Morality of Slavery

[TerrorDæmonum]

This post using the Douay-Rheims for English scriptural citations and the Latin word "servus" is translated as "slave", "servant", or "bondman" variously. The Latin will be provided to demonstrate that the word is the same as slave. This is true in the Greek as well.

The subject of slavery is a sensitive one, for several reason:

• Specific forms of institutional slavery are often in the minds of those discussing the matter
• The distinction between legal slavery under any government and the act of enslaving people is not made
• A broad understanding of the social roles and realities that may be different from one's cultural expectations
• A misunderstanding of moral theology, which focuses on distinctions in acts in a way that people not familiar with legal and logical distinctions may not make or understand

To begin, the word "slavery" is complex. It is not a fundamental concept, and it has elements. An element of an act is a necessary component of the act to be considered the same act as its own kind. For example, "murder" is defined in common law in England (at one point) as:

Murder is when a man of sound memory and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any county of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the King's peace, with malice aforthought, either expressed by the party or implied by law, so as the party wounded, or hurt, etc. die of the wound or hurt, etc. within a year and a day of the same

Murder required the following elements to be murder:

• A man (human being)
• of sound memory and of the age of discretion (age defined elsewhere in law)
• unlawfully kills (there are lawful homicides)
• within the realm (within the jurisdiction of the national entity, England)
• with malice aforethought (intentionally and knowingly killing unjustly)
• to cause a person to die within a year and a day

This means, that murder was not when an insane person did the act, or child did the act, one killed in self-defense or with legal authorization, one killed outside the jurisdiction of the courts, one killed without intent to kill, or the act did not actually result in the death of a person.

Other crimes, if defined, would have other elements, perhaps differing only by one element, but those would not be murder.

Examining exactly what "slavery" is can get complicated. It is easy enough to point to laws of nations now and in history and see how it was defined, but one will get different definitions. The slaves in the USA were not the same as the slaves in the colonies. The slaves in Ancient Rome were different from slaves in Greece. The slaves in modern penal codes (including the USA's current law) are not at all the same as the slaves in previous legal codes within the same nation.

What is slavery then? Is a child a slave of their parents? Does slavery require any particular element or just a group of them in any combination?

This is significant because it is impossible to make a moral judgement on a given act without knowing what the act was. So, what is slavery itself?

We cannot rely on any given legal code, as they only apply to their own jurisdictions and that has varied across time and country throughout history.

We can, however, examine the distinctions made by Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort:

These words of the Holy Spirit show that Jesus is the sole source and must be the sole end of all our good works, and that we must serve him not just as paid servants but as slaves of love. Let me explain what I mean.

There are two ways of belonging to another person and being subject to his authority. One is by ordinary service and the other is by slavery. And so we must use the terms "servant" and "slave". Ordinary service in Christian countries is when a man is employed to serve another for a certain length of time at a wage which is fixed or agreed upon. When a man is totally dependent on another for life, and must serve his master without expecting any wages or recompense, when he is treated just like a beast of the field over which the owner has the right of life and death, then it is slavery.

Now there are three kinds of slavery; natural slavery, enforced slavery, and voluntary slavery. All creatures are slaves of God in the first sense, for "the earth and its fullness belong to the Lord". The devils and the damned are slaves in the second sense. The saints in heaven and the just on earth are slaves in the third sense. Voluntary slavery is the most perfect of all three states, for by it we give the greatest glory to God, who looks into the heart and wants it to be given to him. Is he not indeed called the God of the heart or of the loving will? For by this slavery we freely choose God and his service before all things, even if we were not by our very nature obliged to do so.

There is a world of difference between a servant and a slave.

There is a strong distinction of enforced slavery and the other kinds, which are natural and voluntary. This enforced slavery is a key distinction, as this is what we think of when we consider slavery: slavery enforced by law and force in civil society.

