote is at the bottom. This second quote is at the top of page 6.)

The Council of Carthage (via the Catholic Encyclopedia) stated
The Fourth Council of Toledo has several things to say about slavery. It’s a little too much to quote but the page gives us several insights:

1. Jews are not allowed to own slaves because “for it is not right that the members of Christ should serve the ministers of Anti-Christ.” (Bonus anti-semitism!!)
2. If a slave is freed by the Church that person is bound to serve the Chruch for the rest of his life because the Church is unending. It’s all about power and not doing what is right. One way or the other the Church was going to get every drop of effort from a person whether as a slave or a freed man.
3. "Concerning the slaves of the Church, it is allowed to make them priests and deacons in parishes; " Note that it specifically denotes slaves of the Church, as in the Church owned slaves.
4. When freed slaves die all of their goods belong to the Church. Again it’s all about power and not doing what is right. One way or the other the Chruch was going to get every last possession the person had whether by enslaving them or freeing them.
5. Freed slaves are not allowed to accuse or testify against the Church. Note there are no exceptions if the Church needs to be accused or testified against.

This article from the Catholic Enyclopedia on the Synod of Melfi notes:

The Council of Gangra and Council of Carthage says nothing about the Church supporting slavery. Slavery exist then. Doesn’t even mentioned what kind of slave, are these voluntary slaves? Do you know?

We have so little information about Gangra that for an atheist to quote it is amazing. Tell us what you know about this Council. Tell us how did the Church support slavery.

Council of Carthage canon 129 states that certain persons are not qualified to bring accusations. That includes slaves, freedman, actors, those with stain of infamy etc. What point are you trying to make here? Just because the word slave appeared here?

Fourth Council of Toledo

I couldn’t find anything whether this council is subject to the Bishop of Rome. It didn’t mention any Papal Representative and I couldn’t determine who called this Council. If it is a local meeting, you are aware it may not necessarily be binding to the whole Catholic Church. Let me know if I need to do more work on this.

Synod of Melfi. Another obscure synod. And the enclosed quote that you indicated refers to another obscure synod of Pavia in 1018 which I am not able to establish exist or not. Since you quoted it, show me the sources. Who called the synod, does it report to the Bishop of Rome or to local princes or royalty etc.

The problem is your scraper for titbits of data is not very discriminatory. All sorts of irrelevant data get combed. If you really want to find significant Church Proclamations, you need to read through the 21 Ecumenical Councils. When you find something of substance, we can discuss. The ones you have listed are not ecumenical councils, these are localised meetings. Most important takeaway is to determine whether these councils speak for the whole Church or just a local area.

I think my refutations are adequate and just. The Church has spoken out against slavery multiple times. It may have fallen on deaf ears but eventually we know that our (name removed by moderator)uts and influence do over time, convince people to change. Seriously, I can’t find an atheist contributing to the anti-slavery trade from the 14th to 19th century. You know, some one of influence speaking against the slavery trade. Some one who did something that yielded results.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

It appears that you have accumulated much evidence to bolster your statement. But I am sure you agree that all these need to be read in the context of that document. However, if you have been more balanced in your presentation of evidence, that would have improved the credibility of your statement i.e. that the Church hardly did anything to stop slavery.

Everything I said was quite accurate and devoid of whitewashing, Let’s dig into the individual documents…

1. I’ll start chronologically with Sicut Dudum, 1435. From EWTN, “Nearly 60 years before the Europeans were to find the New World, we already had the papal condemnation of slavery as soon as this crime was discovered in one of the first of the Portuguese geographical discoveries.”. Christians not in compliance within 15 days will be excommunicated. The fact is the Church tried to prohibit slavery and address “the other various illicit and evil deeds against them”, notwithstanding the reason that you think is not “honorable” enough for you. I didn’t see anywhere that non-Christians will remain enslaved which you alluded. The Church see wrong deeds and tried to fix it. The only issue I see is that you just didn’t like the choice of words which you think insufficiently comprehensive. But that’s your opinion.

So the chronology starts at 1435. In your posts you didn’t bring up any documents prior to then indicating the Church was against slavery. Where was the Church fighting slavery in the one-and-a third millennia before then?

The quote you gave from EWTN is quite misleading. Sicut Dudum protects only those who are baptised or to be baptised from not being enslaved. I specifically pointed out that distinction and you ignored it. You are incorrect when you say “The Church see wrong deeds and tried to fix it,” since they could have simply said no one in the Canary Islands is to be enslaved. Instead it specifically allowed those who would not convert to be subjugated to the slaveowners of Portugal. Why did the Church specifically alter the document to kiss up to the wants of the Potuguese when you claim that the Church was trying to fix the problem of slavery?

1. Dum Diversas. 1452. This is a document responding to the war between Muslim Saraceans and Christian Europe. As a matter of practice , Muslims killed all prisoners that don’t convert to their faith. The age old problem remains with POW. Either you kill them or you keep them alive. And for obvious reasons you don’t want to set them free so that they can come back to wage war with you again. However, I am not sure whether you are interested in these types of details as they sort of take the punch out from your attacks. In a word the Church permit the Christian countries to deactivate the enemy without killing them. There is no reciprocal treatment from the enemy.

I already explained that the document has but one limit to who could be enslaved: pagans. Yes, the document does mention Saraceans but specifically says, “…subjugate the Saracens and pagans, and other infidels and other enemies of Christ…” and “… held and possessed by the same Saracens, Pagans, infidels, and the enemies of Christ,” Dum Diversas itself doesn’t limit this to the Saraceans. According to the Church non-believers (present and future) were within the venn diagram of who could be enslaved.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

1. Sublimus Deus 1537. Condemning slavery of Blacks and Indians. The Bull was never rescinded although the Brief was. (I haven’t research enough to understand the history behind it or the differences between Bull vs Brief) But what is missing from your piece is that subsequent Popes continued to teach this Bull’s teachings. From EWTN ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM

Their teaching was continued by Gregory XIV in 1591 and by Urban VIII in 1639. Indeed Urban, in his document , appealed to the teaching of his predecessors, particularly Paul III. The pontifical teaching was continued by the response of the Holy Office on March 20, 1686, under Innocent XI, and by the encyclical of Benedict XIV, , on December 20, 1741. This work was followed by the efforts of Pius VII at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 to have the victors over Napoleon outlaw slavery.

Sublimus Deus is certainly a positive. The bull says not to enslave Indians or any future peoples that Christians may discover. Again, this is positive. But it is telling that Gregory XIV doesn’t eliminate slavery in its entirety, especially not the African slave trade that was being conducted by the Church’s Iberian friends. The article you quoted is incorrect in stating that it protected Blacks.

