A Modern Treatment of Slavery — Kenrick, 1861
Archbishop Francis Patrick Kenrick, in a careful moral analysis, outlines the principles which characterize lawful slavery, both in its ancient and modern forms
“WHEREAS all men are equal by the law of nature, no one is by nature the master of another; yet by the law of nations, not only the mastery of jurisdiction, but also of property is granted to men over men: which the ancient law also held.”
Introduction
This journal is dedicated to combatting liberalism, whatever its form, and that is our promise to you, dear reader. If the opinion is common in polite society, even if it is universally accepted, to the extent that it is a liberal one it must be rejected. Catholic principles preclude any adherence to liberal ideas, however fashionable they may seem. One such example is the abhorrence people have for slavery. Today, slavery qua slavery is universally and categorically rejected by apparently all good men. Put conditionally, to be moral is to reject the legitimacy of slavery, both its ancient and modern practice. The opposite view is nearly unthinkable. Regrettably, many Catholics have fallen into this trap and self-styled traditionalists are not immune, either.
However, these views are driven in large part by emotion, often compounded by a prejudiced view of history. The latter driver is outside the scope of this essay but will be looked at in due time here at The Journal of American Reform. As to the former driver, emotion, what if the question of slavery were analyzed with a different methodology, namely a Catholic one? Rather than beginning with modern sensibilities, one should first look at data from Sacred Scripture, where Sts. Peter and Paul sanction the practice of slavery and urge obedience from slaves to masters, even difficult ones:
St. Peter (1 Pet., II. 18) - “Servants, be subject to your masters, with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.”
St. Paul (1 Tim., c. VI) - “Whosoever are servants under the yoke, let them count their masters worthy of all honor, lest the name and doctrine of the Lord be blasphemed… These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound word of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to piety, he is proud, knowing nothing.”
Then, layering in data from Tradition, Popes and the Angelic Doctor to judge its being lawful, in principle:
Pope St. Gregory the Great, I (Pastoral Rule, circa. 600) - “Slaves should be told...not [to] despise their masters and recognize that they are only slaves.”
Pope St. Gregory the Great (Exposition on the Book of Job, circa. 600) - “All men are equal by nature but...a hidden dispensation of providence has arranged a hierarchy of merit and rulership, in that the differences between classes of men have arisen as a result of sin and are ordained by divine justice.”
King Reccesuinth (Ninth Council of Toledo, 655) - “Children of clerics were to be enslaved.”1
Pope Innocent III (Fourth Lateran Council, can. 71, 1215) - “We decree that those [enemies] who sell them galleys or ships, and those who act as pilots in pirate Saracen ships, or give them any advice or help by way of machines or anything else, to the detriment of the holy Land, are to be punished with deprivation of their possessions and are to become the slaves of those who capture them.”
St. Thomas (ST II-II, q. LVII, art. 3, 13th cent.) - “Considered absolutely, the fact that this particular man should be a slave rather than another man, is based, not on natural reason, but on some resultant utility, in that it is useful to this man to be ruled by a wiser man, and to the latter to be helped by the former, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 2). Wherefore slavery which belongs to the right of nations is natural in the second way, but not in the first.”
Pope Nicholas V (Dum Diversas, 1452/54) - “We grant to you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property... and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery.”2
Finally, ending with a little-known ruling in 1866 on the question of slavery by the Holy Office under Pope Pius IX, which demands interior religious assent from all Catholics—not unlike other doctrinal rulings from the same organ.3 Surprising as it may initially seem, it was and continues to be entirely possible to be a good Catholic and a slaveholder. Further, saints like Pope Gregory I, Philemon and the Roman Centurion evidence it is not inconsistent with preeminent holiness, either. Of the Roman Centurion, Our Lord marveled at his fidelity (Matt. VIII, 5-13), remarking “Amen I say to you, I have not found so great faith in Israel.”
Are there necessary conditions to make the practice of slavery moral? Surely, and theologians and canonists have commonly laid out a number of basic conditions to regulate the practice.
