Under the empire why did the church anathemize escaped slaves?

[annem]

Here are some points about the Catholic church and slavery nobody else has mentioned:

The Catholic church inherited Europe full of slaves. Which they then turned into serfs, who had rights.

The Catholic church has always proclaimed the equality of all human beings under God.

The Vikings didn’t just steal gold during their raids, they took people, people they sold as slaves to Muslims. Eastern Europe was another area where vast numbers of people were taken and turned into Muslim slaves.

Entire orders of nuns and priests were formed to buy slaves back from the Muslims.

In 1435 Pope Eugene forbade the enslavement of any captured Canary Islanders. This was before Columbus ever set sail. In 1537 Pope Paul published another bull on the American Indians, condemning any enslavement of them.

However terrible the behavior of some Catholics, it seems to me that the Catholic church had stood against slavery.

God bless, Annem

 

[Ignatius]

So imagine this, youre a slave in Rome in the fourth century. You have a vicious cruel master. He killed some of your fellow slaves in the past and he beats you mercilessly. So one day you decide youve had enough and manage to escape. Shortly after you revieve a letter of anathema from the church telling you that " its God’s will that you go back to your master".

No such thing ever happened. Whoever told you this is making it up. If you’ll give a link to the primary source evidence (in context) we can help you to clear up your misunderstanding.

 

[Merrick]

I believe the Church always condemned chattel slavery and condemned slavery in certain specific cases, but it did not condemn all forms of buying and selling human beings and making use of their labor for a profit as intrinsically evil. Newman wrote about this issue:

That which is intrinsically and per se evil, we cannot give way to for an hour. That which is only accidentally evil, we can meet according to what is expedient, giving different rules, according to the particular case. St. Paul would have got rid of despotism if he could. He could not, he left the desirable object to the slow working of Christian principles. So he would have got rid of slavery, if he could. He did not, because he could not, but had it been intrinsically evil, had it been in se a sin, it must have been said to Philemon, liberate all your slaves at once.

The modern teaching seems to condemn slavery as intrinsically evil:

.... everyone must consider his every neighbour without exception as another self, taking into account first of all his life and the means necessary to living it with dignity .... whatever insults human dignity, such as ....  slavery .... where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons .... are infamies indeed .... they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator. [Gaudiem et Spes #27]

The above section is quoted in Veritatis Splendor #80 as an example of intrinsically evil acts. CCC #2414 also condemns the buying and selling of human beings.

I figured that this was merely an example of the change of a non-infallible teaching.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

The Catholic church inherited Europe full of slaves. Which they then turned into serfs, who had rights.

Serfs were human capital, ultimately devoid of any political or economic power. The line between serfdom and slavery was thin, indeed.

The Catholic church has always proclaimed the equality of all human beings under God.

That doesn’t really mean anything, does it? I mean, political systems and economies are human constructions. Thus, one can be marginalized by these systems, while remaining equal in the eyes of God.

However terrible the behavior of some Catholics, it seems to me that the Catholic church had stood against slavery.

Eh, I think its edicts on slavery have basically conformed to the most politically advantageous position at the time, and followed from secular political authority rather than actively championing abolition. Banning Amerindian slave trading after the Spanish King avowed his disapproval of the practice, for instance, while looking the other way in Africa.

 

[exnihilo]

I believe the Church always condemned chattel slavery and condemned slavery in certain specific cases, but it did not condemn all forms of buying and selling human beings and making use of their labor for a profit as intrinsically evil.

Chattel slavery is when slaves are personal property and thus can be bought and sold. I believe it was the most common form of slavery in the Roman Empire.

 

[Merrick]

Hm…I was thinking of slaves without any rights at all.

Regardless, I do think the church’s position on slavery has changed from one that does not condemn buying and selling of humans to a stance that holds this is intrinsically evil.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

When the OP comes on the boards again (it has been three weeks) Then perhaps they can weigh in on any new insight on the topic they started…