What was the Catholic church's stand on equal rights in the 1950/60's?

[Slaggy]

Where did the Catholic church stand on equal rights back in the 50’s and 60’s? Not what it’s stance is now, but what were church leaders telling people way back then? In other words, what was in the “Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics” back then?

Were African Americans allowed to attend Catholic services? Were they allowed to partake in communion and confession?

Thanks!

 

[BroomWagon]

Where did the Catholic church stand on equal rights back in the 50’s and 60’s? Not what it’s stance is now, but what were church leaders telling people way back then? In other words, what was in the “Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics” back then? Were African Americans allowed to attend Catholic services? Were they allowed to partake in communion and confession? Thanks!

First off, this article may not stand because it belongs more in Social Justice or Moral Theology under apologetics, You need to have a news story to go along with your posting.

But that said, there is the famous book “Black like me” written about that time, a white man actually changed his skin pigmentation from white to black or at least made that attempt through various means.amazon.com/Black-Like-Me/dp/B0001A0W2K

The author was Catholic and in that book routinely, the Catholic faith is mentioned. He starts his journey in New Orleans and New Orleans compared to the rest of the South is more free shall we say for African Americans because New Orleans was a somewhat Catholic City and then, he goes through the South on bus mainly I believe to see how he would be treated and finishes his journey at a Convent/Monastery in Alabama or Georgia. It’s been a while.

People should read that book if it interests them.

So basically, this book to me is somewhat of a Catholic view on the issue you bring up.

 

[AnastasiaRomano]

I don’t know the entire history of the Church during the Civil Rights Era, unfortunately… But I do know that Archbishop Rummel of New Orleans excommunicated several segregationists who refused to accept the desegregation of archdiocesan schools: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Rummel

 

[Dale_M]

There have been Catholic African-Americans for about as long as the US has existed. However, that doesn’t mean that Catholics or Church leaders always embraced the standards of this modern era.

Quoting from The American Catholic History Research Center and University Archives of the Catholic University of America.

Catholics and Civil Rights

Catholic support for the civil rights movement was weak in the late 1950s, and only increased slowly in the early 1960s. The American Catholic Church tended to be ambivalent in its support for integration: the bishops generally supported the ideals of equality and racial justice, but were hesitant to take any steps to implement integration in their dioceses. The laity, on the other handed, especially in the South, tended to favor continued segregation. In the years following the Montgomery bus boycott, however, white Catholics began taking a genuine interest in issues of racial and economic justice. With the major changes in Catholic cultural and institutional norms that were mandated by the Second Vatican Council in the early 1960s, white Catholics in general and professed religious in particular became much more deeply involved in political activism and racial apostolates. While the Catholic Church as an institution never played a leading role in the civil rights movement, those black and white Catholics who participated in demonstrations and spoke out concerning Catholic social teachings helped promote the cause of equality.

cuomeka.wrlc.org/exhibits/show/pfp/background

 

[Dale_M]

A book, currently being written by a doctoral student, will examine the role of Catholic orders of African-American nuns in promoting desegregation.

Long before the civil rights movement broke racial barriers to public education, black Catholic sisters were quietly desegregating Catholic colleges, universities and normal schools. Through a variety of strategies, black teaching nuns won admittance, opening doors not only to higher education for African-Americans, but also helping turn Catholic elementary and secondary schools into havens of quality education for black children, especially in the South.

It’s a largely untold story. But now a Memphis native, in work that has caught the attention of prestigious historical societies and universities, is bringing it to light.

Williams details how the sisters and their allies, a small cadre of church prelates and priests, university administrators and some orders of white teaching nuns, employed often-surreptitious strategies.

The Sisters of the Holy Family, for example, desegregated what is now Loyola University-New Orleans in 1921, by taking classes that were taught off campus by the Sisters of Charity of Seton-Hill, a white order, but with credits granted through Loyola.

The Oblate Sisters of Providence worked secretly in 1933 with the archbishop of Baltimore to re-integrate the Catholic University of America, which banned American-born blacks during World War I. After three sisters were admitted to summer classes, two sisters became full-fledged students in the fall with the agreement that, if they did well, other black students would be admitted. Their academic excellence broke the ban.

commercialappeal.com/news/2011/may/22/quiet-revolution/?print=1

 

[Dale_M]

I don’t know the entire history of the Church during the Civil Rights Era, unfortunately… But I do know that Archbishop Rummel of New Orleans excommunicated several segregationists who refused to accept the desegregation of archdiocesan schools: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Rummel

Thank you for posting his. Archbishop Rummel is a good example of a Church leader who promoted racial equality in the South beginning in the post- WWII years and throughout the 1950s.

