Under the empire why did the church anathemize escaped slaves?

[PRmerger]

Since you profess to like the Bible, I suggest you re read John Chapter Six.

Yes.

And I suggest that someperson555 consider this: if you can’t trust the Catholic Church, then how can you trust its product, the Bible?

 

[eightydeuce82]

Perhaps not the most convenient time to point this out, but Wikipedia is fast becoming a very very serious source. Accurate or not. I encourage all who find bias or untruth in the articles to use the Channels provided to correct them.
Seriously.

Hoosier I have quite a bit of schooling and I can tell you Wikipedia is not becoming an accepted source at any institution of higher learning. If it is then you should never attend that school.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Hoosier I have quite a bit of schooling and I can tell you Wikipedia is not becoming an accepted source at any institution of higher learning. If it is then you should never attend that school.

ok.

Though not always a good idea, it is being used and is not discounted as a source in articles and writing guidelines such as this:
isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376

Using words like “extremely cautious” It does note the limits of the source. But the sheer fact that it is so widely used is cause for consideration. If nothing else it can point you to other sources (kind of like the CCC)

Wiki was not around when I was in College. But, both my wife and I are active in the scientific biotech field and do close research with top tier universities. When I peer review a scientific paper, or even when I submit one in the industry, at some level, Wikipedia is consulted, It can be cited in papers but you can bet it was used at some point to research a topic. Material from Wiki is prevalent in the industry. Not only that but if one is researching something even for casual consumption Wiki is often consulted. Because it is a compilation of information on a subject. Noticing what is and what is not credible is a skill one must learn.

And this skill is lacking in the word today. Wiki is really just as bad as the NYT. But the NYT is somehow given some credibility of journalism.
Real journalism is gone. It is dead. And falsehoods, agendas and lies are prevalent at any of the top levels of “sources” Gee, just try to research climate data!

As an example here is an article on Transubstantiation. You will not find as comprehensive a source as Wiki on this. Not even the Catholic Encyclopedia. Because Wiki even delves into what other Church’s believe about it. So it becomes somewhere you can go for a balanced view of a hard subject.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

PS

My wife’s undergrad is from a school in your fair state. Cheers!

 

[exnihilo]

I just don’t understand how the church can declare that holding hands with your girlfriend is a sin ( according to thomas Aquinas it is). Yet slavery which is the robbing of a mans Labour and a severe violation of his human dignity was even supported by the very same church.

It is not as strange as you think. Governments rob a man of his labor. They tax him, conscript him and force him to work. (If you notice in the 13th amendment to the US constitution it explicitly allows for slavery if you are convicted of a crime). Most people and even churchmen say that you should be forced to serve someone against your will if that person is in a certain class of people (Civil Rights protected classes). So forcing someone to labor is alive and well in our times. We just condemn private forms of it.

T
3) Also keep in mind that slavery in 19th century America is different that the economic systems of the past.

How so?

The Church in no way ever condoned the type of slavery we saw in the south in past centuries.

The slavery in the South was kinder than the slavery in other parts of the Americas. The slavery of the South was kinder than the slavery of the Roman Empire. In the Roman Empire a master owned the life of his slave and could kill him. That was not true in the South. The non-lethal punishment of slaves in the South was no different from punishment in the Empire. If you’ve seen The Passion you know what kind of cruelty the Romans could do. Whipping was actually a punishment the US military used even after the abolition of slavery in the US. There were more slaves in Brazil than in the South. The slave trade itself was run in large part by the Portuguese. Most slaves went to Brazil. The slavery of the South was a relatively small aspect of slavery in those days. So wether the Church condoned slavery in the South is of less importance than its relationship to slavery in other times and places.

 

[eightydeuce82]

ok.

Though not always a good idea, it is being used and is not discounted as a source in articles and writing guidelines such as this:
isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376

Using words like “extremely cautious” It does note the limits of the source. But the sheer fact that it is so widely used is cause for consideration. If nothing else it can point you to other sources (kind of like the CCC)

Wiki was not around when I was in College. But, both my wife and I are active in the scientific biotech field and do close research with top tier universities. When I peer review a scientific paper, or even when I submit one in the industry, at some level, Wikipedia is consulted, It can be cited in papers but you can bet it was used at some point to research a topic. Material from Wiki is prevalent in the industry. Not only that but if one is researching something even for casual consumption Wiki is often consulted. Because it is a compilation of information on a subject. Noticing what is and what is not credible is a skill one must learn.