As far as the brief versus the bull, the bull does not assign any sort of punishment to those found engaging in slavery. The brief does threaten excommunication for those who do. From what I’ve found, Charles V of Spain in 1534 had made an edict overruling a previous edict which prevented enslaving the Indian peoples, meaning that the king said Spain could once again colonize the New World and enslave its peoples. Charles V wasn’t happy with Sublimus Deus and so Paul III rescinded the brief, Pastorale Officium, with another brief, Non lndecens Videtur.

The only text I could find of Non lndecens Videtur was in Latin and Italian. Click here to see Google’s English translation of the Italian translation, I threw the Latin into Google Translate and it came up with the following:

Pope Paul 3. For future record.

Not the Roman Pontiff, it seems indecent for you, here in speculates set exists, that at any time from him, various concerns they were implied, for the wiles of a conflict of interest for being torn back from it, let him correct it and change themselves, and other things as in the Lord beholdeth the place of a healthy way to be expedient.

Healthy Our dearest son in Christ, Charles Roman Emperor Augustus always a Catholic king of Spain, and recently explained to us that some of us made a brief letter for which they had been wrung from the West Indies and the islands meridionalium prosperous and happy ability of state and government; His majesty and his subjects was greatly weakened.

The thing to be appropriate to provide that from the benignity apostolic humbly made supplication deign to act on these.

We, therefore, any one of which has not been seen to interfere with the mind, paying attention to the form of the Emperor Charles the efforts of industry to have been the author of all things in the parts of the Christian religion which is not a little to remove the obstacles that for so holy a work impeded by another.

Inclined in this part of the supplication of Emperor Charles and King of His letters to the aforesaid, the terms whereof on his person as he that is in the presence of and forms of the verb to be interwoven with the Word, for all that expressed is to be regarded as of Apostolic authority, and in them the sword, so that this present nullify, invalidate, and annul and for a helmet of making and there can be what we want.

The process for deciding which force many judges said letters would be held, harassed and promulgated happen, and if it is a question of decisions, and what the consequences of that for the time being, nothing irritates and of no force or moments.

And so, for whatever judges, commissioners and also the auditors of the causes of the apostolic palace of the Holy Roman Church or the sacred, taken away from them the ability to interpret and to judge, and to be judged for the sake of in another way, and ought to be defined in Sententiaru null and void, is super secure to any one of whatever authority, knowingly or unknowingly happens to be His attempted.

And that in the presence of a notary and the letter of the hand of any of the public or the seal of a prelate is the person in ecclesiastical dignity, in judgment, and shall be given outside of it is to be used the same respect is to be applied is that the original writings were exhibited or shown.

Not ostante the constitutions and apostolic directives published and the rest of the contrary notwithstanding.

House Holy Cross extramural data niciensis ring of the fisherman on the nineteenth of June 1538, our fourth year of his pontificate.

Obviously there are not only possible translation issues but also the cadence and sentence structure of these things is odd to us, so there’s only so much we can take from this. It does seem to have Paul III talking about what a great man Charles V is for spreading Christianity and that putting the threat of excommunication for enslaving those Indians “weakened” the king and his subjects. It suggests that the Church will not be a judge of Spain’s actions in this matter, and that has to be considered a negative. It turns the earlier proclamation into one without teeth. It allows those who fought against slavery to look upon the Church and see it purposely turning a blind eye to atrocities committed by its allies and wonder what they possess beyond empty words.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

With regards to Urban VIII, I found this article. It says:

"In the same year Father Montoya, after having successfully opposed both governor and Bishop of Asunción in attempts upon the liberties of the Indians and the mission administration, sailed for Europe, accompanied by Father Diaz Taño, and succeeded in getting from Urban VIII a letter forbidding the enslavement of the mission Indians under the severest church penalties, "

I should make it clear that I don’t know if the letter that is being referred to here is the Commissum Nobis or not, but either way it is interesting to note that the protection from enslavement is only for those Indians who were housed in the Jesuit reductions (communities) located in Parguay, There were many more Indians living outside of those reductions who were forced into slavery.

[translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://documentos-magisterio.blogspot.com/2012/02/bula-immensa-pastorum.html&prev=search]Here](Google Translate]Here) is a Google translation of the Immensa Pastorum from Benedict XIV that the article you linked to had referenced. It too says not to enslave Indians, while at the same time making no mention of the enslavement and trading of Aficans.

For Pius VII, it’s clear that finally we have a pope who sees slavery in all its forms as wrong. I especially like this bit from his Wikipedia page:

Pius VII joined the declaration of the 1815 Congress of Vienna, represented by Cardinal Secretary of State Ercole Consalvi, and urged for the suppression of the slave trade. This pertained particularly to places such as Spain and Portugal where slavery was economically very important. The pope wrote a letter to King Louis XVIII dated 20 September 1814 and to the King of Portugal in 1823 to urge the end of slavery. He rejected the slave trade and defined the sale of people as an injustice to the dignity of the human person. In a letter to the King of Portugal, Pius VII said: “the pope regrets that this trade in blacks, that he believed having ceased, is still exercised in some regions and even more cruel way. He begs and begs the King of Portugal that it implement all its authority and wisdom to extirpate this unholy and abominable shame”.

He’s not calling for an end to slavery for just one group of people – just Indians living with the Jesuits, just Indians, just non-Catholics. He wants to end slavery and he even implores his allies to do the same. He doesn’t crumble under like the pope did under Charles V. A big thumbs up to Pius VII! Too bad the church had been in existance for 17 centuries before a pope had this kind of fortitude.

1. In Supremo 1839, Gregory XVI churchinhistory.org/pages…ts/slavery.htm

As you can see, the Church is far from silent in trying to stop the slave trade.

I never said that the Church was silent in trying to stop the slave trade (and I hope you’re not accusing me of doing so). My exact words were, “That is most assuredly not true. There were certainly voices within the Church who wished to abolish slavery, but as a whole it failed.” And I think it’s safe to say that waiting 1,500 years to have a negative thing to say about slavery apart from that it’s wrong to enslave Christians is outright failure.

What’s interesting about In supremo apostolatus is that numerous bishops weren’t clear on its intent. According the article that I linked to there were those who said it was against the slave trade but not slavery. Also noted in the article is the disinterest by many American bishops in slave-owning states to speak out against the practice.

It also notes how in the 1844 document it spells out how no one “may dare unjustly to molest Indians, negroes or other men of this sort” and how this was taken by some to mean that there was such a thing as just slavery. We know this to be true by many pro-slavery members on CAF in defending slavery in the Bible. In the 1972 translation it takes out the word unjustly despite “injuste” being included in the original document.

So what does this mean? Did the pope mean to eliminate all slavery despite calling for an end to “unjust” slavery, or were the American bishops right in that it was only looking to stop the slave trade? If it’s the former, then it’s still an endorsement of slavery. If it’s the latter then we have an interesting problem. At my job there are times where one person will relay a message to another, and as can happen sometimes it can be relayed incorrectly making the initial person say something he doesn’t mean. If this happens to me I make a point of correcting any misunderstand, especially if it puts me in a bad light. It’s possible (assuming the document was being misunderstood by those American bishops) Rome sent out corrections and/or punished those who misrepresented the pope’s message. I don’t know of any such corrections or punishments – although that is not to say that there weren’t any. Do you know of any?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

However, you have yet to show which atheists during those centuries put in their effort to stop it. Obviously you know atheist Stalinist Russia record of crime against humanity. Millions in forced labor… Atheist Communist China/N. Korea forced labor camps.

