This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of War of the Eight Saints was copied or moved into Catholic Church and slavery with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The section on Canon Law does not cite where in Canon Law that slavery was incorporated. This would be Gratian's Canon that we would be working off if. I read through a signficant portion of this code and could find no reference to what the article suggests. I removed the reference to "Labor & Guilds" text as it was merely a goto to Kedar, Crusade and Mission, pp. 148-151. I am working on obtaining a copy of that source but have been unable to thus far do so.
The other reference is Tradition, culture and development in Africa by Njoh. I have a copy on loan. The text is ambiguous and fails to demonstrate slavery being incorporated into Canon Law, failing to cite a single instance. He does cite Dum Diversas, which this article should probably do and drop any reference to Njoh and the others -- but even this is problematic as Dum Diversas is really a declaration of war against Islamic nations and it doesn't reference slavery so much as it does subjegation in the sense of a man subject to a feudal lord, as the feudal economic system was the frame of reference for considering these matters.
As it is, the section on canon law is nearly useless. I think we should grant a period of two months for revisions and if revisions are not made, the section should be deleted altogether. But in this I appreciate feedback.
Who is Mark Brumley (mentioned in the new section that was added today)? Bwrs ( talk) 06:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that certain dissenters within the Church have sometimes evoked the notion that the Church changed her teaching on slavery to suit the times, and that this peculiar evolution could serve as an example for other unpopular teachings such as abortion, adultery, homosexuality, divorce, euthanasia, prostitution, or the ordination of women.
I find this problematic though because the Church never really had a formal teaching on slavery in the same way that it has a teaching on the doctrines and dogmas adopted at the councils Nicea, Chalcedon and Trent. In a sense, slavery was viewed as a political problem instead of a religious one, and the Church probably felt that it had no right to interfere with something that was usually expressed in economic and financial terms instead of purely spiritual ones (Cf render unto Caesar). ADM ( talk) 07:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Most of this article is cited to original documents, not to scholarly sources that interpret those documents. This is a violation of WP:OR. I think that we need to include many more scholary sources here and tag the entire article until those sources are added. NancyHeise talk 00:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:NPOV also. "Unfortunately, Spain and Portugal were the leaders in the Age of Discovery, and took their slave-making attitudes to their new territories in the Americas." may be an understandable mild offence, but here "Despite attempts to re-interpret the record, the Catholic Church failed to take action against the slave-trade from Africa and the enslavement of native Amerindians" this doesn't even make logical sense so POV laden is it. "Despite attempts to re-interpret history, history unfolded the way it did", yes, but actually that is not even true. This issue got the Jesuits into persecution. There were a number of church leaders holding their heads in for human dignity. Gschadow ( talk) 04:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Judgment must be exercised about original document. If an article is about the catechism, lets say the presence of a sentence in it, it is obvious that is better than scholars. It depends about what kind of ground is looked for a point. Louisar ( talk) 14:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I removed the section "Other condemnations" as it appeared to be a copyvio of [1]. The linked website asserts a copyright of 1999 and 2005, so I assume that its text came first. I've also spent quite a bit of time today looking for the source that it cited ("The Catholic Church and Slavery" by Lane Core Jr) and have found zero reference to it except in this Wikipedia article and the website this text was taken from. That leaves me to believe that the source is likely not a very good one. I'm sure that the information that was in this section could be found in other sources and then returned to the article. Karanacs ( talk) 18:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
As Richard remarked elsewhere, when talking about "the Catholic Church", do you mean
This article jumps from one meaning to another, without pause.
Similarly, is opposition to slavery
On the first category here, the Christians of antiquity were abreast with the pagan philosophers (most notably Seneca and Marcus Aurelius), but not in advance of them. Even "In Christ, there is no slave or free" can be parallelled in Epictetus.
On the third, similarly, a denunciation of the slave trade in 1831 is like a denunciation of child pornography in 2009: certainly on the right side, but everyone has already agreed, and the practice is already widely illegal. It would be interesting, and a secondary source should say, why In Supremo Apostolatus was issued (to please the Orleanists, now in power?) and whether it had any effect anywhere.