And this skill is lacking in the word today. Wiki is really just as bad as the NYT. But the NYT is somehow given some credibility of journalism.
Real journalism is gone. It is dead. And falsehoods, agendas and lies are prevalent at any of the top levels of “sources” Gee, just try to research climate data!

As an example here is an article on Transubstantiation. You will not find as comprehensive a source as Wiki on this. Not even the Catholic Encyclopedia. Because Wiki even delves into what other Church’s believe about it. So it becomes somewhere you can go for a balanced view of a hard subject.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

PS

My wife’s undergrad is from a school in your fair state. Cheers!

Citing something and using it as a scholarly source is something completely different. When I wrote my thesis I used journalistic writings to convey an idea or opinion not as a solid researched fact. Had I ever done so or used Wiki or a newspaper I would have failed. I literally have never met or associated with a professor who would allow their students to use those sources as such. Can you use them sure but can you use them as a scholarly source NO.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Citing something and using it as a scholarly source is something completely different. When I wrote my thesis I used journalistic writings to convey an idea or opinion not as a solid researched fact. Had I ever done so or used Wiki or a newspaper I would have failed. I literally have never met or associated with a professor who would allow their students to use those sources as such. Can you use them sure but can you use them as a scholarly source NO.

The times, they are a changin…

 

[Elizium23]

The times, they are a changin…

Perhaps you missed/ignored the part in your link where it says “Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic research” - no ifs, ands or buts.

You don’t cite Wikipedia, period. If you’re using it in academic research, you’re extremely cautious - that doesn’t mean you’re citing it, that means you read an article for a quick overview or a refresher of the facts, or the best way, is to find a treasure trove of reliable secondary sources which are cited in the article itself. Then you go evaluate those secondary sources on their own merits and cite the good ones in your academic paper.

You simply don’t cite Wikipedia. Even WIKIPEDIA doesn’t allow citing Wikipedia - that would be absurdity! A very real and growing problem now is citogenesis, however. This is where books and magazines and newspapers that appear to be serious about fact-checking actually use Wikipedia as a source, and then Wikipedia cites those very articles as incontrovertible proof of something that never had a source before, and so on.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Perhaps you missed/ignored the part in your link where it says “Wikipedia is not a reliable source for academic research” - no ifs, ands or buts.

You don’t cite Wikipedia, period. If you’re using it in academic research, you’re extremely cautious - that doesn’t mean you’re citing it, that means you read an article for a quick overview or a refresher of the facts, or the best way, is to find a treasure trove of reliable secondary sources which are cited in the article itself. Then you go evaluate those secondary sources on their own merits and cite the good ones in your academic paper.

You simply don’t cite Wikipedia. Even WIKIPEDIA doesn’t allow citing Wikipedia - that would be absurdity! A very real and growing problem now is citogenesis, however. This is where books and magazines and newspapers that appear to be serious about fact-checking actually use Wikipedia as a source, and then Wikipedia cites those very articles as incontrovertible proof of something that never had a source before, and so on.

Hmmm

Nevertheless, when you’re doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia.

that seems like a warning but definitely has an “If” and “and” and a “but”

Of course this is on Harvard’s website. Many professors accept research done on Wikipedia. Citation may not always be accepted but sometimes it is. Is that a good idea? probably not. But if you and I were going to sit down and talk about genetically modified foods and the process in which innate genes or synthetic genes are used.I would fully expect you to “research” using Wiki.
Same holds true for the article on Transubstantiation I linked. If you wish to research this issue, Wiki provides probably the most comprehensive and balanced view. Why do you think that is?

Regardless if academia should use Wiki as a source. It is starting to. And certainly we have to recognize that Wiki is a source that people use, accurate or not on a certain subject. So just saying Wiki is your source? Naw, base your faith on what I type on CAF" is not really helpful now is it?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

All this talking about Wiki and nobody has challenged anything in the article the OP links to…

 

[GEddie]

It is not as strange as you think. Governments rob a man of his labor. They tax him, conscript him and force him to work. (If you notice in the 13th amendment to the US constitution it explicitly allows for slavery if you are convicted of a crime). Most people and even churchmen say that you should be forced to serve someone against your will if that person is in a certain class of people (Civil Rights protected classes). So forcing someone to labor is alive and well in our times. We just condemn private forms of it.

How so?

The slavery in the South was kinder than the slavery in other parts of the Americas. The slavery of the South was kinder than the slavery of the Roman Empire. In the Roman Empire a master owned the life of his slave and could kill him. That was not true in the South. The non-lethal punishment of slaves in the South was no different from punishment in the Empire. If you’ve seen The Passion you know what kind of cruelty the Romans could do. Whipping was actually a punishment the US military used even after the abolition of slavery in the US. There were more slaves in Brazil than in the South. The slave trade itself was run in large part by the Portuguese. Most slaves went to Brazil. The slavery of the South was a relatively small aspect of slavery in those days. So wether the Church condoned slavery in the South is of less importance than its relationship to slavery in other times and places.

