D
De_Maria
Guest
Huiou Theou:
Sincerely,
De Maria
Thanks. This is awesome.
Sincerely,
De Maria
- Status
D
De_Maria
Guest
I agree.
Do you think that “involuntary slavery” of the type which existed in the United States ever existed in Biblical times?
I think the closest the Bible comes to describing this situation is the slavery of Israel in Egypt. God freed them from that institution and it was celebrated as the Passover. It is now considered the foreshadowing of our freedom from the power of Satan.
Sincerely,
De Maria
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Wasn’t Onesimus the slave and Philemon the master?
D
De_Maria
Guest
Yes. Essentially that is what I am trying to prove that slavery of the kind which the church now considers intrinsically evil has always been considered intrinsically evil. That the word slavery connotes many different types of servitude, many of which are not intrinsically. The type of slavery which are evil are those which disregard the dignity of a human being and treat the human like an animal or worse.
Sincerely,
De Maria
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Tantum ergo:
thanks, and to Deb1 also.
Yes! My fingers were faster than my memory.
thanks, and to Deb1 also.
K
Kurt_G
Guest
Hello, all…
Since one of my few “pet peeves” is unjust condemnation of the Church for the institution of slavery, please allow me to remind us of a few historical facts that might be applicable for De Maria’s use.
Most of this is from “The Popes and Slavery”, written in 1996 by Fr. Joel S. Panzer: (Actually the Popes themselves come out looking pretty good in this, it’s the Church in general who woudln’t listen):
At the Council of Baltimore (1840) the Bishops of:
Baltimore, Bardstown, Charleston, St. Louis, Mobile, New Orleans, and Nashville, among others, decided to “interpret” the Pope’s teaching in their own way:
(Following is my paraphrase of the American Bishops’ decision):
It was specifically the slave trade that the Pope had condemned, OK? Not domestic slave ownership per se. My gosh, that would be a terrible economic burden on many Americans, and the Pope just didn’t understand the plight of the American slave owner!
So, what then does the “little quoted/lesser known” historical record really show?
Did the Popes speak out against racial slavery? Yes, from the get go…
Did the Church listen? Not hardly.
**Did the Bishops decide to “reinterpret” what the Popes said? **They sure did.
Did the Church get wrongly hammered in history for not standing up to slavery? The Popes did, for sure.
Did the Church ever teach that racial slavery was OK? No.
Did some dissidents within the Church teach that racial slavery was OK? You bet!
So we had a Church who refused to listen to the Popes on touchy social and/or economic reasons… So, the more things change, the more they stay the same…
That’s all for now. Thanks for the newly created slavery thread!
:tiphat: Kurt G.
Since one of my few “pet peeves” is unjust condemnation of the Church for the institution of slavery, please allow me to remind us of a few historical facts that might be applicable for De Maria’s use.
Most of this is from “The Popes and Slavery”, written in 1996 by Fr. Joel S. Panzer: (Actually the Popes themselves come out looking pretty good in this, it’s the Church in general who woudln’t listen):
- Canary Islands were discovered by Europeans (Spanish) in 1404. The native blacks were placed into slavery. Until this time, “racial slavery”, as we know it today, was virtually nonexistent.
- 100 years later, in South America, slavery was again running rampant…in 1537 Pope Paul III issued “Sublimis Deus” against the practice. (This pope even refers to the institution of racial slavery as a new form of evil in the world, unknown before our times. Thus Paul III distinguished racial slavery from previous forms of slavery, to which Scripture would have referred.)
- in 1591, Pope Gregory XIV condemned the practice.
- In 1639 Pope Urban VIII again hammered slavery.
- In 1741 Pope Benedict XIV (Immensa Pastorum) taught against slavery.
- And in 1839, Pope Gregory XVI issued “In Supremo”, condemning slave trade in particular, but slavery in general also.