There are good atheists and there bad atheists, just as there are good Catholics and bad Catholics, good Hindus and bad Hindus, and so on. I’d be interested if you can find where I’ve ever spoken out in support of an atheist regime. I’ve spoken many times in the past about endorsing secular states that don’t enforce a certain belief or non-belief in the supernatural. Now let’s say I was part of an organization that has existed for quite some time and they owned slaves and/or endorsed the owning of slaves then it would be upon me to either explain it or admit that what was done was wrong. I am not responsible for the actions of people who did terrible things and happened to share a lack of a belief in god. Heck, I’m a capitalist who believes highly in freedom of expression so it’s not like I’m endorsing communist Russia or North Korea.

Catholics have a different problem. You can’t go an hour or two on EWTN radio without a commercial stressing how the Catholic Church today is the same church since Peter was the first pope. Because of that there are Catholics who are uncomfortable in accepting what the Church did and didn’t do when it comes to slavery. As such some of them will try to whitewash what occurred since it is the organization they support now that did those acts then. Now here’s where it gets interesting. I am an American, and a proud one – but I am not blind to the atrocities that my country did then and now. I won’t water down what happened in my country’s history because I’m a proud American. I have to approach the past and present honestly and call out the failures that occurred. In the same way there are many Catholics who will do the same when it comes to things like the Church’s acts concerning slavery.

Atheist Nazi Germany treatment of the Jews.

Okay, stop right there… It deserves its own thread but while you’re here, Atheist Nazi Germany? Abosultely not.

I’ll try to respond to your cherry picking from the Church Councils later. It appears to you that any church document with the word “slavery” in it is proof that the Church is supporting slavery.

It’s not cherry picking it’s pointing out several instances in which the Church explicitly or implicitly supported slavery over multiple centuries. The fact that I have this many examples to give speaks to the Church’s position during that very long stretch of time. A proponderance of evidence supports a case. It doesn’t detract from it.

As far as the allegation that I just found any old Church documents that referenced slavery, if you read again you’ll see where I’ve shown how each reference shows the Church’s embarrassing position each time. Take this analogy: If a town makes it illegal to specifically rape white women then it is implicitly stating that it’s not illegal to rape non-white women. It’s logic 101. The Church in regulating slavery, in stating that Jews are not to own slaves, to state that Portugal was not allowed to specifically enslave Christians in the Canary Islands it made its endorsement of slavery abundantly clear.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The Council of Gangra and Council of Carthage says nothing about the Church supporting slavery. Slavery exist then. Doesn’t even mentioned what kind of slave, are these voluntary slaves? Do you know?

It most certainly endorses slavery. It tells people not to try and convince slaves to leave their masters. There are no qualifiers or exceptions. The Catholic Church is stating that slaves should obey their masters. Your suggestion that since the Council doesn’t mention what kind of slave doesn’t lead one to think this refers to only a certain type of slave. Quite the opposite, ALL slaves must obey their masters according to what the Church. It doesn’t single out prisoners of war and doesn’t leave out children born into slavery.

We have so little information about Gangra that for an atheist to quote it is amazing. Tell us what you know about this Council. Tell us how did the Church support slavery.

We know a few things about the Council of Gangra, including the entire text of the council, that it was a local council, and we know when it took place. Also we know one very important item:

Before the holding of the Council of Chalcedon, in the Greek Church, the canons of several synods, which were held previously, were gathered into one collection and provided with continuous numbers, and such a collection of canons, as we have seen, lay before the Synod of Chalcedon. As, however, most of the synods whose canons were received into the collection, e.g. those of Neo-

268

caesarea, Ancyra, Gangra, Antioch, were certainly not Ecumenical Councils, and were even to some extent of doubtful authority, such as the Antiochene Synod of 341, the confirmation of the Ecumenical Synod was now given to them, in order to raise them to the position of universally and unconditionally valid ecclesiastical rules. It is admirably remarked by the Emperor Justinian, in his 131st Novel, cap.j.; “We honour the doctrinal decrees of the first four Councils as we do Holy Scripture, but the canons given or approved by them as we do the laws.” {emphasis mine}

The above quote is from the fourth Ecumenical Council, the Council of Chalcedon, which ratified the decisions made in the four aformentioned synods (including Gangra). As the Ecumenical Councils are said to teach infallibly, this means that not instructing a slave to flee his master under pretense of religion is also infallible according to the Church.

Council of Carthage canon 129 states that certain persons are not qualified to bring accusations. That includes slaves, freedman, actors, those with stain of infamy etc. What point are you trying to make here? Just because the word slave appeared here?

It’s interesting for two reasons. One, it lists several undesirables (including Jews, which you filed under “etc.”) and the Church finds not only slaves but people who were once slaves as being of a lesser tier of people – unworthy of making accusation even if said accusation is accurate. Two, this is not the kind of language or kind of rule one would expect for a Church that other posters on CAF have said was trying to ween people off of slavery.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Fourth Council of Toledo

I couldn’t find anything whether this council is subject to the Bishop of Rome. It didn’t mention any Papal Representative and I couldn’t determine who called this Council. If it is a local meeting, you are aware it may not necessarily be binding to the whole Catholic Church. Let me know if I need to do more work on this.

It was a national council in Spain, a country I’ve shown that the pope was more than willing to kowtow to. Were the rules for slaves in that council written in such a way that reflected the idea that the Church as a whole had rejected slavery? Clearly not. Was there any brushback from Rome as to any of the specific rules for slaves from that council? Was there a strongly worded response from the magesterium which told Bishop Isadore (later St. Isadore of Seville) who ran the councils that his rule against Jews owning slaves was unjust? Did they tell him that the rule where slaves freed by the Church must serve the Church for the rest of their lives was not holy? Is there even a mention questioning why the Council notes that the Church owns slaves? (Of course not, as Rome owned slaves as well.)

Synod of Melfi. Another obscure synod. And the enclosed quote that you indicated refers to another obscure synod of Pavia in 1018 which I am not able to establish exist or not. Since you quoted it, show me the sources. Who called the synod, does it report to the Bishop of Rome or to local princes or royalty etc.

According to several sources, [
As I noted in my earlier post there weren’t many atheists during the 16th and 17th centuries (the time frame you initially gave me). This was in part due to the difference in science at the time, the influence of religion, and also the actions one could expect to be taken against him or her if he or she came out as an atheist. You’re asking which atheists of influence spoke out against slavery at the time? I’ll ask you, how many atheists of influence were there in that period? How many can you name?

