Slavery

[kfarose2585]

Until somewhat recently, the Catholic Church supported (or at least, was not against) the institution of slavery. Since the Church seems to base all present decisions on guidelines from the past, how was it that this doctrine was changed? I am certainly glad that it did; I’m just wondering how and why the Church switched sides.

 

[Cephas]

Can u give specific references to check…?

Interrestingly enough though, we see that in the book of Exodus, when God asks Moses to tell Pharoah to let his people go… He is not asking that they be released from their physical slavery…no…just let them go for 3 day to worship me then they will be back…" God was more concerned about they spiritual slavery than their physical one…

Also, in a one or two of pauls letters.(maybe philemon) he writes to a Christian who has a christian slave…whats that all about…?

But as far as i know, the Church never had a “doctrine” that supported slavery…

 

[Vincent]

Christianity Today (yes, the Evangelical Protestant magazine!) came to the Church’s defense in “The Truth About the Catholic Church and Slavery.”

 

[jmm08]

Vincent:

Christianity Today (yes, the Evangelical Protestant magazine!) came to the Church’s defense in “The Truth About the Catholic Church and Slavery.”

Vincent: thank you so much for that link!

 

[RBushlow]

kfarose2585:

Until somewhat recently, the Catholic Church supported . . the institution of slavery.

If I state that the Quakers engage in slave trade, does that make it so? Don’t make statements like this without backing them up. It is dishonest and unjust. Please provide some evidence that what you stated is not entirely groundless.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

<< Please provide some evidence that what you stated is not entirely groundless.>>

Thank you, RBushlow. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Kfarose, I am NOT attempting to accuse you of anything other than uncritical acceptance of statements–something of which we are ALL guilty of at one time or another. That said. . .

Just WHERE did you get, “Until somewhat recently, the Catholic Church supported (or at least, was not against) the institution of slavery. Since the Church seems to base all present decisions on guidelines from the past, how was it that this doctrine was changed? I am certainly glad that it did; I’m just wondering how and why the Church switched sides.”>>?? The DaVinci Code??

Seriously, what authoritative scholarly journal posted this? What experts back it up? Where are the primary sources? What is the consensus? Who, what, where, when, how and why was this “scholarship” done?

I mean, come on now.
Where’s the source? Where’s the indictment of the Orthodox, the Baptists, Episcopalians and other Protestant sects? Everybody KNOWS that THEY (until <>???) supported (or at least were not against) the institution of slavery.

And just what Protestant denominations don’t base THEIR present decisions on the BIBLE–A “guideline from the past”?? What about THIS?

Show me the documentation that SLAVERY was a DOCTRINE of the Catholic Church–or of ANY CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

In fact, show me any–any–ANY culture, philosophy, belief system, society from the earliest proto-humans to the 19th century that did NOT practice, support, or at least “NOT OPPOSE” slavery in one way, shape or form. Slavery is complex and multifactorial. Slavery doesn’t just mean “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” in 1860 or the U.S. war.

A woman, black or white, can vote in the U.S. today. She was no LESS a woman 100 years ago when she could NOT vote.

A slave of 200 years ago was no less a person than a man or woman today. S/he didn’t somehow “develop” into a person because laws were passed. PERCEPTIONS changed.

2000 years ago, KINGS ruled. Few monarchs exist today, and those who do have nowhere near the “absolute power” that kings, even petty kings, had over “their subjects”.

Please try to remember that you cannot force 21st century mores and culture onto 19th, 18th, 10th, 5th, or 3rd century B.C. people!!

 

[jmm08]

Tantum ergo:

A woman, black or white, can vote in the U.S. today.

Just because a Black woman can vote does not mean that democracy is working well for her. Democracy works for Blacks only if they think it is working. If a great number of Blacks think that they are disenfranchised and therefore they do not vote, their perceptions threaten our democracy. Because for a democracy to work, all peoples need to have faith in it that it is working fairly. A functional democracy requires people to vote and it requires people who think they have a vote (not disenfranchised). In many elections, there are two white guys to choose from. So what if a Black woman has a vote. She says to herself big deal. If she thinks there are always two white guys to choose between (and that politicians are mostly liars), why bother to vote?

If you don’t like what I said in the above paragraph, take it up with the US Supreme Court. I learned that logic while watching a Supreme Court justice on C-SPAN explain this year’s court decision to leave reverse-discrimination alone for now. I was not in favor of reverse-discrimination, but the justice’s legal argument on C-SPAN convinced me that it was a just decision. Because the primary duty of the US Supreme Court is to uphold the US Constitution. And the US Constitution is in danger if a significant or substantial portion of the population do not think it works for them (if they think they are disenfranchised).

