The Bible, the Catholic Church, Indentured Servitude, and Peonage

[abenassi]

I was watching a show on PBS last night about slavery in the deep south, and what happened in its aftermath, and the great rage in the United States against peonage.

Basically, to sum up, in the late 1800s/early 1900s, after slavery was abolished, there was still effective slavery in the south, with all sorts of trumped up charges causing many former slaves to be unjustly incarcerated and then forced into labor for the government and private individuals.

At about the same time, New Mexico became a state, and in an effort to rout out the practice of Latin Americans of peonage, the government enacted laws outlawing peonage, which in my very limited understanding is similar to or the same as indentured servitude.

In my also very limited understanding, the slaves that Paul refers to in 1 Tim. 6, for example, are not slaves similar to those who were stolen from their homes and treated as property in the United States, but rather slaves in the sense that they were indentured servants.

So my question is this: what is the Catholic Church’s stance on indentured servitude? Is indentured servitude the same as peonage? And would the type of peonage that was practiced in the deep south be considered something biblical that Paul wrote about?

Thanks for your insight.

Andre

 

[Spider42]

Church history regarding slavery is mixed. By St. Augustine it was voiced that slavery had some incompatibilities with the natural law, but it seemed to be accepted that it was an inevitable by product of human societies.

We do have some unfortunate examples, like St. Thomas Aquinas’ take on slavery and Pope Paul III, but most Church theological writing from the 6th to 12th century is pretty enlightened regarding slavery.

From a papal authority point of view, the Church became strongly anti-slavery by the end of the 18th century. This went farthest with Pope Gregory XVI in “In Supremo Apostolatus” issued in 1839. This was strongly reaffirmed by Pope Pius IX in 1866 and became dogmatic teaching with the Second Vatican Council (Gaudium et spes).

The Church now places slavery under the 7th commandment as forbidden, mortal sin (CCC 2414).

The Second Vatican Council is important in that it also rejects “modern forms of slavery”, which includes most forms of extreme economic exploitation. This would include peon type indentured servitude, but also includes things like exploitive guest worker programs, drug addiction, and prostitution.

The Church has been giving this a lot of weight in the last two decades. For example, it is highlighted as a “moral [principle] that [does] not admit of exception, compromise or derogation” for Catholics in voting:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html (see #4)

And given special weight in sacramental worthiness in Sacramentum Caritatis:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html (see “Eucharistic Consistency”)

I hope that at least partially answers your question.

Pax Christi

Edit: For an example of how modern forms of slavery overlap other teachings, see CCC 2355)

 

[abenassi]

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, spider! It is an interesting topic to ponder, and I appreciate your help.

 

[Genesis315]

I thought Pope Paul III condemned slavery?

papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm

Generally, what the Church is against is “chattel slavery,” where people are treated as essentially animals. Voluntary servitude is obviously not a problem, and neither are other kinds of just involuntary servitude–like prison labor or “community service” as a punishment for a crime, or servitude as a means to pay off a just debt, etc…

 

[Spider42]

I thought Pope Paul III condemned slavery?

Sublimus Dei, though later annulled, was a landmark statement in the basic human rights of native peoples, specifically “Indians” in this case. But Paul III’s record on slavery is pretty negative.

For example, in 1545 he repealed the law allowing slaves to claim their freedom under the emporer’s statue. In the same decree he affirmed that Christians could also be enslaved. In 1548 he decreed that Muslim slaves could be purchased and possessed in Papal lands. He also affirmed, by declaration, the right to own and sell slaves, including Christian slaves, in Rome.

It’s also worth noting that Sublimus Dei, which is actually in multiple parts, addressed only indiginous people living in North America. It did not address the Spanish slave trade out of Africa, in which Rome was financially involved at the time.

Generally, what the Church is against is “chattel slavery,” where people are treated as essentially animals. Voluntary servitude is obviously not a problem, and neither are other kinds of just involuntary servitude–like prison labor or “community service” as a punishment for a crime, or servitude as a means to pay off a just debt, etc…

I’m sorry, I really can’t agree with this assessment. There are some, narrow, licit forms of involutnary servitude, but both Pope Benedict XVI and Blessed John Paul have written extensively about this as a moral pitfall. Noting that even agreement between the parties involved does not make situations licit because of the imbalance of socioeconomic power in many instances. This is also in the Universal Catechism.

CCC 2409 places unjust compensation for work under the 7th Commandment and CCC 2434 elaborates:

A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice. In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. “Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good.” Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.

Emphasis in original. The passage cites both Holy Scripture and Gaudiem et spes, the Pastoral Constiution of the Church.

Peace

 

[Genesis315]

That is a good point I didn’t consider, that not all “voluntary servitude” is morally voluntary. I can work for free and it be morally voluntary (it’s called volunteering), but other circumstances might make work for an unjust wage not morally voluntary, due to certain pressures and constraints.

It seems difficult to establish a universal bright line between what is ok and what is not–it seems certain cases are obvious one way or the other, but there does seem to be a lot of gray area in the middle, even given the established principles.

For example, it’s also not always wrong to buy, sell, or trade service contracts to which a particular person may be bound (to use a lighter obvious example, professional sports teams do this all the time). Likewise, as has been mentioned, involuntary servitude is sometimes ok, such as I mentioned, community service requirements for offenders, which could be classified as slavery to the state, but which is morally acceptible.