Slavery sucks

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 26 2005, 10:03 AM']RESPONSE:

The slavery refered to in the bible and church teaching is "chattel" slavery. It was the type practiced in ancient Rome and in the American South. The slave and all his offspring remain the property of the owner and are inherited.

This isn't a sports player contract, nor is it indentured servitude.  And prison labor isn't hereditary. To get around the Church's approval of slavery, some apologists like to claim such comparisons.

Compare and contrast:

(1)In 1866 a request for an opinion on slavery was made to the Holy Office in reaction to the passing of the 13th amendment to the United States Constitution. It responded that:

"It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given."

(2) But than in 1985 we have this from #2414 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that .... lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard of their personal dignity ... "

Notice the reversal of teaching?
[right][snapback]659477[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You can't make claims about proclamations of the Church without references. I've never seen what you're referring too.

What I have seen are documents such as:

[i]Sicut Dudum - Pope Eugene IV, promulgated in 1435[/i]
[quote]"They have deprived the natives of their property or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery (<subdiderunt perpetuae servituti>), sold them to other persons and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them.... Therefore We ... exhort, through the sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ shed for their sins, one and all, temporal princes, lords, captains, armed men, barons, soldiers, nobles, communities and all others of every kind among the Christian faithful of whatever state, grade or condition, that they themselves desist from the aforementioned deeds, cause those subject to them to desist from them, and restrain them rigorously. And no less do We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their pristine liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands ... who have been made subject to slavery (<servituti subicere>). These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money."[/quote]

[i]Sublimis Deus - Pope Paul II, promulgated in 1537[/i]
[quote]"Therefore, We, . . . noting that the Indians themselves indeed are true men and are not only capable of the Christian faith, but, as has been made known to us, promptly hasten to the faith' and wishing to provide suitable remedies for them, by our Apostolic Authority decree and declare by these present letters that the same Indians and all other peoples—even though they are outside the faith—who shall hereafter come to the knowledge of Christians have not been deprived or should not be deprived of their liberty or of their possessions. Rather they are to be able to use and enjoy this liberty and this ownership of property freely and licitly, and are not to be reduced to slavery, and that whatever happens to the contrary is to be considered null and void. These same Indians and other peoples are to be invited to the said faith in Christ by preaching and the example of a good life."[/quote]

[i]In Supremo - Pope Gregory XVI, promulgated in 1839[/i]
[quote]"There were to be found subsequently among the faithful some who, shamefully blinded by the desire of sordid gain, in lonely and distant countries did not hesitate to reduce to slavery (<in servitutem redigere>) Indians, Blacks and other unfortunate peoples, or else, by instituting or expanding the trade in those who had been made slaves by others, aided the crime of others. Certainly many Roman Pontiffs of glorious memory, Our Predecessors, did not fail, according to the duties of their office, to blame severely this way of acting as dangerous for the spiritual welfare of those who did such things and a shame to the Christian name."
....
"Indeed these sanctions and this concern of Our Predecessors availed in no small measure, with the help of God, to protect the Indians and the other peoples mentioned from the cruelties of the invaders and from the greed of Christian traders."
....
"The slave trade, although it has been somewhat diminished, is still carried on by numerous Christians. Therefore, desiring to remove such a great shame from all Christian peoples ... and walking in the footsteps of Our Predecessors, We, by apostolic authority, warn and strongly exhort in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare to bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or reduce to slavery (<in servitutem redigere>) Indians, Blacks or other such peoples. Nor are they to lend aid and favor to those who give themselves up to these practices, or exercise that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as if they were not humans but rather mere animals, having been brought into slavery in no matter what way, are, without any distinction and contrary to the rights of justice and humanity, bought, sold and sometimes given over to the hardest labor."
[/quote]
Gregory actually quotes numerous anti-slavery teachings of his predecessors. Among them are Clement I, Pius II, Paul III, Benedict XIV, Urban VIII and Pius VII.

