By Steve Weidenkopf September 18, 2017
I did not get the opportunity at the conference to talk with this professor about his erroneous statements about the Church and slavery, so I emailed him and we engaged in a courteous exchange in which I pointed him in the direction of several papal condemnations of slavery, which he dismissed out of hand. He ignored the historical record because it did not fit with his agenda of changing Church teaching on contraception.
Sadly, this is not an uncommon tactic by those with an animus against the Church. Many believe, as this professor did, that the Church approved or at least tolerated slavery, especially of Africans and Native Americans in the New World. Scholars argued that the Church was either late in condemning slavery or actively supported it. But like many other historical myths about the Catholic Church, this one does not withstand scrutiny of the historical record.
The myth persists because there were individual Catholics who supported slavery or owned slaves. Scholars with an ax to grind use these examples as “proof” of the Church’s malfeasance without drawing the necessary distinction that what individual Catholics may do does not necessarily reflect the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium.
Moreover, scholars have routinely failed to distinguish between different types of slavery. The Church has consistently and constantly condemned the practice of “unjust servitude,” which usually entailed the enslavement of a certain race or for economic gain. But Western society since ancient times permitted just title servitude; that is, the involuntary servitude imposed on criminals or prisoners of war. Just title servitude was considered permissible as recently as 1949 when the Geneva Convention allowed nations at war to conscript prisoners of war for labor. In this case, the Church has always demanded humane treatment of slaves by their masters and even encouraged their emancipation. The failure to recognize these distinctions between types of servitude has led many scholars to declare falsely that the Church failed to condemn slavery.
The Church was born into a world where slavery was a lynchpin of society. Imperial Rome was built and sustained on the backs of slaves; the complete abolition of slavery in Rome was unthinkable and impractical. Despite societal acceptance of slavery, the Church made no distinction between slaves and freedmen in its membership. The equality of believers in a highly class-stratified society was one of the attractions that the Church held for the people of Rome.
Once Emperor Constantine legalized the Church in A.D. 313, its teachings influenced Roman laws and policies. Church funds were used by Christians to redeem slaves, especially prisoners of war. One former slave even rose to become pope (Callistus I) in the early third century! Still, slavery continued in Europe even after the collapse of imperial rule in the late fifth century, but as the Church’s influence increased the institution of slavery decreased until it was completely eradicated in Christendom.
Unfortunately, slavery returned to European society in the fifteenth century, with the conquest of the Canary Islands and the discovery of the New World. But from 1435 to 1890, a succession of popes condemned the slave trade and slavery in no uncertain terms. The first pope to do so was Eugenius IV (r. 1431-1447), who in his 1435 bull Sicut Dudum demanded that Christians free all enslaved natives of the Canary Islands within fifteen days; failure to do so would incur automatic excommunication. Thus, fifty-seven years before Columbus’s first voyage, the Roman pontiff unequivocally prohibited the enslavement of native peoples.
In 1537, Pope Paul III (r. 1534-1549) issued a bull, Sublimus Dei, which taught that native peoples were not to be enslaved. In 1591, Gregory XIV (r. 1590-1591) promulgated Cum Sicuti, which was addressed to the bishop of Manila in the Philippines and reiterated his predecessors’ prohibitions against enslaving native peoples. In the seventeenth century, Urban VIII (r. 1623-1644) promulgated Commissum Nobis (1639) in support of the Spanish king’s (Philip IV) edict prohibiting enslavement of the Indians in the New World.
The need for cheap and abundant labor in the colonies is what led to the African slave trade. This new form of bondage was also condemned by the popes, beginning with Innocent XI (r. 1676-1689). In 1741, Benedict XIV (r. 1740-1758) issued Immensa Pastorum, which reiterated that the penalty for enslaving Indians was excommunication. In 1839, Gregory XVI (r. 1831-1846) issued In Supremo to condemn the enslavement of Africans. Pope Leo XIII (r. 1878-1903) promulgated two bulls condemning slavery in 1888 and 1890.
Yet despite the many papal condemnations of slavery, European colonists continued to enslave Africans and New World natives until the nineteenth century. Papal denunciations of slavery were so harsh and so frequent that the colonial Spanish instituted a law forbidding the publication of papal documents in the colonies without prior royal approval.