The claims from the small-press books are mostly expressions of apologetic opinion. Are they encyclopedic? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The statements about Augustine's teaching on slavery in both the introduction and the text will have to be revised, in light of several letters of Augustine rediscovered in 1975, the so-called Divjak letters, named after the scholar who found them, Johannes Divjak of Vienna. One of these letters in particular, sometimes called letter 10, gives a detailed account of the efforts of Augustine and his parishioners to rescue their neighbors from slave-raiders. This letter shows that Augustine used Roman law to fight the slave raiders (so-called "Galatians" from the present Turkey) in the Roman courts, and that parishioners used several means, including buying the slaves back and by converging on the slave ships and freeing the slaves by direct action. This letter includes Augustine's account of his personally interviewing a young girl stolen from her family by slavers and later rescued by the church. This letter is not only one of the earliest first-hand accounts of the African slave-trade, but shows that Augustine the bishop, even as an old man, was much more pragmatic and pastoral than scholarly stereotypes have previously established. For further information, please see page 470 of Peter Brown's revised biography of Augustine-- [2] Ajschorschiii ( talk) 06:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Corrected Ajschorschiii ( talk) 23:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see my 2/6/10 blog post at [3] for more information. Ajschorschiii ( talk) 04:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I like the work that Johnbod has done. However, I'd like to point out that the lead section is incomplete in that it stops with In Supremo Apostolatus and the American bishops in the antebellum United States. The lead section needs to summarize the rest of the article up until the present. Otherwise, the lead leaves the reader with the wrong impression. -- Richard S ( talk) 05:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I note the article says Sublimeus Dei was never annulled but there is no ref given for the assertion. The sources I have, including two Catholic scholars, say that it's officiating brief was indeed annulled, effectively rendering S.D ineffective. Could a reference be supplied and, if possible, an explantion from the source given on the talk page as to why S.D was still in force despite aforementioned. Yt95 ( talk) 14:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
In the article I read a long discussion about this Bulla and his exact meaning and that "Some American bishops interpreted In Supremo as condemning only the slave trade and not slavery itself".
I think that it would be useful remember that in 1866 the Congregation of the Index sent a letter to American Bishop Martin who argued that slavery was "the manifest will of God.". The Index stated clearly after quoting In Supremo:
"It is an evil to deprive [people] of freedom and subject them to slavery; it is a violation of a natural right; for this reason people must not commit this evil to obtain good, from which they may draw an advantage, since God's purpose does not justify the immoral means of men. [Man] permits the evil to exist in order to deprive good, but [God] does not will the evil; on the contrary, disapproves of it and punishes it. The true Christian good is the one which does not harm people's rights".. Slavery in South is "in opposition to the will of the Sovereign Pontiffs who ... have not condemned the slave trade but slavery itself ... [and] those who favor it, or those who teach it to be lawful."
(in M. Pasquier
CV “‘Though Their Skin Remains Brown, I Hope Their Souls Will Soon Be White’: Slavery, French Missionaries, and the Roman Catholic Priesthood in the American South,” Church History, vol. 77 ,June 2008: 337-370.)
[4].--
Domics (
talk) 09:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree to use secondary sources:
Let's see what Panzer writes in his book ("The Popes and the Slavery", pp. 46/48):
≪The primary area of contention with In Supremo lies in determining what was actually being condemned by Gregory. The text of the Papal Constitution itself clearly condemned both the slave trade and slavery, as is apparent from the preceding paragraph citations. Both of the above citations prohibit the slave trade. Likewise, in the first paragraph we read that slavery itself is also condemned: "... no one in the future dare to ... reduce to slavery (in servitutem redigere) Indians, Blacks or other such peoples." In the second paragraph, the prohibition of "opinions contrary to what We have set forth in these Apostolic Letters" indicates that no one may hold that slavery itself is somehow not condemned.The question that should be asked, then, is why have many bishops, historians and others interpreted In Supremo as condemning the slave trade, but not slavery itself?.....Thus, the misreading of In Supremo that exists among scholars today actually has its roots in the partial rejection of that papal Constitution by the American hierarchy over a century and a half earlier.On the other hand, John Maxwell is quite right in his statement of what Gregory actually taught in In Supremo: "It is clear that the Pope is condemning unjust enslavement and unjust slavetrading" (emphasis added).