And still this is merely a dodge to how the Catholic Church, an organization that had the power for nearly two millennia did a disservice to humanity in waiting so long to speak out against slavery in total.

The problem is your scraper for titbits of data is not very discriminatory. All sorts of irrelevant data get combed.

charitably

If you really want to find significant Church Proclamations, you need to read through the 21 Ecumenical Councils. When you find something of substance, we can discuss. The ones you have listed are not ecumenical councils, these are localised meetings. Most important takeaway is to determine whether these councils speak for the whole Church or just a local area.

I think my refutations are adequate and just. The Church has spoken out against slavery multiple times. It may have fallen on deaf ears but eventually we know that our (name removed by moderator)uts and influence do over time, convince people to change.

Seriously, I can’t find an atheist contributing to the anti-slavery trade from the 14th to 19th century. You know, some one of influence speaking against the slavery trade. Some one who did something that yielded results.

](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11055a.htm)

 

[ericc]

So the chronology starts at 1435. In your posts you didn’t bring up any documents prior to then indicating the Church was against slavery.

I was merely rearranging the documents that you quoted in chronological order. Yours was all over the place. I was responding to those documents that you quoted. Surely, you do expect me to address those that was being touted as evidence, don’t you?

Where was the Church fighting slavery in the one-and-a third millennia before then?

Please keep to the topic. This is a diversionary tactic. You haven’t satisfied yourself on the periods that you brought up and now you want to move on to other periods. I’m sorry I can’t entertain you on moving goalposts. Start a new thread if you wish.

The quote you gave from EWTN is quite misleading. Sicut Dudum protects only those who are baptised or to be baptised from not being enslaved. I specifically pointed out that distinction and you ignored it.

You are incorrect when you say “The Church see wrong deeds and tried to fix it,” since they could have simply said no one in the Canary Islands is to be enslaved.

Is that right? Why don’t you actually read what it said

1. Some of these people were already baptized; which should lead you to conclude that the majority of others were not.
2. And no less do We order and command 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 said Canary Islands, and made captives since the time of their capture, and 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 money.

What is the meaning of “all and every”? I see that you are focusing on the language of the text and not the intent. Even if the wording is not as precise as you wish, all it show is that the person crafting the document is sloppy, careless or not thinking of all the permutations. The person drafting the document already mentioned to free all and everyone enslaved. When a later part of the document fails to repeat the same language, it does not mean that the person now permits it. Look at the intent.

Instead it specifically allowed those who would not convert to be subjugated to the slaveowners of Portugal.

The document doesn’t say so. You are imagining things. The Church can only excommunicate those who professed the Catholic faith. Those who don’t are outside its reach.

Why did the Church specifically alter the document to kiss up to the wants of the Potuguese when you claim that the Church was trying to fix the problem of slavery?

Please show the evidence that the Church altered which document. You are becoming incoherent. I have no idea what you are talking about. Please show what was altered, the effects, etc. You didn’t present any evidence of this alteration.

I already explained that the document has but one limit to who could be enslaved: pagans. Yes, the document does mention Saraceans but specifically says, “…subjugate the Saracens and pagans, and other infidels and other enemies of Christ…” and “… held and possessed by the same Saracens, Pagans, infidels, and the enemies of Christ,” Dum Diversas itself doesn’t limit this to the Saraceans. According to the Church non-believers (present and future) were within the venn diagram of who could be enslaved.

And you are avoiding the explanation that this is a response to a war situation on how to deal with POW. And that includes Saracens, pagans, infidels etc. And you are focusing on venn diagrams? Look at the intent.

 

[ericc]

Sublimus Deus is certainly a positive. The bull says not to enslave Indians or any future peoples that Christians may discover. Again, this is positive. But it is telling that Gregory XIV doesn’t eliminate slavery in its entirety, especially not the African slave trade that was being conducted by the Church’s Iberian friends. The article you quoted is incorrect in stating that it protected Blacks.

You are overestimating the power of the Church. The Church can only ex-communicate Catholics. I do not know who those Iberian friends are or even if they are friends at all. I thought “future peoples” would cover blacks too. It doesn’t?

As far as the brief versus the bull, the bull does not assign any sort of punishment to those found engaging in slavery. The brief does threaten excommunication for those who do. From what I’ve found, Charles V of Spain in 1534 had made an edict overruling a previous edict which prevented enslaving the Indian peoples, meaning that the king said Spain could once again colonize the New World and enslave its peoples. Charles V wasn’t happy with Sublimus Deus and so Paul III rescinded the brief, Pastorale Officium, with another brief, Non lndecens Videtur.

The only text I could find of Non lndecens Videtur was in Latin and Italian. Click here to see Google’s English translation of the Italian translation, I threw the Latin into Google Translate and it came up with the following:

Obviously there are not only possible translation issues but also the cadence and sentence structure of these things is odd to us, so there’s only so much we can take from this. It does seem to have Paul III talking about what a great man Charles V is for spreading Christianity and that putting the threat of excommunication for enslaving those Indians “weakened” the king and his subjects. It suggests that the Church will not be a judge of Spain’s actions in this matter, and that has to be considered a negative. It turns the earlier proclamation into one without teeth. It allows those who fought against slavery to look upon the Church and see it purposely turning a blind eye to atrocities committed by its allies and wonder what they possess beyond empty words.

Other than excommunication, what were you expecting the Church to do? But you can’t say the Church didn’t do what it can to stop it. The powers of enforcement are really in the hands of kings and governments of the day, not in the Church.

 

[ericc]

It most certainly endorses slavery. It tells people not to try and convince slaves to leave their masters. There are no qualifiers or exceptions. The Catholic Church is stating that slaves should obey their masters. Your suggestion that since the Council doesn’t mention what kind of slave doesn’t lead one to think this refers to only a certain type of slave. Quite the opposite, ALL slaves must obey their masters according to what the Church. It doesn’t single out prisoners of war and doesn’t leave out children born into slavery.

Yes the Church tell its members not to break the laws of the land. It doesn’t say it support slavery. They are 2 different things: working within the law and supporting it. Can you see the difference?