I think the US Bishops should review the logic considered by the US Supreme Court. Because the American Catholic Church is similarly injured if a substantial portion of the population (Blacks) do not think it is their Church. I have first-hand knowledge that many poor Blacks in Florida’s public housing projects (in the late 1980’s) did not consider at all that the American Catholic Church was in any way their Church. I very deeply regret it.

I am so glad that this thread is here – even if it seemed to start on the wrong foot. Because of the link Vincent gave me. And because if my beautiful Black wife brings it up, I will show it to her. Because I am signed up for RCIA and otherwise we both belong to a predominantly Black Baptist Church.

 

[fix]

She says to herself big deal. If she thinks there are always two white guys to choose between (and that politicians are mostly liars), why bother to vote?

That appears to very a very condescending view of black females.

If you don’t like what I said in the above paragraph, take it up with the US Supreme Court.

The same folks who gave us abortion on demand?

And the US Constitution is in danger if a significant or substantial portion of the population do not think it works for them (if they think they are disenfranchised).

We are more in danger of activist judges usurping God’s authority and the people’s will.

Because the American Catholic Church is similarly injured if a substantial portion of the population (Blacks) do not think it is their Church.

What is the American Catholic Church? Do you mean the Catholic Church in America?

I have first-hand knowledge that many poor Blacks in Florida’s public housing projects (in the late 1980’s) did not consider at all that the American Catholic Church was in any way their Church. I very deeply regret it.

Why do you think they do not accept the Church as they should?

Because I am signed up for RCIA and otherwise we both belong to a predominantly Black Baptist Church.

Congrats to you and your wife. I hope your RCIA is orthodox and inspires you to learn more about the Church.

 

[kfarose2585]

Woah! I didn’t think I’d get such a strong response, though I do appreciate the clarification. I really wasn’t trying to be dishonest or unjust. I will concede that I hadn’t done much research on this matter, which was actually why I had posted the thread. Thank you Vincent for the link, and thank you jmm for changing the subject. I’m a bit embarrassed at my ignorance, and rightfully so.

In my defense: I am not one to accept everything that I hear, but believe it or not, I learned about “the slavery issue” AT CHURCH. Yep, at Parish School of Religion, PSR, catechism, confirmation class, whatever you’d like to call it. Although that was a few years ago, I made notes and tucked them away for later review. Perhaps I misunderstood something, or maybe I just had a really uninformed or biased teacher. Regardless, I am glad to learn the truth. For years I had thought that the Christian Church as a whole (more specifically the Catholic Church) actually promoted slavery.

Of course I acknowledge that attitudes change with time; I just know that the Church tends to look at what it did in the past to determine what should be done in the future. Hence my confusion as to why something like slavery could go from being okay to morally wrong in the Church’s eye.

But enough on this; I probably deserved the virtual smackdown that I got, and I’m afraid that if I keep talking about this, I’ll just be begging for another.

 

[Sherlock]

I will only add that I believe Aquinas wrote against slavery—at least that is my recollection.

 

[jmm08]

Sherlock:

I will only add that I believe Aquinas wrote against slavery—at least that is my recollection.

Yes, read Vincent’s link.

Sadly, there were many Christians who quoted the Bible as part of their support for slavery.

See anointedlinks.com/amazing_grace.html
Even the writer of “Amazing Grace” – John Newton was not against slavery. Perhaps later he was, but I don’t know.

“John Newton ultimately became captain of his own ship, one which plied the slave trade.”
…
“He continued in the slave trade for a time after his conversion; however, he saw to it that the slaves under his care were treated humanely.” Honestly, I do suppose that some would have rather been humanely tossed overboard than to reach their destination.

fix: How often would you vote if the only candidates were Black or Hispanic women, who represented opinions and interests that weren’t even close to how you feel?

It is sad but true. The US Supreme Court often has very good thinking. And if Catholics are blind to their thinking because they dwell on Roe vs. Wade, that is another tragedy. In a way, you also prove their point. If Catholics feel greatly disenfranchised from Justice because of Roe vs. Wade, this too can become a threat to our US Constitution.

It is much better to dwell on and to think about the good in others. Instead of dwelling on and thinking about the bad. Too bad if fix and many others have lost their ability to respect the US Supreme Court.

“American Catholic Church” or “Catholic Church in America”. I’m too new to know the proper terminology. I guess I thought the Catholic Church was segmented into separate legal identities (perhaps for legal reasons).

Fix: I don’t know why, but I have first-hand knowledge that Blacks living in public housing projects in Florida (the ones I often went to during the late 1980s) did not think of the Catholic Church as being an institution that supported them or belonged to them. They had “their own” Black Churches. And I think they only felt welcome in their own Churches. I wasn’t Catholic at the time, so I didn’t try to find out why they felt that way.