Also correct is the papal historian, J.N.D. Kelly, who states, "In the brief In Supremo ... he denounced <slavery> and the slave-trade as unworthy of Christians"(1) (emphasis added). ≫
1.Kelly, J.N.D., The Oxford Dictionary of the Popes, 1986, p. 308
Well Panzer (as Kelly: so we have two secondary sources who agree) thinks that In Supremo condemns both slavery and slavery trade. But according Panzer there was a misreading of this Bulla by Catholic hierarchy in America.. If we read my first intervention in this discussion we find the letter by the Congregation of the Index sent to American Bishop Martin condemning his position quoting In Supremo.
So, let's use secondary sources but, please, if someone quotes Panzer's opinion about Maxwell ("quite right") the same does not have to forgive his opinion about Kelly ("correct") and of course his own opinion.--
Domics (
talk) 09:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I came across this article today showing that slavery is going on within a few hours drive of the Vatican. I think the article needs to mention that current Church teachings seem to include an encyclical written in invisible ink that say "look the other way", the tomatoes are killer tomatoes for our image. At the very least the Cardinals could boycott tomatoes. But more seriously, a section on current blindness to slavery is needed in this article, given that it is happening in the Vatican's backyard and the pontif probably dines on the slave-picked tomatoes. History2007 ( talk) 02:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The 1686 condemnation of the enslavement of black people and the call for their emancipation deserves more attention. It shows that back in the late seventeenth century the magisterium condemned race based slavery even for non Christians and also called for those already enslaved to be freed. That in my opinion was a clear and exceptional condemnation that apparently noone listened too. Also the fact that Pope Paul III condemned the enslavement of Indians shows that since the beginning of the early modrn period the papacy oposed the enslavement even of non Christians. The concept of just enslavement of enemies of Christ seems to usually only refer to those who actively tried to harm inocent Catholics such as Henry VIII who killed Roger More, and the Moors who were themselves enslaving Catholics. Also the the work of the church to have those born as slaves emancipated into serfs during the Middle Ages also shows a rejection of heriditarry slavery also. Maybe this dinstinction could be more clearly explained in the article? Also it is important to note that the French and Mexican priests and the Irish emancipation movement which oposed slavery were all in excellent standing with Rome. As were usually the Jesuits who freed black slaves. 83.128.72.82 ( talk) 11:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
This is also true for Pope Urban VIII who merely used slaves who were captured Muslim pirates. So enemies of Christ were not Pagans, Jews or heretics, but actual enemies of Christ. 83.128.72.82 ( talk) 11:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Catholic Church and slavery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
One of the books cited "Infallibility on trial" is a book hostile to the Church so I wouldnt trust it as a reliable source and I havent heard a claim liek that from anywhere else. Also Sublimus Dei was retracted not anulled (because Charles V said he would make laws protectijg the indians which he did), since if it was anulled it wouldnt have been cited in earlier Papal bulls — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.120.0 ( talk) 11:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Catholic Church and slavery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ Metrospector:,
Thanks for your reply. You are absolutely right that I should have provided more details here on the talk page. Sorry.
Herbert too makes a similar argument on page 62 (I was referencing Paul as an example, not a quote), arguing that the slavery cannot be arrived at by natural reason, but can only be "by nature" as a result of the actions of man. Moreover, he clearly isn't talking about the kind of chattel system referenced on this page since he argues on page 63 that it "can only be determined by assessing its utility and, hence, the benefits derived by both the slave and his owner."
We can also see Aquinas' view of slavery as an unnatural condition caused by sin in various other sources. For example,
Aquinas begins his answer by distinguishing two forms or modes of ruling.
The first, he says, is "ordered to governing" (ad regimen ordinatus) and the
second is "for the sake of domination" (ad dominanclura). Aquinas immediately
equates the second mode of ruling with that exercised by a master over his
slaves. ...
With his opening distinction thus elucidated, Aquinas proceeds to argue that though the second mode of rule would not be found in a state of innocence, the first would be.
