Sublimus Dei
Dialogs June 13th, 2007Whilst conducting research I came across this papal letter written by Pope Paul III in 1537.
In it he reiterates two particular doctrines (much maligned by non-catholics and secularists). (i) That salvation is achieved through the Church, and (ii) that Church is universal and that it is desireable that all the nations be converted to Catholicism.
In the second paragraph though, of this extraorinaraily short letter. He declares the Church’s opposition to slavery and racism. Although elaborated in ecclesistical language it still maintains its powers to this day.
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…Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters…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.
Pretty enlightened for a sometimes controversial Pontiff.
June 13th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Connected extract:
1839: Pope Gregory XVI wrote in Supremo Apostolatus that he admonishes and adjures “in the Lord all believers in Christ, of whatsoever condition, that no one hereafter may dare unjustly to molest Indians, Negroes, or other men of this sort;…or to reduce them to slavery…” The operative word is unjustly. The Pope did not condemn slavery if the slaves had been captured justly. Roman Catholic Bishops in the Southern U.S. determined that this prohibition did not apply to slavery in the U.S. To their credit, various other popes did order or otherwise influence the emancipation of slaves that they considered to be unjustly enslaved.
1866: The Holy Office of the Vatican issued a statement in support of slavery. The document stated that “Slavery itself…is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law…The purchaser [of the slave] 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.” Some commentators suggest that the statement was triggered by the passage of the 13th Amendment in the U.S. Others claim that the document referred only to a “particular situation in Africa to have slaves under certain conditions,” and not necessarily to the situation in the U.S.
Leonard Kennedy, ” ‘The Popes and Slavery’ — book review,” Catholic Educator’s Resource Center,” at: http://catholiceducation.org/
June 13th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
The Third Lateran Council of 1179 imposed slavery on those helping the Saracens. The legitimacy of slavery was incorporated in the official Corpus Iuris Canonici, based on the Decretum Gratiani, which became the official law of the Church since Pope Gregory IX in 1226…
http://churchslavery.blogspot.com/
June 13th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
I believe the operative word or term in Supremo Apostalasis is “or to reduce them to slavery”.
In that contest the word “unjustly” means that all previous enslavements were unjust reductions in their natural state of freedom.
As for references to the behaviour of the Catholic Church in the Southern states we must not forget that the US was a Protestant country, the south was protestant and the Republican government was secular!
It was the secular government of the south that exploited slaves and there is substantial evidence pointing to Catholic opposition to this.
Southern states bigotry was extended to include Catholics as well. Just refer to any study on the aims and methods of the Ku Klux Klan, white supremacy has always including virulant anti-catholic sentiments in its doctrines.
I refer you to this text as a defence.
http://www.catholicleague.org/catholicism_and_slavery/stopskych3.htm
Also to note that numerous doctors of the Church opposed slavery, including our alma mater Saint Anselm:
http://www.saintpatrickdc.org/ss/0421.htm
I also recommend reading Pauls Epistle to Philemon which he writes on behalf of Philemons former slave Onesimus.
It is ambiguous and British MP’s abolitionist and pro-slavery used this Epistle as a defence for their arguments.
The Third Lateran Council is a good one to quote, if only to give a better understanding of the development of canon law.
Read in its entirety canon 24 of the council denounces as heretics (excommunicado) and apostates those Christians who aided the Saracens against Crusaders. And if captured permitted their being taken as slaves. As apostates they were considered non-christian. In the language of the crusades we are talking about ‘infidels’. Lateran III and the teaching at the time still prohibited a Christian from enslaving another Christian. By Paul III this prohibition was extended to all peoples.
June 13th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Anti-Slavery letters from the Papacy. Read them!!!
1435 Eugene IV “Sicut Dudum” Condemns slavery, condemns Spanish intransigence, condemns the idea that black people were not human, reiterates all human of all colours are invested with a soul and are human and have the right to liberty. Condemns all opponents of this view in the strongest possible terms.
1537 Paul III Sublimis Deis (see original post) here Paul makes a specific denunciation of racial slavery (differing from booty of war slavery).
