Slavery and the Catholic Church

Explicit sanctioning by the Catholic Church of perpetual enslavement of unbelievers,
Effects of Christian teachings and actions on colonialism.
“Just war and slavery” I concluded in my last post about la Conquista, trying to judge the Spanish colonization of Mesoamerica. As much as I understand war and slavery were natural to the 16th century, I can't understand the Church's view of it. When asked “Why Christianity?” I've heard Christians respond “By their fruit you will recognize them [the good prophets]” . Well, la Conquista was pretty morbid. Not that Christian at all? Well, Cortés did demand that shrines to the Virgin Mary and St. Christopher be set up in place of Aztec idols on pyramids he conquered through massacres , for example. Maybe they declared faith, but didn't really care about the Church's teachings?

Well, King of Spain Charles V did call the Valladolid debate to investigate the moral issue of the treatment of natives. How more considerate could he be? One of the debating was Dominican friar and bishop Bartolomé de las Casas, who argued that the Amerindians were free men in the natural order. Opposing him was, surprise surprise, a fellow Dominican, Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda, who asserted that the natives' sins against nature justified their enslavement and that it, with warfare, was a good method of converting them to Christianity. Wow, I could think of no better way myself. The debate was unsatisfyingly abstract, with both sides quoting the same sources, mostly Aristotle. The failure of Catholic authorities and religious sources to provide precise statements against slavery is incriminating enough, but there's more straightforward evidence, unfortunately.

Pope Nicholas V in 1452 issued a papal bull Dum Diversas

"We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade […] Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be [...] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery.”

He confirmed it in Romanus Pontifex in 1455.
Pope Alexander VI in 1493 issued Inter caetera, commanding “that barbarous nations be overthrown and brought to the faith itself”.

Defence?

Sure enough I didn't know much about the issue, so I checked what the Church has to say.
First I opened a book I was once given, “History of the Church”, which in no way tries to be exhaustive, but in its 3 pages about “Missions in Africa and America” could mention something more than Bartolomé de las Casas alone and the hard work of missionaries. I don't deny they made a helluva good job, but that's not my point.

Much more on the topic is “The Popes and Slavery” by Father Joel S. Panzer (a 2008 pdf of 15 pages, based on his 1997 book with the same title), which seems to be a nice and concise description of how they view it. A motto “The substantial teaching against slavery that was provided by the Papal Magisterium rightly should give Catholics a great sense of pride.”, precisely what I was looking for.

The author argues that the moral problem of slavery, distinguished with racism and inhuman abuse, didn't appear until the 15th century. As soon as the enslavement of the black natives of the newly colonized Canary Islands became known, Pope Eugene IV condemned it in the 1435 bull Sicut Dudum. What he fails to mention, except maybe for using the words “unjust slavery”, is that it only condemned the enslavement of converts. Historian Richard Raiswell (page 260) sees it even as a turning to the worse, because this and later papal bulls allowed the rules of just war used for crusades to be extended to non-Muslim regions, effectively allowing enslavement of a group larger than the “unbaptized prisoners of just wars” that were sanctioned before.

The article follows with the 1537 Sublimus Dei (ekhem—didn't something happen in between, these 100 years?—khem; no, seriously, how could he evade Dum Diversas?). The bull is pretty explicit in giving freedoms to Indians and others, stating they are capable of Christian faith (earlier indigenous people were often viewed as enemies of humanity, Satan's pawns). It's a bit imprecise about what to do with people who deny converting, in my eyes, but whatever. The bull appeared after the King of Spain Charles V's decree prohibited the enslavement of Indians – so the Church didn't “introduce a relatively new idea of universal equality” in this context, as some would like to believe. And, just as the Spanish decree, it was annulled the following year (more precisely: the executing brief for it, Pastorale officium, was annulled the following year, thus the Church couldn't excommunicate on its basis; also Stogre notes that Sublimus Dei is not present in Denzinger). Of course it was annulled for political reasons and under pressure from Spain, but saying that “Eugene IV and Paul III did not hesitate to condemn the forced servitude of Blacks and Indians, and they did so once such practices became known the the Holy See” (page 4) is just false.

He then follows with later events, but that's only interesting if you'd like to pinpoint whether the Church was five hundred or only two hundred years too late. It should be mentioned that actual attempts at declaring slavery a sin were indeed not as influential as one would expect from “the only true religion” of many. E.g. in 1839 Pope Gregory XVI issued the papal bull In Supremo Apostolatus, which unambiguously (in my opinion) condemned slavery and slave trade. Nevertheless, American Catholic bishops interpreted it as condemning only slave trade. Actually they maintained a status quo and quietly interpreted it as it fit them, allowing even “occasional sales by owners of surplus stock”. Father Joel S Panzer writes “[saying that] Catholics were widely supporting the abolitionist movement is sadly far from accurate”. The misinterpretation of In Supremo was frequently repeated and I agree that the Church's clear stance in the 19th century didn't help much.

Also it wouldn't be fair to omit the tangible good that was done by missions, Christian people truly dedicated to the help of others. Information about it is horribly distorted by each side, but it seems to me most probable that true commitment to Christian values could yield only help, as opposed to those who cherry-picked the Church's teachings to fit their goals. I wouldn't agree with those who say it gave the oppressors a feeling of absolution – the conquest would follow anyway. And Bartolomé de las Casas was very significant in the development of ideas of equality.

Attack

So what is my point?

The most important is that the Catholic Church failed at its role as a moral authority. Subjection to political pressure is understandable from a historical point of view, maybe not much more could be realistically done, but the Church, despite its strong position, proved to be issuing statements only to satisfy the moods of European rulers, instead of providing divine indications. In the light of the 15th century Popes giving explicit rights for perpetual enslavement of non-Christians and the failure to fix the situation even among 19th century bishops, what authority does the Church have? Did any Pope oppose a ruler or a social status quo in a way comparable to heroes of abolitionism, risking anything? Was any of the American bishops excommunicated? Didn't the Church have great influence over European history? Aren't the controversial teachings of the Church today meaningless, how can one give them any value, when juxtaposed with its total dependence and subjection to Spain's political wishes, with its lack of precise teaching and action against slavery through centuries? Of course I don't suppose many Christians will agree with me, so I'd be glad to hear their answers and criticism.

My second point is, well, about this criticism. Christians failed to show a decent level of sincerity. Why aren't these problems even mentioned in books like "History of the Church"? Why didn't Fr Joel S. Panzer mention the fact that Sicut Dudum was about converted natives? Why didn't he mention Dum Diversas, Romanus Pontifex and Inter caetera? Why, oh why didn't he mention Sublimus Dei was effectively annulled after a year, if he dedicated so much text to it and considered it such a landmark?