Slavery, as a state, is not immoral, because it is natural:

Promising them liberty, whereas they themselves are the slaves of corruption. For by whom a man is overcome, of the same also he is the slave.

Anything that we are naturally overcome by, we are a slave to. In this sense, scripture was focusing on the folly of thinking one is "free" when in fact one is wholly dependent and subservient to something, whether it be another person or one's own passions or Satan. To think we are free when we are bound entirely by the laws of nature and of God is foolish.

But again, the issue of civil authority and slavery is what is being examined, and this is where we can see a few key things which indicate it is not inherently immoral.

St. Paul sends a slave, Onesimus, back to his owner, Philemon, after the slave did things that would under Roman law would not prohibit Philemon from taking any punitive action against the slave. In fact, under Roman Law, slaves were without any real recourse to any action their legal owner might take. Philemon could punish/kill the slave as a result (just as he could have nearly at any point in time), but Paul sends him back after instructing him in the Faith and writes:

I beseech thee for my son, whom I have begotten in my bands, Onesimus,

[Who hath been heretofore unprofitable to thee, but now is profitable both to me and thee, Whom I have sent back to thee. And do thou receive him as my own bowels.  Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered to me in the bands of the gospel:  But without thy counsel I would do nothing: that thy good deed might not be as it were of necessity, but voluntary.  For perhaps he therefore departed for a season from thee, that thou mightest receive him again for ever:

Not now as a servant, but instead of a servant, a most dear brother, especially to me: but how much more to thee both in the flesh and in the Lord? If therefore thou count me a partner, receive him as myself. And if he hath wronged thee in any thing, or is in thy debt, put that to my account.  I Paul have written it with my own hand: I will repay it: not to say to thee, that thou owest me thy own self also. Yea, brother. May I enjoy thee in the Lord. Refresh my bowels in the Lord.

The reality of slavery was not denied: it was a legal distinction. This is a result of the authority of man, but all authority comes from God:

Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake.

For therefore also you pay tribute. For they are the ministers of God, serving unto this purpose. Render therefore to all men their dues. Tribute, to whom tribute is due: custom, to whom custom: fear, to whom fear: honour, to whom honour. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another. For he that loveth his neighbour, hath fulfilled the law.

The morality of slavery is becoming clear: slavery is a state that is not a moral consideration in itself. The morality comes from the acts of the people. However, St Paul does recognize that slavery (under the Roman law which he was under at the time) was not an advantageous  position and freedom should be preferred:

Let every man abide in the same calling in which he was called. Wast thou called, being a bondman? care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a bondman, is the freeman of the Lord. Likewise he that is called, being free, is the bondman of Christ.

Unusquisque in qua vocatione vocatus est, in ea permaneat. Servus vocatus es? non sit tibi curae : sed et si potes fieri liber, magis utere. Qui enim in Domino vocatus est servus, libertus est Domini : similiter qui liber vocatus est, servus est Christi.

This matter is also clear that the authority of people is not restricted to slavery, but is inherent in all human relations:

All whatsoever you do in word or in work, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. Wives, be subject to your husbands, as it behoveth in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter towards them. Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing to the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children to indignation, lest they be discouraged. Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh, not serving to the eye, as pleasing men, but in simplicity of heart, fearing God.

Whatsoever you do, do it from the heart, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that you shall receive of the Lord the reward of inheritance. Serve ye the Lord Christ. For he that doth wrong, shall receive for that which he hath done wrongfully: and there is no respect of persons with God.


Omne, quodcumque facitis in verbo aut in opere, omnia in nomine Domini Jesu Christi, gratias agentes Deo et Patri per ipsum. Mulieres, subditae estote viris, sicut oportet, in Domino. Viri, diligite uxores vestras, et nolite amari esse ad illas. Filii, obedite parentibus per omnia : hoc enim placitum est in Domino. Patres, nolite ad indignationem provocare filios vestros, ut non pusillo animo fiant. Servi, obedite per omnia dominis carnalibus, non ad oculum servientes, quasi hominibus placentes, sed in simplicitate cordis, timentes Deum.