1. Would you encourage someone to break the law because you disagree with the law? I’d like to understand your stance on this, how you form your morality basis. Would you encourage an employee to steal from his boss/master if you don’t like their employment contract? Would you encourage someone to cheat on their spouse if the other spouse is not moral/bad/lazy/(insert a defect) in your view? That is what you are saying. You don’t like “xxx” therefore there is an obligation for others to assist/encourage “desertion”. You may not like war, therefore regardless of whether the war is just or necessary, will you encourage the soldiers to desert their posts? Would you assist a prison breakout because you disagree with the reason why they were put there? If prisoners that broke out will face certain death/harm, will you encourage them to break out? Will you condemn those who oppose them breaking out?
2. Runaway slaves will received the severest punishment if caught. Would you entice a slave to runaway and expose them to the risk of such punishment? A runaway slave has no place to go, their countries may no longer exist, you may actually put them in harms way. A runaway slave can not obtain the status of freeman. They will be branded fugitives and it is unlawful to offer refuge to fugitives. Why do you think they are better off running away? They are in the Roman Empire. Where can they run to? Who will employ them? Turn to crime to sustain themselves? That will make you pretty irresponsible for suggesting such a course of action.
3. Historians say slavery in those days were overwhelmingly voluntary. Family may sell their members out of poverty because they couldn’t feed their children. Is it better for your children to be fed and nourished by someone else rather than see them starve to death? For those masters who have legally purchased them, fed them, taken care of them, how to you justify them losing their investment? For those families who have sold their children to the master, what would you say to them when the master come calling asking for his money back and they have no money to refund? Replace with another child?
4. We mentioned POW before. Do you agree that slavery is a better option for them than death? You avoided this discussion.
5. The Catholic Church also say we must obey the government. Do you agree we ought to obey the government? Or do you say we break the law to defy the government because you have a 21st century mindset imposed on a 3rd/4th century culture where it was not an issue or immoral or illegal.

We know a few things about the Council of Gangra, including the entire text of the council, that it was a local council, and we know when it took place. Also we know one very important item:

The above quote is from the fourth Ecumenical Council, the Council of Chalcedon, which ratified the decisions made in the four aformentioned synods (including Gangra). As the Ecumenical Councils are said to teach infallibly, this means that not instructing a slave to flee his master under pretense of religion is also infallible according to the Church.

It’s interesting for two reasons. One, it lists several undesirables (including Jews, which you filed under “etc.”) and the Church finds not only slaves but people who were once slaves as being of a lesser tier of people – unworthy of making accusation even if said accusation is accurate. Two, this is not the kind of language or kind of rule one would expect for a Church that other posters on CAF have said was trying to ween people off of slavery.

If you accept that voluntary slavery, temporary slavery, POW slavery is not necessarily immoral or unlawful, then this is a moot point. If you accept the argument that forms of slavery may mean life over death, it is a moot point. If you can’t offer a better way out for those people in those centuries, then you bring nothing to the table other than your opinion. If you accept that slaves must obey their masters, then by definition their accusations can not be objective or seen to be objective.

Until now, you have avoided the discussion of justifiable cases for slavery. Is it because you have no way to counter those arguments? Ancient slavery is nothing like the Atlantic slavery of the 17/18th century. Don’t lump them together.

 

[ericc]

There are good atheists and there bad atheists, just as there are good Catholics and bad Catholics, good Hindus and bad Hindus, and so on. I’d be interested if you can find where I’ve ever spoken out in support of an atheist regime. I’ve spoken many times in the past about endorsing secular states that don’t enforce a certain belief or non-belief in the supernatural. Now let’s say I was part of an organization that has existed for quite some time and they owned slaves and/or endorsed the owning of slaves then it would be upon me to either explain it or admit that what was done was wrong. I am not responsible for the actions of people who did terrible things and happened to share a lack of a belief in god. Heck, I’m a capitalist who believes highly in freedom of expression so it’s not like I’m endorsing communist Russia or North Korea.

And yet, where is your list of good atheists trying to stop slavery? Just keep it simple, 16-18th century? What actions did they took? While condemning the Church for doing too little in your mind, yet I don’t see your atheist kindred doing a lot for slavery during those times. And that would be hypocritical wouldn’t it? I am not saying your atheist friends are involved in the slave trade, I just want to hear their voices speaking out against it. You dug out some for the Church, I am sure you can dig out lots from your atheist friends.

If you can’t, then you are no better than an armchair critic telling people you should be doing this, you should be doing that, you should have done it this way, you should have word your letter this way, use this word instead of that etc. Not very useful/helpful isn’t it?

Ahh! But if you tell me that your Atheist kindred have been doing so much more, did this, did that, wrote such a wonderful letter to so-and-so and when and how you punished them for not following it, people might be more inclined to listen to your positive godless sales pitch rather than negative sales pitch about your competitor/opponent.

 

[ericc]

It was a national council in Spain, a country I’ve shown that the pope was more than willing to kowtow to. Were the rules for slaves in that council written in such a way that reflected the idea that the Church as a whole had rejected slavery? Clearly not. Was there any brushback from Rome as to any of the specific rules for slaves from that council? Was there a strongly worded response from the magesterium which told Bishop Isadore (later St. Isadore of Seville) who ran the councils that his rule against Jews owning slaves was unjust? Did they tell him that the rule where slaves freed by the Church must serve the Church for the rest of their lives was not holy? Is there even a mention questioning why the Council notes that the Church owns slaves? (Of course not, as Rome owned slaves as well.)

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I was merely rearranging the documents that you quoted in chronological order. Yours was all over the place. I was responding to those documents that you quoted. Surely, you do expect me to address those that was being touted as evidence, don’t you?

I expect you to present evidence that the Church wasn’t sitting on its hands for over a dozen centuries against slavery. Remember the initial claim was that “The Catholic Church has a good record on opposing slavery,” and I explained that is not accurate. I’ve shown numerous instances where the Church propagated, endorsed, or did not denounce slavery.
Surely you have some documents to present your case of a Church working to combat slavery.

Please keep to the topic. This is a diversionary tactic. You haven’t satisfied yourself on the periods that you brought up and now you want to move on to other periods. I’m sorry I can’t entertain you on moving goalposts. Start a new thread if you wish.

So you believe the question “Where was the Church fighting slavery in the one-and-a third millennia before then?” is NOT part of the topic of “Religion’s Role in Slavery”? That’s pretty funny! It should be easy to show some documents, ecumenical councils, anything that puts the Church squarely against slavery prior to the 14th century.

Just say that you don’t know of any such evidence of an anti-slavery Church prior to the 14th century instead of claiming that the Church’s actions with regards to slavery have nothing to do with the topic of the Church’s actions with regards to slavery.

Is that right? Why don’t you actually read what it said

I hope you don’t mind, I changed the fonts in your quotes to look a little more presentable and a little less like the Time Cube guy

1. Some of these people were already baptized; which should lead you to conclude that the majority of others were not.

1. And no less do We order and command 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 said Canary Islands, and made captives since the time of their capture, and 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 money.

What is the meaning of “all and every”? I see that you are focusing on the language of the text and not the intent. Even if the wording is not as precise as you wish, all it show is that the person crafting the document is sloppy, careless or not thinking of all the permutations. The person drafting the document already mentioned to free all and everyone enslaved. When a later part of the document fails to repeat the same language, it does not mean that the person now permits it. Look at the intent.

The document doesn’t say so. You are imagining things. The Church can only excommunicate those who professed the Catholic faith. Those who don’t are outside its reach.

I love how you see two items in the same document are seemingly in conflict, so you take the one that favors your position and treat the one that clearly doesn’t as sloppy crafting and carlessness. Perhaps one or both of those items are being misread.