Ordering or governing some human beings for the benefit of others happens only when man "is compared to irrational creatures," as in Aristotle's comparison of slaves to animate instruments.'5 But the likening of human beings to irrational creatures, Aquinas says, occurs as a result of sin and therefore would not have been found had original sin not been committed. ... In the Summa as in the Sentence commentary, Aquinas speaks of two modes of dominium. The first is the mastery of slaves; the second is clominium "in a general sense referred to any kind of subject.'4~ It is exemplified by rule over free persons. The first mode, Aquinas says, would not be found in a state of innocence.
...
Aquinas argues that being ruled for the utility or good of another is a cause of sadness and can happen only as a punishment for sin. ... Aside from the absence of the political analogy, the argument of the Summa differs from that of the Sentence commentary only in its allusion to unhappiness, which makes clearer than did the earlier work in what the punitive character of slavery consists.
Augustine and Aquinas on Original Sin and the Function of Political
Authority
Weithman, Paul J., 1959-
Journal of the History of Philosophy, Volume 30, Number 3, July 1992,
pp. 353-376 (Article)
https://www3.nd.edu/~pweithma/professional_website/My%20Papers/Augustine%20and%20Aquinas%20on%20Political%20Authority.pdf
Or
Aquinas largely agreed with Augustine that slavery was the result of the Fall
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/ethics/philosophers_1.shtml
I think what is important to clarify related to Aquinas, is that his position was that slavery as an institution was not part of natural law, but rather developed as part of sin in the world.
Thoughts?
Squatch347 ( talk) 16:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because no analysis of evidence has been given that the current version of the article contains any copyvios, only that it was (allegedly) created by a "copyright violator, all versions tainted". Oh really, you have checked every single version of this article and discovered that they are all "tainted", have you? -- Smeat75 ( talk) 19:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
This article is very messy - repetitive in particular. The lead is a terrible read. Can we fix it please? Contaldo80 ( talk) 00:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Yea, not perfect. But full of very important informationsm very usefull Louisar ( talk) 14:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
We have
Christian views on slavery;
We have
Jewish views on slavery;
We have
Islamic views on slavery;
We have
Catholic views on slavery, oh no, it's
Catholic Church and slavery, why we don't have
Catholic views on slavery ?
Speltdecca (
talk) 20:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. 💵Money💵emoji💵 Talk💸 Help out at CCI! 01:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I might just be missing something, but there seems to be no substantial coverage in the page of the slave trade between the Kingdoms of Portugal and the Kongo, which is notable for a number of reasons. Is there a reason this topic is more or less omitted? natemup ( talk) 14:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Some sections of this article are completely non-neutral, especially in the US section. This line in particular is extremely problematic:
"Daniel O'Connell, the Catholic leader of the Irish in Ireland, supported the abolition of slavery in the British Empire and in America. Garrison recruited him to the cause of American abolitionism. O'Connell, the black abolitionist Charles Lenox Remond, and the temperance priest Theobald Mathew organized a petition with 60,000 signatures urging the Irish of the United States to support abolition. O'Connell also spoke in the United States for abolition."
Except Daniel O'Connell was one of a handful of 'Young Irelanders' or 'nationalists' in his day who took this position, and his support for abolition caused a major rift between himself and Irish nationalists inside the US (where he was repeatedly urged by his associates to tone down the abolition talk), to say nothing of the hierarchy within the American Catholic Church. Have a look at what Archbishop John Hughes wrote to the US Secretary of War Simon Cameron in 1861 [5].
The record of white American Catholics on slavery, both within the hierarchy of the Church and among the immigrant population, was atrocious and there is no shortage of scholarly sources that attest to this fact. Virtually all abolitionists in the US were 'dissenting' or 'non-conformist' Protestants.
And yet whoever edited this section cherry-picked counterexamples and left this information out.