Quodcumque facitis, ex animo operamini sicut Domino, et non hominibus : scientes quod a Domino accipietis retributionem haereditatis. Domino Christo servite. Qui enim injuriam facit, recipiet id quod inique gessit : et non est personarum acceptio apud Deum.

Those with authority over others have a grave responsibility to do what is moral, even when the civil Human Law allows them great liberty to do as they wish, the Divine Law is clear.

Slavery, as a civil institution, generally does allow for great evils to be committed, and practically speaking, the morality of it is generally evil as the buying and selling of people results in those who have the money and will doing the buying. Slavery in ancient days was rarely attacked because it was a natural state in the more primitive times where the natural order and society were more focused on the essentials of survival. We have the luxuries never dreamed of in the past and the institution of slavery can make little sense to us as we picture it as a violent encroachment on personal freedoms, rather than a state that naturally arose in primitive societies that didn't have the efficiencies we have in handling all essential industries (agriculture).

In this moral examination, the broad subject of slavery was addressed, but the Holy Catholic Church has taught through the ages on this matter, and it is clear that slavery itself was not considered to be evil, but that application of it could very well be, and that slave owners had specific responsibilities to be moral, even far beyond any legal code every required.

It was just a civil law distinction, and the morality of individuals was always key.

There is no distinction of slave or master by God:

Servants, be obedient to them that are your lords according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the simplicity of your heart, as to Christ:

Not serving to the eye, as it were pleasing men, but, as the servants of Christ doing the will of God from the heart,  With a good will serving, as to the Lord, and not to men. Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man shall do, the same shall he receive from the Lord, whether he be bond, or free. And you, masters, do the same things to them, forbearing threatenings, knowing that the Lord both of them and you is in heaven; and there is no respect of persons with him.

Servi, obedite dominis carnalibus cum timore et tremore, in simplicitate cordis vestri, sicut Christo :

non ad oculum servientes, quasi hominibus placentes, sed ut servi Christi, facientes voluntatem Dei ex animo, cum bona voluntate servientes, sicut Domino, et non hominibus : scientes quoniam unusquisque quodcumque fecerit bonum, hoc recipiet a Domino, sive servus, sive liber. Et vos domini, eadem facite illis, remittentes minas : scientes quia et illorum et vester Dominus est in caelis : et personarum acceptio non est apud eum.

This responsibility of authority figures, parents over their children, husbands over their wives, government officials over their subjects, military officers over their soldiers, religious superiors over their flocks, is a grave one: they are judged by God for exercising the authority which comes from God.

Servants, of all kinds, are judged according to their acts as well.

And as scripture states:

Because every one that exalteth himself, shall be humbled; and he that humbleth himself, shall be exalted.

Even ancient philosophers recognized that the state of slaves and kings were the same, and the bones of each were indistinguishable (see: Diogenes and Alexander the Great).

In conclusion:

• Enforced slavery is generally fraught with major moral issues in practice
• Slavery is not immoral in itself because moral judgements can only be made on human acts, not ideas
• We are all subject to authority, and all authority comes from God. Obedience is a virtue.
• People with authority are bound to exercise this authority morally, and will be judged by God without respect of persons

[Philip G.]

These two statements are false.

1 Slavery, as a state, is not immoral, because it is natural:

2 Slavery is not immoral in itself because moral judgements can only be made on human acts, not ideas

1 - Slavery as a state is not principally natural, because the fallen angels, whose relationships in hell are characterized by the same, do not have a nature.  Angels have a will, governed by their intellect.  As a result of both essence and time, having occurred before the fall of man, the governance of the fallen angels in hell is the source of slavery.  Lucifer fell from heaven like a lightning bolt, and he dragged 1/3 of the angels down to hell with his tail, which is a metaphor for the fact that ideas are even more potent than the one thing that nature cannot even control, which is the tail of the animal.  One must confess that ideas are even more potent than natural acts lest they be charged with implying that God is the cause of lucifer's rebellion, and consequently directly will's evil. 

