Has the Church contradicted herself on Slavery?

[Justin Martyr]

Interesting to see how Pope Gregory XVI condemns his predecessor, going so far as to call a practice the Church participated in (a practice also approved of by God in the Old Testament) as being "in contempt of justice" and a sin against "the rights of...humanity" (aka "human dignity").

We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso — to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit — by having secured the said faculty, the said King Alfonso, or, by his authority, the aforesaid infante, justly and lawfully has acquired and possessed, and doth possess, these islands, lands, harbors, and seas, and they do of right belong and pertain to the said King Alfonso and his successors, nor without special license from King Alfonso and his successors themselves has any other even of the faithful of Christ been entitled hitherto, nor is he by any means now entitled lawfully to meddle therewith — in order that King Alfonso himself and his successors and the infante may be able the more zealously to pursue and may pursue this most pious and noble work, and most worthy of perpetual remembrance (which, since the salvation of souls, increase of the faith, and overthrow of its enemies may be procured thereby, we regard as a work wherein the glory of God, and faith in Him, and His commonwealth, the Universal Church, are concerned) in proportion as they, having been relieved of all the greater obstacles, shall find themselves supported by us and by the Apostolic See with favors and graces — we, being very fully informed of all and singular the premises, do, motu proprio, not at the instance of King Alfonso or the infante, or on the petition of any other offered to us on their behalf in respect to this matter, and after mature deliberation, by apostolic authority, and from certain knowledge, in the fullness of apostolic power, by the tenor of these presents decree and declare that the aforesaid letters of faculty (the tenor whereof we wish to be considered as inserted word for word in these presents, with all and singular the clauses therein contained) are extended to Ceuta and to the aforesaid and all other acquisitions whatsoever, even those acquired before the date of the said letters of faculty, and to all those provinces, islands, harbors, and seas whatsoever, which hereafter, in the name of the said King Alfonso and of his successors and of the infante, in those parts and the adjoining, and in the more distant and remote parts, can be acquired from the hands of infidels or pagans, and that they are comprehended under the said letters of faculty. And by force of those and of the present letters of faculty the acquisitions already made, and what hereafter shall happen to be acquired, after they shall have been acquired, we do by the tenor of these presents decree and declare have pertained, and forever of right do belong and pertain, to the aforesaid king and to his successors and to the infante, and that the right of conquest which in the course of these letters we declare to be extended from the capes of Bojador and of Não, as far as through all Guinea, and beyond toward that southern shore, has belonged and pertained, and forever of right belongs and pertains, to the said King Alfonso, his successors, and the infante, and not to any others. We also by the tenor of these presents decree and declare that King Alfonso and his successors and the infante aforesaid might and may, now and henceforth, freely and lawfully, in these [acquisitions] and concerning them make any prohibitions, statutes, and decrees whatsoever, even penal ones, and with imposition of any tribute, and dispose and ordain concerning them as concerning their own property and their other dominions. And in order to confer a more effectual right and assurance we do by these presents forever give, grant, and appropriate to the aforesaid King Alfonso and his successors, kings of the said kingdoms, and to the infante, the provinces, islands, harbors, places, and seas whatsoever, how many soever, and of what sort soever they shall be, that have already been acquired and that shall hereafter come to be acquired, and the right of conquest also from the capes of Bojador and of Não aforesaid.

...This is why, desiring to remove such a shame from all the Christian nations, having fully reflected over the whole question and having taken the advice of many of Our Venerable Brothers the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, and walking in the footsteps of Our Predecessors, We warn and adjure earnestly in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare to vex anyone, despoil him of his possessions, reduce to servitude, or lend aid and favour to those who give themselves up to these practices, or exercise that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as if they were not men but rather animals, having been brought into servitude, in no matter what way, are, without any distinction, in contempt of the rights of justice and humanity, bought, sold, and devoted sometimes to the hardest labour. Further, in the hope of gain, propositions of purchase being made to the first owners of the Blacks, dissensions and almost perpetual conflicts are aroused in these regions.

We reprove, then, by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, all the practices abovementioned as absolutely unworthy of the Christian name. By the same Authority We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this traffic in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth in this Apostolic Letter.

