Under the empire why did the church anathemize escaped slaves?

[Charlemagne_III]

I think christianity was corrupted the minute it unified with state. Medieval spirituality I think went through the most degeneration.

I think maybe you were corrupted the minute you started reading Wikipedia.

 

[QuestLove]

But I think this goes to ‘Gods ways are not our ways’ statement, we consider slavery to be a bad thing, in any form, but to God, maybe it is not.

I mean, to this day, slavery is alive and well, and probably happening in most well to do suburban neighborhoods all over the US, its strange to think that in 2015, we really have not come that far from the 1800s.

I cringe whenever I hear this justification for slavery because it has turned so many people off from christianity. If I ever believed for one moment that the ever-loving God could consider slavery a good thing, I don’t think I would even want to be a christian.

Most of you respondents to this topic are making a serious mistake in that you are judging historical events my modern social standards.
In judging historic social conditions, one must consider them only by the standards in effect at that time.
We recognize today that slavery was a serious wrong. That is because Western society has progressed from the time that slavery existed.
Slavery was not considered wrong by the majority of people in the Northern States of the US, until just before the America Civil War.
The idea that slaves were routinely maltreated is false. In 1860 the average price of a healthy male slave was over $1,000,00—and at the same time a skilled artisan, like a cabinet maker earned about $5.00 for a 70 hour work week.

You are correct that that we are using today’s standards to judge others in historical times. But now that we know better does not mean we should justify the evil actions of christians in the past. There is a reason we condemn slavery and a reason why the church has apologised for it. It was (and is) such a horrible institution that Christians who claim that they hold the truth cannot in good conscience justify such an institution.
We have women and girls sold into slavery every day, even in 2015 and they also fetch a hefty price. But we cannot use the price that someone is sold for to mitigate the effects. Just like then, and even now, the money does not go to the slave so whether or not you fetch a high price it doesn’t matter to the slave. The master is the one who benefits, how can this be fair?

Just because we are christians does not mean we have to justify any wrong christians have done in the past. We should hold ourselves accountable and then people will trust us. If someone asks me “how can someone whose ancestors were enslaved support a religion that used scripture to justify it?” I tell them the truth. The scripture does not. Men are fallible and sometimes people use scripture to justify something they know is wrong to make themselves feel better.

 

[QuestLove]

Not in Australia, it’s not acceptable at all in academia. Very stringent rules regarding sources for academic papers.

I would like to add that wikipedia is never to be used as a source, ever. You can use it for rough reading (it is a good place to start) but you should always go to the primary source.
Although these pages are often edited by experts, many in academia, like myself, do not accept wikipedia as a source since it is open to being edited by anyone. In addition someone’s interpretation of the primary source may be flawed or biased.

 

[exnihilo]

The Church condemned the African slave trade and the enslaving of innocent people over and over again. Slavery was accepted on the assumption that it resulted from just war or some crime that the enslaved person had committed.

There are two different issues to consider. The condition of being a slave and how one gets to be in that condition. The historical condemnations seem to me to be more about enslavement.

I cringe whenever I hear this justification for slavery because it has turned so many people off from christianity. If I ever believed for one moment that the ever-loving God could consider slavery a good thing, I don’t think I would even want to be a christian.

Jesus said ‘whoever has a mind to be first among you, must be your slave’. I wouldn’t use that as a proof text that slavery is good. But how do we reconcile this notion? Why the word slave?

 

[someperson555]

Your claims about the Church’s motives and history remain unsubstantiated. We need you to provide source material in order to establish the broad brush pattern you assert. Furthermore, the so-called enlightenment was in the 17/18th century, and the Church had condemned slavery quite emphatically numerous times in history, even leading up to that time period. For example:We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands, and made captives since the time of their capture, and who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free, and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of money. If this is not done when the fifteen days have passed, they incur the sentence of excommunication by the act itself, from which they cannot be absolved, except at the point of death, even by the Holy See, or by any Spanish bishop, or by the aforementioned Ferdinand, unless they have first given freedom to these captive persons and restored their goods. We will that like sentence of excommunication be incurred by one and all who attempt to capture, sell, or subject to slavery, baptized residents of the Canary Islands, or those who are freely seeking Baptism, from which excommunication cannot be absolved except as was stated above.
(Sicut Dudum, Pope Eugene IV Against the Enslaving of Black Natives from the Canary Islands, January 13, 1435)