2 - Just as faith and morals are inseparable, human acts are inseparable from ideas.  This is evident by the fact that we have original sin from Eve who was tempted by the serpent who is satan.  For this reason, there is not a spectrum of acts that are merely "human" in nature.  The dominant spectrum of acts spans from the "angelic", evident by the fact that Lucifer was expelled from heaven, through the human, evident by original sin, to the "carnal", evident by the fact that the serpent was punished to lick the dust and move about on its belly.

This is how Jesus can say "you are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth, because truth is not in him.  When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar, and the father thereof."  Elsewhere scripture says ""six things there are which the lord hateth, and the seventh, his soul detesteth.  Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood".

This illustrates that lying, which originates in the mind, and characterizes lucifer's rebellion, and Murder, which originates in the hardened heart of a sinner, and characterizes the devil's defeat when he through the jews crucifed Christ, are not separable.  They even happen to be inseperable from to the act of turning away from God, which is how it all begins, illustrated by God's detestation of "haughty eyes". 

If you think that a moral judgement cannot be passed on the idea that is slavery because only the highest authority, that of God, who alone can judge the internal forum, is absent until the end of the world, you are forgetting the most valuable lesson from the beginning.  You are forgetting that the archangel Michael, of the second to lowest choir, led the angels against lucifer's rebellion.  And, all St. Michael had to do was ask a question.  Michael's battle cry was "who is like unto God?"

So, I ask you Paenitio, if slavery is not evil, present its good fruits.  If you think that ransoming a captive, through the act of purchasing a slave with money or oneself is a good fruit comparable to a work of mercy, you a wrong.  It is not a win win.  It is at best a win lose.  You potentially can win in regards to the human ransomed, but you are losing being that money, synonymous with value in a culture, is being given to a wicked person.  Ransoming one with oneself is not a win win.  It is at best a win lose, evident by all the scriptural passages in proverbs and elsewhere in the old testament proclaiming it as evil and foolish.  In sum, give us examples of good fruits?

Likewise, if de montfortian spiritual slavery is true devotion, why are there such bad fruits?  Dogmatic sedevacantism is inseperable from the CMRI, who require the slave consecration by all of its members.  Dogmatic feeneyism of the dimond bros and the st. benedict's center(s) is inseperable from the practice of the slave consecration.  And, idolatry of temporal authority associated with the TFP Plinio crowd, is inseperable from the practice.  It is a simple question.  Why are there such bad fruits?

[AlNg]

These two statements are false.

1 Slavery, as a state, is not immoral, because it is natural:

2 Slavery is not immoral in itself because moral judgements can only be made on human acts, not ideas

I agree that these statements are absolutely false and disgusting. Of course you can define slavery to mean many different things, but when I think of slavery I think of a condition in which the slavemaster owns the slave as his property, which can be bought and sold, just as you would your other property, and a condition in which the slave is required to perform certain work and cannot quit. If he tries to quit, he is severely beaten.  I don't see anything natural about a white male slavemaster owning a young black woman as a slave and where the slavemaster is at liberty to buy and sell his slave and her children on the auction block.
Who gives the white Nazi slavemaster the moral authority to buy and sell innocent black people on the auction block as was done in the United States of America?
in another thread someone condemned me for being emotional.  What is wrong with being emotionally disgusted and repulsed when a young black woman is taken from her children and is put on the auction block to be sold to the highest bidder. The white male bidder then puts his hands in the mouth of the woman, examining her teeth and is at liberty to examine other private areas. I don't seen this as natural. It is immoral, disgusting, repulsive and gravely wrong. 