I like this one from much earlier:

[i]DS 668 - Pope John VIII, 873 A. D. ( to the princes of Sardinia) [/i]
[quote]"There is one thing about which we should give you a paternal admonition, and unless you emend, you incur a great sin, and for this reason, you will not increase gain, as you hope, but guilt. . . . many in your area, being taken captive by pagans, are sold and are bought by your people and held under the yoke of slavery. It is evident that it is religious duty and holy, as becomes Christians, that when your people have bought them from the Greeks themselves, for the love of Christ they set them free, and receive gain not from men, but from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Hence we exhort you and in fatherly love command that when you redeem some captives from them, for the salvation of your soul, you let them go free."[/quote]


Also of interest:

In Plurimis - Pope Leo XIII, promulgated in 1888.
[quote] "Since our Redeemer, the Author of all life, deigned to take human flesh, that by the power of His Godhood the chains by which we were held in bondage being broken, He might restore us to our first state of liberty, it is most fitting that men by the concession of manumission should restore to the freedom in which they were born those whom nature sent free into the world, but who have been condemned to the yoke of slavery by the law of nations."[/quote]

[i]Catholicae Ecclesiae - Pope Leo XIII, promulgated in 1890.[/i]
[quote][b]There are incontestable historical documents which attest to that fact, documents which commended to posterity the names of many of Our predecessors. Among them St. Gregory the Great, Hadrian I, Alexander III, Innocent III, Gregory IX, Pius II, Leo X, Paul III, Urban VIII, Benedict XIV, Pius VII, and Gregory XVI stand out. They applied every effort to eliminate the institution of slavery wherever it existed. They also took care lest the seeds of slavery return to those places from which this evil institution had been cut away[/b].[/quote]

There are other documents too. What document does your claim come from? Just curious.

[thessalonian]

The 1866 "approval" of slavery was regarding servitude actually. That can be proven when you read the whole document and later it condemns non-just title forms of slavery, i.e. race based slavery. I have Fr. Panser's book on slavery at home. He has the whole 1866 decree. If I get a chance I will quote it. The Church is actually very consistent with regard to slavery over time. it always condemned race based slavery, while allowing for some forms that were more properly called servitiude such as indentured servetude, those due to enslavement from a just war, required labor for criminals, which was not even banned by our 13th Amendment.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Jul 26 2005, 05:03 PM']The 1866 "approval" of slavery was regarding servitude actually.  That can be proven when you read the whole document and later it condemns non-just title forms of slavery, i.e. race based slavery.  I have Fr. Panser's book on slavery at home.  He has the whole 1866 decree.  If I get a chance I will quote it.  The Church is actually very consistent with regard to slavery over time.  it always condemned race  based slavery, while allowing for some forms that were more properly called servitiude such as indentured servetude, those due to enslavement from a just war, required labor for criminals, which was not even banned by our 13th Amendment.
[right][snapback]660152[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Huh, that's what I thought actually. I was hoping someone would present a document to argue the poing, as I was already confident that the answer you just outlined would prove to be the case. Thanks for helping to clarify matters. What is the book you have called? Just curious.

Oh, and what kind of document was that? I thought I'd looked up all the bulls and encyclicals pertaining to this subject.

Thanks.

P.S. This site is pretty cool: [url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/all.htm"]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/all.htm[/url]

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 26 2005, 04:29 PM']You can't make claims about proclamations of the Church without references. I've never seen what you're referring too.

What I have seen are documents such as:

[i]Sicut Dudum - Pope Eugene IV,  promulgated in 1435[/i]
[i]Sublimis Deus - Pope Paul II, promulgated in 1537[/i]
[i]In Supremo - Pope Gregory XVI, promulgated in 1839[/i]

Gregory actually quotes numerous anti-slavery teachings of his predecessors. Among them are Clement I, Pius II, Paul III, Benedict XIV, Urban VIII and Pius VII.