Southern slaveholders did not normally kill their slaves. Slaves were valuable property there and then. That doesn’t make Southern slavery “kind.”

The American Old South was overwhelmingly non-Catholic, however, so the Church had very little influence over it, just as the nascent and persecuted Church had none over Roman slavery.

ICXC NIKA

ICXC NIKA

 

[exnihilo]

The American Old South was overwhelmingly non-Catholic, however, so the Church had very little influence over it, just as the nascent and persecuted Church had none over Roman slavery.

But the Catholic Church did have influence over the Portugese, the biggest slavers. And they did have influence over Brazil, the biggest destination for slaves. The American South was a minor participant in slavery.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The American Old South was overwhelmingly non-Catholic, however, so the Church had very little influence over it, just as the nascent and persecuted Church had none over Roman slavery.

ICXC NIKA

ICXC NIKA

Ironically I used Wiki to search some terms I was unfamiliar with. Old South:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_South

Which incidentally does not include Louisiana. A french Catholic colony.

But they I remembered vaguely this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Noir

It would seem the Catholics as well had a viable slave market.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

This is not true anymore. While Wiki has problems it is being used and accepted as a source at academic levels. And no, the articles cannot be written by just anyone. And there is a process to challenge things in it.

That being said, it has a bias. Sometimes that bias is on your side and sometimes it is not. But honestly any form of media these days now have bias. The problem and solution is that we need to do a better job of teaching people how to identify and critically think about biases. The OP is an example of that.

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

 

[Burt_Macklin]

But the Catholic Church did have influence over the Portugese, the biggest slavers. And they did have influence over Brazil, the biggest destination for slaves. The American South was a minor participant in slavery.

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.

Eugenius IV and his immediate successor issued a series of bulls, including Illius Qui (1442), Dum Diversus (1452), and Romanus Pontificus (1455), that recognized the rights of the monarchs of Portugal and eventually Spain to engage in a wide-ranging slave trade in the Mediterranean and Africa—first under the guise of crusading, and then as a part of regular commerce. As Pope Nicholas authorized the Portuguese in Romanus Pontificus :

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 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….

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

 

[Contarini]

The problem with the Wikipedia article originally cited, specifically the point about anathematizing escaped slaves, is that the only source cited is an obviously polemical one (with the title Infallibility On Trial). No good social history of early Christianity is cited, and no primary source. So I’m dubious about the claim. (Rather than rejecting Wikipedia outright or accepting it uncritically, the best approach is to look at the sources cited in Wikipedia for a specific claim. An Internet discussion is not, after all, an academic paper.)

However, I did find a reference elsewhere to the Council of Gangra (4th century) against Manicheanism, whose canons were apparently adopted by Chalcedon. Canon 3 condemns anyone who used religious reasons to persuade a slave to “despise” or leave his master. It does not excommunicate the slave, but clearly this is an affirmation of the binding nature of slavery. Not an affirmation that slavery is a good. Early Christians pretty consistently spoke of slavery as something that is a result of sin, and praised those who freed their slaves.

Aquinas’ endorsement of Aristotle’s view of “natural slavery” is certainly horrifying. Some have tried to soften it by suggesting that what Aquinas meant by slavery was probably serfdom rather than chattel slavery.

The Wikipedia article makes it pretty clear that the Catholic tradition has at the very least been uncomfortable with chattel slavery. I don’t agree that the distinctions made between “just servitude” and “chattel slavery” are meaningless.

Regardless of the historical evidence, the fact is that now the Church clearly condemns slavery. So this is only an issue with regard to whether it raises problems for infallibility.

I don’t think it does in a formal way. But it should give pause to anyone inclined to accept the kind of glib apologetics that one sees on this forum, in which the Church is portrayed as totally unchanging and absolute confidence in the Church’s current positions is enjoined.

The same is true for the other discussion currently ongoing on the forum concerning religious coercion.

Edwin

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The problem with the Wikipedia article originally cited, specifically the point about anathematizing escaped slaves, is that the only source cited is an obviously polemical one (with the title Infallibility On Trial). No good social history of early Christianity is cited, and no primary source. So I’m dubious about the claim. (Rather than rejecting Wikipedia outright or accepting it uncritically, the best approach is to look at the sources cited in Wikipedia for a specific claim. An Internet discussion is not, after all, an academic paper.)