[TerrorDæmonum]

I agree that these statements are absolutely false and disgusting. Of course you can define slavery to mean many different things, but when I think of slavery I think of a condition

How can they be "absolutely false" and "disgusting", if you are ignoring all that is written and all the distinctions made, and acknowledging there are more than one definitions, but then imposing on your personal specific definition?

in which the slavemaster owns the slave as his property, which can be bought and sold, just as you would your other property, and a condition in which the slave is required to perform certain work and cannot quit. If he tries to quit, he is severely beaten.

What about when slavery in a particular area did not allow a slave to be bought and sold? What about when free people could sell their children as slaves if they chose? What about slavery imposed by the state as punishment for a crime? what about temporary slavery? What about public slaves owned by the state for official state business?

This is an example of the importance of distinguishing what a word actually means. If you were to list its elements, you would exclude many forms of slavery, and if you had a broad enough definition, you would include many things that are not usually considered slavery.

How then could one make a moral judgement on "slavery" itself?

in another thread someone condemned me for being emotional.  What is wrong with being emotionally

It is wrong when you allow it to forsake reason and charity and willfully put your emotional reactions above all else and use it to abuse others or deny the truth or agree with blasphemies.

Do you not know what board you are posting it?

Here is the place to have serious, semi-scholarly discussions on theology and philosophy.

[Philip G.]

These words of the Holy Spirit show that Jesus is the sole source and must be the sole end of all our good works, and that we must serve him not just as paid servants but as slaves of love. Let me explain what I mean.

There are two ways of belonging to another person and being subject to his authority. One is by ordinary service and the other is by slavery. And so we must use the terms "servant" and "slave". Ordinary service in Christian countries is when a man is employed to serve another for a certain length of time at a wage which is fixed or agreed upon. When a man is totally dependent on another for life, and must serve his master without expecting any wages or recompense, when he is treated just like a beast of the field over which the owner has the right of life and death, then it is slavery.

Now there are three kinds of slavery; natural slavery, enforced slavery, and voluntary slavery. All creatures are slaves of God in the first sense, for "the earth and its fullness belong to the Lord". The devils and the damned are slaves in the second sense. The saints in heaven and the just on earth are slaves in the third sense. Voluntary slavery is the most perfect of all three states, for by it we give the greatest glory to God, who looks into the heart and wants it to be given to him. Is he not indeed called the God of the heart or of the loving will? For by this slavery we freely choose God and his service before all things, even if we were not by our very nature obliged to do so.

There is a world of difference between a servant and a slave.

There is a strong distinction of enforced slavery and the other kinds, which are natural and voluntary. This enforced slavery is a key distinction, as this is what we think of when we consider slavery: slavery enforced by law and force in civil society.

Slavery, as a state, is not immoral, because it is natural:

It is very simple, if this broad spectrum across the board shares a one and the same common characteristic, that of slavery, then one should be able to go to the far ends/poles of this broad spectrum and observe a oneness or similarity of it from end to end as it regards the morality of works.  As one, you paeniteo, who undoubtedly labels this worldview a good, evident by your quoting the use of words "most perfect" implying a varying degree of perfection present in all, the burden of proof is on you to point out the good fruits/works present among the devils and the damned/enforced slaves.   

On the other end of your slave spectrum that you label as good and /most perfect, the burden of proof is on you to explain why there are bad fruits present among the spiritually consecrated/voluntary slaves?   These bad fruits are dogmatic sedevacantism, dogmatic feeneyism, and idolatry of temporal authority. 

[Kaesekopf]

Who gives the white Nazi slavemaster the moral authority to buy and sell innocent black people on the auction block as was done in the United States of America?

Setting aside the fact that this post is woefully inadequate when it comes to meeting this subforum's standards/expectations....

Can you point out what National Socialist slavemasters bought and sold innocent blacks on the auction block in the USA?  To my understanding, a full 80 years, minimum, separated the National Socialist Workers' Party of Germany and the antebellum South. 