I like this one from much earlier:

[i]DS 668 - Pope John VIII, 873 A. D. ( to the princes of Sardinia) [/i]
Also of interest:

In Plurimis - Pope Leo XIII, promulgated in 1888.
[i]Catholicae Ecclesiae - Pope Leo XIII, promulgated in 1890.[/i]
There are other documents too. What document does your claim come from? Just curious.


[right][snapback]660113[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

(1) I assume that you are familiar with the Catechism of the Catholic Church so I need no further reference there. The 1866 document which taught that slavery itself was not contrary to the divine and natural law is know as the "Instruction, June 1866, of the Holy Office." It can be found on a number of web sites.

(2) And you have evidently overlooked that of the papal writings you listed, the majority written after 1500, and all deal with growing condemnation of the SLAVE TRADE and not slavery itself or slave ownership.

(3) You might also enjoy the Ethical Aspects of Slavery in the Catholic Encyclopedia on-line. Keep in mind that it was written about 1912 and is consequently like the Church still supporting the scriptural and natural law justification of slavery.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 26 2005, 05:06 PM']Huh, that's what I thought actually. I was hoping someone would present a document to argue the poing, as I was already confident that the answer you just outlined would prove to be the case. Thanks for helping to clarify matters. What is the book you have called? Just curious.

Oh, and what kind of document was that? I thought I'd looked up all the bulls and encyclicals pertaining to this subject.

Thanks.

P.S. This site is pretty cool: [url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/all.htm"]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/all.htm[/url]
[right][snapback]660158[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


It's a letter put out by the Holy Office and cannot unfortunatley be found online. But Fr. Panzer in his book, The Popes And Slavery has the pertinent documents in the appendix of his book. I see if I can find time to get the quote for you.

[thessalonian]

[quote]The 1866 document which taught that slavery itself was not contrary to the divine and natural law is know as the "Instruction, June 1866, of the Holy Office." It can be found on a number of web sites.[/quote]

The document itself? Or the selected quotes from it by people like you that have an axe to grind? That is all I have ever found. If you have a site with the whole document available so the quotes can be see in context please post it.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 26 2005, 05:52 PM']RESPONSE:

(1) I assume that you are familiar with the Catechism of the Catholic Church so I need no further reference there. The 1866 document which taught that slavery itself was not contrary to the divine and natural law is know as the "Instruction, June 1866, of the Holy Office." It can be found on a number of web sites.

(2) And you have evidently overlooked that of the papal writings you listed, the majority written after 1500, and all deal with growing condemnation of the SLAVE TRADE and not slavery itself or slave ownership.

(3) You might also enjoy the Ethical Aspects of Slavery in the Catholic Encyclopedia on-line. Keep in mind that it was written about 1912 and is consequently like the Church still supporting the scriptural and natural law justification of slavery.
[right][snapback]660211[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
(1) see thessalonian's posts, and posts to come hopefully.

(2) I did not claim to present an exhaustive list of condemnations of slavery. That would take us back to the earliest Catholic writings (and one of the first successors of St. Peter). In fact, Catholicism pioneered the condemnation of slavery.
But if you had actually read my post (and all the quotes), you would not have made this, and the following objection, because my original post already proved you wrong.

(3) Yes, the majority of the quotes I gave are after the discovery of America. Seems pertinent to our discussion. A discussion of earlier sources wouldn't be very meaningful considering your original attack was directed at the last few centuries. Also, actually read the quotes (or the entire documents which are available online). Your objection (which is not your invention I'm sure) falls apart quite quickly.

Regards.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Jul 26 2005, 06:00 PM']The document itself?  Or the selected quotes from it by people like you that have an axe to grind?  That is all I have ever found.  If you have a site with the whole document available so the quotes can be see in context please post it.
[right][snapback]660219[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

If you care to ask your friendly librarian, I think you can find it in it's entirety
in "Slavery and the Catholic Church: The History Of Catholic Teaching Concerning the Moral Legitimacy of the Institution of Slavery." John F. Maxwell, Chickester, U.K. 1975, page 78-79.