Not only is this a non-neutral and significantly misleading way to present this content to readers, but it is borderline propaganda. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 21:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
The Catholic Church owned slaves in Suriname as late as 1863: https://www.nationaalarchief.nl/onderzoeken/index/nt00341/2a7d9e42-d7f2-11e2-a0c1-00505693001d 144.178.207.62 ( talk) 10:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of War of the Eight Saints was copied or moved into Catholic Church and slavery with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The section on Canon Law does not cite where in Canon Law that slavery was incorporated. This would be Gratian's Canon that we would be working off if. I read through a signficant portion of this code and could find no reference to what the article suggests. I removed the reference to "Labor & Guilds" text as it was merely a goto to Kedar, Crusade and Mission, pp. 148-151. I am working on obtaining a copy of that source but have been unable to thus far do so.
The other reference is Tradition, culture and development in Africa by Njoh. I have a copy on loan. The text is ambiguous and fails to demonstrate slavery being incorporated into Canon Law, failing to cite a single instance. He does cite Dum Diversas, which this article should probably do and drop any reference to Njoh and the others -- but even this is problematic as Dum Diversas is really a declaration of war against Islamic nations and it doesn't reference slavery so much as it does subjegation in the sense of a man subject to a feudal lord, as the feudal economic system was the frame of reference for considering these matters.
As it is, the section on canon law is nearly useless. I think we should grant a period of two months for revisions and if revisions are not made, the section should be deleted altogether. But in this I appreciate feedback.
Who is Mark Brumley (mentioned in the new section that was added today)? Bwrs ( talk) 06:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that certain dissenters within the Church have sometimes evoked the notion that the Church changed her teaching on slavery to suit the times, and that this peculiar evolution could serve as an example for other unpopular teachings such as abortion, adultery, homosexuality, divorce, euthanasia, prostitution, or the ordination of women.
I find this problematic though because the Church never really had a formal teaching on slavery in the same way that it has a teaching on the doctrines and dogmas adopted at the councils Nicea, Chalcedon and Trent. In a sense, slavery was viewed as a political problem instead of a religious one, and the Church probably felt that it had no right to interfere with something that was usually expressed in economic and financial terms instead of purely spiritual ones (Cf render unto Caesar). ADM ( talk) 07:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Most of this article is cited to original documents, not to scholarly sources that interpret those documents. This is a violation of WP:OR. I think that we need to include many more scholary sources here and tag the entire article until those sources are added. NancyHeise talk 00:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:NPOV also. "Unfortunately, Spain and Portugal were the leaders in the Age of Discovery, and took their slave-making attitudes to their new territories in the Americas." may be an understandable mild offence, but here "Despite attempts to re-interpret the record, the Catholic Church failed to take action against the slave-trade from Africa and the enslavement of native Amerindians" this doesn't even make logical sense so POV laden is it. "Despite attempts to re-interpret history, history unfolded the way it did", yes, but actually that is not even true. This issue got the Jesuits into persecution. There were a number of church leaders holding their heads in for human dignity. Gschadow ( talk) 04:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Judgment must be exercised about original document. If an article is about the catechism, lets say the presence of a sentence in it, it is obvious that is better than scholars. It depends about what kind of ground is looked for a point. Louisar ( talk) 14:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I removed the section "Other condemnations" as it appeared to be a copyvio of [1]. The linked website asserts a copyright of 1999 and 2005, so I assume that its text came first. I've also spent quite a bit of time today looking for the source that it cited ("The Catholic Church and Slavery" by Lane Core Jr) and have found zero reference to it except in this Wikipedia article and the website this text was taken from. That leaves me to believe that the source is likely not a very good one. I'm sure that the information that was in this section could be found in other sources and then returned to the article. Karanacs ( talk) 18:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
As Richard remarked elsewhere, when talking about "the Catholic Church", do you mean
This article jumps from one meaning to another, without pause.
Similarly, is opposition to slavery
On the first category here, the Christians of antiquity were abreast with the pagan philosophers (most notably Seneca and Marcus Aurelius), but not in advance of them. Even "In Christ, there is no slave or free" can be parallelled in Epictetus.
On the third, similarly, a denunciation of the slave trade in 1831 is like a denunciation of child pornography in 2009: certainly on the right side, but everyone has already agreed, and the practice is already widely illegal. It would be interesting, and a secondary source should say, why In Supremo Apostolatus was issued (to please the Orleanists, now in power?) and whether it had any effect anywhere.