Since the only apparent contradictions are (supposedly) in and after Vatican II and every single issue in the Church is (supposedly) the fault of Vatican II, I'd love to hear all y'all brilliant scholars explain how this isn't an apparent contradiction after all.

And this isn't a mere scholastic issue for me - I have the noble blood of my distinguished southern ancestors coursing through my veins, including the blood of the great Stonewall Jackson. I'd like to know the proper way to view them. Is subjecting pagans and infidels from africa to "perpetual slavery" a "most pious and noble work", or is it a sin against "the rights of justice and humanity" which I am strictly forbidden "from presuming to defend as permissible...under no matter what pretext or excuse...in public or private"?

[TerrorDæmonum]

It is crucial to differentiate different uses of the same words and concepts and practices.

Slavery means so many things it is impossible to truly discuss it as a single thing. What is a slave exactly? This needs to be clearly and precisely answered before any discussion on morality or doctrine concerning slavery can be done. Otherwise, the words used are variable in meaning and specific to the usage of the word and the practice in the specific circumstances being discussed.

The post on Morality of Slavery addresses this complication in more detail.

[Justin Martyr]

It is crucial to differentiate different uses of the same words and concepts and practices.

Slavery means so many things it is impossible to truly discuss it as a single thing. What is a slave exactly? This needs to be clearly and precisely answered before any discussion on morality or doctrine concerning slavery can be done. Otherwise, the words used are variable in meaning and specific to the usage of the word and the practice in the specific circumstances being discussed.

The post on Morality of Slavery addresses this complication in more detail.

Yes, I understand this much. I've read the past posts on the general topic here before.

However, Romanus Pontifex and In Supremo Apostolatus are dealing with the same kind of slavery; the enslavement of pagans and infidels from Africa and the surrounding islands as chattel slaves. The former was promulgated as a Moto Proprio at the start of the european involvement in the African slave trade, the latter was promulgated as an Apostolic Letter toward the end of the european involvement in the African slave trade. Notably, the former was promulgated when african slavery was profitable and in vogue, the latter when it was considered by most of europe to be an affront to "human dignity" and "politically incorrect".

Moreover, In Supremo Apostolatus doesn't just condemn slavery; it also condemns vexing the pagans and infidels and seizing their property (which Romanus Pontifex considered a "noble and pious work").

[TerrorDæmonum]

At no point was there any doctrinal or moral change. The statements you quoted are referring to temporal matters. Exactly why these statements were made is a reaction to the circumstances and practices.

It is also a matter of authority, as the statements were directed to a King of a nation and his successors. It is a matter of state on dealing with other states. The moral obligations and doctrines wouldn't change: this was not a license for evil.

As for the other, the practice might have been similar, but the knowledge of exactly what was going on and why would be quite different perhaps.

And this isn't a mere scholastic issue for me - I have the noble blood of my distinguished southern ancestors coursing through my veins, including the blood of the great Stonewall Jackson. I'd like to know the proper way to view them.

If they were not members of the Church, then that is the most basic distinction to make.

Is subjecting pagans and infidels from africa to "perpetual slavery" a "most pious and noble work", or is it a sin against "the rights of justice and humanity" which I am strictly forbidden "from presuming to defend as permissible...under no matter what pretext or excuse...in public or private"?

At the time, there wouldn't be pagans and infidels from Africa: all the American slaves were Americans. They were largely slaves because mothers were slaves. I do not think "perpetual slavery" meant that the individuals and all their ancestors would be slaves. I also do not know how conversion to the faith would affect that either. The majority of people in the nation at the time were not members of the Church.

And this is perhaps a very important factor: while the slavery issue by itself may be treated morally, the actual moral judgement of individuals goes beyond that. If a slave owner is virtuous, he would be virtuous. If he were vicious, he would be vicious. Slave owners which perpetuated the practice tended to not be so virtuous, sometimes, egregiously so.

[Justin Martyr]

At no point was there any doctrinal or moral change. The statements you quoted are referring to temporal matters. Exactly why these statements were made is a reaction to the circumstances and practices.

I would push back on this in the case of In Supremo Apostolatus, but Romanus Pontifex is a canonical granting of permission and privileges. So it falls under the "disciplinary sphere".