First, and most important, a just title to owning a slave (capture in war, State-inflicted punishment, debt, nativity, voluntary acceptance, etc.) is morally necessary. Reducing a man to servitude without a legal title, robbing him of his liberty, is seriously sinful. This holds for all men, irrespective of their race, nationality or class. Secondly, respect must be given to the rights of the slave, meaning provisions for Catholic education, housing and food, along with ensuring his right to marry and receive the other sacraments. A slave is not to be looked upon as a brute, as mere chattel, but only as chattel in things superadded to nature.4 The slave is a fellow-man, with the same intrinsic dignity as the master, yet his master has the right to perpetually dispose of his labor and its fruits. There are also certain rights or prerogatives for masters, along with corresponding duties on behalf of the slave. Chief among these duties is obedience, again due to good and bad masters, alike.5
Thus, with this short demonstration, it quickly becomes obvious that the modern prejudice against slavery, per se, is not only contrary to right reason, but the teaching of Sacred Scripture, Popes and approved theologians. A similar error, even more dangerous, is support of abolitionism (distinct from desiring lawful emancipation of slaves, even universally) which, by historical evidence, is worthy of anathema. Certain fanatics, usually Protestants, humanists or so-called “Liberal Catholics” have been responsible for the promotion of this error over the past couple of centuries. Imagine their horror when they get around to reading the sublime admonitions of St. Paul to Christian slaves. Admonitions that are taken from inerrant Holy Writ and understood in accordance with the mind of the Catholic Church.
The Opinion of Archbishop Kenrick
Our purpose of presenting this treatment of slavery from Archbishop Francis Patrick Kenrick is to make the case, hopefully very clearly that, considered in itself, slavery is morally legitimate. On the question of American domestic slavery, which is merely a concrete application of slavery as a system (along with its various abuses and instances of injustice), Kenrick’s view is revealing as to what contemporary Catholics thought. It also gives an indication to what we should think today. Importantly, as will be evidenced from the reading below, the necessary distinction is drawn between the Atlantic Slave Trade, which was condemned by Pope Gregory XVI in his 1839 Encyclical letter In Supremo Apostolatus Fastigio, and American domestic slavery (Southern slavery), distinct from the aforementioned.
His Excellency’s Theologia moralis was published in 1861 and bore an imprimatur from Cardinal Engelbert Sterckx. In his ecclesiastical career, he convened and presided over the first Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1852, owing to his being previously named an Apostolic delegate of the Holy See. One year later he was requested by Pope Pius IX to provide him with the collective opinions of the American episcopate on the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, dogmatized shortly thereafter. We do not mention this for no reason. Rather, it is to show that this is a serious opinion on slavery advanced by a capable theologian, whose time spent in both the American North and South helped to form a balanced view of things. After serving as Bishop of Philadelphia from 1842 to 1851 and Archbishop of Baltimore from 1851 to 1863, Kenrick would die at the age of sixty-six in Baltimore on July 8, 1863. According to historical reports, he was greatly distressed while reading earlier in the day about the carnage from the Battle of Gettysburg, which had taken place earlier that week in neighboring Pennsylvania. His Excellency is most well known for his translation of the Douay-Rheims Bible, with a commentary, a three-volume work of moral theology, Theologia moralis (1861), and his robust defense of the primacy and supremacy of the Roman See, entitled The Primacy of the Apostolic See Vindicated (1848).
Now, without further ado, we are pleased to present His Excellency, Archbishop Francis Patrick Kenrick’s 1861 treatment of slavery.
CHAPTER VI — On Slavery.