The claims from the small-press books are mostly expressions of apologetic opinion. Are they encyclopedic? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The statements about Augustine's teaching on slavery in both the introduction and the text will have to be revised, in light of several letters of Augustine rediscovered in 1975, the so-called Divjak letters, named after the scholar who found them, Johannes Divjak of Vienna. One of these letters in particular, sometimes called letter 10, gives a detailed account of the efforts of Augustine and his parishioners to rescue their neighbors from slave-raiders. This letter shows that Augustine used Roman law to fight the slave raiders (so-called "Galatians" from the present Turkey) in the Roman courts, and that parishioners used several means, including buying the slaves back and by converging on the slave ships and freeing the slaves by direct action. This letter includes Augustine's account of his personally interviewing a young girl stolen from her family by slavers and later rescued by the church. This letter is not only one of the earliest first-hand accounts of the African slave-trade, but shows that Augustine the bishop, even as an old man, was much more pragmatic and pastoral than scholarly stereotypes have previously established. For further information, please see page 470 of Peter Brown's revised biography of Augustine-- [2] Ajschorschiii ( talk) 06:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Corrected Ajschorschiii ( talk) 23:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see my 2/6/10 blog post at [3] for more information. Ajschorschiii ( talk) 04:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I like the work that Johnbod has done. However, I'd like to point out that the lead section is incomplete in that it stops with In Supremo Apostolatus and the American bishops in the antebellum United States. The lead section needs to summarize the rest of the article up until the present. Otherwise, the lead leaves the reader with the wrong impression. -- Richard S ( talk) 05:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I note the article says Sublimeus Dei was never annulled but there is no ref given for the assertion. The sources I have, including two Catholic scholars, say that it's officiating brief was indeed annulled, effectively rendering S.D ineffective. Could a reference be supplied and, if possible, an explantion from the source given on the talk page as to why S.D was still in force despite aforementioned. Yt95 ( talk) 14:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
In the article I read a long discussion about this Bulla and his exact meaning and that "Some American bishops interpreted In Supremo as condemning only the slave trade and not slavery itself".
I think that it would be useful remember that in 1866 the Congregation of the Index sent a letter to American Bishop Martin who argued that slavery was "the manifest will of God.". The Index stated clearly after quoting In Supremo:
"It is an evil to deprive [people] of freedom and subject them to slavery; it is a violation of a natural right; for this reason people must not commit this evil to obtain good, from which they may draw an advantage, since God's purpose does not justify the immoral means of men. [Man] permits the evil to exist in order to deprive good, but [God] does not will the evil; on the contrary, disapproves of it and punishes it. The true Christian good is the one which does not harm people's rights".. Slavery in South is "in opposition to the will of the Sovereign Pontiffs who ... have not condemned the slave trade but slavery itself ... [and] those who favor it, or those who teach it to be lawful."
(in M. Pasquier
CV “‘Though Their Skin Remains Brown, I Hope Their Souls Will Soon Be White’: Slavery, French Missionaries, and the Roman Catholic Priesthood in the American South,” Church History, vol. 77 ,June 2008: 337-370.)
[4].--
Domics (
talk) 09:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree to use secondary sources:
Let's see what Panzer writes in his book ("The Popes and the Slavery", pp. 46/48):
≪The primary area of contention with In Supremo lies in determining what was actually being condemned by Gregory. The text of the Papal Constitution itself clearly condemned both the slave trade and slavery, as is apparent from the preceding paragraph citations. Both of the above citations prohibit the slave trade. Likewise, in the first paragraph we read that slavery itself is also condemned: "... no one in the future dare to ... reduce to slavery (in servitutem redigere) Indians, Blacks or other such peoples." In the second paragraph, the prohibition of "opinions contrary to what We have set forth in these Apostolic Letters" indicates that no one may hold that slavery itself is somehow not condemned.The question that should be asked, then, is why have many bishops, historians and others interpreted In Supremo as condemning the slave trade, but not slavery itself?.....Thus, the misreading of In Supremo that exists among scholars today actually has its roots in the partial rejection of that papal Constitution by the American hierarchy over a century and a half earlier.On the other hand, John Maxwell is quite right in his statement of what Gregory actually taught in In Supremo: "It is clear that the Pope is condemning unjust enslavement and unjust slavetrading" (emphasis added).