At the Council of Baltimore (1840) the Bishops of:
Baltimore, Bardstown, Charleston, St. Louis, Mobile, New Orleans, and Nashville, among others, decided to “interpret” the Pope’s teaching in their own way:
(Following is my paraphrase of the American Bishops’ decision):
It was specifically the slave trade that the Pope had condemned, OK? Not domestic slave ownership per se. My gosh, that would be a terrible economic burden on many Americans, and the Pope just didn’t understand the plight of the American slave owner!
So, what then does the “little quoted/lesser known” historical record really show?
Did the Popes speak out against racial slavery? Yes, from the get go…
Did the Church listen? Not hardly.
**Did the Bishops decide to “reinterpret” what the Popes said? **They sure did.
Did the Church get wrongly hammered in history for not standing up to slavery? The Popes did, for sure.
Did the Church ever teach that racial slavery was OK? No.
Did some dissidents within the Church teach that racial slavery was OK? You bet!
So we had a Church who refused to listen to the Popes on touchy social and/or economic reasons… So, the more things change, the more they stay the same…
That’s all for now. Thanks for the newly created slavery thread!
:tiphat: Kurt G.
D
De_Maria
Guest
Kurt G.:
I note that Pope Eugene broke the offense down into various elements:
The Church looked at this, watched it develop, smelled it, and in 1435 Pope Eugene IV condemned the practice in a letter to Bishop Lanzarote (Sicut Dudum):"…
Or is it simply that these deeds were committed without due process? Just as killing a man without due process is murder, yet it is permitted after being condemned to death by a duly authorized court of law. These elements above have been imposed on people as penalties.
I’m reminded of the unmerciful servant:
Matt 18:23-32
23“Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talentsg] was brought to him.** 25Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.** 26“The servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ 27The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
30“But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.
32“Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Thanks for the wonderful post.
I note that Pope Eugene broke the offense down into various elements:
The Church looked at this, watched it develop, smelled it, and in 1435 Pope Eugene IV condemned the practice in a letter to Bishop Lanzarote (Sicut Dudum):"…
- they have deprived the natives of their property or turned it to their own use…
- sold them to other persons and
- committed evil deeds against them…
Or is it simply that these deeds were committed without due process? Just as killing a man without due process is murder, yet it is permitted after being condemned to death by a duly authorized court of law. These elements above have been imposed on people as penalties.
I’m reminded of the unmerciful servant:
Matt 18:23-32
23“Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talentsg] was brought to him.** 25Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.** 26“The servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ 27The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
Code:
28“But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii.[h](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=18&version=31&context=chapter#fen-NIV-23754h)] He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.
29“His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’32“Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
Sincerely,
De Maria
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Kurt G.:
See also:
brycchancarey.com/slavery/chrono2.htm ##
An addition: Did the Church Support Slavery ?
IMHO, it is essential to be aware of the texts quoted on the page, because even if we aren’t, that is not a reason to think no one else is. Forewarned is forearmed.See also:
brycchancarey.com/slavery/chrono2.htm ##
S
stanley123
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:
From your link:
"As late as June 20, 1866, the Holy Office (now called the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a statement that said:
“Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons… It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.”
"
I would personally disagree with this. I think that slavery is wrong and especially when white male European slave masters enslave black African women, there is an inevitable push to prostitution and abuse of the black African female. I believe that this is seriously wrong, and against the natural law, and I am amazed at this quote which seems to indicate that enslavement and buying and selling of slaves, would not be condemned by the Holy Office.
V
Vimalakirti
Guest
El Católico:
V
Vimalakirti
Guest
De Maria:
K
Kurt_G
Guest
Stanley, I think it is good that you would personally disagree with that 1866 quote from the Holy Office. I disagree also, many (most) of us here would disagree with it. And of course, **the Popes mentioned in my previous post condemned slavery as well and would consequently disagree with it— (Unless there are some mitigating statements surrounding it which are not included with the quote.) **
We didn’t see the “anti-slavery” Popes mentioned on those sites which Michael brought to our attention, but that’s understandable since the sites’ intentions are to openly hammer the Church about slavery. Any factual history which might make the Church look better would of course be ignored.