Also in American Catholic, Charles Morris, Random House, NY 1997, pg 78

Of course, most do not have to read the entire document to understand the key ruling, which as I mentioned, is at a number of sites on the web. And if I quote a textbook, I don't usually print the whole thing.

I've never felt the need to search for this document in it's entirety, especially because the same information is available from the Catholic Encyclopedia on-line. The Ethical Aspects of Slavery:

"From the beginning the Christian moralist did not condemn slavery as in se, or essentially, against the natural law or natural justice. The fact that slavery, tempered with many humane restrictions, was permitted under the Mosaic law would have sufficed to prevent the institution form being condemned by Christian teachers as absolutely immoral"

But, with the new Catethism and Veritatis splendor, slavery has now been condemned as immoral per se and contrary to the natural law. See also Gaudium and Spes on slavery.

And I hate long URLs, but if you'd like a short overview (not Catholic, so it doesn't omit many of the key writings) look up "Pharsea: Bind and Loose" No. I don't know why it has that title either.

[LittleLes]

Perhaps it would be good to begin at the beginning especially with Catholic documents and writings which are usually omitted from Catholic apologetic web sites.

Let's begin with perhaps the first Biblical approval of chattel slavery which is frequently quoted in earlier catholic documents supporting the licitness of owning slaves. Note that it permits perpetual slave ownership; ie, the slave an all future offspring.

Leviticus 25:1,44-46

"The LORD said to Moses on Mount Sinai,"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations. You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves."

[thessalonian]

Here are the important quotes from the 1866 Document:
I've added the parenthesis

...servitude (protestants generally insert slavery here but that is not a proper tanslation) itself, consider in itself and all alone, is by no means repugnant to the natural and divine law, (they of course stop here) and there can be present very many JUST TITLES for servitud, as can be seen by consulting the approved theologians and interpreters of the canons. Fo the dominion which belongs to a master in respect to a slave is not to be understood as any other than the perpetual right of disposing, to one's own advantage, servile work, which dominion it is legitamte for a person to OFFER to another person. From this then it follows that it is not repgnant to the natural and divine law that a slave be sold, bought, excahnged, or given.

It continues...

...as long as in this sale, or buying, or exchange or giving, the due conditions which those same approved authors widely follow and explain, are properly observed. Among these conditions those which are to be especially looked at are whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the seller does nothing by which the slave to be transferred to another possessor suffer any detriment to life, morals or the Catholic faith. Therefore Christians, about whom one is speakingin the first question, can licityly buy slaves or, to resolve a dedt, recieve them as a gift, as long as they are morally certain that those slaves were not taken from their legitimate mastor or reduced to slavery unjustly.

The instruction makes it clear that it only applies to a limited and specific servitude:

For if the slaves who are offered for sale have been taken from their legitimate master, it is not permitted to buy them, because it is a cry to by what belongs to another and has been taken, the master being unwilling, by theft. If however, they have been unjustly reduced to slavery, then one must determine whether they are unwillling to be sold or given to Christians or whether they consent to it. If they are unwilling, they can by no means be bought or received, since the captives themselves are masters of their own liberty, although it has been unjustly taken from them. If indeed, after they have been fully taught that freedom belongs to them by right and which they lose only by injury to others, they spontaneously and by their own free will, as masters of themselves, present themselves to Christians to be recieved by them and held in their servitude...in such circumstances it is permissible fo the Christians, especially when they act in favor of the faith, to purchase such captives for a just price, and to take and retain in their own servitude, as long as they are of the mind to treat them according to the precepts of Christian charity, and take care to imbue them with the rudimentary faith.
.
.
.
Regularly it is the rightof slaves who have been unjustly reduced to slavery to flee; it is not permitted for slaves who undergo just servitude, unless perhaps they are solicited by the master to some sin, or are treated inhumanly.


Hope that helps.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[LittleLes]

Thank you for confirming the 1866 papal teaching on slavery thus

"From this then it follows that it is not repgnant to the natural and divine law that a slave be sold, bought, excahnged, or given."