Also correct is the papal historian, J.N.D. Kelly, who states, "In the brief In Supremo ... he denounced <slavery> and the slave-trade as unworthy of Christians"(1) (emphasis added). ≫
1.Kelly, J.N.D., The Oxford Dictionary of the Popes, 1986, p. 308
Well Panzer (as Kelly: so we have two secondary sources who agree) thinks that In Supremo condemns both slavery and slavery trade. But according Panzer there was a misreading of this Bulla by Catholic hierarchy in America.. If we read my first intervention in this discussion we find the letter by the Congregation of the Index sent to American Bishop Martin condemning his position quoting In Supremo.
So, let's use secondary sources but, please, if someone quotes Panzer's opinion about Maxwell ("quite right") the same does not have to forgive his opinion about Kelly ("correct") and of course his own opinion.--
Domics (
talk) 09:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I came across this article today showing that slavery is going on within a few hours drive of the Vatican. I think the article needs to mention that current Church teachings seem to include an encyclical written in invisible ink that say "look the other way", the tomatoes are killer tomatoes for our image. At the very least the Cardinals could boycott tomatoes. But more seriously, a section on current blindness to slavery is needed in this article, given that it is happening in the Vatican's backyard and the pontif probably dines on the slave-picked tomatoes. History2007 ( talk) 02:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The 1686 condemnation of the enslavement of black people and the call for their emancipation deserves more attention. It shows that back in the late seventeenth century the magisterium condemned race based slavery even for non Christians and also called for those already enslaved to be freed. That in my opinion was a clear and exceptional condemnation that apparently noone listened too. Also the fact that Pope Paul III condemned the enslavement of Indians shows that since the beginning of the early modrn period the papacy oposed the enslavement even of non Christians. The concept of just enslavement of enemies of Christ seems to usually only refer to those who actively tried to harm inocent Catholics such as Henry VIII who killed Roger More, and the Moors who were themselves enslaving Catholics. Also the the work of the church to have those born as slaves emancipated into serfs during the Middle Ages also shows a rejection of heriditarry slavery also. Maybe this dinstinction could be more clearly explained in the article? Also it is important to note that the French and Mexican priests and the Irish emancipation movement which oposed slavery were all in excellent standing with Rome. As were usually the Jesuits who freed black slaves. 83.128.72.82 ( talk) 11:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
This is also true for Pope Urban VIII who merely used slaves who were captured Muslim pirates. So enemies of Christ were not Pagans, Jews or heretics, but actual enemies of Christ. 83.128.72.82 ( talk) 11:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Catholic Church and slavery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
One of the books cited "Infallibility on trial" is a book hostile to the Church so I wouldnt trust it as a reliable source and I havent heard a claim liek that from anywhere else. Also Sublimus Dei was retracted not anulled (because Charles V said he would make laws protectijg the indians which he did), since if it was anulled it wouldnt have been cited in earlier Papal bulls — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.120.0 ( talk) 11:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Catholic Church and slavery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ Metrospector:,
Thanks for your reply. You are absolutely right that I should have provided more details here on the talk page. Sorry.
Herbert too makes a similar argument on page 62 (I was referencing Paul as an example, not a quote), arguing that the slavery cannot be arrived at by natural reason, but can only be "by nature" as a result of the actions of man. Moreover, he clearly isn't talking about the kind of chattel system referenced on this page since he argues on page 63 that it "can only be determined by assessing its utility and, hence, the benefits derived by both the slave and his owner."
We can also see Aquinas' view of slavery as an unnatural condition caused by sin in various other sources. For example,
Aquinas begins his answer by distinguishing two forms or modes of ruling.
The first, he says, is "ordered to governing" (ad regimen ordinatus) and the
second is "for the sake of domination" (ad dominanclura). Aquinas immediately
equates the second mode of ruling with that exercised by a master over his
slaves. ...
With his opening distinction thus elucidated, Aquinas proceeds to argue that though the second mode of rule would not be found in a state of innocence, the first would be.