 

[BroomWagon]

Just think, the Nigerian Catholic Church that now seems to produce a lot of Priests must have had Missionaries going back many years and that Church of course, suffers persecution from that Terrorist organization in the North of the Country, Boko Harum or something?

 

[carn]

Where did the Catholic church stand on equal rights back in the 50’s and 60’s? Not what it’s stance is now, but what were church leaders telling people way back then? In other words, what was in the “Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics” back then?

Were African Americans allowed to attend Catholic services? Were they allowed to partake in communion and confession?

Thanks!

I cannot offer something about the 50’and 60’, only something from the 30’:
papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm

"Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the 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; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.

By virtue of Our apostolic authority We define and declare by these present letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, which shall thus command the same obedience as the originals, that the said Indians and other peoples should be converted to the faith of Jesus Christ by preaching the word of God and by the example of good and holy living.

[Dated: May 29, [COLOR=“Silver”]1537]"

Its at least from the 30’.
I do not know, whether there was any later statement retracting that opinion, but i doubt it.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I cannot offer something about the 50’and 60’, only something from the 30’:
papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm

"Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the 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; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.

By virtue of Our apostolic authority We define and declare by these present letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, which shall thus command the same obedience as the originals, that the said Indians and other peoples should be converted to the faith of Jesus Christ by preaching the word of God and by the example of good and holy living.

[Dated: May 29, [COLOR=“Silver”]15

37]"

Its at least from the 30’.
I do not know, whether there was any later statement retracting that opinion, but i doubt it.

Later papal encyclicals and bulls only reinforced that view. Even the Inquisition declared that slavery was inherently evil and that slavery could not be justified by a desire to convert Africans to Christianity (a frequently-offered justification by slave owners and traders.)

 

[carn]

Even the Inquisition declared that slavery was inherently evil and that slavery could not be justified by a desire to convert Africans to Christianity (a frequently-offered justification by slave owners and traders.)

A link for that would be nice.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

A link for that would be nice.

politicalquotes.org/node/43919

The Catholic Church was NOT okay with slavery.

Pope Eugene IV (1431 to 1447), issued a papal bull, Sicut dudum which threatened to excommunicate anyone who didn’t free slaves within the Canary Islands within 15 days after receiving the bull: “To restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands…These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money.” Pope Pius II and Pope Sixtus IV also issued papal bulls condemning slavery in the Canary Islands, which did continue due to the lack of secular power exercised by the Popes.

Many saints condemned slavery - St. Patrick, St. Bathilde, St. Anskar, St. Wulfstan, St. Anselm. St Thomas Aquinas described slavery as a sin and in opposition to Natural Law, as all rational creatures are entitled to justice, “thus removing any possible justification for slavery based on race or religion,” and declared “one man is not by nature ordained to another as an end.” His position was upheld by a series of popes. Pope Paul III pronounced slavery a sin in 1537, and clearly stated it was satanic in origin:

*[Satan,] the enemy of the human race, who always opposes all good men so that the race may perish, has thought up a way, unheard of before now, by which he might impede the saving word of God from being preached to the nations. He has stirred up some of his allies who, desiring to satisfy their own avarice, are presuming to assert far and wide that the Indians of the West and the South who have come to our notice in these times be reduced to our service like brute animals, under the pretext that they are lacking in the Catholic faith. And they reduce them to slavery, treating them with afflictions they would scarcely use with brute animals. Therefore, We…noting that the Indians themselves indeed are true men…by our Apostolic Authority decree and declare by these present letters that the same Indians and all other peoples—event hough they are outside the faith…should not be deprived of their liberty or their other possessions…and are not to be reduced to slavery, and that whatever happens to the contrary is to be considered null and void." *

His second bull excommunicated anyone who practiced slavery.

In 1639, Pope Urban issued a bull reaffirming Pope Paul III’s order that those who enslave others are excommunicated.

Even the Office of the Holy Congregation (i.e,. The Inquisition) condemned slavery in 1686, using the question and answer format with which those of us who grew up with the Baltimore Catechism are very familiar:

It is asked:

Whether it is permitted to capture by force and deceit Blacks and other natives who have harmed no one?