[T]he said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved. (Pope Paul III, Sublimus Dei, On the enslavement and evangelization of Indians, 1537)That is source material. The Church was ahead of the curve on that issue, especially when you consider the perpetuation of that very type of racial slavery that permeated Europe and the United States during the very time you praise as the “Enlightenment.”

All this leads me to deduce, right or wrong, that perhaps you have an ulterior motive for rejecting the Church. It seems rather implausible that someone should reject the 21st Century Church on the grounds that this or that Pope did not object to a nation’s “right” to wartime slave prisoners some centuries ago, as a couple other posters described without your rebuttal. I guess we can’t say, since you have not provided us with the source material for your assertions.

Thank you for this information. It is relief to know that the church did speak out against the practice on its own. Also I was really hoping that race wouldnt be dragged into this. I dont know why people are talking about race. Im appaled by the enslavement of any race.
By the way I understand and even support enslavement as a penalty for a serious crime. Im just against the ensalvement of innocent people. And I was just wondering how the church thought about that during the time of rome and the middle ages. But it is nice to see these statements.

 

[someperson555]

It’s important to remember that the papacy gave Spain and Portugal the right to engage in conquest and the taking of slaves. Engaging in the slave trade was the only way to compete in warfare with the ever advancing Muslim menace and was viewed as a cruel necessity.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6765

But then things like that make me lose faith all over again lol. Why was it necessary to authorize the monarch to enslave the people? He could have just authorized the parts about conquest but noted that the innocent people should be spared. But no. Where was the church’s concern for human dignity then?
Its like first the pope said " slavery is a great evil" but then with the next encyclical: " PSYCH"

 

[someperson555]

I think maybe you were corrupted the minute you started reading Wikipedia.

Well no actually. Ive known these things before I had access to Wikipedia. Its common knowledge actually. One need not do any extensive research.
And yes ive always had a disdain for medieval catholicism. It was when the church went through the most corruption. The early Christian fathers opposed state religion. But as soon as the church joined with the state it got involved in the states dirty dealings. After its unification with state the church seemed to rely more on authority, coercion, and force. Anything the state did ( even the atrocities) were backed up by the church as “Gods will”. Its best if church and state have no say in eachothers affairs. Unfortunately the flawed idea that human authority is ordained by God still prevails among many catholics today.

 

[mikekle]

. The Church condemned the African slave trade and the enslaving of innocent people over and over again.

Edwin

When we learned about slavery in school, I dont remember hearing anything about what the CC did in all those years to stop it, what about all the CC and other christian churches in the south from the late 1700s up to about 1950s?..what were some of their methods to stop this? (other than just making a statement condemning it, and telling people to pray about it)?

 

[QuestLove]

I see some mentioning enslavement as a penalty for a serious crime, does any form of christianity suppoprt or agree with that? Seems like that would be something any Church should be against.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I see some mentioning enslavement as a penalty for a serious crime, does any form of christianity suppoprt or agree with that? Seems like that would be something any Church should be against.

How do you feel about prisons requiring labor from inmates with little to no pay?

 

[Thorolfr]

I think maybe you were corrupted the minute you started reading Wikipedia.

A better source on this subject is the new book by Kyle Harper, Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275-425 (Cambridge University Press, 2011). This goes well into the Christian period and has a lot of quotes from early Church Fathers on slavery such as John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (349-407). In one of his sermons, he criticized members of his flock for not bringing their slaves to church. The owners, he said, should be the stewards of their slaves’ souls. In the late Roman world, certain kinds of labor were considered dishonorable, and Chrysostom said that it was permissible for Christian priests to own a few slaves in order that they should not have to do any shameful labor themselves. Whipping of slaves was common and John Chrysostom warned masters that they should not tear through the tunic when they beat their slaves and he criticized masters if their slaves bodies showed marks of their cruelty at the public baths. Augustine of Hippo claimed that “nearly all households” owned slaves.