With some of the larger public housing projects in Tampa Florida, I was unaware of any public rest room within a mile. Even though Florida State Law required public businesses to make available rest rooms for public use. If any nearby business did have a public rest room, I guess they got tired of cleaning up the mess. That is only one practical example of how people in public housing projects feel unwelcome by society. If you ever lived in a public housing project, you would know more about it. For example, you would know to dress your best “on the outside” and to never tell anyone where you live (because you would be so greatly ashamed).

 

[fix]

It is sad but true. The US Supreme Court often has very good thinking. And if Catholics are blind to their thinking because they dwell on Roe vs. Wade, that is another tragedy.

Dwell? These folks will not overturn an unjust law that costs millions of lives each year. We need good men and women on the court. Not those who devalue life.

In a way, you also prove their point. If Catholics feel greatly disenfranchised from Justice because of Roe vs. Wade, this too can become a threat to our US Constitution.

They overstep their authority. They were never meant to make law. The power has swung too far in their direction. With God’s help that will be corrected.

It is much better to dwell on and to think about the good in others. Instead of dwelling on and thinking about the bad. Too bad if fix and many others have lost their ability to respect the US Supreme Court.

What does that even mean or have to do with your argument? Will thinking good thoughts about Justices that allow and endorse murder correct the situation? I have lost repect and the justices that allow murder do not deserve respect.

“American Catholic Church” or “Catholic Church in America”. I’m too new to know the proper terminology. I guess I thought the Catholic Church was segmented into separate legal identities (perhaps for legal reasons).

The term American Catholic Church usually denotes dissent. There is only one Catholic Church. It is in every country. The Catholic Church in America, Canada, France, etc.

With some of the larger public housing projects in Tampa Florida, I was unaware of any public rest room within a mile. Even though Florida State Law required public businesses to make available rest rooms for public use. If any nearby business did have a public rest room, I guess they got tired of cleaning up the mess. That is only one practical example of how people in public housing projects feel unwelcome by society. If you ever lived in a public housing project, you would know more about it. For example, you would know to dress your best “on the outside” and to never tell anyone where you live (because you would be so greatly ashamed).

Allowing others to live like that is a scandal. We should work to change that and all injustice. Unfortunately, I do not have all the answers. My own feeling is that if we are to change society and all its ills we need to first reform ourselves. If we eached worked toward personal holiness, we would help each other more, rather than rely of public institutions. Personal holiness leads us away from sins that often lead to poverty. Sex outside of marriage, fornication, single parent families, etc all play a role in poverty. They are not the only reason, but certainly play a signoficant role.

 

[kfarose2585]

Perhaps we need to release ourselves from the slavery that is our sins (sorry, I couldn’t resist tying it back into the original subject of the thread, which was slavery–not necessarily racism). We ought to love those immoral politicians, and care for those people living in sub-standard housing. But love of others starts with love of God and love of self.

I think we have been sucked into a culture of individualism and greed. Back in the 1950s, people were more involved in their communities and premarital sex, divorce, and broken families were far from the norm. My sociology class blamed television for the negative changes in community involvement and family values. What do you guys think is enslaving us most? Why?

 

[jmm08]

fix:

Dwell? These folks will not overturn an unjust law that costs millions of lives each year. We need good men and women on the court. Not those who devalue life.

When possible, I watch Supreme Court justices when they are on C-SPAN (it isn’t often).

They only try cases that are brought before them. I don’t think they are able to review or over-turn previous cases on their own without having an actual related case before them – thus giving them the opportunity.

And they are constrained in what they can say in public. Because something they say might be used to show they had partiality should a related case come up later. They also show great restraint during “State of the Union” messages, etc.

And when somebody is nominated for the court, much of what they wrote is examined to see what they think.

To some extent, US Supreme Court justices have died to self so that justice may be served.

I too greatly lament the Rove vs. Wade. Abortion and Birth Control have proportionately had a much greater impact on minorities. See my thread “A secret war against the poor” on page 3 of “Miscellaneous”. I think “A secret war against the poor” is a very important topic, but the thread got very little attention.

 

[fix]

jmm08:

When possible, I watch Supreme Court justices when they are on C-SPAN (it isn’t often).

They only try cases that are brought before them. I don’t think they are able to review or over-turn previous cases on their own without having an actual related case before them – thus giving them the opportunity.

And they are constrained in what they can say in public. Because something they say might be used to show they had partiality should a related case come up later. They also show great restraint during “State of the Union” messages, etc.

