The Bible and Slavery

  • Thread starter Thread starter NguyenKimPhat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sidbrown said:
It is true that Popes have condemned slavery, but it looks like Popes themselves held slaves and Catholic clergy held slaves.

**What you call ‘slavery’ was actually ‘serfdom’ and indentured servitude. That is quite different than holding someone in chains and forcing them to do manual labor. **

Further, it looks like at least one Pope considered slavery to be morally acceptable because according to:
the Papal Bull Romanus Pontifex (1454):

…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…
Click to expand...
There is in existence the Constitution added to the Council of Trent in 1873 by Vatican I called *Romanus Pontifex *which deal with interdicts, not slavery. I have no idea as to where you got your information from.
 
Since we’re talking about Gregory XI, let’s check the historical background:

In 1375, Florence came in open conflict with Pope Gregory XI (reign 1370-1378). The causes of this war are rooted in interrelated issues: Florentine opposition to the expansion of the Papal States in central Italy (which the Avignon Popes, of whom Gregory was one, had set as a condition for their return) and antipathy toward the Guelphs in Florence. Specifically, the city feared in the autumn of 1372 that Gregory intended to reoccupy a strip of territory near Lunigiana, which Florence had conquered from Bernabò Visconti, Lord of Milan, and that the illustrious Ubaldini family might switch from Florentine to Papal allegiance.

Gregory also harbored various grievances against Florence for their refusal to directly aid him in his war against the House of Visconti. When Gregory’s war against Milan ended in 1375, many Florentines feared that the pope would turn his military attention toward Tuscany; thus, Florence paid off Gregory XI’s main military commander, condottiero John Hawkwood (1320-1394), with 130,000 florins, extracted from local clergy, bishops, abbots, monasteries, and ecclesiastical institutions, by an eight-member committee appointed by the Signoria.

Eventually, Florence formed an alliance with Milan in July 1375, immediately prior to the outbreak of the war, and the prosecution of the war was entirely delegated to an eight-member committee appointed by the Signoria, the otto della guerra (“eight of war”). It was after this committee that this three-year period war was named: the War of the Eight Saints.

Florence incited a revolt in the Papal States in 1375. Florentine agents were sent to more than forty cities in the Papal States—including Bologna, Perugia, Orvieto, and Viterbo—to foment rebellion, many of which had only been re-submitted to papal authority by the efforts of Cardinal Gil Álvarez Carrillo de Albornoz (1310-1367). Chancellor of Florence Coluccio Salutati (1331-1406) even disseminated public letters urging the cities to rebel against the “tyrannical” and “corrupt” papal rule.

The Catholic Encyclopedia adds that many people were already restless because of Gregory’s “fatal mistake of appointing Frenchmen, who did not understand the Italians and whom the Italians hated, as legates and governors of the ecclesiastical provinces in Italy.” They only needed someone to stir them up.

Reacting to this uprising, Gregory excommunicated all members of the government of Florence and placed the city under interdict on March 31, 1376, banning religious services in Florence and legalizing the arrest and enslavement of Florentines and the confiscation of their property throughout Europe. One of the results of the ban is that Florentine merchants were hurt economically throughout Europe, particularly the Alberti bankers in Avignon, although the interdict was ignored by many, including Charles V of France.

Originally, Florentines made no effort to oppose the ban, organising extra-ecclesiastical processions (including flagellants) and confraternities, the edifice of the Florentine inquisition was destroyed and the Signoria roled back legal restrictions on usury and other practices frowned on by the now defunct ecclesiastical courts. However, on October 1377, the government of Florence forced the clergy to resume religious services causing Angelo Ricasoli, Bishop of Florence, and Neri Corsini, Bishop of Fiesole, to flee from Florentine territory. The heavy fines and confiscations issued by the Signoria on prelates who left their posts, the “most extensive liquidation of an ecclesiastical patrimony attempted anywhere in Europe before the Reformation,” may have been motivated to pay for the increasingly expensive conflict.

John Hawkwood honored his agreement with the Florentines not to make war in Tuscany, limiting himself to putting down the various rebellions within the Papal States; however, in 1377 Hawkwood abandoned Gregory entirely and joined the anti-papal coalition. Gregory XI’s other condottieri also limited their acitivities to Romagna, notably sacking Cesena in February 1377. In the spring of 1377, papal mercenaries recaptured Bologna, which up until that point had been a key Florentine ally. In 1377, Cardinal Robert of Geneva (1342-1394) led Gregory’s army in an attempt to quell the revolt, and Gregory himself returned to Italy to secure his Roman possessions under the influence of St. Catherine of Siena, de facto ending the Avignon Papacy. Gregory arrived in Rome in January 1378, after a difficult journey (including shipwreck), and died there in March 1378. The war eventually ended with a peace treaty concluded at Tivoli in July 1378, negotiated with Urban VI following Gregory’s death and with the beginning of the Western Schism (1378-1417).
 
patrick457 said:
You must understand that there is often a difference between the ‘official’ position and what people actually do. We humans have a fallen nature; many of us say and do not practice.
Of course, slavery (as defined in the period) was still a part of many societies in the Middle Ages, declining when serfdom became widespread but not completely disappearing, persisting longer in Southern and Eastern Europe.

