Customer Reviews

The Popes and Slavery

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The Catholic Church didn't condemn all forms of slavery until 1890, when Pope Leo XIII issued his encyclical "Catholicae Ecclesiae". In other words, the condemnation of all forms of slavery came very late in Church history, at a point in time when abolitionism had already succeeded in the Western world.

The author of this book, Father Joel S. Panzer, attempts to prove that the Church condemned slavery much earlier. Panzer is not very successful in his endeavour. Quite the contrary. Several of the documents he quotes prove the exact opposite: that the Catholic Church as late as the 19th century did indeed defend certain kinds of slavery.

The author points out, quite correctly, that some forms of servitude were considered legitimate before the victories of the abolitionist movement. He also concedes that the Church never condemned servitude with a "just title" until 1890. But since this kind of servitude is really also a form of slavery, this simply confirms what the critics of the Catholic Church have been saying all along, i.e. that Leo XIII was the first pope to unhesitatingly condemn *all* forms of slavery.

Panzer has located a number of documents concerning slavery issued by various pontiffs. The earliest one is "Sicut Dudum" from 1435, issued by Pope Eugene IV. I don't deny that the document is admirable: the pope in question condemns, in no uncertain terms, the genocidal butchering of the Guanchos, the native inhabitants of the Canary Islands. Another remarkable document is "Sublimis Deus" from 1537, issued by Paul III. It prohibits the enslavement of American Indians and Filipinos. Paul III threatens those involved in slavery with excommunication. The encyclical angered the slave-traders, and eventually the pope was forced to withdraw his encyclical (or at least the threat of excommunication).

Both "Sicut Dudum" and "Sublimis Deus" are an improvement upon the medieval position of the Catholic Church, which prohibited the enslavement of Christians, but not of pagans, Jews or Muslims. Both Eugene IV and Paul III prohibit the enslavement of peoples who are still pagans (perhaps for missionary reasons). Unfortunately, there are still loopholes in these documents. What about "just title" slavery? Was slavery abolished in the papal states? Did the papal see take any action against the innumerable number of Catholics (including members of the hierarchy) who broke these prohibitions?

That the Catholic Church had nothing against slavery as such, is proven by Instruction 1293, issued in 1866 under the pontificate of Pius IX by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. The instruction deals with slavery in Ethiopia. The document prohibits Christians from buying slaves who legitimately belongs to others, since this would be like stealing property. It further says that Christians have the right to buy slaves who have been illicitly enslaved, provided that these give their consent. However, the instruction doesn't tell the new owner to free the slave. No, it gives the Christian buyer the right to keep the slave in his own servitude! Naturally, the Christian owner is to treat the slave with "charity", instruct him in the "Faith", and so on. That's what they always say, isn't it? The document further states that native Christians and foreign missionaries have the right to search for and apprehend fugitive slaves, provided that these have been enslaved "justly". Those who have been "unjustly" enslaved, however, have the right to flee, although the Sacred Congregation believes that the question is a difficult one to answer. Indeed! The author of the document, presumably a papal secretary, explicitly states that slavery as such isn't against natural or divine law. Interestingly, a large part of Instruction 1293 is modelled on an earlier document, Instruction 515 from 1776, dealing with slavery in Cambodia.

"The Popes and Slavery" is worth buying for the documents it excerpts or quotes. They are presented in both Latin and English. However, as an analysis, is falls far short. It doesn't explain why Eugene IV and Paul III suddenly saw the light concerning the Guanchos, the Indians and Filipinos. It doesn't have an exhaustive discussion about the difference between "just" and "unjust" titles.

Above all, however, it fails to prove that the Catholic Church took a firm stand against all forms of slavery before 1890.

Despite the admirable efforts of individual Catholics, or even individual pontiffs, the record of the Catholic Church on slavery is nevertheless too little, too late.

Panzer does a fine job clearing up many misconceptions that have been spread about the Catholic Church throughout its history.

