Talk:Catholic Church and slavery

Canon Law

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.

--Beaven (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2013 CST

The source you might be looking for re Canon Law & slavery is by Father J. F. Maxwell "Slavery and the Catholic Church: The History of Catholic Teaching Concerning the Moral Legitimacy of the Institution of Slavery". It's presently out of print but a good ref library should have it. I'm not sure about having a separate section though because of the loss of historical context when everything is lumped together. Yt95 (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

question

Who is Mark Brumley (mentioned in the new section that was added today)? Bwrs (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The text in question is quoted verbatim from “Let My People Go: The Catholic Church and Slavery.” which was published in This Rock (July/August 1999): 16-21 and is on the Catholic Education Resource Center's website at http://catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0006.html.

According to the website, Mark Brumley is President of Ignatius Press. A former staff apologist with Catholic Answers, Mark is the author of How Not To Share Your Faith (Catholic Answers) and contributor to The Five Issues That Matter Most. He is a regular contributor to the InsightScoop web log.

Hope that answers your question. If you feel we need to add some of this information to the article for the benefit of other readers who might be wondering the same thing, please be bold and do so.

--Richard (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Other teachings

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)

Can you provide a citation to a source that expresses this POV? --Richard (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR this article violates the original research policy

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)

Also, there are so many unsourced sentences needing citations. NancyHeise ^talk 00:42, 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)

Removal of "other condemnations" section

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)

And claims about the history of slavery between, say, the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin and the American Civil War should usually be taken with a quantity of salt anyway; they also exist on both sides of the issue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

General problems

As Richard remarked elsewhere, when talking about "the Catholic Church", do you mean

• The Papacy and the General Councils?
• Some Catholic clergy?
• Some intellectuals who are Catholic?

This article jumps from one meaning to another, without pause.

Similarly, is opposition to slavery

• An injunction to treat slaves well?
• Opposition to making free men of Us into slaves among foreigners?
• Opposition to the slave trade, in general?
• Proposals to free all those already slaves?

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 Divjak letters shed new light on Augustine and slavery

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)

This is useful, but generally reflects the important distinctions I have tried to introduce into the articles between attitudes to new enslavement, especially of Christians, the slave-trade and ongoing slavery from birth. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead section is incomplete

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)

The whole thing is incomplete. I'm mostly working from the detailed sections backwards, so will probably finish the lead last. Or feel free to have a go yourself. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have rather run out of puff here for the moment, but will return. What is now missing is the considerable clerical backlash against New World slavery, mainly of the Indians, and just pulling the whole thing together. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sublimus Dei

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)

I think this is a problem of reliable sourcing. The basic argument, from a slanted apologetics position, is that Sublimeus Dei was a blanket condemnation of slavery and that it's executive brief was only withdrawn because of a mistake in the princes named in the document. If this is indeed the case the source should be able to state when the names were corrected and when it was reissued. The scholarly sources I have say it was withdrawn at the request of the Spanish monarchy, with no mention of it ever having been reissued after correction. Also the subsequent public declarations of the Pope who issued Sublimus Deus, i.e sanctioning slavery in Rome, enslavement of Henry VIII and Muslims seems to flatly contradict that the S.D was a blanket ban. yt95 aka ma'at (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In Supremo Apostolatus and his meaning

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)

Why not be bold and change the article accordingly? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is how does the average reader reconcile the above passage, issued by the office of the Index in 1864, with letter issued by the Holy Office of Pius IX in 1866 that states "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...it is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or donated". The link you give only gives the first page of the essay so maybe the author goes on to explain that the letter issued by the Index in 1864 relates to "unjust slavery" as practised in the southern states but doesn't blanket condemn slavery as an institution; i.e. "just" forms of slavery were still acceptable. Some people, as the article states, believe it was only much later (2nd Vatican Council) that all forms of slavery come under the ban, though this isn't unanimous (e.g. Cardinal Avery Dulles and Father Joel Panzar who believe just slavery is still permissible). The author of the link article says the letter from the office of the Index is a response in part to Bishop Martins published opinion that slavery was "the manifest will of God." It was the will of God for Catholics to continue "snatching from the barbarity of their ferocious customs thousands of children of the race of Canaan," the cursed progeny of Noah.”. However Pope Pius IX seems to have published similar material when he attached a prayer to an indulgence which called on God to remove the curse of Cham from the “wretched Ethiopians”, i.e. the same passage from scripture used to support the enslavement of black people. In my own opinion the reason why a Pope never issued an explicit and outright condemnation of all forms of slavery was because previous Popes and Councils had sanctioned it, and it’s not the done thing to highlight that which was once acceptable had now come under the ban. Yt95 (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Yt95, for providing the broader perspective. I think the difficulty is that there are differing views as to when the Catholic Church decided to condemn slavery. What is clear is that there was some difference in interpretation in the 19th century as to which practices were permitted and which were not. American Catholic bishops may have tended to be more pro-slavery considering that the two major Catholic states in the antebellum period were the slaveholding states of Maryland and Louisiana. Brazil was the last Catholic country to ban slavery. One wonders where Brazilian bishops stood on the question in the 19th century.