WHEREAS all men are equal by the law of nature, no one is by nature the master of another; yet by the law of nations, not only the mastery of jurisdiction, but also of property is granted to men over men: which the ancient law also held.6 Those taken captive in war were formerly generally reduced to slavery, when it seemed good to the victors to spare the vanquished. Those who had committed some atrocious crime were subjected to the same punishment.7 And such was the power of the fatherland, that it was lawful to sell their children to relieve their poverty, on the condition of redeeming them if better fortune should arise.8 Some sold themselves to provide for their own support. The origin of all those born of a slave mother were considered slaves, because “birth follows the womb.”9 The apostle did not condemn slavery, which was prevalent among most nations, but taught that masters should be obeyed: “Slaves, obey your masters according to the flesh with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as to Christ.”10 The master also insinuated meekness and equity: “And you, masters, do the same to them, forgiving threats, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven: and there is no respect of persons with him.”11 The Church always had the apostolic documents before her eyes; which therefore, at the Synod of Gangra, condemned with anathema those who would lead slaves away from their masters’ obedience under the guise of religion. However, she favored human freedom as much as she could, encouraging masters to free their slaves,12 until gradually, without feeling, slavery was abolished.13
Augustine is excellent: “For God has so ordered his Church, that every power ordained in the world shall have honor, and sometimes from better. But for example I say one thing, from here conjecture the degrees of all powers. The first and daily power of man over man, is that of the master over the servant. Almost all houses have this kind of power. There are masters, there are also servants, the names are different: but men and men are equal names. And what does the Apostle say, teaching that servants are subject to their masters? ‘Servants, obey your masters according to the flesh:’ because the Lord is according to the spirit. He is the true Lord and eternal, but these are temporal according to time. When you walk on the road, when you live in this life, Christ does not wish to make you proud. It happened to you that you were made a Christian: you were not made a Christian because you disdained to serve. For when, at Christ’s command, you serve a man, you serve not him, but him who commanded. And this he says: ‘Obey your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, not with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, with good will.’ Behold, he did not make free men out of slaves, but good servants out of bad servants. How much do the rich owe to Christ, who prepares a house for them? So that if there was an unbelieving servant there, Christ would convert him and not say to him, ‘Leave your master, now you have come to know him who is true.’ He did not say this to him, but rather, ‘Serve.’”14
Gregory XVI, following the example of his predecessors, condemned and forbade the trade in Blacks, which Christian nations were not ashamed to practice, by bringing up futile and empty reasons to mitigate such injustice: “By Apostolic authority,” he says, “we admonish and earnestly entreat all the faithful of Christ, of whatever condition, in the Lord, that no one should dare in the future to harass Indians, Negroes, or other people of this kind unjustly, or to rob them of their goods, or to reduce them to slavery, or to render aid or favor to others who commit such acts against them; or to practice that inhumane trade, by which Negroes, as if they were not men but mere animals, are bought, sold, reduced to slavery in any way, without any discrimination, contrary to the laws of justice and humanity, and sometimes they are devoted to the hardest labors from the lands, and moreover, in the hope of profit from trade with the occupiers of the Blacks, dissensions and perpetual wars are fostered in their regions, in a manner similar to those proposed by the same, as being utterly unworthy of the Christian name. For We, by Apostolic Authority, reject all the aforesaid things, as being utterly unworthy of the name of Christianity; and by the same Authority, we strictly forbid that any ecclesiastic or layman should presume to protect that same trade with the Blacks as if it were lawful under any pretext, or to preach or teach in any way, publicly or privately, against those things which we have warned against in these our Apostolic Letters.”15
But what is to be thought of domestic slavery, which prevails in most of the southern provinces, the descendants of those who were carried away from Africa, still subject to the yoke?16 Indeed, in this freedom, of which we all boast the fullness, it is to be regretted that there are so many slaves, from whose initiatives laws have been passed to prevent them from being educated in literature, and which in some places greatly hinder the exercise of religion.17 However, since that is the condition of things, no other laws should be attempted, nor should anything be done or said by which slaves may be vindicated for freedom, or by which they may bear the yoke separately: but the prudence and charity of sacred ministers should be shown in it, so that slaves, informed in Christian morals, may render obedience to their masters, reverencing God, the supreme of all masters; and that masters present themselves as just and gentle, and mitigate the condition of slaves by their humanity and their zeal for their salvation. We have the Apostles as authors, who have left us these documents: which those who have neglected, seeking to uproot the whole order of things through their zeal for humanity, often impose a harsher condition on slaves. The Pontiff did not fail to place this before the eyes of all in the pre-lauded Constitution: “For inspired by the divine Spirit, the Apostles indeed taught the slaves themselves to obey their carnal masters as Christ did, and to do the will of God from the heart; But they commanded their masters to treat their servants well, and to do to them what is just and fair, and to forsake threats, knowing that their Lord is in heaven, and there is no respect of persons with him.”
