Slavery (again)

[utunumsint]

How do we argue that the Catholic church did not support slavery when in the bull, Romanus Pontifex (January 8, 1455) the Pope gives the right to King Alphonso the following rights?

We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso – to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and **to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, **and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit…

“Perpetual slavery” seems pretty damning. How can we justify this bull?

God bless,
Ut

P.S. I am not in any way anti-catholic. I am seriously interested in how we can answer this claim, given what I read here in Mark Brumley’s article on the subject.

 

[Teflon93]

How do we argue that the Catholic church did not support slavery when in the bull, Romanus Pontifex (January 8, 1455) the Pope gives the right to King Alphonso the following rights?

“Perpetual slavery” seems pretty damning. How can we justify this bull?

God bless,
Ut

P.S. I am not in any way anti-catholic. I am seriously interested in how we can answer this claim, given what I read here in Mark Brumley’s article on the subject.

Even worse—where did Christ denounce slavery?

We must be careful not to be anachronistic here. Slavery was the norm throughout human history–indeed, so much the norm that the freedom the Greeks were so noted for was defined simply as “the condition of not being a slave.” Emancipation on a large scale is a very new development, and slavery being not only illegal but recognized as an evil is in its relative infancy.

One must also be careful to distinguish between “support for” slavery and recognition of the fact of slavery. Given Paul’s example where he returned a Christian slave to his Christian master and bid the master to free him, I don’t believe the Church itself has enslaved anyone. Given the prevalence of slavery and the 2,000 year history of the Church, however, perhaps there has been an isolated incidence or two.

We also must note that from the fall of Rome in the 5th century until the 16th century the Church was not only a spiritual power but a temporal one. The latter required her to act as a political power, and certainly in the long history of her political activities there were numerous policies supported which today we would find distasteful. One should always remember, however, that the Church finds much to rebuke us for today as well.

 

[Teflon93]

And if you’re interested in the historical context in which this Bull was issued, I highly recommend “Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters” which is an excellent brief treatment of this period and presents “the other side” of the story.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

There has already been a thread on this:

Romanus Pontifex

Here is a start.

Sicut Dudum Given by His Holiness Pope Eugene IV
1435

…We order and command all and each of the faithful… 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… 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.

Sublimus Dei Given by His Holiness Pope Paul III
1537

The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction… inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South… should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith…

We… consider, however, that the Indians are truly men…

We define and declare by these Our letters… that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty… and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

In Supremo Apostolatus Given by His Holiness Gregory XVI 1839

But as the law of the Gospel universally and earnestly enjoined a sincere charity towards all… not only that Christians should regard as their brothers their slaves… but that they should… set free those who merited it; which it was the custom to do chiefly upon the occasion of the Easter Feast as Gregory of Nyssa tells us…

It is at these practices [of slavery] that are aimed the Letter Apostolic of Paul III… and afterwards another Letter, more detailed, addressed by Urban VIII… to the Collector Jurium of the Apostolic Chamber of Portugal. In the latter are severely and particularly condemned those who should dare ‘to reduce to slavery the Indians of the Eastern and Southern Indies,’ to sell them, buy them, exchange them or give them, separate them from their wives and children, despoil them of their goods and properties, conduct or transport them into other regions, or deprive them of liberty in any way whatsoever, retain them in servitude, or lend counsel, succour, favour and co-operation to those so acting, under no matter what pretext or excuse, or who proclaim and teach that this way of acting is allowable and co-operate in any manner whatever in the practices indicated…

Benedict XIV…and Pius II address grave warnings [AD 1741 and 1462] with regard to Christians who should reduce neophytes to slavery. In our time Pius VII… intervened zealously with those in possession of power to secure that the slave trade should at least cease amongst the Christians…

We warn… that no one in the future dare to… reduce to servitude, or lend aid and favour to those who give themselves up to these practices, or exercise that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as if they were not men but rather animals, having been brought into servitude, in no matter what way, are, without any distinction, in contempt of the rights of justice and humanity, bought, sold, and devoted sometimes to the hardest labour.

We reprove, then, by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, all the practices abovementioned as absolutely unworthy of the Christian name. By the same Authority We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this traffic in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth in this Apostolic Letter.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

In Plurimis [1888] by Pope Leo XII. Here His Holiness speaks of the Church’s history of desiring freedom and brotherhood for all persons.