Let’s read the whole thing, chapter by chapter (in the next post):

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

1. Not long ago, we learned from our brother Ferdinand, bishop at Rubicon and representative of the faithful who are residents of the Canary Islands, and from messengers sent by them to the Apostolic See, and from other trustworthy informers, the following facts: in the said islands—some called Lanzarote—and other nearby islands, the inhabitants, imitating the natural law alone, and not having known previously any sect of apostates or heretics, have a short time since been led into the Orthodox Catholic Faith with the aid of God’s mercy. Nevertheless, with the passage of time, it has happened that in some of the said islands, because of a lack of suitable governors and defenders to direct those who live there to a proper observance of the Faith in things spiritual and temporal, and to protect valiantly their property and goods, some Christians (we speak of this with sorrow), with fictitious reasoning and seizing and opportunity, have approached said islands by ship, and with armed forces taken captive and even carried off to lands overseas very many persons of both sexes, taking advantage of their simplicity.

So the pope is happy that not long ago there are those in the Canary Islands being led to Christianity. The pope is not happy that there are those going over in boats with the purpose of enslaving the population.

1. Some of these people were already baptized; others were even at times tricked and deceived by the promise of Baptism, having been made a promise of safety that was not kept. They have deprived the natives of the property, or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery, sold them to other persons, and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them, because of which very many of those remaining on said islands, and condemning such slavery, have remained involved in their former errors, having drawn back their intention to receive Baptism, thus offending the majesty of God, putting their souls in danger, and causing no little harm to the Christian religion

So we have the baptized and those who were promised baptism. It’s more than a bit ominous that the promise of baptism is for a promise of safety – If you promise to get baptized we promise not to enslave you. The pope is unhappy that they were those who broke that promise and taken some of the natives away, which in turn has caused those remaining on the island to either give up on their promises to get baptized or return to their “former errors” (i.e. their native faith).

1. Therefore, We, to whom it pertains, especially in respect to the aforesaid matters, to rebuke each sinner about his sin, and not wishing to pass by dissimulating, and desiring—as is expected from the pastoral office we hold—as far as possible, to provide salutarily, with a holy and fatherly concern, for the sufferings of the inhabitants, beseech the Lord, and exhort, through the sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ shed for their sins, one and all, temporal princes, lords, captains, armed men, barons, soldiers, nobles, communities, and all others of every kind among the Christian faithful of whatever state, grade, or condition, that they themselves desist from the aforementioned deeds, cause those subject to them to desist from them, and restrain them rigorously.

The pope asks those who are reneging on such promises (enslaving those who are baptized or who promised to become baptized) to stop.

1. And no less do We order and command 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 said Canary Islands, and made captives since the time of their capture, and 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 money. If this is not done when the fifteen days have passed, they incur the sentence of excommunication by the act itself, from which they cannot be absolved, except at the point of death, even by the Holy See, or by any Spanish bishop, or by the aforementioned Ferdinand, unless they have first given freedom to these captive persons and restored their goods. We will that like sentence of excommunication be incurred by one and all who attempt to capture, sell, or subject to slavery, baptized residents if the Canary Islands, or those who are freely seeking Baptism, from which excommunication cannot be absolved except as was stated above.

The Bull is asking that those “who were once residents of said Canary Islands, AND made captives since the time of their capture, AND who have been made subject to slavery” The pope is asking for the release of those that were taken away from the Canary Islands into slavery. It is not saying to release all who were enslaved. Then in clear and unmistakable language saying that baptized residents or those seeking baptism are not to be enslaved.

I know you want to say look at this but don’t worry about that. I know you want to use apologetics tactics where the words say one thing but you want us to think they really mean the opposite, but that doesn’t hold in the real world. This bull is just one example where the Church says Christians are not to be enslaved but non-Christians be damned.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Please show the evidence that the Church altered which document. You are becoming incoherent. I have no idea what you are talking about. Please show what was altered, the effects, etc. You didn’t present any evidence of this alteration.

If I’m laying out a solid case using evidence provided by the Church in a methodical manner, and yet you find me incoherent, perhaps the fault for said incoherence does not fall on me.

Still, here are the key passages as well as a discussion of Romanus Pontifex, a bull which “confirmed to the Crown of Portugal dominion over all lands discovered or conquered during the Age of Discovery.” More important to our discussion here, it allowed Portugal to enslave those pagans in those lands.

And you are avoiding the explanation that this is a response to a war situation on how to deal with POW. And that includes Saracens, pagans, infidels etc. And you are focusing on venn diagrams? Look at the intent.

Do you know what a venn diagram is? It’s a graphic to demonstrate categories of things and whether items in those categories intersect or if a category is a subset of another category. For a long while the Church was fine with non-Christians being enslaved and also owned slaves. This is just another example of wanting the openminded to ignore what is written and to believe the sugar-coated message that is simply not there. There were no limits in time, space, or age of the enslaved. The one catrgory that was of concern was if they were not Christians and not Jews. I asked if there were any items where the Church said the Portuguese were not working in accordance of Dum Diversas, and you have not presented such items – possibly because such items do not exist. In fact, as I noted just above, Romanus Pontifex specifically spelled out that the Church gave Portugal the right to perform such acts.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

You are overestimating the power of the Church. The Church can only ex-communicate Catholics. I do not know who those Iberian friends are or even if they are friends at all. I thought “future peoples” would cover blacks too. It doesn’t?

Iberia = The peninsula in Europe that contains Spain, Portugal, and Andorra (the first two of which the Church capitulated to in terms of slavery).

The wording in the document refers to “the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians”. The enslavement and trading of Africans was already well established at this point. They were not people that were later to be discovered by Christians. The article said that it protected black people, and that is an absolute falsehood.

Other than excommunication, what were you expecting the Church to do? But you can’t say the Church didn’t do what it can to stop it. The powers of enforcement are really in the hands of kings and governments of the day, not in the Church.

With things like the New Evangelization and the evangelization section of CAF, it’s said the best way to evangelize is to lead by example. The Church led the way by owning slaves. By making proclamations that these kings and governments served Christianty by their acts of enslavement.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Yes the Church tell its members not to break the laws of the land. It doesn’t say it support slavery. They are 2 different things: working within the law and supporting it. Can you see the difference?

Who makes these laws? In the case of Rome it was the Church – which as I’ve mentioned owned slaves. For other Christian countries (e.g. Spain, France, Portugal) it is those lawmakers but with a heavy influence from the Church. When the Church specifically tells kings that it is good to enslave, then surely this puts Christians in a bind. It’s clear when people who are not at war are bought and sold into slavery or are born into slavery, that this act is immoral. Yet the Church says the opposite.

