Slavery and Christianity

[Isearch]

How does this not prove the change in the church’s teaching? Slavery was a moral concern and yet even after the 1900’s, the Church still taught that inheriting slaves, who were the descendants of those who were enslaved unjustly, was still morally okay. And it seems that only when Vatican II occured and pope St. John Paul II issued Evangelium Vitae was slavery outright condemned as intrinsically sinful.

" Was it lawful for owners to retain in slavery the descendants of those who had been made slaves in this unjust way? The last conspicuous Catholic moralist who posed this question when it was not merely a theoretical one, Kenrick, resolves it in the affirmative on the ground that lapse of time remedies the original defect in titles when the stability of society and the avoidance of grave disturbances demand it."

(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm)

 

[angel12]

1. You don’t think human understanding can develop?
2. This was not dogma.

 

[Genesis315]

Slavery that is an intrinsic evil is narrowly defined in the CCC as when people are “being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit.”

One can acquire title to reasonable services justly and buy, sell, and exchange title to services. None of that violates the natural law. However, experience came to show that when such title was life long, title was often not acquired justly and people were treated as merchandise/chattel (rather than their services) and in general not treated as human beings (see e.g. American slavery). It was also often accompanied by other evils. As the article you link to mentions, the “just” slavery became almost exclusively theoretical and so you see general prohibitions on it from the Church after a certain period.

It was also considered a tolerable evil in some places that would result in greater evils if quickly abolished. The wisdom of that is a question of fact, not revealed truth.

The Church still does not condemn as intrinsically evil the just acquisition of title to someone’s reasonable services while treating them with human dignity, even for lifetime.

Just to add, theories about the idea of time curing defects can be found in other areas as well–usually when it comes to an unjust usurpation or revolution establishing a new government, for example. Time can cause that authority to become legitimate as has happened tons of times over the centuries, since it would be necessary for the natural public order. Such theories have generally been left the debate of theologians and moralists without the Church passing any definitive judgment.

 

[Secret_Square]

“The last conspicuous Catholic moralist who posed this question when it was not merely a theoretical one, Kenrick, resolves it in the affirmative on the ground that lapse of time remedies the original defect in titles when the stability of society and the avoidance of grave disturbances demand it.”

Not sure which Kendrick – Peter or Francis – said that, but you do have to consider the situation they were in. They were bishops of large cities (St Louis and Baltimore) in border slave states in the years immediately before and during the Civil War. While they pondered the moral implications of abolishing slavery, they also had to face the fact that doing so at that time was likely to lead to war and extreme social disruption. Their own flocks were also divided, with some owning slaves and some favoring secession. Abp. Peter Kendrick had some of his priests joining both the Union and Confederate armies as chaplains, and he tried very hard to stay neutral… a pretty difficult task in a state as sharply divided as Missouri.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

While they pondered the moral implications of abolishing slavery, they also had to face the fact that doing so at that time was likely to lead to war and extreme social disruption.

And how did that work out for them? When weighing the moral implications of slavery the inhuman treatment of slaves is a far more pressing issue than trying to avoid upsetting the apple cart.

The Church is supposed to be a light in the darkness, but it proved unwilling to speak out against such travesties. We have to assume at least some of those involved with the local churches at the time also had no moral difficulties at all with slavery.

 

[normdplume]

The Church still does not condemn as intrinsically evil the just acquisition of title to someone’s reasonable services while treating them with human dignity, even for lifetime.

What is meant by “just” acquisition of title for a lifetime of service?

 

[woolycaterpillar]

Slavery is always terrible. No one has the right to own someone else, but I understand that Thomas Jefferson had slaves. Not a very good example for everyone else.

I could never figure out why the USA allows abortion, euthanasia, infanticide…

What made anyone believe they should take land away from Indians? The trail of tears proves that they did a bad thing to demand the land the Indians had.

Countries and churches make mistakes. The human element is the one making mistakes, and some of the mistakes they make are really wrong.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

We have to assume at least some of those involved with the local churches at the time also had no moral difficulties at all with slavery.

You can find many Catholics who have poorly formed consciences.

 

[Mboo]

if slavery was intrinsically evil, Jesus would have condemned it. Jesus had lived in a time when slavery was very much practiced.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

You can find many Catholics who have poorly formed consciences.

True, and it’s true of all people. For Christians it’s interesting since their holy book instructs on how to increase the practice of slavery, and how to do harm to one’s slaves without fear of punishment.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

if slavery was intrinsically evil, Jesus would have condemned it. Jesus had lived in a time when slavery was very much practiced.

It’s the old quandary as to whether God doesn’t do evil because he can’t or because he’s God no matter what he does is not evil.

Since slavery is intrinsically evil Jesus appears to just be wrong.

 

[angel12]

if slavery was intrinsically evil, Jesus would have condemned it.

Jesus did not give a “list” of everything that is intrinsically evil. He gave us the Beatitudes, and the Greatest Commandments, and the Great Commission. Those who lived by them knew slavery – and many other things – were and are intrinsically evil.

 

[padrepio_2012]

That’s a very poor understanding of the Bible if I’ve ever seen one.

 

[Mboo]

Jesus had condemned the divorce and remarriage that were practiced. Not denouncing an evil that is done with impunity is a sin. So if Jesus did not condemn slavery while slavery is intrinsically evil, then he would have sinned

 

[Mboo]

No, it proves on the contrary that slavery is not inherently bad

 

[angel12]

Jesus had condemned the divorce and remarriage that were practiced. Not denouncing an evil that is done with impunity is a sin. So if Jesus did not condemn slavery while slavery is intrinsically evil, then he would have sinned

If you think anything Jesus did not specifically condemn is not evil (intrinsically or otherwise), I feel very sorry for you. That would be a very warped view of morality.