Yes, the medieval Church did succeed in protecting the rights and well-being of slaves, and many did the best they could to help them (St. Eloi in the 7th century bought British and Saxon slaves from traders to set them free, for example), but it seems that little, if any, attempt was taken at the time to abolish the institution itself. There are various reasons for this. One was economic: slavery had been the basis of a sound economy for centuries in Rome, which declined as serfdom became popular. However, with the onset of the Black Death which killed many serfs, there was a need for more forced labor; slaves were the only answer to this.
Another reason was social. Slavery was practiced for centuries that many people just accepted it as one of those immovable facts of life - in the Middle Ages itself, many things were considered ‘immovable’; to attempt to deviate from the course that society has set would be considered exceptional and probably frowned upon. Unlike today, freedom and liberty did not mean much; there were classes, ranging from the nobility to the peasantry.
To try to abolish something so deeply entrenched in ancient society overnight was very much like waking up one day and finding out that any use of vehicles or electricity had been made illegal during the time that you slept.
Click to expand...
I think the enslavement of another person is immoral, regardless of what the customs of society are. Similarly, even though abortion is pretty widespread and legally accepted and deeply entrenched today, I would say that it is immoral. I don;t know why there were Catholic clergy and Popes who held slaves. how would the enslavement of another human being be morally justified?
 
patrick457 said:
Reacting to this uprising, Gregory excommunicated all members of the government of Florence and placed the city under interdict on March 31, 1376, banning religious services in Florence and legalizing the arrest and enslavement of Florentines and the confiscation of their property throughout Europe. .
Click to expand...
I don;t understand the morality of enslaving people for political reasons. I would not be in favor of this. I mean, if I am reading this correctly, just because you happen to live in a particular area, you and your children can be subject to enslavement? This does not seem right to me.
 
sidbrown said:
I don;t understand the morality of enslaving people for political reasons. I would not be in favor of this. I mean, if I am reading this correctly, just because you happen to live in a particular area, you and your children can be subject to enslavement? This does not seem right to me.
Click to expand...
I agree. Personally, I would make no effort to defend Pope Gregory here; his reaction to the uprising is indeed rather cruel. Excommunication and interdict were worse enough, but giving permission for looting and slavery? I guess he was blinded by his anger at this point.

I would like to say one thing however: being a priest or pope does not make you unable to sin, or unable to commit unjust acts. Not all clerics are saints, after all.
The Church did officially condemn slavery a number of times throughout Her history, but since Her members are humans with fallen natures, would you expect everyone to exactly abide with it? I could name many instances where people ignore something they are told (really, how many “don’t litter” signs in the world have been ignored?), or ordinances which take too long to achieve full effect, or people trying to find loopholes in the law.

In this world, you can’t really expect all people to be law-abiding.
 
sidbrown said:
I think the enslavement of another person is immoral, regardless of what the customs of society are. Similarly, even though abortion is pretty widespread and legally accepted and deeply entrenched today, I would say that it is immoral. I don;t know why there were Catholic clergy and Popes who held slaves. how would the enslavement of another human being be morally justified?
Click to expand...
First of all, I would recommend that we throw first our modern preconceived notions of what ‘slavery’ is out the window. Today, when we say slavery, we usually think of people being forcibly put into bondage, usually because of their race or creed, and being treated as mere objects. There is no denying that this, the so-called chattel slavery, is immoral and is unjustified.

But, in the ancient world, this is NOT the only type of slavery running around. This is why the Bible does not outright condemn it - chattel slavery is just one form; there are other types of slavery which are not inherently wrong and immoral by themselves. In the ancient world (more specifically in Mediterranean cultures), ‘slavery’ comprised a mixture of debt-slavery, slavery as a punishment for crime, and the enslavement of prisoners of war.

In one form, you could, of your own free will, choose to serve another and become a bondservant to pay off debts for a period of time - this is just-title servitude or debt-slavery. There is nothing inherently wrong with this form of slavery; after all, the decision lies on the person himself - in some cases, the person could even negotiate the period of time he will be placed in servitude!
There is also penal servitude, where condemned criminals would have to do some sort of work as a form of punishment. In fact, this type of ‘slavery’ still continues today in the form of prisoners picking up litter on the street - only it is no longer considered a form of enslavement. There is also nothing inherently wrong with this, since the criminals are atoning for their crimes through their own hands.