1. Would you encourage someone to break the law because you disagree with the law? I’d like to understand your stance on this, how you form your morality basis. Would you encourage an employee to steal from his boss/master if you don’t like their employment contract? Would you encourage someone to cheat on their spouse if the other spouse is not moral/bad/lazy/(insert a defect) in your view? That is what you are saying.

Those analogies would work if every slave was there as part of an agreed-upon contract. You and I both know that is not true. Many of these slaves were not prisoners of war, had not agreed to indentured servitude, but instead were either forcibly taken, purchased, or born into their slavery. It’s always the same way when Christain apologetics and slavery intersect – focus on a fraction of slavery and then incorrectly apply that to slavery in general.

You don’t like “xxx” therefore there is an obligation for others to assist/encourage “desertion”. You may not like war, therefore regardless of whether the war is just or necessary, will you encourage the soldiers to desert their posts? Would you assist a prison breakout because you disagree with the reason why they were put there? If prisoners that broke out will face certain death/harm, will you encourage them to break out? Will you condemn those who oppose them breaking out?

Government in those days was somewhat more despotic than it is now. So it’s not like there was a method to redress grievances. For many there was no fourth estate to draw attention to issues.

1. Runaway slaves will received the severest punishment if caught. Would you entice a slave to runaway and expose them to the risk of such punishment? A runaway slave has no place to go, their countries may no longer exist, you may actually put them in harms way. A runaway slave can not obtain the status of freeman. They will be branded fugitives and it is unlawful to offer refuge to fugitives. Why do you think they are better off running away? They are in the Roman Empire. Where can they run to? Who will employ them? Turn to crime to sustain themselves? That will make you pretty irresponsible for suggesting such a course of action.

It’s too bad the people running the Roman Empire didn’t have a moral compass to prevent such things.

But on the level of a free man talking to an enslaved man, slaves are made acutely aware of the risks that escaping entails. Whenever there have been slaves there have been slaves who escaped. Southern Europe isn’t exactly landlocked. Escape was treacherous but possible.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

1. Historians say slavery in those days were overwhelmingly voluntary.

Citation needed. Also would you say that a father selling a daughter to be raped by a slaveowner (or one of his sons) is voluntary on the part of the daughter?

Family may sell their members out of poverty because they couldn’t feed their children. Is it better for your children to be fed and nourished by someone else rather than see them starve to death? For those masters who have legally purchased them, fed them, taken care of them,

You forgot beat them, restrained them, tortured them, raped them, and manslaughtered them. Sure some slaveowners were relatively kind, but apologists to a man purposely and untruthfully take a blind eye to the inhumanity placed on many slaves.

how to you justify them losing their investment?

I think I mentioned in the other slavery thread in the Sacred Scripture section (which I have to get around to following-up on) a response to a person about that very complaint. He said that the slaveowner who manslaughtered his slave (but wasn’t punished because the death didn’t occur the same day) was in a way punished because he lost his investment. My response was that the best definition of chutzpah was a child who kills his parents then asks the court for leniency because he’s an orphan. I have no sympathy for the slaveowner who has a child slave that escapes. There are some things that can’t be bargained for.

For those families who have sold their children to the master, what would you say to them when the master come calling asking for his money back and they have no money to refund? Replace with another child?

Are you seriousy treating children like commodities? As far as what to tell the master, tell him it’s not the family’s responsibility to make sure the child doesn’t escape. I’d also tell him something else but it’s not printable here

1. We mentioned POW before. Do you agree that slavery is a better option for them than death? You avoided this discussion.

You’ve dodged so many questions that now you’re assuming everyone does it.

Let me say right now that for POWs I don’t know which would be better. I’m sure there are some that would rather die free than live as a slave. But again, no matter how many times you set up the strawman, the issue with what the Church says is not about POW slaves but all slaves.

1. The Catholic Church also say we must obey the government. Do you agree we ought to obey the government? Or do you say we break the law to defy the government because you have a 21st century mindset imposed on a 3rd/4th century culture where it was not an issue or immoral or illegal.

It’s easy for me to sit here, a man living comfortably in the 21st century to say so, but I’d like to believe that if I were living in 19th century America I’d do what I could to help slaves escape to the North. I’d like to believe that if I were in Europe in the late 1930s that I’d do what I could to help Jews, gypsies, and various unwanted to hide from legal death squads. History is dotted with the names of many who risked their well-being and their lives for the sake of others, and there were many more unnamed who participated in such marvelous endeavors. In such instances where people are brutalized in slavery through no fault of their own, one can only hope people follow the likes of Oscar Schindler and Harriet Tubman and not like those groups who say not to rock the boat.

If you accept that voluntary slavery, temporary slavery, POW slavery is not necessarily immoral or unlawful, then this is a moot point. If you accept the argument that forms of slavery may mean life over death, it is a moot point. If you can’t offer a better way out for those people in those centuries, then you bring nothing to the table other than your opinion. If you accept that slaves must obey their masters, then by definition their accusations can not be objective or seen to be objective.

I’ve already explained in the other thread that voluntary slavery as described in the Bible is not the same as indentured servitude. The latter is a business transaction and a work agreement, while the former involves possibly getting manslaughtered and losing your wife and kids. There are always better ways than slavery. I’ll post my response to your suggestion that there wasn’t in the other thread.

Until now, you have avoided the discussion of justifiable cases for slavery. Is it because you have no way to counter those arguments? Ancient slavery is nothing like the Atlantic slavery of the 17/18th century. Don’t lump them together.

The Church sure lumped them together.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

And yet, where is your list of good atheists trying to stop slavery? Just keep it simple, 16-18th century? What actions did they took? While condemning the Church for doing too little in your mind, yet I don’t see your atheist kindred doing a lot for slavery during those times. And that would be hypocritical wouldn’t it? I am not saying your atheist friends are involved in the slave trade, I just want to hear their voices speaking out against it. You dug out some for the Church, I am sure you can dig out lots from your atheist friends.

Did you read my earlier post to you where I explained how there weren’t a whole heck of a lot of atheists back then? The science then wasn’t nearly the same as it is now. More importantly, as I also noted, those few who were atheists often hid that fact for fear of being ostracised, fear of being denied employment, and fear of being executed. You choose to ignore such realities but those who were living at that time could not afford such luxury.

I asked you to tell me how many atheists you could name from that time period. Your response was a dodge, pure and simple, despite it showing how rare such people were.

But as someone not averse to a little research I did manage to find a small handful of people who were atheists, abolitionists, and were born between the 16th and 18th centuries.

François Arago = From his Wikipedia article " but on the fall of Louis-Philippe he left his laboratory to join the Provisional Government (24 February 1848). He was entrusted with two important functions, that had never before been given to one person, viz. the ministry of marine and colonies (24 February 1848 – 11 May 1848) and ministry of war (5 April 1848 – 11 May 1848); in the former capacity he improved rations in the navy and abolished flogging. He also abolished political oaths of all kinds and, against an array of moneyed interests, succeeded in procuring the abolition of slavery in the French colonies."