However, the disciplines of the Church are infallibly safe. And, Romanus Pontifex was reconfirmed by four successive pontiffs. If what is prescribed in Romanus Pontiffex is sinful, then the Church formally permitted the King of Portugal and all his successors to sin.

I mean, if the Pope granted formal permission and privileges using the fullness of his Apostolic Authority to allow a bunch of catholics to contracept this forum would be about ready to go into schism.

To use another example: this seems to me to be equivalent to how most trads view Amoris Lætitia.

It is also a matter of authority, as the statements were
directed to a King of a nation and his successors. It is a matter of state on dealing with other states. The moral obligations and doctrines wouldn't change: this was not a license for evil.

See above about the Church's disciplines being infallibly safe. Plus, the fullness of apostolic authority was invoked to grant a priviledge forever.

As for the other, the practice might have been similar, but the knowledge of exactly what was going on and why would be quite different perhaps.

I suppose, but we have pretty good historical knowledge of how the natives of the canary islands were mistreated and enslaved by the spanish and portuguese. We'd have to look at what was going on exactly in the 1450's to the 1550's.

And this isn't a mere scholastic issue for me - I have the noble blood of my distinguished southern ancestors coursing through my veins, including the blood of the great Stonewall Jackson. I'd like to know the proper way to view them.

If they were not members of the Church, then that is the most basic distinction to make.

They were not, so I already make that distinction. However, even heretics can be viewed admirably in other ways.

Is subjecting pagans and infidels from africa to "perpetual slavery" a "most pious and noble work", or is it a sin against "the rights of justice and humanity" which I am strictly forbidden "from presuming to defend as permissible...under no matter what pretext or excuse...in public or private"?

At the time, there wouldn't be pagans and infidels from Africa: all the American slaves were Americans. They were largely slaves because mothers were slaves. I do not think "perpetual slavery" meant that the individuals and all their ancestors would be slaves. I also do not know how conversion to the faith would affect that either. The majority of people in the nation at the time were not members of the Church.

They were required to be freed if they converted (we know this from other bulls at the time). However, when Pope Gregory XVI wrote his Apostolic Letter, the slave trade was still functioning and most were non-Christians/Catholics. So this isn't really a noteworthy variable.

And this is perhaps a very important factor: while the slavery issue by itself may be treated morally, the actual moral judgement of individuals goes beyond that. If a slave owner is virtuous, he would be virtuous. If he were vicious, he would be vicious. Slave owners which perpetuated the practice tended to not be so virtuous, sometimes, egregiously so.

Pope Gregory XVI didn't make any distinctions between good and bad slave owners. He condemned the whole thing outright.

[Aulef]

Officialy, the Church never contradicted herself on this matter.

She has ended it when she was culturaly dominant and she tolerated it when she couldn't stop. In the latter, she at least secured her most precisous treasures to the slaves, which made them equal to their masters in her eyes: the Sacraments and her teachings.

[TerrorDæmonum]

If what is prescribed in Romanus Pontiffex is sinful, then the Church formally permitted the King of Portugal and all his successors to sin.

People with life in prison are "slaves" for their entire lives in the USA. Does this social classification actually resemble the practices labelled slavery elsewhere? Are not these social distinctions only material, not moral?

If the social class of "slave" causes people to reduce the human to sub-human, that is a problem. This is not always the problem: the perception of some you cited would be more akin to lifetime imprisonment than what may be called slavery.

They were not, so I already make that distinction. However, even heretics can be viewed admirably in other ways.

That would depend on their individual conduct. The slave market within the USA at the time definitely demonstrated that slavery was used to fuel very vicious activity.

They were required to be freed if they converted (we know this from other bulls at the time). However, when Pope Gregory XVI wrote his Apostolic Letter, the slave trade was still functioning and most were non-Christians/Catholics. So this isn't really a noteworthy variable.

The slave trade did not make this distinction in the USA: there were many Christian slaves, just as there were in ancient times.

Pope Gregory XVI didn't make any distinctions between good and bad slave owners. He condemned the whole thing outright.

On the face of it, it sounds like he was condemning a particular institution that was more or less entirely under that word. He would have condemned the same thing if it were under another name.