Answer: no.

Whether it is permitted to buy, sell or make contracts in their respect Blacks or other natives who have harmed no one and been made captives by force of deceit?

Answer: no.

Whether the possessors of Blacks and other natives who have harmed no one and been captured by force or deceit, are not held to set them free?

Answer: yes.

Whether the captors, buyers and possessors of Blacks and other natives who have harmed no one and who have been captured by force or deceit are not held to make compensation to them?

Answer: yes.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

The Popes had little power at that time in the Spanish and Portugese colonies, and the Jesuits who tried to read the papal bulls were often met with violence. The Protestant Dutch and English slavers in the New World cared even less about papal decreees, and the largely anti-Catholic Protestant sects of early America would have laughed at an edict by the Pope.

The largest slave rebellion in American history was led by Catholics, BTW.

The Stono Rebellion in South Carolina was probably the largest slave rebellion in America, and was led by Roman Catholic men who were abducted iby slavers in the Congo. The Congo was Roman Catholic, having voluntarily converted in 1491, and had independent diplomatic relations with the Vatican; by the time of the rebellion, in 1739 being Catholic was as essential part of the Congolese identity as it is for the majority of Polish or Filipino people now. Captured by Muslims and sold and taken to the New World, they could not understand why the Protestant slave-owners who professed to be Christians would hold them as slaves.

The Congolese were literate and had some experience with the firearms of the time (which required more technical expertise to operate than modern firearms), with some having possibly served in African militias, and were able to kill 20 of the slaveowners’ militia that came to arrest them. The rebellion started on a day that was holy to them, September 9 (the feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s nativity), and they began marching with a banner that read “Liberty!” as they chanted the word in unison. Gathering (or pressganging) other slaves, they seized an armory and burned some farms before finally losing the battle with the militia (44 slaves killed, 20 slaveowners). The rebel leaders were beheaded and their heads placed on stakes on the road as a warning to other slaves. They also stopped importing slaves from the Angolan-Congo region and focused on raising domestically-born slaves. The rebellion may have inspired similar, smaller rebellions throughout the region, which frightened plantation owners. They also took some slight actions to reduce the risk of rebellions, including (rarely enforced) penalties for excessively cruel slaveowners, and the teaching of “Christian principles” (!) to the enslaved.

If you visit South Carolina, you can visit the site of the rebellion, which is a National Historic Landmark (and should probably be visited by any good Catholic) off of U.S. 17 near Rantowles.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

St. Augustine himself led the battle against slavery and provided one of the earliest descriptions of the slave trade and the Church’s opposition. In Letter 10 of the Divjak letters (discovered in 1975) , Augustine described the actions he and his parishioners took to free those taken by Gallatian slave traders, including using legal remedies against the slavers in Roman court, buying back those who had been abducted by slavers, and storming the slave ships and freeing the prisoners by direct action. He includes an interview he undertook of a young girl who had been captured by slavers in the letter.

“But who resists these traders who are found everywhere, who traffic, not in animals but in human beings, not in barbarians but in Romans from the provinces? Who resists when these people from everywhere and from every side, carried off by violence and ensnared by deception, are led away into the hands of those who bid for them? Who will resist in the name of Roman freedom–I shall not say, the common freedom, but their very own?”

“No one can state satisfactorily how many fall into this same nefarious business because of the incredible blindness and greed and some kind of infection by this disease. Who would believe, for instance, that there is a woman among us here in Hippo who, as a matter of course, lures women from Gidda under the pretext of buying wood, and then confines, beats and sells them? . . . . A young man, scarcely twenty, an intelligent fellow, who kept the accounts for our monastery, was led astray and sold; only with the greatest difficulty was the church able to procure his freedom. . . .

Even if I wished to list all the crimes–just the ones we have had contact with–it would not be possible to do so. . . . There was not lacking a faithful Christian who, knowing our custom in missions of mercy of this kind, made this known to the church. Immediately, partially from the ship in which they had already been loaded, partially from the spot where they had been hidden prior to boarding, about 120 were freed by our people, though I myself was absent. Scarcely five or six were found to have been sold by their parents; of all the others, hardly a person could keep himself from tears on hearing all the various ways by which they were brought to the Galatians by trickery and kidnapping.”
From: Augustine, Letters, Vol. 6 (1*-29*), Fathers of the Church, Vol. 81, trans. Robert B. Eno. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press. Hbk, 1989. ISBN: 0813200814, pp. 79-80.