1591 Gregory XIV Cum Sicuti.
1639 Urban VIII Commissum Nobis.
1741 Benedict XIV Immensa Pastorum.
1839 Gregory XVI In Supremo Apostalatus (please read the text in its entirety and judge for yourself) It condemns racial slavery and then proceeds to condemn all slavery. It was not well recieved in America and some wilfully misinterpreted it as meaning that the slave trade was wrong but slavery wasn’t. This is not the case in the text.
Incidentally the latter text which opposed slavery quite vociferously and which was unfortunately misquoted by you, also contains a brief synopsis of his predecessors that had spoken against slavery.
June 13th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Full text here:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16sup.htm
June 14th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
By your strong and point by point rebuttal, you recommending “Read them!!!”, and your point that I had misquoted a passage, I am assuming you think that was my own view that I posted (in comment #1).
Just to clarify, that post was entirely quotation and not my work at all. I don’t really know anything about the churches historic view on slavery.
I just quoted a descenting view. I don’t really want a debate on this.
AC1.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Hi, no I absolutely wasnt trying to attack it as being your view. Alas the language started to get confrontational as a reponse to the dissenting view, so apologies for that.
My original intent in posting the brief article was that Paul III a pope who had numerous illegitimate children, and who wasnt afraid to give Cardinalates to his grandchildren, (a charge of nepotism that Luther raged on about for years) was also a very broad minded reformist theologian. He instigated the ‘Council of Trent’ which brought about a number of reforms that addressed Luthers 95 theses. Luther was almost tempted to ‘give-in’ were it not the fact that he couldnt get the ecclistical offices to accept that they had formerly taught certain principles in error or in ignorance (which for Luther was one and the same).
Paul III’s opposition to slavery on the grounds of racism was an incredibly far sighted point of view, when you consider that it is still only 200 years and less that the slave trade has been abolished, and of course the racism that he opposed still exists to this day.
That was my only intent in posting it.
Read them, was an admonition to read them if you get the chance, as they are interesting texts (minus the ecclesiastical babble). The exclamation marks gave the wrong impression (I shall be more sparing in their future use).
Perhaps when posting a dissenting view, we should both offer some clarification of each others genuine position?
June 14th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Yeah I think I better understand your original intention for the original posting now. That helps
It seems as if at least the majority of popes did look to a future where slavery was abolished. Of course it still continues in modern forms according to some organisations (Amnesty International, etc). The vatican may have lead but may have been ignored by many slavery supporters:
“The thesis of the book is that Catholics were guilty for centuries of having slaves or profiting from the slave trade while the popes taught clearly and frequently the evil of slavery, and even legislated severe ecclesiastical penalties for engaging in it. Slavery was continued, then, in Catholic countries, by disobedience.”
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0013.html
I don’t have much of a genuine opinion on this topic. My main concern with the original post was it had a quote without much background or context – thats why I posted the first counter opinion I found (which looks at least half wrong).
AC1
June 14th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
I cannot disagree with the preamble to the book that you quoted, certainly the Latin American and French Carribean experience was that Catholic (or supposedly) Catholic states frequently then (as now) chose to ignore the Popes teachings.
The Mission comes to mind in particular.
I suppose a valid question is if the Vatican leads can it have any teeth in enforcing its leadership? Which I would think brings us dangerously close to the activities or the raison detre of the mistitled Holy Office of the Inquisition.
And I absolutely agree with you that slavery still continues to this day.
An interesting piece of news, the vatican has declared that Catholics should cease donations to Amnesty International because of its ‘promotion of abortion’.
Amnesty have responded with dissappointment (due to many areas of agreement) and states that it promotes freedom of choice for abortion particularly in cases of rape and incest.
I dont have a straight forward view on this. I disagree with the Vatican imposing sanctions like this, as much of the work of Amnesty is excellent and commendable.
And the issue of abortion following rape and incest enters into extremely choppy waters of emotivism that the general principle of abortion does not always bring about.
There is a question as to whether an argument from the double effect could be applied here, i.e. on grounds of mental and physical wellbeing following rape, (a severe postnatal depression triggered by post-traumatic-stress could lead the mother to possibly kill the child and herself) rendering abortion as the lesser of two evils.
And arguments pertaining to the possible defects incurred in an incestous offspring, and thereotically extended defects being passed on by the incestous child having its own offspring.
(Matter for a different post, maybe my next dialog, the questionable status of the double effect).