Having got rid of slavery is one of the things Modern Man characteristically breaks an arm patting himself on the back about, but it should be noted that it didn’t happen until machines had largely taken over the role of slavery in reducing the cost of labor. Without either slaves or labor-reducing machinery, it would probably be impossible for anyone to get really rich, because the cost of labor would be too high; this would, though, be conducive to a condition in which every workman swiftly found the path to self-sufficiency. For those who desire to live in a community composed of equal citizens, this would clearly be the most desirable state; there is, however, implanted deep in the human heart a desire to be lifted far above the reeking masses, and those who have surrendered to this unholy passion will always be at work to keep the laborer from becoming self sufficient, and will create conditions in which he is forced to work his entire life for just his bare sustenance. The weight of one person’s riches always forces his brother’s face into the mire; this is an inexorable law of the world in which we live, and something for which our Lord will hold those who have acquired great riches accountable . A slave at least has value as a domestic animal; in our system, workers are simply thrown away by their employers as soon as there is a machine to do the work more cheaply. I’m not sure we are to be so greatly congratulated for making so many formerly productive people “unemployable”, thereby making them into a kind of industrial waste.

“the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property,”

I think that one can admit that it speaks more fully to “peoples” rather than individuals. At least in theory, this could mean (just for example) that it is always wrong to enslave a person merely on account of his being a member of “a people”, but possibly not (necessarily) always wrong to enslave someone on account of their actions. Such as enslaving cowards who throw down their arms in battle and run away. This understanding would not have banned all slavery as such. But it would STILL have condemned the slavery that was in practice in Colombia, and Maryland, and (probably) the papal galleys, and so on. The fact that some men were ignorant of the Pope’s teaching doesn’t make the teaching not part of the Church’s heritage.

At least on this issue, I find the facts that are cited about ancient and medieval teaching about slavery not so much in CONTRAST to the modern teaching, but merely silent about it. Saying the Church reversed herself on this (on what I have seen so far) would be like saying that Newton reversed the prior understanding of calculus from the ancients. The same treatment would conclude that the Church has recently reversed her position on cloning, since she never used to condemn it. (Warning: bridge slippery when hyperbole is present, don’t slip on it.)

“His exhibit A is slavery. John Paul II included slavery among matters that are ”intrinsically evil” — prohibited ”always and forever” and ”without any exception” — a violation of a universal, immutable norm. Yet slavery in some form was accepted as a fact of life in both Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, in much Christian theology and in Catholic teaching well into the 19th century. Noonan says that Christianity achieved a radical transvaluation of slavery. Jesus presented himself as a slave; slaves became saints; slavery became a metaphor and model for Christian life. Yet neither Jesus nor his followers directly challenged the institution of slavery. The fathers of the church accepted the buying, selling and owning of human beings. So did the popes: Muslim slaves were manning papal galleys until 1800. So did religious orders: Jesuits in colonial Maryland owned slaves, as did nuns in Europe and Latin America. Even St. Peter Claver, who in Colombia befriended, instructed and baptized African slaves, bought slaves to serve as interpreters. Theologians challenged abuses of slaveholding but rarely the practice itself.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/books/review/22STEINFE.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

I shall make the same recommendation to you that I made to Jeff Culbreath. Read this book: http://undpress.nd.edu/book/P00980. Then get back to me.

Best,
Mike

Thanks for responding. Though you’re not a Catholic, your position on slavery is very similar to that of the Vatican as expressed in a Holy Office responsum of 1866. We have moved beyond that. Such a development cannot be criticized on the ground that it jettisons any irreformable precept. One would have to make the case that it simply isn’t warranted by the basic impetus of Tradition.

Best,
Mike

Seems to me that the condemnation from the Vatican was a little earlier and a lot stronger than THAT. In 1537 in Sublimus Dei, Pope Paul III says

“which none may obtain save through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary that he should possess the nature and faculties enabling him to receive that faith; and that whoever is thus endowed should be capable of receiving that same faith. Nor is it credible that any one should possess so little understanding as to desire the faith and yet be destitute of the most necessary faculty to enable him to receive it….

” The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction… to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith.

” Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved…

The pope’s declaration is categorical: all peoples. And it condemns not just the cruelties of the specific slave trade, it condemns slavery itself.

Kraynak does a very good job of demonstrating, both historically and theologically/philosophically, that Christianity is not necessarily compatible with modern liberal democracy. Throughout the book Kraynak’s tone is measured and careful, but always clear and firm.