Used as a sourcebook for documents by the Catholic Church on the slave trade, this is great. Fr. Joel Panzer gives the original Latin with translations of major statements by popes regarding slavery for the last 400 years. So, for that the book is invaluable. His dishonesty, however, shows forth in his interpretation of those documents. To take one example: Whereas he mentions the work of the Catholic priest, Bartolomeo de las Casas, in ending the enslavement of the indigenous peoples by the Spanish colonists, Fr. Panzer is completely silent about De las Casas' suggestion that Africans be used as slaves instead. Fr. Panzer is quite correct in pointing out the difference between slavery a la' indentured servitude and the slave trade PER SE. The former was not necessarily opposed by the Church, while the latter was indeed condemned. Fr. Panzer tries to nuance the primary sources he uses to favor the Catholic Church -- and, that is the weakness of his book. Get it if you want to have most of the original documents from the Roman Catholic Church on the subject. Just don't expect scholarship from Fr. Joel Panzer.

The author presents a selective list of papal documents that seek to prove that "racial" slavery was always under the ban and that these documents disprove popular misconceptions about the role of the Church with respect to slavery. This presents a number of problems. The emphasis of scholarly debate might be better be described as centering on slavery as an institution and not race. To the unbiased reader it may seem a straw man has been created.

Whilst Papal texts are produced to show that at times certain kinds of slavery were banned there is a complete absence or reference to key Papal bulls such as Dum Diversas, Romanus Pontifex, and their derivatives, in which not only slavery for Saracens in a p.o.w scenario is sanctioned, but also the active searching out and the "perpetual" enslavement of "pagans" and other "unbelievers", "wherever they may be" and the appropriation of their lands.

By limiting the scope of the book to "The Popes and slavery" the reader will not understand why Popes had sanctioned slavery at times and had also shown a certain reticence in proscribing it as an institution: the very scriptures which are treated as foundational to the claims of the Church and the office of the Papacy are also the same scriptures which clearly authorized slavery in the "Old Testament". Augustine and Aquinas, canonized saints and Doctors of the Church, are two of the most influential voices in the history of the Church, and both recognized that slavery was permissible based on scriptures. The present Pope stated in recent years that the Pope is "not an oracle" and "as we all know the Pope is infallible only on very rare occasions" but the whole thrust of this book leans towards both positions.

The author seeks to draw a clear distinction between slavery and "just servitude", the former being banned and the latter approved by the Church. Similarities are drawn between Church sanctioned "just servitude" and what is allowed today in the modern world with respect to prisoners who are given work duties, the current treatment of immigrant workers in America, and the compulsory labor which the Geneva convention allows for prisoner of wars. What isn't made clear is that "just servitude" allows the public buying, selling and trading of other human beings. Those who are traded were not under contract for a fixed period of time or retained until their debt/ crime was paid in full. The metaphysical distinction between owning the whole person, as in chattel slavery (banned by the Church ) and ameliorated forms of slavery ("just servitude") that retains sole rights to that persons labor (sanctioned by the Church) cannot escape the practical consequences that the person could still be bought, sold and traded in perpetuity. The Holy Office text of 1866 printed in the appendix makes this point clear. In these circumstances it's perhaps likely that many readers will simply treat "just servitude" as a euphemism for slavery or, at best, theological hair-splitting to allow slavery in through the back door whilst trying to retain the moral high-ground.

A number of people are criticized by the writer for saying that the Catholic Church didn't ban slavery until a very late period but this seems to be a clear misunderstanding on the authors part and a misrepresentation of what these writers actually say in their works. What they are saying is that whilst the Church did indeed proscribe certain kinds of slavery there were "just" forms of slavery that were indeed allowed. Slavery as an institution, inclusive of "just" and "unjust" forms, only came under the ban late in the history of the Church.