 

[rose321]

• You don’t think human understanding can develop?
• This was not dogma.

Respectfully opinion only

Asking was there a Spiritual and Human… need to be developed, is that what one is saying?
Point one made exactly…why was it not dogma? For the good thou?
Whole Bible speaks of Slavery does it not? God seeking and setting his people free out of bondage, slavery? unrighteousness?
God had it in his dogma, His Holy Scriptures, His Spoken Word… did he not?
And this is the 1900s now?

Spiritual:thinking:??? or Human:thinking:??? 1900s???

Moses took God’s people …out of slavery, political power of bondage by Pharoah, did he not?

Jesus came to take his people again present and for the future out of physical political bondage of those who conquered them and ruled over them out of slavery also did he not?

Jesus whole ministry teaching …His Spoken Word given for ears to hear… and Jesus Actions taken…while on earth …was out there strongly…boldly, harshly rebuking, even the merchants on his Father Temple porch was out there…physically…defending the outcast… who were thought of as nothing, right? The Orphans? The Widows? Healing the Sick? The Poor who were in need of want? The down trodden? Knowing also his people were being heavily taxed those who ruled over them?
Is this not also historically recorded what also was happening in Jesus own time period also?..Historically recordings give a deeper understanding to Jesus Spoken Word in what was all taken place…immoral unrighteous laws force upon his people…held them in slavery, bondage etc.right?

Jesus harshly. boldly, rebuked, identified those who were causing innocent pain, suffering and death upon his people did he not?
Jesus spoke out loud and clear, even calling them blood vipers? Lawlessones? Moneychangers? Hypocrites x3 list goes on…did he not?

Asking kindly…Slavery is not new is it? Slavery is written and can be found …all throughout the Bible, right?..
Those whom God sent were also sent to set …My People Free… take them out of …slavery. bondage right?
Abraham had slaves, servants but he treated them like family and cared and provided for them, day of rest, his servants rested also, did they?

Isaiah 45–God names and calls King Cyrus choosing him to.go and…set his people free…take them out of slavery and bondage of Babylon Empire, right?

Spiritual knowledge?
Human Knowledge?
Understanding? 1900s? now?

Asking kindly, respectfully in questioning and examining…
Yet claiming to have the greatest Theologians did they not understanding of His Spoken Word ?
Is one stating they did not have Human Moral Understanding?

Peace:slightly_smiling_face:

 

[Mboo]

It’s not me who says it, it’s biblical: Do not denounce an evil that is done with impunity is a sin. So if slavery was intrinsically evil, Jesus would have explicitly condemned it, just as he has condemned remarriage. On the other hand, the sins that were already condemned by society (like theft) were no longer necessary for Jesus to denounce them explicitly.

 

[rose321]

No, it proves on the contrary that slavery is not inherently bad

Respectfully proves slavery is not good for anyone, no human being… owns another…Free indeed…Honest days work for an honest days pay…do not defraud a labor of his true wages…God ask us to be servants in serving the needs of one another calls us not to make slaves of one another does he? Thinking such, does it not allow others to make one a slave also?

Love your neighbor as you Love yourself…pretty much puts to rest and ends these’s thought of inhumane and immoral slavery does it not? …Love conquers all…those who love themselves, surely do not want to put themselves into slavery do they?..Love your neighbor as you love yourself…

Do unto others what one would want done unto you…seems Jesus is fully against slavery, bondage etc not good is it, why?

God ask… us to serve him and not even God forces anyone does he to even serve him, right?

Written Matthew 5:37 …Let your yes be yes and your no be no…requests?..understood by others…scholars… with yes or no anything extra such as an oath …results in evil, would this be a correct way for this Biblical verse to be understood?

Were called to serve him …servants?
God gives all Free Will does he not?

Abraham had servants did he not, some known also as aliens?
Abraham loved his household, his servants and Abraham treated his… servants… like his own family in providing and caring for his servants need, did he not?
…Abraham was very rich and was greatly known for his… hospitality…was huge in the eyes of God was it not? Abraham also provided stops, housing for those in long travels…throughout…built post…offering water, food, rest and shelter even for their camels, did he not?

God’s servant … Moses… to take his people out of bondage and slavery, from those who politically ruled over them, did he not?

God names King Cyrus, his servant…God takes him by the right hand, to set his people and other Nations people…to set them …Free…take them out of slavery and bondage, being held in Babylon Great Empire, did he not?

Jesus comes to take us all out of bondage and slavery, set us free, why he is called our …Savior… in more then one way also, right?
Jesus rebukes such physical slavery, bondage to those who ruled over his people did he not, while Jesus physically walked the earth…all in His Spoken Word, teaching, did he not?

Jesus in his great Love mercy… sets us free from the bondage of our own transgression, pays the debt of our own sins…in full…no longer a slave or held in bondage to, out of our own personal bondage?

Love your neighbor as you love yourself…does not sound like our Heavenly Father agrees with slavery nor holding anyone in ones bondage… does it? ….

Servants… are asked to serve, does God not call out and ask us to serve him?

What would one rather be or choose saying yes or no to… if given a choice, being asked?
A Servant?
…or…
A Slave?

Peace:heart:

 

[ZMystiCat]

if slavery was intrinsically evil, Jesus would have condemned it.

How do you know that He didn’t? Bear in mind, not everything Jesus said or did was written down in Scripture (John 21:25).

Jesus had condemned the divorce and remarriage that were practiced.

From the event that we know of when He did, He was asked directly about it. He didn’t go walking through the streets screaming, “Divorce is wrong! Your marriages are invalid! Repent, adulterers!”