I will summarize my above point: Ancient slavery does not equal chattel slavery.

Avery Cardinal Dulles makes the following observations about the Catholic Church and the institution of ‘slavery’:


  1. *]For many centuries the Church was part of a slave-holding society.
    *]The popes themselves held slaves, including at times hundreds of Muslim captives to man their galleys.
    *]Throughout Christian antiquity and the Middle Ages, theologians generally followed St. Augustine in holding that although slavery was not written into the natural moral law it was not absolutely forbidden by that law.
    *]St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin were all Augustinian on this point. Although the subjection of one person to another (servitus) was not part of the primary intention of the natural law, St. Thomas taught, it was appropriate and socially useful in a world impaired by original sin.
    *]No Father or Doctor of the Church was an unqualified abolitionist.
    *]No pope or council ever made a sweeping condemnation of slavery as such.
    *]But they constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.
 
Sorry I must say something about this slavery. In the begining there was to be slaves, that is true, the animals of the earth were made to serve us. God allowed slavery (Not to be confused with what man turned slavery into).

Slavery then was for people with no homes, jobs who could not support themselfs. it was natural as humans rights would not come along for another 10.000 years. it was Gods way of trying to aid the homeless and the rich at the same time.

But man turned evil, and turned Gods act of mercy into his own right to treat people as nothing more than property. so again we broke gods heart. I hear you say that to deny parts of the bible is bad, that all of it is Gods own words.

There is alot of the bible I do not beleave. Alot of it I know to have been twisted. and crying out how slavery was allowed because God created it is exactly how men twist whats in the bible to get there own hearts desires.

“STONE THAT WOMAN TO DEATH” the croud yell “The LAW COMMANDS IT”
You are doing the things your own father does." “We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

as it was said

the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."In those days, and for some time after, giant Nephilites lived on the earth, for whenever the sons of God had intercourse with women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes and famous warriors of ancient times.The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.

The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

You see we make things bad, God made them Good. we corrupted them into evil. and accuse God of the rules man made other other man. God is love, love is god.
 
patrick457 said:
Avery Cardinal Dulles makes the following observations about the Catholic Church and the institution of ‘slavery’:


  1. *]For many centuries the Church was part of a slave-holding society.
    ]The popes themselves held slaves, including at times hundreds of Muslim captives to man their galleys.
    ]Throughout Christian antiquity and the Middle Ages, theologians generally followed St. Augustine in holding that although slavery was not written into the natural moral law it was not absolutely forbidden by that law. **
    *]St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin were all Augustinian on this point. Although the subjection of one person to another (s    ervitus    ) was not part of the primary intention of the natural law, St. Thomas taught, **it was appropriate and socially useful in a world impaired by original sin. ***]No Father or Doctor of the Church was an unqualified abolitionist.
    *]No pope or council ever made a sweeping condemnation of slavery as such.
    *]But **they constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery **and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.
Click to expand...

  1. Thanks Patrick for the Dulles quote. He had a way of stating things fully, clearly, and concisely. Miss him.
 
*Originally Posted by ***patrick457 **

Avery Cardinal Dulles makes the following observations about the Catholic Church and the institution of ‘slavery’:

1.For many centuries the Church was part of a slave-holding society.
The popes themselves held slaves, including at times hundreds of Muslim captives to man their galleys.
2.Throughout Christian antiquity and the Middle Ages, theologians generally followed St. Augustine in holding that although slavery was not written into the natural moral law it was not absolutely forbidden by that law.
3.St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin were all Augustinian on this point. 4.Although the subjection of one person to another (servitus) was not part of the primary intention of the natural law, St. Thomas taught, it was appropriate and socially useful in a world impaired by original sin.
5.No Father or Doctor of the Church was an unqualified abolitionist.
6.No pope or council ever made a sweeping condemnation of slavery as such.

But they constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.
The problem, as I personally see it, is attempting to debate an issue of history with 21st century eyes and understanding. Unless one can get into the thinking mode of various historical eras, arguing the matter becomes a moot point.
 
patrick457 said:
First of all, I would recommend that we throw first our modern preconceived notions of what ‘slavery’ is out the window. Today, when we say slavery, we usually think of people being forcibly put into bondage, usually because of their race or creed, and being treated as mere objects. There is no denying that this, the so-called chattel slavery, is immoral and is unjustified.