[Justin Martyr]

Officialy, the Church never contradicted herself on this matter.

She has ended it when she was culturaly dominant and she tolerated it when she couldn't stop. In the latter, she at least secured her most precisous treasures to the slaves, which made them equal to their masters in her eyes: the Sacraments and her teachings.

I see you missed the part where Pope Nicholas V called the "perpetual slavery" of infidels and pagans a "noble and pious act", and where he promised the King of Portugal (using the fullness of his apostolic authority) that the king would have the support of the Holy See forever in this matter.

[Justin Martyr]

If what is prescribed in Romanus Pontiffex is sinful, then the Church formally permitted the King of Portugal and all his successors to sin.

People with life in prison are "slaves" for their entire lives in the USA. Does this social classification actually resemble the practices labelled slavery elsewhere? Are not these social distinctions only material, not moral?

If the social class of "slave" causes people to reduce the human to sub-human, that is a problem. This is not always the problem: the perception of some you cited would be more akin to lifetime imprisonment than what may be called slavery.

But that's not the kind of slave being referred to in the documents. Both documents are referring to the practice of african chattel slavery which was dominant between the 15th and 19th century (and prior and posterior to that in the Islamic world). We're dealing with the exact same "kind" of slavery in both instances.

They were required to be freed if they converted (we know this from other bulls at the time). However, when Pope Gregory XVI wrote his Apostolic Letter, the slave trade was still functioning and most were non-Christians/Catholics. So this isn't really a noteworthy variable.

The slave trade did not make this distinction in the USA: there were many Christian slaves, just as there were in ancient times.

True, but Catholic countries like portugal who were heavily involved in the slave trade did. And In Supremo Apostolatus was primarily addressed to Catholic countries (not America).

Pope Gregory XVI didn't make any distinctions between good and bad slave owners. He condemned the whole thing outright.

On the face of it, it sounds like he was condemning a particular institution that was more or less entirely under that word. He would have condemned the same thing if it were under another name.

Yes. An institution which was formally approved of, and which formal permission to be involved in and profit from was canonically granted (forever) as a privilege to King Infante Alfonso (and his sucessors) by Pope Nicholas V using the fullness of his Apostolic Authority.

[TerrorDæmonum]

The scriptural treatment of slavery is probably relevant. It is a lot more complicated than the discussion here is probably revealing. It is a matter of specifics, highly specific details, not just a comparison of institutions on paper.

These highly specific details are more important for moral judgement and approval or condemnation. Slavery is a high level social class and it does not reveal its details on its own. It is no wonder that the approach to slavery varied according to the social institutions and society. If nothing else, the treatment of it depends on how "normal" it is. And there is a tendency towards anti-slavery the more exposed one is to society without slaves.

Note: the word "bondman" is "slave".

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. You are bought with a price; be not made the bondslaves of men. Brethren, let every man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God.

[Michael Wilson]

Somebody with a better memory than me can probably point to a thread in the recent past on this very subject; I believe that PhillipG was one of the participants.

[Justin Martyr]

The scriptural treatment of slavery is probably relevant. It is a lot more complicated than the discussion here is probably revealing. It is a matter of specifics, highly specific details, not just a comparison of institutions on paper.

These highly specific details are more important for moral judgement and approval or condemnation. Slavery is a high level social class and it does not reveal its details on its own. It is no wonder that the approach to slavery varied according to the social institutions and society. If nothing else, the treatment of it depends on how "normal" it is. And there is a tendency towards anti-slavery the more exposed one is to society without slaves.

Note: the word "bondman" is "slave".

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. You are bought with a price; be not made the bondslaves of men. Brethren, let every man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God.

I actually think the scriptural acceptance of slavery is not relevant. The kind of slavery practiced in the old and new testament aren't the kind of thing being dealt with when the early modern Popes condemn chattel slavery. They are different in kind.

However, Romanus Pontifex was promulgated during the advent of chattel slavery during the early Portuguese colonization of africa in the 15th century. If perpetual slavery is referring to this particular practice (recently adopted by the Portuguese at the time), then there appears to be a contradiction. Only way around it I can see is that perpetual slavery refers to civil subjugation rather than chattel slavery, but there's nothing in the text to inform me of that (and I don't have the latin).