#2414 of the the Catholic Catechism, evidently commenting on this statement, claims such buying, selling, etc. is a sin against the 7th commandment, and Pope John Paul II's Veritatas splendor # 80 declares this not permissable under any circumstances since it is intrinsically disordered and hence contrary to the natural law.

This evidences a complete change in teaching regarding slavery.

Thank you again for restating the Holy Office Instruction of 1866!

[thessalonian]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 27 2005, 06:34 AM']Thank you for confirming the 1866 papal teaching on slavery thus

"From this then it follows that it is not repgnant to the natural and divine law that a slave be sold, bought, excahnged, or given."

#2414 of the the Catholic Catechism, evidently commenting on this statement, claims such buying, selling, etc. is a sin against the 7th commandment, and Pope John Paul II's Veritatas splendor # 80 declares this not permissable under any circumstances since it is intrinsically disordered and hence contrary to the natural law.

This  evidences a complete change in teaching regarding slavery.

Thank you again for restating the Holy Office Instruction of 1866!
[right][snapback]660668[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


It is no surprise that you wouldn't post the paragraph.

2414 The seventh commandment [b]forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. I[/b]t is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, . . . both in the flesh and in the Lord."

The quotes I posted make it clear that some forms of slavery do not rob the individual of his personal dignity. The word slavery has negative conotations to us today, but it used to be an economic system that benefited the owner and the slave. Indentured servitude was a "contract" gauranteeing labor and in a recipricol manner, taking care of the basic needs of food, shelter, clothing for the slave and his family. This is not according to the economics of our day. My guess is that you will not have eyes to see and ears to hear however and will come back with some other arguement that has no bearing on what was said.

Blessings

[LittleLes]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Jul 27 2005, 07:58 AM']It is no surprise that you wouldn't  post the paragraph.

2414 The seventh commandment [b]forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. I[/b]t is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, . . . both in the flesh and in the Lord."

The quotes I posted make it clear that some forms of slavery do not rob the individual of his personal dignity.  [/quote]

RESPONSE:

All forms of slavery rob the person of personal dignity and are intrinsically disordered, at least according to Pope JP II. And are condemned. The "some (acceptable) forms of slavery" claim is in error.

From Veritatis splendor#80 we have:

"Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature "incapable of being ordered" to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed "intrinsically evil" (intrinsece malum): they are such ALWAYS AND PER SE, in other words, on account of their very object, and QUITE APART FROM THE ULTERIOR INTENTIONS OF THE ONE ACTING AND THE circumstances.

Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object".131 The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the RESPECT DUE TO THE HUMAN PERSON, gives a number of examples of such acts: "Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, SLAVERY, prostitution and trafficking in women and children..."

We can deal with the "just titles of slavery," a moral fiction which developed to support slavery, in due course. Suffice it to say, that no type of slavery is now considered morally acceptable, at least according to Pope JPII (see also Gaudium et Specs).

[LittleLes]

The traditional Catholic teaching that slave ownership was morally justified as being in accordance with scripture ( the divine law) and the natural law - as attested to both by the 1866 Instruction of the Holy Office and the article on the Ethical Aspects of Slavery found in the 1912 (on-line) edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia, has changed since the early 1900's.

Current Catholic teaching is that all forms of slavery are considered a sin against the 7th Commandment (see CCC#2414) and contrary to the natural law (see Veritatis splendor #80, and Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes).

To support the claims that popes have always condemned slavery, Catholic apologists usually cite papal statement made after 1500 which deal with condemnation of the slave trade but not slave ownership itself.

But earlier papal statements (which don't make it onto Catholic websites understandably) supported the institution of slavery and even encouraged it.

Two, Pope Martin V's "Dum diversas" and "Romanus Pontifex," encouraged the invasion of nonChristian (esp infidel) lands, their confiscation, and the perpetual enslavement of their people.

Since some poster seems to want complete documents, perhaps someone more computer knowledgable than myself can find a complete "Dum diversas" for us. I can only find the pertainent sections. However, Romanus Pontifex is easily found.