[TerrorDæmonum]

This post has nothing to do with the preceding post, but is addressed at all the various specific objections and misunderstandings observed around the forum concerning this subject.

Justice is a virtue and its object is Right. This is what is meant by "rights", something due to us because of Justice.

Different rights exist. They are Natural and Civil (Right of Nations).

A natural right is between persons, justice between one individual and another. It is a matter of justice to render what is due. It is against justice to steal another's property.

The right of nations is not a natural right, but a matter which arises from government. It principally concerns rulers of nations, but also the people. It is against justice to not pay taxes that are due.

Slavery arises from right of nations as it is legal authority in a given area which makes the distinction.

Because of this, slavery naturally arises in society and slavery is thus "natural", but it is not a matter of natural rights. Slaves and owners of slaves have the same natural rights.

The natural basis of slavery is simply the matter that wiser men should rule over the lesser men. It is a natural state of order at its core, but slavery is a matter of the right of nations.

Again, the focus is often on specific forms of slavery, and that is not at all what this subject is about, as it is concerned with the concept of slavery.

Slaves are not deprived of their natural rights: they can marry without their master's consent because of the nature of marriage being of natural and Divine law, not civil law. Civil law cannot break Natural or Divine law.

For example, civil law can allow for divorce, remarriage, and does not enforce the natural order, but that does not mean that the Natural Law or Divine Laws are affected. It would be a sin to put civil law above that of Natural and Divine Law. 

The specific evils observed in slavery are a result of the failure of the masters complying with Natural and Divine Law and violating the rights of their slaves which are sins against Justice.

When Civil Law does not enforce Natural or Divine Law, people tend to violate them, as we have seen in many instances.

But God does not distinguish.

I hope this little writeup helps those struggling with the subject and it should address all the specific questions I have seen scattered around the forum at large. There are citations and theological writings behind each statement, but due to the circumstances, I have left citations out, because they require a lot of background to understand and might just cause more confusion. I just laid out the conclusions and some of the reasoning.

[AlNg]

agree with blasphemies.

I disagree with blasphemy and have posted my forceful criticism with the use of the sacred name of Our Lord  in contemporary American PG-13 movies. I have recommended to boycott these movies. I take very seriously the Commandment: Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain.
I don't know what you are implying by your allegation which in any case is off topic IMHO.

[TerrorDæmonum]

It is wrong when you allow it to forsake reason and charity and willfully put your emotional reactions above all else and use it to abuse others or deny the truth or agree with blasphemies.

I disagree with blasphemy

I suggest that you review the purpose of this board and the meaning of the word "or".

As for blasphemy, you did in fact publicly thank a post which contained it just because you agreed with two sentences of the poster, which spring from his blasphemous ideas that run contrary to the Church.

Be careful who you support.

I don't know what you are implying by your allegation which in any case is off topic IMHO.

The topic is slavery and you have yet to actually be on topic.

[AlNg]

Can you point out what National Socialist slavemasters bought and sold innocent blacks on the auction block in the USA?  To my understanding, a full 80 years, minimum, separated the National Socialist Workers' Party of Germany and the antebellum South.

Correct. I was speaking of the mentality of the Nazis. By the mentality of the Nazis I mean the forced hard labor and the beatings of those who do not perform the forced labor and the subsequent gassing and murder of those who disobey orders. The slavemaster of the South  has a similar mentality in that he forced his slaves to perform hard labor against their will and if they disobeyed, they could be severely beaten. However, there were not gas chambers in the south, so that was a difference. Of course the slavemasters in the South were not members of the German Nazi party in the 1930's but IMHO they did have a similar mentality in many respects.
Also, the dictionary gives more than one definition of "Nazi" . For example the Merriam Webster dictionary gives one possible definition of "Nazi" as "a harshly domineering, dictatorial, or intolerant person."  I believe that a definition of this sort could apply to an individual who enslaves innocent men, women and children, forcibly taking them from their homeland,  buying and selling them as his property and subjects them to harsh labor against their will.