It is amazing though, that the 1866 Holy Office could ignore those previous Popes’ condemnation of the practice…they are not supposed to ignore previous Popes’ opinions! I didn’t quote extensively from them all (too much), but the distinctions which appear to be made continuously by these historical Popes are as between what we might call:
-“modern day prisoners of war” which they do not always condemn, and
-“less than human / more like animals/property” slavery, which appears to be strongly condemned as soon as it appears( early 1400’s).
Still, if the world (Church included) had listened to these Popes, racial slavery as a human institution would have “died in childbirth”.
Someone who is good at historical searching ought to find that 1866 opinion of the Holy Office, and give us the entire quote. It looks so tough to reconcile with previous Popes, and those offices (I thought) generally took into account what was stated by previous Popes. At least Gregory XVI in 1839 used the previous four “anti-slavery” popes as support, in his statement hammering slavery.
F
Fox
Guest
I asked my priest about this a while back and he told me this:
"Dear Rob,
Thanks for the question. These types of inquiries direct me to study things that I may not otherwise look into. This question has been in the back of my mind for some time.
Despite our initial sense that neither Jesus nor St. Paul explicitly condemned slavery, I think you will agree with the evidence that they did condemn it in their own way.
First, recall that the sin of Adam was an abuse of freedom that led him into the slavery of sin. That slavery was promptly described by God in the form of curses. These curses they brought on themselves - they were the natural consequences of their actions. Due to the disorder that they introduced into their own lives, Adam and Eve became adversaries of sorts. Among the curses, we hear that Eve will have an urge for Adam and he will “lord it over her”. No longer mutually respectful, the struggle between them threatens to subordinate woman to man in a way that offends her dignity. This subordination is not the natural subordination that God intended between Adam (the “head”) and his wife, but rather a subordination that reduced Eve to the level of property.
Slavery is the treatment of one person as less valuable or of lower natural dignity than another, usually for personal profit. So, we see that slavery was being described by God as he announced the curses that they would suffer due to their sins. They would each seek to get out of the other what they wanted instead of working along the lines of the complimentarity that God intended when he made them male and female.
The identification of sin with slavery occurs early in scripture with Noah (see Gen 9:25).
Also, note that the great prefiguration of man’s redemption in the Old Testament is the flight from Egypt through the Red Sea. The Jews were being freed from their slavery in Egypt. Certainly what they suffered at the hands of the Egyptians was terrible and scripture describes it as such. Here we can see explicit condemnation of the treatment of men and women in slavery. Since this was a prefiguration of the redemption to be wrought by Christ, we can conclude that Christ’s coming as man was precisely to free man from the slavery of sin. The purpose of his coming was to abolish slavery.
Spiritual slavery can refer to the domination that man suffers at the hands of Satan due to man’s original submission to the treachery of the serpent. Original sin binds man’s free will, he is unable to do the good. St. Paul points this out and rejoices in the freedom that is afforded to the sons of men who aided by grace are freed from the yoke of Satan and can take up the yoke of Christ.
So then, there is another form of spiritual slavery! We can willingly become slaves of Jesus Christ and of his holy Mother. Indeed, many of the saints have written pacts where they have given themselves to Christ or our Lady as slaves (i.e. St Louis de Montfort)!
To come to conclusion, it is clear from the way scripture treats slavery that it is not natural or noble and Jesus came to free us from it. What began in spiritual slavery and resulted later in physical bondage was meant to be abolished by Christ (see Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:19). But we still struggle with both.
In Christ, Fr. Flum"
I agree with him…
"Dear Rob,
Thanks for the question. These types of inquiries direct me to study things that I may not otherwise look into. This question has been in the back of my mind for some time.
Despite our initial sense that neither Jesus nor St. Paul explicitly condemned slavery, I think you will agree with the evidence that they did condemn it in their own way.