The interpretation given to some of the Papal texts seem very strained in an attempt to show the Popes have always taught consistently and with a high level of moral integrity on this matter. The first one quoted in the book is "Sicut Dicum" seems clearly to relate only to the banning of newly baptized Christians, or those in the process of entering the Church, being enslaved and that is a common interpretation given by scholars, contrary to what the author argues. The text of Gregory XVI's In Supremo given in the appendix lends support to the scholarly interpretation since he recalls the ban of Pius II, who renewed the prohibition of "Sicut Dicum", and describes the ban as applying to "neophytes".

A more balanced treatment of these issues was published by Father John Francis Maxwell in 1975 ("Slavery and the Catholic Church"). Even if one doesn't agree with his conclusion that slavery as an institution was not finally condemned without qualification until the Second Vatican Council it is a much more comprehensive source for all the relevant Papal bulls, Council Decrees, writings by Fathers of the Church, and his interpretations are in line with other scholars. The fundamental failing of this book is that it appears to aimed at the "faith" market who would rather subsist on a diet of slanted apologetic's rather than historical truth and scholarly discourse.

This book demonstrates open documentation from the Catholic Church on important social issues. Institutionalized slavery was a given in past ages. the Popes of each age issued statements progressivly in favor of humane treatment of slaves to the eventual abolition of slavery. The author has a tendancy to soft-soap some of the history. I find that disappointing. A strong organization does not need to cover up. Admission of errors is a sign of maturity and strength.

This skimpy volume attempts to settle once and for all the historical question: Did any Popes condemn one type of slavery in the last 400 years? The author was ordained in 1994, and this book was published in 1996. It bears the Imprimatur of Fabian Bruskewitz, who had been bishop of Lincoln, Nebr., less than a year before this ms. went to the publisher. Apparently, the author completed this volume whilst assistant chaplain at the Univ.of Nebr. during that Diocese's upheaval under Bruskewitz, a worthy successor to the Popes whom Panzer cites with approval, Alexander VI, recently honored by the Vatican with a postal commemerative, and Julius III. Alexander VI was the illegitimate son of Pope Callistus III. Alexander VI had four children, and had a relationship with his daughter, Lucrezia Borgia. Alexander gave the New World to Spain, and Brazil to Portugal. Both countries then declared that Indians could be conquered and enslaved because they would not peacably embrace Christianity. Paul III "gave his sister Giulis 'to Alexander VI to be deflowered'." He also "committed incest with his daughter Constancia and poisoned her husband Bosius Sforza that he might the more freely enjoy her;". Paul excommunicated Henry VIII and forbade Catholic services to be said in England. Paul III issued a pontifical decree, "The Sublime God" which "played an exalted role in the cause of social justice in the New World." Such are the authorities cited in this slender volume. Panzer's basic premise is that the Popes did condemn North and South American slavery, which was different from "just title servitude." The latter is justified today, whereas the former was something entirely different. He maintains that the Latin word "servitus" which is used in papal documents, can mean either slavery American-style or "just title servitude." Humpty Dumpty would be proud of Panzer's redaction on "servitus." However, this 124 page volume is worthy of its price of admission, since it is the only collection of Papal documents in Latin and English which tendiciously deal with the "peculiar institution," but one should be extra careful in relying on the English, particularly in view of the Vatican's insistence that Americans, Canadians, and inhabitants of the British Isles, lack the erudition in English of Tasmanian bishops. {The latter corrected the former's rendition of the English version of the Catechism.) Non amo te, Panzer et Bruskewitz, nec possum dicere quare. Hoc tantum possum dicere, non amo te.

Those seeking a more catholic list of documents concerning the Latin Rite's historical approa ch to slavery, should refer to "Rome Has Through the Centuries" (1998), pp 81-90. Unlike the Panzer tome, this book is more complete. However, the Panzer book gives the complete text of its one-sided selections, wheras "Rome Has Spoken" reduces those statements to 25 words o r less. For background on the character of the Popes who issued the selections chosen by Panzer, c f. "Sex Lives of the Popes."