But, in the ancient world, this is NOT the only type of slavery running around. This is why the Bible does not outright condemn it - chattel slavery is just one form; there are other types of slavery which are not inherently wrong and immoral by themselves. In the ancient world (more specifically in Mediterranean cultures), ‘slavery’ comprised a mixture of debt-slavery, slavery as a punishment for crime, and the enslavement of prisoners of war.

In one form, you could, of your own free will, choose to serve another and become a bondservant to pay off debts for a period of time - this is just-title servitude or debt-slavery. There is nothing inherently wrong with this form of slavery; after all, the decision lies on the person himself - in some cases, the person could even negotiate the period of time he will be placed in servitude!
There is also penal servitude, where condemned criminals would have to do some sort of work as a form of punishment. In fact, this type of ‘slavery’ still continues today in the form of prisoners picking up litter on the street - only it is no longer considered a form of enslavement. There is also nothing inherently wrong with this, since the criminals are atoning for their crimes through their own hands.

I will summarize my above point: Ancient slavery does not equal chattel slavery.

Avery Cardinal Dulles makes the following observations about the Catholic Church and the institution of ‘slavery’:


  1. *]For many centuries the Church was part of a slave-holding society.
    *]The popes themselves held slaves, including at times hundreds of Muslim captives to man their galleys.
    *]Throughout Christian antiquity and the Middle Ages, theologians generally followed St. Augustine in holding that although slavery was not written into the natural moral law it was not absolutely forbidden by that law.
    *]St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin were all Augustinian on this point. Although the subjection of one person to another (servitus) was not part of the primary intention of the natural law, St. Thomas taught, it was appropriate and socially useful in a world impaired by original sin.
    *]No Father or Doctor of the Church was an unqualified abolitionist.
    *]No pope or council ever made a sweeping condemnation of slavery as such.
    *]But they constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.
Click to expand...

  1. Personally, I do not agree with the enslavement of people. Particularly with the enslavement of African women and children by white European males. I think it is immoral. Many people in our society today think that abortion is moral, but that does not make it right, even though it may be accepted by the laws of society.
 
peary1 said:
The problem, as I personally see it, is attempting to debate an issue of history with 21st century eyes and understanding. Unless one can get into the thinking mode of various historical eras, arguing the matter becomes a moot point.
Click to expand...
Correct! That is exactly my point. 🙂
40.png
sidbrown:
Personally, I do not agree with the enslavement of people. Particularly with the enslavement of African women and children by white European males. I think it is immoral. Many people in our society today think that abortion is moral, but that does not make it right, even though it may be accepted by the laws of society.
Click to expand...
I don’t see anyone debating the fact that the enslavement of Africans is immoral here. The form of slavery that many Africans experienced during the Transatlantic slave trade is indeed immoral, unjust and a violation of human rights, but everyone’s point is, in the ancient and medieval world, ‘slavery’ does not automatically equal the form of slavery employed during the Transatlantic slave trade.
And as I mentioned a post or two ago, some of the forms of ‘slavery’ running in the ancient world - say, voluntary servitude or servitude as a punishment for crimes, are not inherently immoral and unjust.
 
patrick457 said:
Correct! That is exactly my point. 🙂

I don’t see anyone debating the fact that the enslavement of Africans is immoral here. The form of slavery that many Africans experienced during the Transatlantic slave trade is indeed immoral, unjust and a violation of human rights, but everyone’s point is, in the ancient and medieval world, ‘slavery’ does not automatically equal the form of slavery employed during the Transatlantic slave trade.
And as I mentioned a post or two ago, some of the forms of ‘slavery’ running in the ancient world - say, voluntary servitude or servitude as a punishment for crimes, are not inherently immoral and unjust.
Click to expand...
Did not Christian clergy hold slaves in America?
 
sidbrown said:
Did not Christian clergy hold slaves in America?
Click to expand...
So? I’ve said this once and I shall say it again:
Being a cleric does not make you unable to sin, or unable to commit unjust acts. I would really be surprised if you believe that clergy are not able to do immoral deeds :eek:; I’ve always believed that everyone, whether they are clerics or laymen, could and do submit to temptation and commit sins. Such is life in this valley of tears.
And: In this world, you can’t really expect all people you meet to abide by the rules. You’re not going to meet saintly priests or holy laymen all of the time.

And I shall add more besides: Does the fact that people break laws make the law invalid or put it into question?
 
patrick457 said:
First of all, I

Avery Cardinal Dulles makes the following observations about the Catholic Church and the institution of ‘slavery’: … No Father or Doctor of the Church was an unqualified abolitionist.

The key word here being “unqualified”. St Patrick (c.390-461 AD) was the first person in history to call for the abolition of slavery. The ancient Fathers agree, and the Catholic Church has always taught, that the type of slavery which most people today have in mind when they use the word “slavery”, is inherently immoral.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top