However, stepping back a bit, I now realize that we are running the risk of original research by focusing on primary sources. We should not be trying to prove what the Catholic Church's stance was based on original sources. We should rely on what the secondary sources say.

I think there is a clear debate out there in the "real world". Apologists for the Church will argue that the Church has opposed slavery for many centuries. Critics of the Church will argue that the Church was a latecomer to the anti-slavery position. IMO, the truth is that the Church has always been opposed to the mistreatment of slaves but had difficulty coming to a clear stand against slavery because it had to deal with the practicalities of slavery as a primary component of the economies in which its believers lived. Some apologists also insist that the Church has never changed its position on slavery because to concede that point would admit that other positions (e.g. ordination of women, abortion, etc.) are also open to review and discussion.

What would be ideal is if we could find a secondary source that describes the debate from an objective standpoint (i.e. without an agenda of attacking or defending the Church but just describing the debate).

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The only work I have encountered that covers it adequately is Maxwell's 1975 book. The author who wrote it was a priest whom I believe may also have had experience in legal issues. With his theological background he could make sense of what seems to the layman a lot of contradictory teachings regarding slavery. The above is an example. I think you are right about what motivates some people about this issue. All this may seem a long time ago but there is at least one writer on the subject who felt that the Church non-response to Hitlers use of concentration camp slave labour was conditioned by the Church's own history regarding slavery, i.e they were in no position to give lessons to Hitler (as he pointed out to them) on this matter never mind his economic discrimination, segregation amd wearing of special cloths by Jews, all things that the Church had previously done itself. The normal apolgetics response to such history is to suppress it because I think they have a false understanding of infallabilty that means if they accept a Pope can change his mind then their faith collapses. Yt95 (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to add that Father Joel Panzer (The Popes and Slavery, 1992, p. 48) writes "John Maxwell [i.e the aformentioned book] 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 slaveholding [emphasis in orginal text]" so it's not my original research. Because of his own inclination to attribute infallability to virtually every letter a Pope writes, including the Holy Office decree of 1866 ("the Holy Office is true organ of the Pope and the Magisterium") even though he doesn't like it much, it means that he has to accept there is such a thing as "just slavery" even today, i.e its ok to buy and sell human beings so long as certain rules are obeyed. I wonder if his line of thought, which in effect justifies slavery today, would have led to him accept that torture (also sanctioned by papal bull in the past) was acceptable at Guantánamo Bay? The following quotes from Maxwells book are also relevant to points raised above:

If Adolf Hitler had decided to inquire from the Catholic authorities, between 1933 and 1945, whether the insititution of slavery in labour camps for condemned criminals was morally legitimate, and whether it was morally right to enslave foreign non-Christian prisoners in just warfare and use them to work in German factories, there is regrettably little doubt that he would have received the reply that there was a "probable opinion" in the affirmative....In conclusion it should be noticed how very slender and scarce is the Catholic anti-slavery documentation since 1888 as compared with the very large volume of Catholic pro-slavery documentation right up to the time of the second Vatican Council. (Maxwell, p. 124)Yt95 (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Father Maxwell was correct in his suspicion see German Catholic Church details wartime use of forced labor Yt95 (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2013 (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)

• Slavery Document 1866 Instruction of the Holy Office Pilot Pirx (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

In Supremo Apostolatus vs In Supremo Look the Other way

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227083435/http://www.domesdaybook.net:80/helpfiles/hs2970.htm to http://www.domesdaybook.net/helpfiles/hs2970.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100731064009/http://www.firstthings.com:80/article/2007/01/development-or-reversal-37 to http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/development-or-reversal-37

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

My edits

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)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.domesdaybook.net/helpfiles/hs2970.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929074357/http://www.hmml.org/centers/malta/hospitallers/hospitallers.html to http://www.hmml.org/centers/malta/hospitallers/hospitallers.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091109054550/http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a003.html to http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a003.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/development-or-reversal-37

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of Aquinas edits

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)

Contested deletion

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)

Messy article

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)

Catholic views on slavery

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)

Because the page largely reflects what the organization's relationship to slavery. Why would the content you are looking for not be on the Christian views on slavery page? The Catholic Church (being a sub-set of Christianity) is not directly comparable to the religions of Islam or Judaism. Neither of those groups represent a centralized body determining orthodoxy for its members. Squatch347 (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

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)

Portugal and the Kongo

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)

Fails to adhere to basic standards of neutrality

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 article doesn't say all Catholics supported abolition, it simply names a prominent Irish Catholic who was involved in important abolition activism. The article also already has plenty of mention of Catholics who were against abolishing slavery. DayTime99 (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Slave owners in Suriname

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)