 

[GEddie]

How do you feel about prisons requiring labor from inmates with little to no pay?

They would be discharging a “debt to the society”, would they not?

Even the Thirteenth Amendment in our Constitution, which abolished slavery, makes allowance for such.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

They would be discharging a “debt to the society”, would they not?

Even the Thirteenth Amendment in our Constitution, which abolished slavery, makes allowance for such.

ICXC NIKA

Right, but ultimately it is forced labor with little to no pay and you cannot leave.

You can dress it up as paying a debt or learning a skill or trade or anything you want but it is still an inescapable cap on freedom used for labor.

For the record I am all for penal use of free labor.

 

[St_Francis]

Right, but ultimately it is forced labor with little to no pay and you cannot leave.

You can dress it up as paying a debt or learning a skill or trade or anything you want but it is still an inescapable cap on freedom used for labor.

For the record I am all for penal use of free labor.

As an argument for penal servitude: In terms of people imprisoned as a punishment for a crime they committed, it makes sense for them to work to support themselves. Why should innocent people have to support criminals? That makes the innocent in part the slave of criminals, no?

In fact, the criminal owes a debt to the victim, to the society, and to God.

 

[St_Francis]

There are two different issues to consider. The condition of being a slave and how one gets to be in that condition. The historical condemnations seem to me to be more about enslavement.

Yes, because some forms of enslavement were wrong.

Jesus said ‘whoever has a mind to be first among you, must be your slave’. I wouldn’t use that as a proof text that slavery is good. But how do we reconcile this notion? Why the word slave?

This goes to show that there was not a lot of difference between the word slave and the word servant. In other translations, including the Doauy Rheims, the word is translated as servant rather than slave.

And if one is a leader (first), it is important that this person’s actions be bounded by the *obligations *which accompany authority. Without this, the leader becomes a bullying despot, no?

And it is from this idea expressed by Christ that the Pope gets his title: The Servant of the Servants of God.

 

[St_Francis]

But then things like that make me lose faith all over again lol. Why was it necessary to authorize the monarch to enslave the people? He could have just authorized the parts about conquest but noted that the innocent people should be spared. But no. Where was the church’s concern for human dignity then?
Its like first the pope said " slavery is a great evil" but then with the next encyclical: " PSYCH"

What does PSYCH mean?

Anyway, under the pressure of war, it is very difficult to sort out issues. But, I would also say that the permission, which was directed towards “the enemies of Christendom,” was within the context of a very vicious war against Christendom.

Obviously it is better to enslave a prisoner of war than to kill him in cold blood after he has been captured, no? Because no one really had the technology for POW camps.

You ask, what about the innocents? I assume you mean the families, etc, of those who were actually engaged in fighting. Well, what was to happen to them? If the men were taken away, they would be left defenseless and without the means to survive. Is abandoning them the right thing to do?

I would say that overall, we, in this day and age of alternative actions, condemn “slavery” generically as an intrinsic evil. Thus we have a lot of trouble with the Church’s erratic stance on slavery in the past.

What I would suggest --IOW, this is totally my own private opinion as a RSOTI–is that the Church does not teach that any and all forms of slavery are intrinsically evil as we do. IOW, *maybe we are wrong in doing so. *Instead, let’s consider that slavery is sometimes justified (POWs and debtors and their families that they not be abandoned), and that chattel slavery (the capture and enslavement of innocents) is indeed in and of itself wrong.

Slavery thus becomes a better solution for various problems than the alternatives, but wrong when it is not a more moral or less immoral alternative to a problem.

 

[Contarini]

Well no actually. Ive known these things before I had access to Wikipedia. Its common knowledge actually. One need not do any extensive research.
And yes ive always had a disdain for medieval catholicism. It was when the church went through the most corruption. The early Christian fathers opposed state religion. But as soon as the church joined with the state it got involved in the states dirty dealings. After its unification with state the church seemed to rely more on authority, coercion, and force. Anything the state did ( even the atrocities) were backed up by the church as “Gods will”. Its best if church and state have no say in eachothers affairs. Unfortunately the flawed idea that human authority is ordained by God still prevails among many catholics today.