Gerdil makes a very good observation in our case: “Servitude is not to be understood in such a way that a man can have the same sense of ownership over another man that he has over a beast. In this matter, those who did not want slaves to be counted among the number of persons were once shamefully mistaken;18 and however unjustly and cruelly a master had his slave, they still assumed that no injury was done to him by the master. For servitude does not destroy the equality of nature among men: therefore by servitude a man is understood to be in the dominion of another, insofar as the master has a perpetual and universal right over all the works of his servant, which indeed it is lawful for man to perform for man; and indeed by such law that the master should take care of the servant, and diligently perform for him all the duties of humanity, as we have declared elsewhere. (Specimen Element, p. iii. § 4.) Slavery, understood in this way, does not conflict with the law of nature, so much so that he who has slaves must not be considered to be sinning against the law of nature if he uses them moderately: although the greatest good of the human race, servitude has long been abolished by Christian meekness among more cultured nations.”19 He also says: “Why does the master do injustice to the slave if he beats him more cruelly, if he oppresses him with excessive labor, if he defrauds him of suitable food and clothing, if he betrays his reputation? And rightly Cicero I. De Officiis Chap. 13. But let us remember that justice must be observed even against the lowest. Now the lowest condition and fortune of slaves is such that they are not badly commanded by those who order them to use them as mercenaries, demanding work and just allowances.”20
It may be asked whether yesterday they could retain slaves, when their elders seem to have been brought here from Africa with wrongdoing? We think it must be affirmed: for the defect of the title must be considered cured by the lapse of a very long time, when the condition of society would otherwise always be uncertain, with the gravest danger of mobs. Those who forcibly took them away against their will sinned indeed; but it does not seem unjust to keep their descendants in slavery; namely, they who were born in that condition, which they are not able to cast off. However, those who, through the study of humanity and religion, give them freedom by hand, when that can be done with their benefit and without detriment to the public health, are to be praised.
What shall be said of slaves who flee? The Apostle indeed sent a slave to Philemon, and the Synod of Gangra most strictly forbade anyone to withdraw the slaves of their master under the pretext of religion: “If anyone, on the pretext of religion, teaches another’s slave to despise his master and to neglect his service, and does not rather teach him to serve his master in good faith and with all honor; let him be anathema.”21 But if a slave, without any persuasion, flees to a free state or province, he may be recalled by the law of Congress concerning fugitive slaves.22 But if he hides himself and approaches the sacred tribunal for the purpose of laying aside his sins, it does not seem that he can be repelled because of his will never to return to his master:23 for the fear of punishment is so grave that no one be obliged, with such great danger to himself, to return to his former condition: besides, that no one is deemed to suffer the loss of liberty except out of necessity, especially when he has lost it by no act of his own, but by the calamity of his ancestors. If slaves flee to their own people as a result of war, civil law grants them freedom;24 as also to Christian slaves whose masters were Jews, or pagans, or heretics, and also to infidels who embraced the Christian faith:25 but according to our laws the bond of servitude remains, whenever a slave has been brought back from flight, or discovered in a foreign province.
END.
CONSIDER SUPPORTING THE JOURNAL OF AMERICAN REFORM!
As I intend to devote more and more time to this political project, I want to continue to provide free, educational material, whether visual (edits) or written (essays, translations and a forthcoming book) content. If you have benefited from my work in any way, kindly consider supporting the journal financially. On a personal note, I am married and duty-bound to provide for my family, so any help, big or small, is appreciated. Subscribe or make a one-time donation.
Regardless, the production of free material will continue, hopefully with ever-increasing quality, and I will keep all my subscribers notified of my plans.
In addition to Substack, the home of the journal, my work, graphics and commentary can be found on the following platforms:
X: @AmericanReform_
Telegram: @American_Reform
This was an early effort to enforce clerical celibacy. Later, it was incorporated into canon law.
Pope Calixtus III confirmed this decree in 1456. Sixtus IV renewed it in 1481. Alexander VI extended it from Africa to America in 1493, and Leo X renewed it in 1514. In 1537, Paul III condemned the unjust enslavement of American Indians in Sublimis Deus and the view by which they were seen as utterly incapable of receiving the Catholic faith, however leaving the just enslavement of hostile non-Christians untouched. Eleven year later, in 1548, to prevent slaves in Rome from seeking sanctuary on Church property, he issued a Motu Proprio, saying, “Each and every person of either sex, whether Roman or non-Roman, whether secular or clerical...may freely and lawfully buy and sell publicly any slaves whatsoever of either sex... and publicly hold them as slaves and make use of their work, and compel them to do the work assigned to them... Slaves who flee to the Capitol and appeal for their liberty shall in no wise be freed from the bondage of their servitude, but...shall be returned in slavery to their owners and if it seems proper...punished as runaways.”
— “But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” (Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1684).
— “If in a given case the Church does not use its infallible authority, then the violation of canon 1324 constitutes a sin only against ecclesiastical obedience, but the sin is also in that case a grave sin.” (Abbo & Hannan, The Sacred Canons, V. II, St Louis, 1952, p. 560).
