A review of "The Popes and Slavery" by Joel S Panzer.
The Catholic Church didn't condemn all forms of
slavery until 1890, when Pope Leo XIII issued his encyclical "Catholicae
Ecclesiae". In other words, the condemnation of all forms of slavery came
very late in Church history, at a point in time when abolitionism had already
succeeded in the Western world.
The author of this book, Father Joel S. Panzer, attempts to prove that the Church condemned slavery much earlier. Panzer is not very successful in his endeavour. Quite the contrary. Several of the documents he quotes prove the exact opposite: that the Catholic Church as late as the 19th century did indeed defend certain kinds of slavery.
The author points out, quite correctly, that some forms of servitude were considered legitimate before the victories of the abolitionist movement. He also concedes that the Church never condemned servitude with a "just title" until 1890. But since this kind of servitude is really also a form of slavery, this simply confirms what the critics of the Catholic Church have been saying all along, i.e. that Leo XIII was the first pope to unhesitatingly condemn *all* forms of slavery.
Panzer has located a number of documents concerning slavery issued by various pontiffs. The earliest one is "Sicut Dudum" from 1435, issued by Pope Eugene IV. I don't deny that the document is admirable: the pope in question condemns, in no uncertain terms, the genocidal butchering of the Guanchos, the native inhabitants of the Canary Islands. Another remarkable document is "Sublimis Deus" from 1537, issued by Paul III. It prohibits the enslavement of American Indians and Filipinos. Paul III threatens those involved in slavery with excommunication. The encyclical angered the slave-traders, and eventually the pope was forced to withdraw his encyclical (or at least the threat of excommunication).
Both "Sicut Dudum" and "Sublimis Deus" are an improvement upon the medieval position of the Catholic Church, which prohibited the enslavement of Christians, but not of pagans, Jews or Muslims. Both Eugene IV and Paul III prohibit the enslavement of peoples who are still pagans (perhaps for missionary reasons). Unfortunately, there are still loopholes in these documents. What about "just title" slavery? Was slavery abolished in the papal states? Did the papal see take any action against the innumerable number of Catholics (including members of the hierarchy) who broke these prohibitions?
That the Catholic Church had nothing against slavery as such, is proven by Instruction 1293, issued in 1866 under the pontificate of Pius IX by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. The instruction deals with slavery in Ethiopia. The document prohibits Christians from buying slaves who legitimately belongs to others, since this would be like stealing property. It further says that Christians have the right to buy slaves who have been illicitly enslaved, provided that these give their consent. However, the instruction doesn't tell the new owner to free the slave. No, it gives the Christian buyer the right to keep the slave in his own servitude! Naturally, the Christian owner is to treat the slave with "charity", instruct him in the "Faith", and so on. That's what they always say, isn't it? The document further states that native Christians and foreign missionaries have the right to search for and apprehend fugitive slaves, provided that these have been enslaved "justly". Those who have been "unjustly" enslaved, however, have the right to flee, although the Sacred Congregation believes that the question is a difficult one to answer. Indeed! The author of the document, presumably a papal secretary, explicitly states that slavery as such isn't against natural or divine law. Interestingly, a large part of Instruction 1293 is modelled on an earlier document, Instruction 515 from 1776, dealing with slavery in Cambodia.
"The Popes and Slavery" is worth buying for the documents it excerpts or quotes. They are presented in both Latin and English. However, as an analysis, is falls far short. It doesn't explain why Eugene IV and Paul III suddenly saw the light concerning the Guanchos, the Indians and Filipinos. It doesn't have an exhaustive discussion about the difference between "just" and "unjust" titles.
Above all, however, it fails to prove that the Catholic Church took a firm stand against all forms of slavery before 1890.
Despite the admirable efforts of individual Catholics, or even individual pontiffs, the record of the Catholic Church on slavery is nevertheless too little, too late.
The author of this book, Father Joel S. Panzer, attempts to prove that the Church condemned slavery much earlier. Panzer is not very successful in his endeavour. Quite the contrary. Several of the documents he quotes prove the exact opposite: that the Catholic Church as late as the 19th century did indeed defend certain kinds of slavery.
The author points out, quite correctly, that some forms of servitude were considered legitimate before the victories of the abolitionist movement. He also concedes that the Church never condemned servitude with a "just title" until 1890. But since this kind of servitude is really also a form of slavery, this simply confirms what the critics of the Catholic Church have been saying all along, i.e. that Leo XIII was the first pope to unhesitatingly condemn *all* forms of slavery.
Panzer has located a number of documents concerning slavery issued by various pontiffs. The earliest one is "Sicut Dudum" from 1435, issued by Pope Eugene IV. I don't deny that the document is admirable: the pope in question condemns, in no uncertain terms, the genocidal butchering of the Guanchos, the native inhabitants of the Canary Islands. Another remarkable document is "Sublimis Deus" from 1537, issued by Paul III. It prohibits the enslavement of American Indians and Filipinos. Paul III threatens those involved in slavery with excommunication. The encyclical angered the slave-traders, and eventually the pope was forced to withdraw his encyclical (or at least the threat of excommunication).
Both "Sicut Dudum" and "Sublimis Deus" are an improvement upon the medieval position of the Catholic Church, which prohibited the enslavement of Christians, but not of pagans, Jews or Muslims. Both Eugene IV and Paul III prohibit the enslavement of peoples who are still pagans (perhaps for missionary reasons). Unfortunately, there are still loopholes in these documents. What about "just title" slavery? Was slavery abolished in the papal states? Did the papal see take any action against the innumerable number of Catholics (including members of the hierarchy) who broke these prohibitions?
That the Catholic Church had nothing against slavery as such, is proven by Instruction 1293, issued in 1866 under the pontificate of Pius IX by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. The instruction deals with slavery in Ethiopia. The document prohibits Christians from buying slaves who legitimately belongs to others, since this would be like stealing property. It further says that Christians have the right to buy slaves who have been illicitly enslaved, provided that these give their consent. However, the instruction doesn't tell the new owner to free the slave. No, it gives the Christian buyer the right to keep the slave in his own servitude! Naturally, the Christian owner is to treat the slave with "charity", instruct him in the "Faith", and so on. That's what they always say, isn't it? The document further states that native Christians and foreign missionaries have the right to search for and apprehend fugitive slaves, provided that these have been enslaved "justly". Those who have been "unjustly" enslaved, however, have the right to flee, although the Sacred Congregation believes that the question is a difficult one to answer. Indeed! The author of the document, presumably a papal secretary, explicitly states that slavery as such isn't against natural or divine law. Interestingly, a large part of Instruction 1293 is modelled on an earlier document, Instruction 515 from 1776, dealing with slavery in Cambodia.
"The Popes and Slavery" is worth buying for the documents it excerpts or quotes. They are presented in both Latin and English. However, as an analysis, is falls far short. It doesn't explain why Eugene IV and Paul III suddenly saw the light concerning the Guanchos, the Indians and Filipinos. It doesn't have an exhaustive discussion about the difference between "just" and "unjust" titles.
Above all, however, it fails to prove that the Catholic Church took a firm stand against all forms of slavery before 1890.
Despite the admirable efforts of individual Catholics, or even individual pontiffs, the record of the Catholic Church on slavery is nevertheless too little, too late.
No comments:
Post a Comment