 

[carn]

politicalquotes.org/node/43919

Even the Office of the Holy Congregation (i.e,. The Inquisition) condemned slavery in 1686, using the question and answer format with which those of us who grew up with the Baltimore Catechism are very familiar:

It is asked:

Whether it is permitted to capture by force and deceit Blacks and other natives who have harmed no one?

Answer: no.

Whether it is permitted to buy, sell or make contracts in their respect Blacks or other natives who have harmed no one and been made captives by force of deceit?

Answer: no.

Whether the possessors of Blacks and other natives who have harmed no one and been captured by force or deceit, are not held to set them free?

Answer: yes.

Whether the captors, buyers and possessors of Blacks and other natives who have harmed no one and who have been captured by force or deceit are not held to make compensation to them?

Answer: yes.

Thanks.
Since im not native english and not used to the format, what do the last 2 questions say?

Removing the conditions its:
“Whether the possessors are not held to set them free?
Yes.”

That means possesors have to set them free and (last question) have to compensate them?

 

[Arizona_Mike]

As an example of the Church’s authentic traditional teaching in this matter as reflected in the American experience, look at the Church’s response to Bishop Auguste Marie Martin of Louisiana in 1861. Bishop Martin issued a pastoral letter to his diocese “on the occasion of the War of Southern Independence,” in which he argued that slavery was “the manifest will of God” that Catholics should condone “snatching from the barbarity of their ferocious customs thousands of children of Canaan,” who were the descendents of those cursed by Noah. (This was the same argument used by many Protestant slave-owners in justifying the institution of slavery.) Bishop Martin wrote that it was a obligatory that Catholics condemn abolitionists because they “upset the will of Providence” and God’s “merciful plans for unrighteous actions.” Father Napoleon Joseph Perchr, coadjutor of the Archdiocese of New Orleans, gave his imprimatur for the pastoral letter to be published in the local Catholic newspaper.

The Vatican was not happy, and the Roman Congregation of the Index, charged with censoring ideas which were unacceptable to Catholic Doctrine, and which spoke with the direct authority of the Pope (at that time, Pius IX) slapped down Bishop Martin and slapped him down hard.

It’s worth quoting at some length: P. fr. Vincenzo M. Gatti, O.P., wrote that he had read Bishop Martin’s letter “in order to fulfill the task entrusted to me by the Most Reverend Secretary [of State for the Vatican, Cardinal Barnabo].”

Father Gatti further writes:

“Bishop Martin deals with slavery as existing in the Southern Confederate States to which Lousiana, where this diocese is situated, belongs. Among other things he affirms what I quote in full, so that you may judge its meanining, its exactness, and its erroneousness.”

After quoting the pastoral letter in full, he continues:

“Now against these statements I set Pope Gregory’s words which I quote in full, since they sum up and put into force again all that his predecessors the Sovereign Pontiffs have taught on this matter.”

He then quotes the full text of In Supremo Apostalatus, You can read the whole text here: papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16sup.htm, but here’s part:

*…We say with profound sorrow - there were to be found afterwards among the Faithful men who, shamefully blinded by the desire of sordid gain, in lonely and distant countries, did not hesitate to reduce to slavery Indians, negroes and other wretched peoples, or else, by instituting or developing the trade in those who had been made slaves by others, to favour their unworthy practice. Certainly many Roman Pontiffs of glorious memory, Our Predecessors, did not fail, according to the duties of their charge, to blame severely this way of acting as dangerous for the spiritual welfare of those engaged in the traffic and a shame to the Christian name; they foresaw that as a result of this, the infidel peoples would be more and more strengthened in their hatred of the true Religion. *
(cont.)

 

[Arizona_Mike]

*It is at these practices that are aimed the Letter Apostolic of Paul III, given on May 29, 1537, under the seal of the Fisherman, and addressed to the Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo, and afterwards another Letter, more detailed, addressed by Urban VIII on April 22, 1639 to the Collector Jurium of the Apostolic Chamber of Portugal. In the latter are severely and particularly condemned those who should dare ‘to reduce to slavery the Indians of the Eastern and Southern Indies,’ to sell them, buy them, exchange them or give them, separate them from their wives and children, despoil them of their goods and properties, conduct or transport them into other regions, or deprive them of liberty in any way whatsoever, retain them in servitude, or lend counsel, succour, favour and co-operation to those so acting, under no matter what pretext or excuse, or who proclaim and teach that this way of acting is allowable and co-operate in any manner whatever in the practices indicated.