— “The specific malice of the fault committed in the case of lack of submission to such a pontifical teaching must be drawn from the following principles: a) There is always in itself a violation of a Church law which obliges gravely, in a matter falling immediately under its authority. – b) There is often, per accidens, sin against the virtue of faith, in the sense that by disobeying the pontifical magisterium, one exposes oneself to some more or less serious danger to the faith. – c) There can easily be a sin against charity as well, on account of the scandal given or of the spiritual damage caused in others by one’s disobedience, according to one’s position and influence.” (E. Dublanchy, in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, article Infaillibilité du Pape, T. VII, 2e Part., Col. 1709-1714).
St. Thomas (ST Suppl. q. 52, art. 2) distinguishes what is meant by mere chattel, “A slave is his master’s chattel in matters superadded to nature, but in natural things all are equal. Wherefore, in things pertaining to natural acts, a slave can by marrying give another person power over his body without his master’s consent.”
Exod. xxi, Levit. xxv.
Cap. lta qaorumdam, de Judaeis et Samaritanis.
L. i. et ii. ff. de patribus qui filios suos distraxerunt.
Partam, Cod. de rei vindie.
Eph. vi. 5.
Ibid. 9.
Le Christianisme et l'esclavage par Moehler.
Alexander III forbade “Jews or Saracens to be permitted to have Christian slaves in their possessions.” Lat. iii. Can. xxvi.
Commentary on Ps. cxxiv.
The Apostolic Letter begins In Supremo Apostolatus Fastigio, dated Dec. 3, 1859.
Vide Carriére, de Just. et jure, par. 1. §. 1. c. iii. art. iii. n. 54.
“In Georgia, by an act, in 1829, no person is permitted to teach a slave, negro, or free person of colour, to read or write. So, in Virginia, by statute, in 1830, meeting of free negroes, to learn reading or writing, is unlawful, and subjects them to corporal punishment; and it is unlawful for white persons to assemble with free negroes or slaves, to teach them to read or write. The prohibitory act of the legislature of Alabama, passed in the session of 1831-2, relative to instruction to be given to the slave, or free coloured population, or exhortation, or preaching to them, or any mischievous influence attempted to be exerted over them, is sufficiently penal. Laws of similar import are presumed to exist in the other slave-holding states; but in Louisiana the law on this subject is armed with tenfold severity. It not only forbids any person teaching slaves to read or write, but it declares that any person using language, in any public discourse, from the bar, bench, stage, or pulpit, or any other place, or in any private conversation, or making use of any signs or actions, having a tendency to produce discontent among the free coloured population, or insubordination among the slaves, or who shall be knowingly instrumental in bringing into the state any paper book, or pamphlet, having the like tendency, shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment or death, at the discretion of the court.” Kent’s Comm. vol. ii. p. iv. lec. xxxii. n. 253.
“The barbarity of several peoples has gone so far as to place slaves in the rank of property that one possesses, and to treat them not as human creatures, over which one has a certain authority, but as a property that one can dispose of at one’s whim, in the same way that one says of a slave, in the same sense that one says of a horse: He is mine.” Puffendorf, Droit de la Nature et des Gens, 1. vi. ch. iii. §. vii.
Compendium Institutionum civilium, L. i. p. 35. vol. vii.
Gerdil, de justitia et jure, c. vi. prop. iii. Vide et Amart. v. i. p. 554.
C. Si quis servum. 37. c. 17. qu. 4.
Constitution of the United States, art. iv. §ii. Of Fugitive Slaves. It was decided in the Supreme Court of the United States that laws passed by groups of individual States after the escape of emancipation were invalid, since the power to enact them belongs to Congress under the Constitution. Edward Prigg. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania , Jan. 1842.
Vide Lessium, de Justia et Jure, s.i.c.v. Dub. v.
§. Item ea Instit. de rerum divis.
L. Deo nobis, 56. de Episcopis et clericis.
Wow. Talk about taking on controversial topics. After a little resistance, I did read the entire article though and it has given me some things to ponder. Since we've done away with kings and servants I think it's a lot harder to properly relate to Our Lord. We're called to be servants but it's so hard to see that as a positive and succumb. I want to be a Slave of the Immaculate Heart but I've been taught by our culture that being a slave is terrible. Without the kingly/patriarchal hierarchy of society we are living out of order with the heavenly realm as well. I see that more now.