Jeremy Bentham - From his Wikipedia article “He called for the abolition of slavery, the abolition of the death penalty, and the abolition of physical punishment, including that of children.”

David Ricardo - From his Wikipedia page “He was also an abolitionist, speaking at a meeting of the Court of the East India Company in March 1823, where he said he regarded slavery as stain on the character of the nation. His sister, Hanna, had married David Samuda who owned a substantial number of slaves in Jamaica.”

Arthur Schopenhauer - From his Wikipedia page "Despite this, he was adamantly against differing treatment of races, was fervently anti-slavery, and supported the abolitionist movement in the United States. He describes the treatment of “[our] innocent black brothers whom force and injustice have delivered into [the slave-master’s] devilish clutches” as “belonging to the blackest pages of mankind’s criminal record”. It is important to note that while this German philosopher spoke strongly against slavery he also was an anti-semite, so don’t take my listing of him as anything more than praising his anti-slavery stance.

John Stuart Mill was born a little outside of the range you gave, 1806, but he too was an atheist and abolitionist involved in a famous debate with pro-slavery Thomas Carlyle

If you can’t, then you are no better than an armchair critic telling people you should be doing this, you should be doing that, you should have done it this way, you should have word your letter this way, use this word instead of that etc. Not very useful/helpful isn’t it?

Ahh! But if you tell me that your Atheist kindred have been doing so much more, did this, did that, wrote such a wonderful letter to so-and-so and when and how you punished them for not following it, people might be more inclined to listen to your positive godless sales pitch rather than negative sales pitch about your competitor/opponent.

I fully suspect that you will demand more names, ignoring the fact I’ve brought up multiple times that atheists were both rare and unpopular during that time period. But it’s NOT about compiling names. A fictional gentleman named Peter Parker often said, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Outside of kings and the Holy Roman Emperor no one had the power the Church did. No, it could not conquer; but it most certainly had influence not only with the mighty but with the people themselves. And what it did with that influence was more negative than positive. Its documents and its actions reflect that. What is supposed to be a beacon to stand up against tyranny and sin instead endorsed it.

But even without that power – we are all called to state what we think is right and wrong. We are to be a candle in the darkness. The Church (thankfully) does not have the same power it once had, but you and I would agree that today it is unafraid to take moral stands – often diametrically opposed to the current culture. It speaks out against what it thinks is good and against what it thinks is not. That same Church faltered far more than succeeded in the case of slavery.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

It doesn’t help when you use fallacious innuendos rather than evidence. Using words like kowtowing here and there is really your own opinion.

When the pope announces something is wrong, then backs down when a king throws his weight around, that’s kowtowing. It’s gutlessness, pure and simple.

It is good that you have an opinion but that doesn’t help in your argument. Was a copy of the council canons sent to Rome for approval or ratification? Yes or no. Were there papal delegates in this council? Yes or no. If any local Churches wanting to hold any meetings, is there a Church requirement that assent from Rome must be given? If your answer is no, why do you think Rome must be held responsible for the decision of these meetings?
Please submit evidence not innuendos.

I think it’s telling that one of Rome’s greatest allies (Spain) led by one of its greatest members says all this about slavery, and there is not a peep from Rome questioning a word of it. Do you know of such questioning either by Rome or by anyone in Spain who felt that this Council conflicted with Roman teaching in any way in the slightest?

Are you refering to this line?
“At the end of June, 1059, Nicholas proceeded to Monte Cassino and thence to Melfi, the capital of Norman Apulia, where he held an important synod and concluded the famous alliance with the Normans (July-August, 1059).”

This doesn’t have any information on the slavery quote you touted as evidence. Give me something to work with.

My goodness. Let me make it that much easier for you. You said “Synod of Melfi. Another obscure synod. And the enclosed quote that you indicated refers to another obscure synod of Pavia in 1018 which I am not able to establish exist or not. Since you quoted it, show me the sources. Who called the synod, does it report to the Bishop of Rome or to local princes or royalty etc.” My response to you was to answer the questions you asked and the insinuations that you made.

You said it was an obscure synod. I corrected you that it was a rather important one.

You asked for sources. I gave you the Catholic Encyclopedia article which specifically stated that this was the first decree where children were specifically declared slaves and how this was later done to clergymen’s wives and mistresses.

You asked if the synod reported to the Bishop of Rome. I showed you via the New Advent article that the Bishop of Rome was there.

My links explained everything quite cleary, so there’s no need to be obtuse.

And still this is merely a dodge to how the Catholic Church, an organization that had the power for nearly two millennia did a disservice to humanity in waiting so long to speak out against slavery in total.
Firstly it is one thing to say the Church didn’t do much to stop slavery when the evidence suggest otherwise. Why don’t you gather all the pronouncements the Church spoke against slavery for a start? For the effort you put into tarnishing the Church, you could easily have put the Church in a better light if you choose to. That’s why I say your stance is not balanced.

“…all the pronouncements the Church spoke against slavery…” Where are they? Show them to me. I’ve done quite a bit of research on this topic and you seem to expect me to do your research for you. If you are so sure I’m missing something, present what I’m missing. It should be easy since you are quite confident that I’ve overlooked multiple pronouncements.

Secondly, you avoided discussion on the various types of slavery. You lump everything together as if they are all the same and conveniently give it a label. You avoided discussion on POW slavery, self initiated slavery, temporary slavery and there are many other permutations where a moral case can be made for each of these. These are not 17th/18th century style slavery where raiding parties go into Africa to shackle and sell them. The Church never supported this type of slavery.

Show me where the Church delineated between POWs, indentured servants, and those bought or born into slavery (the last of which I’ve been focusing on in two separate threads)? As always you claim the Church says something but can’t show it.

3rdly, at every turn that the Church tried to preach against slavery, you claim it protects Christians only. And that is untrue and you know it.

I know that Sicut Dudum says not to enslave the baptised and those seeking to be baptised.
I know that Dum Diversas says that it’s ok to enslave non-Christians.
I know that the 4th Council of Toledo says it’s wrong for Jews to own slaves (as opposed to saying it’s wrong for anyone to own slaves).
The words are right there.

Sicut Dudum applies to ALL enslaved, not to just the baptized, which were described as “some” which is not many.
Sublimus Deus applies to Indians and other peoples, most of them weren’t even baptised.
And you ignore all other pronouncements as well.

I already explained to you how you’re misreading it, and how silly it is the part where you dismissed incorrectly how it specifically delineates between baptised and non-baptised natives.
You mention these other pronouncements. That’s what I’ve been asking for time and time and time and time again: Where are these pronouncements from the Chruch?

4thly. Your so-call evidence are really not evidence of anything and sweeping statements and innuendos really don’t help in your argument. You want to do it, do it properly, line-by-line. If I don’t have an answer, I’ll tell you.

I’m the one that has broken down everything bit by bit. I’ve used the Church’s own words and actions in my argument.