EDIT: The latin of Romanus Pontifex is "...illorumque personas in perpetuam servitutem redigendi..." and the latin of In Supremo Apostolatus is "...ne quis audeat...aut in servitutem redigere..."

[Justin Martyr]

For historical context, here is an overview of what was going on around the Papal Bull:

https://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/african_laborers_for_a_new_emp/pope_nicolas_v_and_the_portugu

[Aulef]

Officialy, the Church never contradicted herself on this matter.

She has ended it when she was culturaly dominant and she tolerated it when she couldn't stop. In the latter, she at least secured her most precisous treasures to the slaves, which made them equal to their masters in her eyes: the Sacraments and her teachings.

I see you missed the part where Pope Nicholas V called the "perpetual slavery" of infidels and pagans a "noble and pious act", and where he promised the King of Portugal (using the fullness of his apostolic authority) that the king would have the support of the Holy See forever in this matter.

Did I? Or did I stick to Tradition, which is what really matters? Why do you think slavery virtually ended in European Catholic nations after the split of the Roman Empire and it continued elsewhere? And do you think it was a coincidence the return of slavery practiced by European nations when they began their apostasy?

One more thing. remember to check the perenial teachings of other Popes besides the two you mentioned and Christ Himself, Who is their source.

I repeat: slavery is at most tolerated by the Church and in matters of salvation it isn't considered an obstacle. As Saint Augustine explained, slavery is a result of original sin, so it isn't natural, it isn't God's Will. Yet, since we are fallen, it is real and we have to deal with it the best way we can.

Slavery of the flesh and of the passions, on the other hand, are examples of real evil. Worry about these.

[Justin Martyr]

Officialy, the Church never contradicted herself on this matter.

She has ended it when she was culturaly dominant and she tolerated it when she couldn't stop. In the latter, she at least secured her most precisous treasures to the slaves, which made them equal to their masters in her eyes: the Sacraments and her teachings.

I see you missed the part where Pope Nicholas V called the "perpetual slavery" of infidels and pagans a "noble and pious act", and where he promised the King of Portugal (using the fullness of his apostolic authority) that the king would have the support of the Holy See forever in this matter.

Did I? Or did I stick to Tradition, which is what really matters? Why do you think slavery virtually ended in European Catholic nations after the split of the Roman Empire and it continued elsewhere?

It didn't end. The only thing that was outlawed was the enslavement of Christians. The enslavement of saracens and infidels was commonplace in the middle ages (albeit it was a different kind of slavery than chattel slavery). If anything the tradition is that enslaving infidels is moral. You're just not going back much beyond the 18th century.

And do you think it was a coincidence the return of slavery practiced by European nations when they began their apostasy?

...a practice of buying, selling, and possessing slaves from Africa which was kick started by the Papal Bull in the OP, with a tradition going back into the medieval period.

One more thing. remember to check the perenial teachings of other Popes besides the two you mentioned and Christ Himself, Who is their source.

I did. Four Roman Pontiffs confirmed Romanus Pontifex which itself was confirming Dum Diversas. Other Popes condemned slavery, but until Sublimus Deus they only condemned slavery of Christians (which no one ever permitted). Even Sublimus Deus was retracted under presurre by the Spanish Crown, and it is not clear if it was ever magisterially promulgated to begin with.

Popes don't start actually condemning the enslavement of infidels as intrinsically immoral until the 18th century when the "civilized" regal courts of enlightenment era europe started protesting it as a violation of "human dignity".  The same thing happened to the Church's traditional practice of torturing confessions out of heretics.

I repeat: slavery is at most tolerated by the Church and in matters of salvation it isn't considered an obstacle. As Saint Augustine explained, slavery is a result of original sin, so it isn't natural, it isn't God's Will. Yet, since we are fallen, it is real and we have to deal with it the best way we can.

You sound like one of those conservative catholics who like to say "The Church never actually taught people to burn heretics at the stake, that was just the secular power doing its thing!"

Unfortunately, the historical reality differs from the rosy and convenient picture they paint on that topic, and from the one you're painting here.