First, recall that the sin of Adam was an abuse of freedom that led him into the slavery of sin. That slavery was promptly described by God in the form of curses. These curses they brought on themselves - they were the natural consequences of their actions. Due to the disorder that they introduced into their own lives, Adam and Eve became adversaries of sorts. Among the curses, we hear that Eve will have an urge for Adam and he will “lord it over her”. No longer mutually respectful, the struggle between them threatens to subordinate woman to man in a way that offends her dignity. This subordination is not the natural subordination that God intended between Adam (the “head”) and his wife, but rather a subordination that reduced Eve to the level of property.
Slavery is the treatment of one person as less valuable or of lower natural dignity than another, usually for personal profit. So, we see that slavery was being described by God as he announced the curses that they would suffer due to their sins. They would each seek to get out of the other what they wanted instead of working along the lines of the complimentarity that God intended when he made them male and female.
The identification of sin with slavery occurs early in scripture with Noah (see Gen 9:25).
Also, note that the great prefiguration of man’s redemption in the Old Testament is the flight from Egypt through the Red Sea. The Jews were being freed from their slavery in Egypt. Certainly what they suffered at the hands of the Egyptians was terrible and scripture describes it as such. Here we can see explicit condemnation of the treatment of men and women in slavery. Since this was a prefiguration of the redemption to be wrought by Christ, we can conclude that Christ’s coming as man was precisely to free man from the slavery of sin. The purpose of his coming was to abolish slavery.
Spiritual slavery can refer to the domination that man suffers at the hands of Satan due to man’s original submission to the treachery of the serpent. Original sin binds man’s free will, he is unable to do the good. St. Paul points this out and rejoices in the freedom that is afforded to the sons of men who aided by grace are freed from the yoke of Satan and can take up the yoke of Christ.
So then, there is another form of spiritual slavery! We can willingly become slaves of Jesus Christ and of his holy Mother. Indeed, many of the saints have written pacts where they have given themselves to Christ or our Lady as slaves (i.e. St Louis de Montfort)!
To come to conclusion, it is clear from the way scripture treats slavery that it is not natural or noble and Jesus came to free us from it. What began in spiritual slavery and resulted later in physical bondage was meant to be abolished by Christ (see Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:19). But we still struggle with both.
In Christ, Fr. Flum"
I agree with him…
D
De_Maria
Guest
Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. I would like to focus on this statement:
…and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons…
This seems to confirm my contention that there are several forms of servitude that have been grouped under the word “slavery”. Many of these forms are legitimate and do not contradict God’s Word or Will. Forms of servitude imposed as punishment after due process is followed such as imprisonment, penal labor, or simply some Royal proclamation. And voluntary forms such as indentured servitude (out of which I believe our modern day employment has evolved), priesthood and diaconate (slavery to God), consecration to Mary and other forms of Spiritual slavery, as well as even the adoption of orphans.
Sincerely,
De Maria
K
Kurt_G
Guest
Concerning the 1866 quote from the Holy Office, in which the Church appears to be “pro-slavery”, I did find some interesting rebuttals to the popular use of that quote against the Church…highlights below are from this site:
dustinthelight.timshelarts.com/archives/00001915.htm
A fellow named Sullivan, in hammering the Church with this quote, appears to make the following “selective” mistake:
The subject of the Letter, “servitus”, in being translated as “slavery”, and being immediately after the American Civil War, leads the reader to identify the Letter’s subject as racial slavery (American style). That is an incorrect assumption. Racial slavery was NOT addressed in this Letter, but rather 3 other forms of “servitus”, more accurately translated as “servitude”, not slavery. Although anti-Church sites will not mention this in their quotes, the Letter is actually concerned with moral implications of:
(1) penal servitude;
(2) indentured servitude; and
(3) the servitude of prisoners captured in just wars.