[Philip G.]

So paeniteo argues that slavery is sourced from the rights granted secular authority.  Let us take a closer look at that claim.

I posted this earlier, not in this thread because paeniteo has to evade his past defeats by starting new threads constantly even if on the same subject. 

Just as in the church, where the only ecclesiastical states remotely resembling spiritual slavery are located at the poles that of the papacy and the nunnery of religious sisters explained in my post Re: Slavery and Catholics« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2021, 05:35:16 PM », states remotely resembling secular slavery also exist at the poles of society.

The mother with her new born that has yet to be weaned, on one end of the spectrum, is the only viable form of slavery if one so must use the word.  The baby is dependent on the mother for its entire livelihood.  The parallel between a nursing mother and the papacy is evident by the fact that the vatican is named what it is.  It is derived from the roman god "vagitanus", which means "the wail of the baby".  Vagitanus was the god that opened the mouth of the baby. 

On the other end of the secular spectrum you have the military, which is the other place I recon you will find relationships resembling the types of dependence and consequence characteristic of slavery.  For example, if one is a deserter, there is a punishment.  And, if during a time of war, they are to be executed.  Also for example, in the military, there is a strict hierarchy that is not to be questioned.  Subjects need not be educated as a slave is not educated.  Subjects/soldiers need only follow orders. 

Both of these secular manifestations have the potential to be turned on their head and abused.  Just as marriage is invalid if there is an agreement/willingness to not have children.  So, in order to ape the mother and newborn, one of the humblest and lowest virtuous states in society, hidden and protected in the privacy of the domestic church/the home; conversely, for "a queen" to have "a duty to own slaves over whom she has the right to life and death" would be a bastardization of the previous.  This is an aping of the fact that a mother, when she has a child, that child will live on this earth for a period of time when it is not yet weaned.  During his time the child is totally dependent on the mother for its life. 

Also, to believe that a queen has a right to put to death a slave as one might put to death a horse is an abstract parallel of abortion mentality today.  Abortion seems licit in the eyes of so many because they don't want the child to suffer either from poverty or the broken/single mother family it might be raised in.  So, like a horse, put it to death before it can suffer.   There are so many more bastardizations.  But, the whole slave driver queen notion really takes the cake.  It is an amalgamation of it all.

In terms of the military, and I am no military expert.  But there are abuses there, one I can think of would be to have all the strict hierarchy and order during times of peace, and then during times of war, to allow the soldiers to pillage, rape, and raid as they so please.  Rules go out the window during a time of war/emergency, because that is the moment when the military is in charge of more than just undisciplined young men.  They are no longer accountable to anyone.  Martial law is a good example of this.  Wait until a time of "emergency", and then "have the military all lined up" to vax everyone with the deadly serum.  "Take the guns first" says that fat bastard Donald Trump. 

Let us not forget, that the military is under the direct command of the commander in chief/sovereign.  Just as we are not allowed private militaries, we are not allowed slaves.

Both of these secular examples are limited in time and in scope.  Military's exist for times of war, and wars come to and end.  The nursing Mother exists for times of newborn babies, and birthing comes to an end.  These are not norms that dominate society.   These are things that not all of society are to be exposed to.  Women and children should not be caught up in the conflict of a war.   Heads of state and abandoned youth are not to deliver babies.  Neither do these things dominate the town square.  The town square is also where the maidens dance in celebration of their youth and vitality, and where the religious men usher with bells and prayer greater society into the church to worship Almighty God.

In sum, neither of these are comparable with slavery in their essence.  Pregnancy/children are a gift from God, and victory in war is not guaranteed.  Victory comes from God.  To attempt to source slavery by bastardizing these two phenomena is a grave mistake. "For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married, but shall be as the angels of God in heaven." "And then they shall see the son of man coming in a cloud, with great power and majesty."  All rights that are sourced from the secular realm come from Christ the King.  And, in heaven, there is no slavery.  Christ separates the just from the wicked at the end of the world.  And, in heaven, finally, we will no longer suffer from the sight of the state of the wicked/the damned.