And when somebody is nominated for the court, much of what they wrote is examined to see what they think.

To some extent, US Supreme Court justices have died to self so that justice may be served.

I too greatly lament the Rove vs. Wade. Abortion and Birth Control have proportionately had a much greater impact on minorities. See my thread “A secret war against the poor” on page 3 of “Miscellaneous”. I think “A secret war against the poor” is a very important topic, but the thread got very little attention.

I am no legal scholar, but I know the court has had cases they could review and chose not to. There are 2 or 3 Justices that are agianst Roe, the others support it. It is a moot point. If Bush has the chance to replace justices, he could swing the court and someone will get Roe before the court again.

 

[Kecharitomene]

fix:

I am no legal scholar, but I know the court has had cases they could review and chose not to. There are 2 or 3 Justices that are agianst Roe, the others support it. It is a moot point. If Bush has the chance to replace justices, he could swing the court and someone will get Roe before the court again.

I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for this. Besides, it would be only in the U.S. which is not engaging in the fullness of the travesty as is our great trade partner, China. I don’t expect anyone to forfit a prepetual re-election mantre for any purpose. If they did, would it require a revision of the maximum penalties for either having the procedure done/ or performing the procedure?

The max penalty prior to 1973, in any state, by law, was 10 years imprisionment. Thats hardly viewing such as “murder” and is barely the sentence of a felony conviction. Also, who is the cupable parties in these matters? The woman, the physician, or even the parents/gardian of the woman, or just the sperm donor himself? If we are going to persist in our conviciton that this is no different than murder in the first degree, then all parties associated with it should recieve either life imprisionment, or capital punishment; RIGHT?

“She’s 14 and on death row. Her boyfriend denied any knowledge of her decision and has been exhonorated.”

 

[fix]

The max penalty prior to 1973, in any state, by law, was 10 years imprisionment. Thats hardly viewing such as “murder” and is barely the sentence of a felony conviction.

Penalties can be debated and determined as they are for any crime.

Also, who is the cupable parties in these matters? The woman, the physician, or even the parents/gardian of the woman, or just the sperm donor himself?

Fair questions, but not impossible to answer. Certainly the physician is culpable, the woman is culpable depending on her mental state. The others would be culpable depending on their degree of involvement.

If we are going to persist in our conviciton that this is no different than murder in the first degree, then all parties associated with it should recieve either life imprisionment, or capital punishment; RIGHT?

It is murder. The degree may be determined by law. Why is it hard for people to accept that? We soft soap it because to accept the truth hurts too much.

 

[Kecharitomene]

fix:

Penalties can be debated and determined as they are for any crime.

Ok, now you already stated that this isn’t ANY crime, this is MURDER. The penalties in any state for this charge are quite consistent. The prior Roe v. Wade penalties speak as a testament that those states whom had such laws, did not view the act as equivelant to murder. I don’t know all of the legalistic B.S. but it seems rather logical that the judiciary implement reasonable punishments in respect for the specific crime in question. When it comes to the taking of a life (murder) is there any case history of a person being convicted and not sentenced to greater than 10 years? Has anyone ever just got 5 years and probation for murder?

 

[fix]

Kecharitomene:

fix:

Penalties can be debated and determined as they are for any crime.

Ok, now you already stated that this isn’t ANY crime, this is MURDER. The penalties in any state for this charge are quite consistent. The prior Roe v. Wade penalties speak as a testament that those states whom had such laws, did not view the act as equivelant to murder. I don’t know all of the legalistic B.S. but it seems rather logical that the judiciary implement reasonable punishments in respect for the specific crime in question. When it comes to the taking of a life (murder) is there any case history of a person being convicted and not sentenced to greater than 10 years? Has anyone ever just got 5 years and probation for murder?

I do not get your point? Are you saying that because an intrinsic evil is not penalized as other evils that makes it less evil?

The state has the legitimate authority to make just laws and define punishment. How does any of that lessen that abortion is murder?

 

[Kecharitomene]

It doesn’t lessen the offense, but it stands as a testimony that no state has ever regarded such a matter as equal to murder by virture of the penality attributed to the conviction. In the eyes of the pre 1973 states, this offense was on the same level as auto theft or forgery.

How do you not get it? Its so simple. Neither this nation or any other nation at the present time has ever believed that the offense was equivelant to murder either in the commission of the act, the conviction (it has never required a grand jury), nor by the penalties laid out. This is where we stand regarding secular societies. Only the Church recognizes the gravity of this matter and thus the battle must be waged on the terms that the Church can address.

There is much to do to eliminate this problem. Those who resort to violence against the providers as well provoke me to violence against themselves for being so hypocritical in thier endeavors.