“For you are all the children of God by faith, in Jesus Christ. For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew, nor Greek; there is neither bond, nor free; there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:26-28)

…the Church, like a tender mother, went on to try to find some alleviation for the sorrows and the disgrace of the life of the slave; with this end in view she clearly defined and strongly enforced the rights and mutual duties of masters and slaves as they are laid down in the letters of the Apostles… (1 Peter 2:18; Eph 6:5-8; 1 Tim 6:1-2; Titus 2:9-10)

Whoever compare the pagan and the Christian attitude toward slavery will easily come to the conclusion that the one was marked by great cruelty and wickedness, and the other by great gentleness and humanity, nor will it be possible to deprive the Church of the credit due to her as the instrument of this happy change…

Lactantius AD 240-320] could not have maintained it so confidently, as though a witness of it. "Should any one say: Are there not among you some poor, some rich, some slaves, some who are masters; is there no difference between different persons? I answer: There is none, nor is there any other cause why we call each other by the name of brother than that we consider ourselves to be equals…

The care of the Church extended to the protection of slaves, and without interruption tended carefully to one object, that they should finally be restored to freedom… That the event happily responded to these efforts, the annals of sacred antiquity afford abundant proof. Noble matrons, rendered illustrious by the praises of St. Jerome AD 340-420] themselves afforded great aid in carrying this matter into effect; so that as Salvian relates, in Christian families, even though not very rich, it often happened that the slaves were freed by a generous manumission.

Wherefore, in addition to the fact that the act of manumission began to take place in churches as an act of piety, the Church ordered it to be proposed to the faithful when about to make their wills, as a work very pleasing to God and of great merit and value with Him… Neither was anything grudged as the price of the captives, gifts dedicated to God were sold, consecrated gold and silver melted down, the ornaments and gifts of the basilicas alienated, as, indeed, was done more than once by Ambrose 374 to 397], Augustine [AD 354-430], Hilary [AD 368-?], Eligius, Patrick [AD 387-493], and many other holy men

.

Moreover, the Roman Pontiffs, who have always acted, as history truly relates, as the protectors of the weak and helpers of the oppressed, have done their best for slaves. St. Gregory himself set at liberty as many as possible…

Hadrian I maintained that slaves could freely enter into matrimony even without their masters’ consent. It was clearly ordered by Alexander III in the year 1167 to the Moorish King of Valencia that he should not make a slave of any Christian…

Innocent III [1190] … approved and established the Order of the Most Holy Trinity for Redeeming Christians who had fallen into the power of the Turks… Honorius III [AD 1227], and, afterwards, Gregory IX [AD 1145-1241]

, duly approved the Order of St. Mary of Help, founded for a similar purpose… St. Gregory passed a decree… that it was unlawful to sell slaves to the Church, and he further added an exhortation to the faithful that, as a punishment for their faults, they should give their slaves to God and His saints as an act of expiation…

end of post

 

[dcdurel]

It seems as if the bull was directed against the enemies of the King, who had been attacking Christians. In war, prisoners can be made slaves, rather than executing them or putting them in prisons.

But, as far as those they were not fighting, there was no allowance for slavery. This is from Mark Blumley’s article that someone mentioned. Here the Popes first condemned slavery 20 years before Romanus Pontifex was written.

  "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.

When Europeans began enslaving Africans as a cheap source of labor, the Holy Office of the Inquisition was asked about the morality of enslaving innocent blacks (*Response of the Congregation of the Holy Office, * 230, March 20, 1686). The practice was rejected, as was trading such slaves. Slaveholders, the Holy Office declared, were obliged to emancipate and even compensate blacks unjustly enslaved.

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."

 

[Ani_Ibi]

From the This Rock article linked to above:

Let My People Go: The Catholic Church and Slavery

…we should be clear about what we mean by slavery and the real story of the Catholic Church’s position on it.

As used here, “slavery” is the condition of involuntary servitude in which a human being is regarded as no more than the property of another, as being without basic human rights; in other words, as a thing rather than a person.

Under this definition, slavery is intrinsically evil, since no person may legitimately be reduced to the status of a mere thing or object and thus become capable of being the property of another person. This form of slavery can be called “chattel slavery”…

…However, there are circumstances in which a person can justly be compelled to servitude against his will. Prisoners of war or criminals, for example, can justly lose their circumstantial freedom and be forced into servitude, within certain limits. Moreover, people can also “sell” their labor for a period of time (indentured servitude)…

Nicholas V refers to wars in Romanus Pontifex. Matters of war and imprisonment are prudential teachings, not infallible teachings.

Just because a pope speaks, does not necessary mean that he speaks infallibly. The pope has made two ex cathedra pronouncements in the history of the Church: both were on Mary.

Here is some information on infallibility.

 

[dcdurel]

From the This Rock article linked to above:

Nicholas V refers to wars in Romanus Pontifex. Matters of war and imprisonment are prudential teachings, not infallible teachings.

Just because a pope speaks, does not necessary mean that he speaks infallibly. The pope has made two ex cathedra pronouncements in the history of the Church: both were on Mary.

Here is some information on infallibility.

This is correct. The Pope was giving rulings to a single person, and those under his rule, and he was not teaching for all Christians.