You’re painting with a huge brush. For one thing, by your definition “medieval Catholicism” would extend from the fourth century until, roughly, the French Revolution. The High Middle Ages in the West were actually an era in which the Church stood up to the civil authorities quite regularly and tried to get them to behave more justly. Unfortunately, this involved the Church itself more directly in the business of coercion, so in the end I think it was rather like what would have happened if Gandalf had put on the Ring in LOTR. But it’s not as simple as you are making it sound.

I find it hard to believe that you can know much about medieval Catholicism and dismiss it in this way. Dante? Julian of Norwich? Aquinas? Ramon Llull? Mechthild of Magdeburg? Piers Plowman? All just swept down the drain?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

When we learned about slavery in school, I dont remember hearing anything about what the CC did in all those years to stop it

Not surprising. And I am not claiming that the efforts were strong enough or particularly effective, or indeed that the CC condemned slavery as a whole. It didn’t. But it did condemn the enslaving of innocent people.

what about all the CC and other christian churches in the south from the late 1700s up to about 1950s?..

The Pope condemned the slave trade in sweeping terms in 1839, I think it was. The condemnation seemed to imply that slavery as a whole was wrong as well, but it was vague enough about that for American bishops to be able to explain it away. American Catholics were by and large pro-slavery, or at least anti-abolition, though there were many honorable exceptions.

what were some of their methods to stop this? (other than just making a statement condemning it, and telling people to pray about it)?

The pressure the Catholic Church put on the Spanish was strong enough that Latin America never experienced the sharp racial segregation found in North America.

But again, I did not argue that the Church was particularly effective or that it tried hard enough, only that it is not true that it simply condoned and supported slavery.

After the Reformation, the Church had much less power, because it badly needed the support of Catholic monarchs (the “throne and altar alliance”). This morally compromised the Church in very serious ways. Which is not to say that the medieval Church was morally pure, by any means.

History is dark and messy. But in fact, standard American history textbooks do frequently give Catholicism some credit for the relatively better survival rate of native people in Latin America, and for the fact that those countries have shades of racial hierarchy (with much inequality and oppression) rather than the “one drop of blood makes you black” rule that predominated so long in the North. Modest achievements, to be sure.

Edwin

 

[annem]

GEddie

And I doubt very much that slavery, although it exists to this day, is anything commonplace. It has mostly been banished to the sexual industry, and probably wholly to the hidden undergrounds. Whereas in the classical past, entire economies required it, so I’m not surprised the Church didn’t do much to fight it.

In 2014 the Global Slavery Index in Australia published an overview of slavery today. India has the largest number of slaves, at FOURTEEN MILLION. Yes, no kidding, 14 million. Hinduism has never developed a moral passion for ending slavery. It was common for families with girls to sell their very little children to temples, where they worked to make money for the temple by prostitution. Today, many people who fall into debt in India end up as slaves.

But there are a lots of slaves in other countries as well, primarily Muslim countries. Some are captured Christians from Africa. Islam, of course, accepts slavery.

Only Christianity has fought slavery.

God bless, Annem

 

[annem]

Thorolfr

A better source on this subject is the new book by Kyle Harper, Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275-425

Hi, perhaps you might also want to pick up 'The Economy of Prostitution in the Roman World".

Slaves had no rights at all over their own bodies in the ancient world. One way the wealthy earned money from their child slaves was to put them to work as prostitutes in the legal brothels all over Rome. The little boys would work until their first body hair sprouted. Which should give you an idea of how popular pedophilia was at the time.

And OF COURSE Christians - no, make that early Catholics - tried to save people from this life. We have evidence of Catholics trying to buy back slaves.

Here;s a quote from Rodney Stark: “Antislavery doctrines began to appear in Christian theology soon after the decline of ROme and were accompanied by the eventual disappearance of slavery in all but the fringes of Christian Europe.”

God bless, Annem