[TerrorDæmonum]

This thread is about the morality of slavery and the other thread was about spiritual considerations which are more important than the political discussions of slavery that were occurring elsewhere at the time I made that thread.

The fact both threads are being assaulted with blasphemies and nonsense does not mean they are the same subject at all. The fact that I stopped replying to an individual does not indicate anything but awareness of the futility of responding.

He is using keywords to make his replies and does not understand the subject, the sources, or the distinctions. He is motivated by hatred for what is holy.

The fact that the same source is cited in both discussions does not mean it is the same subject, but that the source was eminently useful in describing important distinctions that must be made.

I am also not arguing personal opinion and all my statements here can be cited with sources that are held in the highest esteem by the Church and which have shown themselves to be worthy of citation.

[TerrorDæmonum]

So Pæniteo argues that slavery is sourced from the rights granted secular authority.  Let us take a closer look at that claim.

Look at the theological work behind it. It was not my claim. You can get a good overview in the Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 57 and the rest of the work on Justice. The Supplement to the Third Part, Question 52.  has good information related to it on the sacrament of marriage which illustrates a practical example of the distinction of rights.

You can also get the background from Scripture, which was already provided here, St Augustine, and Aristotle (for the philosophical treatment).

You have to respect theology before you can discuss it.

Arguing from ignorance, even without your blasphemies, is wholly inappropriate.

I am only responding to you directly to help any readers avoid your errors and the falsehoods you are spreading. I did not make this or any thread for you to spread your ideas as you are doing.

[coffeeandcigarette]

These two statements are false.

1 Slavery, as a state, is not immoral, because it is natural:

2 Slavery is not immoral in itself because moral judgements can only be made on human acts, not ideas

I agree that these statements are absolutely false and disgusting. Of course you can define slavery to mean many different things, but when I think of slavery I think of a condition in which the slavemaster owns the slave as his property, which can be bought and sold, just as you would your other property, and a condition in which the slave is required to perform certain work and cannot quit. If he tries to quit, he is severely beaten.  I don't see anything natural about a white male slavemaster owning a young black woman as a slave and where the slavemaster is at liberty to buy and sell his slave and her children on the auction block.
Who gives the white Nazi slavemaster the moral authority to buy and sell innocent black people on the auction block as was done in the United States of America?
in another thread someone condemned me for being emotional.  What is wrong with being emotionally disgusted and repulsed when a young black woman is taken from her children and is put on the auction block to be sold to the highest bidder. The white male bidder then puts his hands in the mouth of the woman, examining her teeth and is at liberty to examine other private areas. I don't seen this as natural. It is immoral, disgusting, repulsive and gravely wrong.

Are you American? How old are you? I am curious, because your enthusiastic condemnation of "slavery" as a whole seems entirely wrapped up in the American slavery situation; which accounts for a minuscule portion of slavery in the world, both modern and historical. Slavery has existed since the beginning of time. Slavery began in Africa and has a strong hold in their society to this day. Almost all the slaves provided to the "white men," were captured, brought to the shore, and sold by warring neighboring tribes. There is no society on earth that has not had its people enslaved at one point or another throughout history. Almost all modern slaves are owned by African blacks and Arabs.

[AlNg]

... your enthusiastic condemnation of "slavery" as a whole seems entirely wrapped up in the American slavery situation; which accounts for a minuscule portion of slavery in the world, ...

How many slaves do you think there are in the world today? There were about 4 million American slaves in 1860. I am against slavery in any part of the world and believe it is wrong for one man to own another as his property to be bought and sold regardless of whether it is in USA or Africa or the middle East or where ever.