But, it is incorrect to say the Pope has only made two ex cathera pronouncements. Anytime the Pope teaches for ALL CHRISTIANS, as head of the Church, on matters of faith or morals, he is teaching infallibly.

 

[utunumsint]

Thanks for all the replies. Here is the link to the Bull.

God bless,
Ut

 

[dafalax]

Uh, Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid has a supergood chapter on the popes and slavery throughout history. I don’t think it addressed Romanus Pontifex specifically, but it gives billions of other examples of the popes throughout history being against the enslaving of people and excommunicating those who engage in said practice. It is aggravating how one can point to tons of examples of the popes defending what is right throughout history and all it takes is one quote out of context to paint our history with a black brush. Grr.

 

[SoCalRC]

How do we argue that the Catholic church did not support slavery when in the bull, Romanus Pontifex (January 8, 1455) the Pope gives the right to King Alphonso the following rights?

There is no doubt that this bull, and DUM DIVERSAS (which proceeded it) sadly created a connection between the Church and a particular era of slave trading and European Colonialism. It is really very hard to discern Pope Nicholas V’s full intent, but regardless, the documents were used to ‘justify’ some horrific acts.

But I think that really misses the point. We did not jump from a society of barbarism to harmony and bliss, so the Church history needs to be viewed in context. Exodus is one of the earliest recorded anti-slavery movements. Later, the Halacha prescribed the selling of slaves out of the Holy Land. We may be repulsed by the word ‘slave’, but this still reflected social progress.

At the time of Jesus birth, society still had many ills, but he was born into essentially the only cuture (or religion) that prohibited most abortions and infanticide. When you read Jewish philosophers of the time (ex. Philo of Alexandria), you will hear about the lowest of the low - slaves, girl children, etc., but you will also hear comments to the effect that even they have certain basic rights.

So I do not think that the correct way to view Church history is to take a snapshot in time, but to look at many snapshots over a long period of time and compare each to the widely held beliefs of their day. In that light, I must agree with Ani Ibe. The Church’s overall trend has been towards freedom and human rights.

The path has not been perfect, but I think that is to be expected. We trust that, over the long haul, our apostolic Church and its Gift of Authority will not lead us too far astray. But, Jesus did not expect (or receive) perfection from his apostles. In fact, sometimes when I am reading Mark I can almost sense His frustration with them. So, the idea of the infallibility of the Church is not that She does not make mistakes, but that dispite our human shortcomings She will ultimately lead us in the right direction.

In this light I think slavery is a good example. The Church was already condemning slavery while a number of self described Christian denominations were still embracing it as the natural order.

Best Regards

 

[Genesis315]

The kind of slavery in the OP is different than chattel slavery, whereby men are treated as if they were animals and not human beings. This kind of involuntary servitude has always been condemned by the Church, although there have been Catholic laymen and clerics who have ignored or disobeyed such condemnations just as they ignore other precepts nowadays.

Freedoms, however, can be taken away justly. Even today in the USA, criminal prisoners and prisoners of war are often forced to do labor. That is slavery, but not chattel slavery.

 

[drafdog]

Apparently the Church defended slavery and used “natural law” as a supporting argument in its defense until around the middle of the nineteenth century. It was only then, when nations were passing laws banning slavery, that the Church began to see the error of their reasoning. This is a prime example of the Holy Spirit speaking to the leaders of the Church through the layity. The layity had the wisdom first and the bishops and theologians fell in line after.

Matthew

 

[bobzills]

How do we argue that the Catholic church did not support slavery when in the bull, Romanus Pontifex (January 8, 1455) the Pope gives the right to King Alphonso the following rights?

“Perpetual slavery” seems pretty damning. How can we justify this bull?

God bless,
Ut

P.S. I am not in any way anti-catholic. I am seriously interested in how we can answer this claim, given what I read here in Mark Brumley’s article on the subject.

I think that this is another instance where the Church has changed her position. At one point in time, the Church may have apporved some forms of slavery, but the present teaching is that it is wrong to enslave people.
There are other examples of where the Church has changed her teaching. For two other examples, the teaching on torutre to extract confessions. At one point in time, it was taught that it was OK to torture people to extract confessions, but now it is taught that it is not all right.
For another example, the teaching on divorce and annulments. At one point in time, it was very difficult to get an annulment and they were granted for only the most serious of reasons such as for example, in the case of a previously undisclosed marriage. In 1930, there were only 10 annulments granted in the USA. However, now the teaching has changed and just about anyone can get his or her marriage annulled for the most trivial of reasons, such as saying that since your husband spends too much time at the gy, it is clear that he did not have the correct attitude when attempting the marriage. And this is seen by the statistics which show that the number of annulments has increased from 10 per year in 1930 to around 60,000 in recent years.