Benedict XIV confirmed and renewed the penalties of the Popes above mentioned in a new Apostolic Letter addressed on December 20, 1741, to the Bishops of Brazil and some other regions, in which he stimulated, to the same end, the solicitude of the Governors themselves. Another of Our Predecessors, anterior to Benedict XIV, Pius II, as during his life the power of the Portuguese was extending itself over New Guinea, sent on October 7, 1462, to a Bishop who was leaving for that country, a Letter in which he not only gives the Bishop himself the means of exercising there the sacred ministry with more fruit, but on the same occasion, addresses grave warnings with regard to Christians who should reduce neophytes to slavery.

In our time Pius VII, moved by the same religious and charitable spirit as his Predecessors, intervened zealously with those in possession of power to secure that the slave trade should at least cease amongst the Christians. The penalties imposed and the care given by Our Predecessors contributed in no small measure, with the help of God, to protect the Indians and the other people mentioned against the cruelty of the invaders or the cupidity of Christian merchants, without however carrying success to such a point that the Holy See could rejoice over the complete success of its efforts in this direction; for the slave trade, although it has diminished in more than one district, is still practiced by numerous Christians. This is why, desiring to remove such a shame from all the Christian nations, having fully reflected over the whole question and having taken the advice of many of Our Venerable Brothers the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, and walking in the footsteps of Our Predecessors, We warn and adjure earnestly in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare to vex anyone, despoil him of his possessions, reduce to servitude, or lend aid and favour to those who give themselves up to these practices, or exercise that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as if they were not men but rather animals, having been brought into servitude, in no matter what way, are, without any distinction, in contempt of the rights of justice and humanity, bought, sold, and devoted sometimes to the hardest labour. Further, in the hope of gain, propositions of purchase being made to the first owners of the Blacks, dissensions and almost perpetual conflicts are aroused in these regions.

We reprove, then, by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, all the practices abovementioned as absolutely unworthy of the Christian name. By the same Authority We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this traffic in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth in this Apostolic Letter.*

Father Gatti then broke down the opposition between Bishop Martin’s theories and “the teaching of the Supreme Pontiffs,” using a very Thomist outline of Propositions and Observations.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Fr. Gatti observes that God in no way approves of slavery, as Bishop Martin suggested:

OBSERVATION: Here I make two remarks: 1) The Bishop attributes to God what is an execrable violence of men, since he affirms that God “for centuries has been snatching from the barbarity of their ferocious customs thousands of childen of the race of Canaan.” By these words he seems to approve of the slave trade of Negroes and to accept it in principle. Had he stated that God derives good for these unfortunate people, or at least fro some of them, from this iniquity and this violation of the natural and ecclesiastical law, no objection could be made against it. But we see no intention of saying this. On the contrary, it appears to be just the opposite from what follows. 2) The Bishop supposes that there exists a naural difference between the Negroes, whom he calls the children of Canaan, and the Whites, when he says that the latter are the privilged ones of the great human family and the former are still now lying under the curse of Noah. And he makes it the latter’s duty to be the Negroes’ sheperds, fathers, and masters…we also must observe that both the ancient and the modern supporters of the theory of slavery advanced as one of the reasons for its acceptability the fact that the Negroes have been subjected to others by the curse of Noah. But those who oppose this tehory, besides denying its validity, at least after the Christian era when the curse would not be valid any longer, deny the fact itself, i.e., that the Negroes descend from Canaan.