Ordering or governing some human beings for the benefit of others happens only when man "is compared to irrational creatures," as in Aristotle's comparison of slaves to animate instruments.'5 But the likening of human beings to irrational creatures, Aquinas says, occurs as a result of sin and therefore would not have been found had original sin not been committed. ... In the Summa as in the Sentence commentary, Aquinas speaks of two modes of dominium. The first is the mastery of slaves; the second is clominium "in a general sense referred to any kind of subject.'4~ It is exemplified by rule over free persons. The first mode, Aquinas says, would not be found in a state of innocence.
...
Aquinas argues that being ruled for the utility or good of another is a cause of sadness and can happen only as a punishment for sin. ... Aside from the absence of the political analogy, the argument of the Summa differs from that of the Sentence commentary only in its allusion to unhappiness, which makes clearer than did the earlier work in what the punitive character of slavery consists.
Augustine and Aquinas on Original Sin and the Function of Political
Authority
Weithman, Paul J., 1959-
Journal of the History of Philosophy, Volume 30, Number 3, July 1992,
pp. 353-376 (Article)
https://www3.nd.edu/~pweithma/professional_website/My%20Papers/Augustine%20and%20Aquinas%20on%20Political%20Authority.pdf
Or
Aquinas largely agreed with Augustine that slavery was the result of the Fall
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/ethics/philosophers_1.shtml
I think what is important to clarify related to Aquinas, is that his position was that slavery as an institution was not part of natural law, but rather developed as part of sin in the world.
Thoughts?
Squatch347 ( talk) 16:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because no analysis of evidence has been given that the current version of the article contains any copyvios, only that it was (allegedly) created by a "copyright violator, all versions tainted". Oh really, you have checked every single version of this article and discovered that they are all "tainted", have you? -- Smeat75 ( talk) 19:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
This article is very messy - repetitive in particular. The lead is a terrible read. Can we fix it please? Contaldo80 ( talk) 00:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Yea, not perfect. But full of very important informationsm very usefull Louisar ( talk) 14:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
We have
Christian views on slavery;
We have
Jewish views on slavery;
We have
Islamic views on slavery;
We have
Catholic views on slavery, oh no, it's
Catholic Church and slavery, why we don't have
Catholic views on slavery ?
Speltdecca (
talk) 20:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. 💵Money💵emoji💵 Talk💸 Help out at CCI! 01:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I might just be missing something, but there seems to be no substantial coverage in the page of the slave trade between the Kingdoms of Portugal and the Kongo, which is notable for a number of reasons. Is there a reason this topic is more or less omitted? natemup ( talk) 14:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Some sections of this article are completely non-neutral, especially in the US section. This line in particular is extremely problematic:
"Daniel O'Connell, the Catholic leader of the Irish in Ireland, supported the abolition of slavery in the British Empire and in America. Garrison recruited him to the cause of American abolitionism. O'Connell, the black abolitionist Charles Lenox Remond, and the temperance priest Theobald Mathew organized a petition with 60,000 signatures urging the Irish of the United States to support abolition. O'Connell also spoke in the United States for abolition."
Except Daniel O'Connell was one of a handful of 'Young Irelanders' or 'nationalists' in his day who took this position, and his support for abolition caused a major rift between himself and Irish nationalists inside the US (where he was repeatedly urged by his associates to tone down the abolition talk), to say nothing of the hierarchy within the American Catholic Church. Have a look at what Archbishop John Hughes wrote to the US Secretary of War Simon Cameron in 1861 [5].
The record of white American Catholics on slavery, both within the hierarchy of the Church and among the immigrant population, was atrocious and there is no shortage of scholarly sources that attest to this fact. Virtually all abolitionists in the US were 'dissenting' or 'non-conformist' Protestants.
And yet whoever edited this section cherry-picked counterexamples and left this information out.
Not only is this a non-neutral and significantly misleading way to present this content to readers, but it is borderline propaganda. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 21:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
The Catholic Church owned slaves in Suriname as late as 1863: https://www.nationaalarchief.nl/onderzoeken/index/nt00341/2a7d9e42-d7f2-11e2-a0c1-00505693001d 144.178.207.62 ( talk) 10:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)