 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
based on correspondence in the Tablet, 7th and 13th of
December 1998
Objection. The Popes did condemn slavery
You
are wrong in saying that the Popes taught that slavery was allowed. They did
not. The Popes condemned slavery. Read, for instance, Sublimus Dei by
Paul III in 1537. This is what he says:
“To all faithful Christians to whom this writing
may come, health in Christ our Lord and the apostolic benediction. The sublime
God so loved the human race that He created man in such wise that he might
participate, not only in the good that other creatures enjoy, but endowed him
with capacity to attain to the inaccessible and invisible Supreme Good and
behold it face to face; and since man, according to the testimony of the sacred
scriptures, has been created to enjoy eternal life and happiness, which none
may obtain save through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary that he
should possess the nature and faculties enabling him to receive that faith; and
that whoever is thus endowed should be capable of receiving that same faith.
Nor is it credible that any one should possess so little understanding as to
desire the faith and yet be destitute of the most necessary faculty to enable
him to receive it. Hence Christ, who is the Truth itself, that has never failed
and can never fail, said to the preachers of the faith whom He chose for that
office 'Go ye and teach all nations.' He said all, without exception, for all
are capable of receiving the doctrines of the faith. The enemy of the human
race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction,
beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he
might hinder the preaching of God's word of Salvation to the people: he
inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish
abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We
have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service,
pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith. We, who,
though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our
might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed
to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they
are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our
information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. 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.”
Reply. Some Popes condemned indiscriminate slavery. But they upheld
the principle of slavery.
You
miss the point when you remind us that various popes have condemned the
indiscriminate enslavement of Africans and American Indians by the colonising
powers of the day. The same Pope Paul III whose letter of 1537 you quote,
confirmed in 1548 that both the laity and the clergy have the right to
own slaves. Popes like Paul III did not condemn slavery as such, merely the way
native slaves were acquired. In fact, they acknowledged four so-called
“just” titles for acquiring slaves: by the right of conquest, genuine
non-Christian prisoners of war could be enslaved; criminals could be
legitimately condemned to slavery; slaves could be bought from their legal
owner, including a child from its father; and children born from a woman who
was a slave were automatically slaves for life. These titles were upheld in
church law and reaffirmed again and again by moral theologians and popes alike.
As
recently as 20 June 1866, the Holy Office declared in a statement signed by
Pope Pius IX that “it is not contrary to the natural or divine law for a
slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given, provided in the sale, purchase,
exchange or gift, the due conditions are strictly observed which the approved
authors describe and explain”. Note that the justification was based both
on philosophy (natural law) and on Revelation (divine law). The point here is
that the Holy Office, supposedly the guardian of Truth, was defending a
practice that was both humanly degrading and theologically wrong.
Then,
as now, Rome appeals to “natural law”. Aristotle deemed slavery
natural for some people, and medieval scholars agreed, including Thomas Aquinas
- the same theologians who are so much praised in the recent papal encyclical
Fides et Ratio. Though slavery was said to be contrary to the primordial
state of nature as enjoyed by Adam in paradise, it was judged to be natural in
our present condition. The condemnation of contraceptives is similarly based on
an outdated philosophical understanding of marriage.
The
Holy Office held slavery to be in harmony with Scripture (Lev. 25:39-55; 1 Pet.
2:18; Lk 17:7-10; Col. 3:11-22; 1 Tim. 6:1-10). Moreover, the Holy Office could
point to many sources that would seem to document a solid tradition: Fathers of
the Church (Augustine, Ambrosiaster), Iocal church councils (Gangra, AD 362;
Toledo, AD 655), ancient church laws, popes and theologians. They relied on
what they considered an unbroken and universal tradition in the Church - just
as now they rely on a similar supposed “universal tradition” in their
rejection of the priestly ordination of women.
In
1866 most countries had already abolished slavery and the tide of public
opinion had swung decidedly against any toleration of it. No doubt this was one
of the “signs of the times” Vatican II speaks about, but discounted
as one of those “trends of our age” decried in Fides et Ratio.
Also, in 1866, when the Holy Office publicly invoked God’s law to
sanction slavery, a whole succession of theologians had already bravely
denounced it, anticipating the true Catholic teaching and tradition as now
enshrined in the Second Vatican Council.
The
truth of the matter is that the magisterium has constantly been behind the
times: in the question of taking interest on capital loans; on the earth
circling the sun; on evolution; on the authorship of Scripturc; on democracy,
trade unions and ecumenism. Whatever modern reality cropped up, Romc first got
it wrong. Does it not pursue the same path now by banning contraceptives,
optional celibacy and the ordination ot women?
John Wijngaards
John Wijngaards
Follow @JohnWijngaards
Join our Women Priests' Mailing List
for occasional newsletters:
An email will be immediately sent to you
requesting your confirmation.
Please, credit this document
as published by www.womenpriests.org!