Father Gatti then uses the Bible to show the tribes of Africa were not the cursed descendents of Canaan. Afterwards, he notes in regards to Bishop Martin’s claim that the slaves benefit from their conversion to Christianity:

OBSERVATION: The Bishop calls the Negroes poor children, while they are not such. As I stressed above, Noah did not curse Canaan…but even if they were cursed by Noah, they are not cursed any longer after the coming of Jesus Christ when, as the Apostle says, there is no distinction between Jew and gentile, between freeman and slave, between man and woman, since we are all sons of the same divine Father. In contrast, Bishop Martin seems to consider the opposite teaching to be the teaching of the Gospel. Did Jesus Christ say: “Go snatch them by force from their native country, drag them to your countries, and convert them?” No, He did not. But He sad: “Go throughout the world; teach all the people…and preach the Gospel to every man.” And did He say: “In exchange for the spiritual good that you will do, exploit them as instruments for your material interests?” No, He did not, but rather he said: “Freely give what you have freely received.” As we know from history, the Negroes are sold by the chiefs who put them on the market after snatching them by force from their native land. These unfortunates are brought by slave traders who take advantage of them as their own property. The aim of teaching the Christian Faith, even if it exists, which very often it does not, is a trifling matter and it does not justify the iniquity which they commit in this trade."

(cont)

 

[Arizona_Mike]

The philanthropists of the last and of this century are not mistaken when they criticize and condemn the slave trade of the Negroes and their subjection to ill treatment and to slavery, since they agree with the Catholic doctrine in this respect; yet at least some of them err if they extend this principle too far and if they mistake slavery deriving from a just title, and which does not harm other people’s rights, for slavery originating in violence and in violation of the natural law. The slavery of the Negroes belongs precisely to this latter kind of slavery; against this Sovereign Pontiffs have risen up very often and have reproved and condemned it. The bishop deals with this kind of slavery and defends it!

Father Gatti attacked Bishop Martin’s arguments that slaves’ “original degradation” justifies their slavery. Father Gatti notes that both blacks and whites can be learned and virtuous people with the proper education and Catholic education.

From this treatment one can easily infer that the Bishop favors the enemies of the Catholic Church who accuse her of approving slavery, which is the origin of the vile trade and of the brutal treatment of the Negroes from Africa. It makes the Church unjustly odious; it promotes the mistake of those who believe that the slave trade of the Negroes is lawful and who try to avoid condemnation of the Sovereign Pontiffs with every kind of cavil [argument].

Such a mistake is condemned by the natural law, by the Gospel, by the Pontifical Constitution, and is reproved with the common sense of the Christian peoples, though self-interest and corruption reduce it to silence in some of them, This mistake favors the preservation of slavery in the Southern states in opposition to the will of the Sovereign Pontiffs who, as is clear from the words I have quoted above, have condemned not only the slave trade but slavery itself: “to reduce to slavery, to retain in slavery.” And they have condemned also those who favor it, or those who teach it to be lawful, “or lend counsel, succor, favor, and co-operation to those acting, under no matter what pretext or excuse, or who proclaim and teach this way of acting is allowable or co-operate in any manner whatever with the practices indicated.”/ (Emphasis in the original.)

Not very ambiguous, huh?

Hope this is useful to you.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Thanks.
Since im not native english and not used to the format, what do the last 2 questions say?

Removing the conditions its:
“Whether the possessors are not held to set them free?
Yes.”

That means possesors have to set them free and (last question) have to compensate them?

*Whether the possessors of Blacks and other natives who have harmed no one and been captured by force or deceit, are not held to set them free?

Answer: yes*.

In other words, yes, anyone who held slave was required to free them.

*Whether the captors, buyers and possessors of Blacks and other natives who have harmed no one and who have been captured by force or deceit are not held to make compensation to them?

Answer: yes.*

In other words, they were required to pay them back for the work they had done while enslaved.

 

[andrewstx]

First off, this article may not stand because it belongs more in Social Justice or Moral Theology under apologetics, You need to have a news story to go along with your posting.

But that said, there is the famous book “Black like me” written about that time, a white man actually changed his skin pigmentation from white to black or at least made that attempt through various means.amazon.com/Black-Like-Me/dp/B0001A0W2K

The author was Catholic and in that book routinely, the Catholic faith is mentioned. He starts his journey in New Orleans and New Orleans compared to the rest of the South is more free shall we say for African Americans because New Orleans was a somewhat Catholic City and then, he goes through the South on bus mainly I believe to see how he would be treated and finishes his journey at a Convent/Monastery in Alabama or Georgia. It’s been a while.

People should read that book if it interests them.

So basically, this book to me is somewhat of a Catholic view on the issue you bring up.

I am not familiar with the situation in NO, but I am aware that to this day blacks and whites in Louisana often attend seperate parishes. Often seperated by a fence but still on the same property.