It is ironic that the Church is falsely accused of either supporting slavery or failing to condemn it, when the wholesale enslavement of Christians by Muslims (estimated at one million people), especially the Ottoman Turks from the sixteenth to the eighteen century, is all but ignored. Finally, it is disingenuous to equate the immoral behavior of individual Catholics with official Church teaching. The fact that some Catholics owned slaves or participated in the slave trade is not an indictment of the Church, but rather an illustration that Catholics will sometimes ignore the clear teachings of the Church.
For more information on this and may other common anti-Catholic historical charges, see Steve Weidenkopf’s new book, The Real Story of Catholic History: Answering Twenty Centuries of Anti-Catholic Myths, available late September and available now for pre-order from Catholic Answers Press.
This Post Has 5 Comments
Hi Steve! I’ve always had trouble understanding these words of Pope Pius IX, “”. . . slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law,and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons. For the sort of ownership which a slave-owner has over a slave is understood as nothing other than the perpetual right of disposing of the work of a slave for one’s own benefit – services which it is right for one human being to provide for another. From this it follows that it is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or donated, provided that in this sale, purchase, exchange or gift, the due conditions are strictly observed which the approved authors likewise describe and explain. Among these conditions the most important ones are that the purchaser should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue or Catholic faith of the slave who is to be transferred to another’s possession.” Do you have any thoughts about what the Pope meant here?
Dominic, I’m interested in your comment regarding Blessed Pope Pius IX, even though they were directed to Steve. What was the specific papal document you were citing from?
Hi Steve,
Really useful rundown, thank you.
However, what I usually don’t see in treatments of this topic is one papal bull which explicitly permitted a ruler to seek out slaves – Dum Diversas (Nicholas V). I don’t think it undermines the position that the Church was against slavery – this seems like a temporary and mostly political permission from the Pope, not protected by the virtue of infallibility and thus misguided. Likewise, I believe it can also be argued that it concerned “just title slavery”, which you mention so again, I don’t think it proves the Church has, as a Magisterium, ever endorsed chattel slavery.
However, not mentioning this bull (which, all being said, is still a difficult document to digest) is a bit counterproductive in my opinion – if someone reads articles such as this one, becomes comfortable that the Church never ever released any document permitting/supporting slavery, then if someone brings up Dum Diversas as a counterargument, it can catch a well-meaning Catholic off guard. In the best case scenario, he’ll be unprepared to answer and confused. In the worst – he’ll feel that the Church had something to hide after all, that he was actually lied to and perhaps he’ll lose trust towards the Church and its history completely.
So while I applaud efforts to set the record straight, we should include all facts, not only those that give us a glowing reputation (because let’s face it, Church history is messy, even if the doctrine itself is infallible). We need to learn to love and defend the Church not by neglecting the less-than-perfect parts of history, but in spite of them.
This appears to be a very thorough documentation of official church opposition to slavery with a penalty of excommunication for those Catholics who owned or sold slaves. However, it appears to be another doctrine that exists on paper only. Were there any prominent Catholics-kings, queens, political or military leaders, etc- who were ever excommunicated ? If so, I do not recall it in any history of slavery. Theoretically, all Christian churches believe in the Fifth Commandment " Thou shalt not kill" but I have never seen any Christian Church excommunicate any of its male members for killing during wartime. Many of these doctrines seem to exist only on paper which makes on wonder if those who promulgate these doctrines actually believe in them. They appear to be mainly for show.
STEVE RAY HERE: Thanks for taking the time to write and sharing your socks. Much appreciated!
The teachings of the church is not for show but it set standards. Maybe not everyone follows the standards but at least the church teaches which true and what should be followed. Remember the church doesn’t have an army that can impose laws on people.
First comment regarding slavery. There are various degrees all the way from wicked ownership of property like we had with black Africans in the last century or two but there’s also indentured servant to wear someone who had bills or debts could sell himself into indentured servant to to pay off the bill. This is a degree of slavery or servirude and that needs to be taken into account.
Second, regarding “thou shall not kill“ that is basically a command against murder. The church as always, I repeat always, made exceptions for war and self-defense. That’s obvious since that command came in the old testament and yet God commanded war and self-defense at times and did so without violating his own commands. Murder and killing in a war or for self-defense or for defending one’s country Is quite different than murder and taking of an innocent life.
Wow! Lots of scholarly responses to a scholarly article. The thing that I want to comment on is the professor from Creighton. Creighton!? One of the things that insured I would die a Catholic was the Church’s teaching on contraception. How can anyone not see the wisdom?
Comments are closed.