However, I did find a reference elsewhere to the Council of Gangra (4th century) against Manicheanism, whose canons were apparently adopted by Chalcedon. Canon 3 condemns anyone who used religious reasons to persuade a slave to “despise” or leave his master. It does not excommunicate the slave, but clearly this is an affirmation of the binding nature of slavery. Not an affirmation that slavery is a good. Early Christians pretty consistently spoke of slavery as something that is a result of sin, and praised those who freed their slaves.

Aquinas’ endorsement of Aristotle’s view of “natural slavery” is certainly horrifying. Some have tried to soften it by suggesting that what Aquinas meant by slavery was probably serfdom rather than chattel slavery.

The Wikipedia article makes it pretty clear that the Catholic tradition has at the very least been uncomfortable with chattel slavery. I don’t agree that the distinctions made between “just servitude” and “chattel slavery” are meaningless.

Regardless of the historical evidence, the fact is that now the Church clearly condemns slavery. So this is only an issue with regard to whether it raises problems for infallibility.

I don’t think it does in a formal way. But it should give pause to anyone inclined to accept the kind of glib apologetics that one sees on this forum, in which the Church is portrayed as totally unchanging and absolute confidence in the Church’s current positions is enjoined.

The same is true for the other discussion currently ongoing on the forum concerning religious coercion.

Edwin

A very good analysis sir!

 

[someperson555]

Some of you werent paying attention. I was not talking about the African slave trade. Nor was I talking about biblical slavery. I KNOW about biblical slavery. I KNOW it was more like indebtured servitude. I was talking about slavery in christian rome and the middle ages which was far more cruel than biblical slavery, and the church seemed to not only condone it but even support it at times. But while we are on the subject the church was silent during the African slave trade too for a long time. The way I see it, the only reason the church ever even joined the abolition movement was due to outside political pressures. So its not like the idea came from within the church. Its the same with separation of church and state. The church was very against it at first because it was very afraid of losing its power and seat at the the states right hand. But now because they want to cater to the modern way of thinking they now all of the sudden support freedom of religion. Its very sad that church history is like this… Im very dissapointed in the church. Lets face it, if it were not for the great enlightenment and other anti religious movements we would still have slavery and serfdom and people would still be thrown in jail for speaking their minds. I cant get over the fact that the church was so condoning of slavery and so friendly towards the oppressive aristocracy yet condemned socialism from the get go. That tells me they have more earthly interests to protect than spiritual interests. I really am sorry for speaking out against the church like this. But if God truly is with the church then surely he can give an explanation.

 

[Contarini]

Some of you werent paying attention. I was not talking about the African slave trade. Nor was I talking about biblical slavery. I KNOW about biblical slavery. I KNOW it was more like indebtured servitude. I was talking about slavery in christian rome and the middle ages which was far more cruel than biblical slavery, and the church seemed to not only condone it but even support it at times. But while we are on the subject the church was silent during the African slave trade too for a long time. The way I see it, the only reason the church ever even joined the abolition movement was due to outside political pressures. So its not like the idea came from within the church. Its the same with separation of church and state. The church was very against it at first because it was very afraid of losing its power and seat at the the states right hand. But now because they want to cater to the modern way of thinking they now all of the sudden support freedom of religion. Its very sad that church history is like this… Im very dissapointed in the church. Lets face it, if it were not for the great enlightenment and other anti religious movements we would still have slavery and serfdom and people would still be thrown in jail for speaking their minds. I cant get over the fact that the church was so condoning of slavery and so friendly towards the oppressive aristocracy yet condemned socialism from the get go. That tells me they have more earthly interests to protect than spiritual interests. I really am sorry for speaking out against the church like this. But if God truly is with the church then surely he can give an explanation.

I don’t think it’s true that the Church only opposed slavery because of outside pressures. As the very wikipedia article you cited shows, Church Fathers like Gregory of Nyssa criticized slavery when everyone else pretty much accepted it. 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. I don’t defend this position, but the fact is clear that the Church did not think that people ought to be enslaved simply because of their race. (Religion was a different matter–non-Christian peoples at war with Christians were seen as legitimate targets.)

Edwin

 

[chevalier]

Did the Church at any point accept slavery resulting from e.g. just being captured in a slaving raid and sold*? Because those are different situations from debt or crime or war.

• Upholding the property rights of someone who enslaved a free man or purchased him from an enslaver but denying the right of that free man to regain his freedom by mere escape, not even using much force to break out?

 

[MarcoPolo]

if it were not for the great enlightenment and other anti religious movements we would still have slavery

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.