It appears that the American slavery issue was perhaps the catalyst which gave rise to the 1866 discussion of the more general “servitude issue”. But it also appears that “racial slavery, American style” is already hammered by the Church for centuries, and is not the subject of the debate or the Letter. In support of that contention, I would offer this:
The Letter itself supports previous Church condemnations of immoral versions of servitude, such as racial slavery:
**"…the Roman Pontiffs have left nothing untried by which servitude be everywhere abolished among the nations"…“it is especially due to them *, that already for many ages no slaves are held among very many Christian peoples.” ***
(Instructio Number 1293: Found in Collectanea, Vol. 1, pp. 715-720.)
That is another quote from the same infamous Letter of the Holy Office / 1866… kind of puts the Church in a different light doesn’t it?
When I first started looking at this whole slavery issue (when challenged by non-Catholic friends) I was somewhat fearful of what I might find. After a couple of years of this, I am no longer fearful. In fact, the Popes, in particular, come through this sounding like they are speaking for Jesus Christ, over and over. Now the rest of the Church might definitely be on the wrong side of the fence from time to time. But that comes from ignoring or disobeying a Pope, not from listening to him.
So I’ll say it again:
“The more things change, the more they stay the same…”
dustinthelight.timshelarts.com/archives/00001915.htm
A fellow named Sullivan, in hammering the Church with this quote, appears to make the following “selective” mistake:
The subject of the Letter, “servitus”, in being translated as “slavery”, and being immediately after the American Civil War, leads the reader to identify the Letter’s subject as racial slavery (American style). That is an incorrect assumption. Racial slavery was NOT addressed in this Letter, but rather 3 other forms of “servitus”, more accurately translated as “servitude”, not slavery. Although anti-Church sites will not mention this in their quotes, the Letter is actually concerned with moral implications of:
(1) penal servitude;
(2) indentured servitude; and
(3) the servitude of prisoners captured in just wars.
It appears that the American slavery issue was perhaps the catalyst which gave rise to the 1866 discussion of the more general “servitude issue”. But it also appears that “racial slavery, American style” is already hammered by the Church for centuries, and is not the subject of the debate or the Letter. In support of that contention, I would offer this:
The Letter itself supports previous Church condemnations of immoral versions of servitude, such as racial slavery:
**"…the Roman Pontiffs have left nothing untried by which servitude be everywhere abolished among the nations"…“it is especially due to them *, that already for many ages no slaves are held among very many Christian peoples.” ***
(Instructio Number 1293: Found in Collectanea, Vol. 1, pp. 715-720.)
That is another quote from the same infamous Letter of the Holy Office / 1866… kind of puts the Church in a different light doesn’t it?
When I first started looking at this whole slavery issue (when challenged by non-Catholic friends) I was somewhat fearful of what I might find. After a couple of years of this, I am no longer fearful. In fact, the Popes, in particular, come through this sounding like they are speaking for Jesus Christ, over and over. Now the rest of the Church might definitely be on the wrong side of the fence from time to time. But that comes from ignoring or disobeying a Pope, not from listening to him.
So I’ll say it again:
“The more things change, the more they stay the same…”
D
De_Maria
Guest
Kurt G.:
G
Genesis315
Guest
De Maria:
When Christ or St. Paul tells servants to obey their masters, it’s like telling employees to obey their bosses. Back in Biblical times, salary based employment was quite rare.
R
RobbyS
Guest
Kind of off the track, but it might be useful to know that by the end of the Middle Ages even serfdom had been abolished in England. But indentured servitude was legal and many of the people who settled Virginian were white servants. In 1619 black Africans were bought into Virginia as servants. In the 1660s Virginia reduced the Africans to slavery. This was a regression. It was not until the 1770s until the English courts ruled definitively that slavery was contrary to the Common law. This put pressure on Virginia, and it was pointed out by such Tories as Dr. Johnson that the Americans who yelled the loudest for liberty were the drivers of slaves.At the outbreak of war, the English governor sought to free the slaves in oder to gain suppoprt against the rebels. George Mason and his close friend George Washington were both opposed to the institution and at the Constitutional Convention Mason sought to get it abolished, only to be thwarted by the Deep South States.
- Status