Apologizing for Slavery and Other Misdeeds of our Forebears

Shaming is all the rage these days.  Shame on any white person who refuses to apologize for slavery and other misdeeds of the past.

The race baiters among us say everyone who is white should be ashamed of their whiteness and their “white privilege.” Furthermore, white people should apologize to everyone who is not white for the sins of their forebears.  They should apologize for slavery and also for how badly indigenous peoples were treated.  This will bring healing and forgiveness.

I wish the race baiters among us would get productive jobs.

Some white people can certainly trace their family trees all the way back to the earliest settlements in North America.  There may even be some who can trace their forebears all the way back to the Middle Ages. But should anyone who is alive today have to apologize for what their ancestors (or non-ancestors) may have done 100, 200 or 300 years ago?

Proverbs 17:9, Matthew 6:14-15, Matthew 18:21-22, Mark 11:25, Ephesians 4:32, Colossians 3:12-13, are all pretty clear that we must all forgive one another.  Apologies are good but healing really only comes about through forgiveness.

Ancestry

The simple fact is that none of us are responsible for any sins our ancestors committed.  God even assures us of this in Ezekiel 18:1-22.  (Similarly, we are certainly not responsible for any sins our progeny may commit in the future.)  So why do some think it is fitting and proper to demand that the living apologize for the sins of the dead?

I can’t trace my family tree much beyond my grandparents. But I am pretty sure none of my forebears were slave owners or mistreated any indigenous Americans.

If any of my ancestors did harm someone, my ancestor and the person (or persons) harmed are long since gone.  And my ancestor has already answered to God.  So, no, I am not going to apologize to anyone for anything my ancestors may have done.

Those that say I should apologize for the sins of my forebears are shamers.  They are only trying to induce a sense of guilt in me for something for which I am guiltless.  I refuse to buy into such blatant shaming.

So should the Pope apologize for any past misdeeds committed by the Catholic Church?  Should he apologize for slavery or any harm done to indigenous peoples?  In a word, no.  The Church is the Body of Christ.  The Body of Christ is holy.  It cannot sin.  Individual members of the Church, however, can and do sin.

Those who are demanding such apologies are only trying to shame the Catholic Church, discredit her, and further marginalize her.

A Bit of History

Conquest and enslavement was the name of the game throughout the history of the world.

Throughout much of history, when a nation or group of peoples conquered another nation or group of peoples, everything the conquered peoples had became the property of the conquerors.  Often many of the surviving conquered peoples became slaves.  This is the way it was – all over the world, for thousands and thousands of years.

Modern man, of course, sees slavery – rightly so – as immoral and dehumanizing.  But many tend to forget, or simply refuse to acknowledge, that peoples all over the world conquered and ‘enslaved’ other peoples.  It was a standard practice.

Slavery

The ancient Egyptians enslaved those they conquered, as did the Romans, the Goths, the Seljuks, and the Ottomans.  The Vikings also took captives in their raids and made them slaves.

Here in America, tribes of indigenous peoples fought against and conquered neighboring tribes.  Captured enemies who were not tortured and killed were often made slaves.

The different tribes in Africa also made slaves of captured enemies.  But in Africa, some African tribes profited from this practice by selling captured foes to Portuguese slavers.

The time period known as the Transatlantic Slave Trade saw over 60 “slave castles” built on the coast of Ghana.  The castles were actually prisons crammed together on a stretch of coast less than 300 miles long.”  Elmina Castle, the most notorious of these edifices, was built by the Portuguese in 1482, some 10 years before Columbus even discovered America.

There is a 5-minute video called “A Short History of Slavery” at PragerU that is worth viewing.  It is aimed primarily at dispelling the myth that white Europeans invented slavery, but it also points out that slavery existed all over the world for thousands and thousands of years.  In fact slavery still exists in parts of the world today.

The video is, however, deficient in one respect:  it really does not differentiate between the different forms of slavery or servitude.

Servitude or Slavery?

As this article from the Catholic News Agency notes:

“Even though repugnant to our modern sensitivity, servitude is not always unjust, such as penal servitude for convicted criminals or servitude freely chosen for personal financial reasons. These forms are called just-title servitude. The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which brought an end to racial slavery in the U.S., does allow for just-title servitude to punish criminals: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

So there are two different forms of slavery / servitude:

• Just Title Servitude – This includes Penal Servitude, the involuntary servitude imposed on criminals or prisoners of war, and Indentured Servitude, when people sell their labor for a period of time;
• Chattel Servitude (also called Chattel Slavery or Racial Slavery) – when a human being is regarded as no more than the property of another, as being without basic human rights; the person becomes a thing rather than a person.

Throughout much of history, the word slavery meant Just Title Servitude.  Sometimes slaves were indentured servants who sold themselves for a period of time to pay off debts.  At other times slaves were men, women, and even children subjugated or captured in war.

The Old Testament

The Old Testament is full of stories of nations conquering other nations and enslaving the conquered peoples.  Even God’s chosen people were conquered and enslaved twice.  The New Testament also acknowledges the existence of such servitude.

Unfortunately, slave owners in America in the 1800s often used this acknowledgement of servitude in the Bible to justify chattel slavery.  They even cherry-picked verses that seemed to endorse chattel slavery.  St. Paul’s command for slaves to obey their masters (Colossians  3:22-25; Ephesians 6:5-8) was often cited by slave owners.

The Bible, however, does not justify chattel slavery.  It merely acknowledges the existence of just title servitude slavery in the world.  Christ, in fact, exhorts mankind to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 22:39).  This can hardly be taken as a justification of or an approval of slavery.

But some, today, also try to say the Catholic Church approved of chattel slavery.  They cite the papal bulls Dum Diversas and Romanus Pontifex as proof of this.  The documents, however, say nothing of the kind.

Papal Bulls

A Papal Bull, as the Catholic Encyclopedia states, is defined to be “an Apostolic letter with a leaden seal.”  The papal bull Dum Diversas was a letter from Pope Nicholas V to King Alfonso of Portugal.  Written in 1452, it authorizes Alfonso to subjugate the Saracens (Muslims) of North Africa.

As Britanica.com notes, Dum Diversas “authorized Afonso V of Portugal to conquer “Saracens (Muslims) and pagans” in a disputed territory in Africa and consign them to “perpetual servitude.”  The term “perpetual servitude” here does not mean chattel slavery or racial slavery.  It means just title servitude.

An English translation of the entire bull is available here.  It, too, uses the phrase “perpetual servitude.”

Three years later, Nicholas V issued a second papal bull, Romanus Pontifex, to Alfonso, re-confirming Portugal’s right to the disputed territory in Africa.  This was necessary because Castile was venturing in to Portugal’s territories.

The English translation of Romanus Pontifex at Papal Encyclicals Online (not an official Vatican website), however, uses the words “perpetual slavery” instead of “perpetual servitude.”  This is an unfortunate translation from the Latin, but it does not mean that any conquered peoples could be taken and held as chattel slaves.  It was simply a reaffirmation of the practice of just title servitude.

But even before these two bulls, Pope Eugene IV wrote Sicut Dudum, in 1435, forbidding the enslavement of black natives from the Canary Islands.

More Documents

But Sicut Dudum, Dum Diversas, and Romanus Pontifex just started the ball rolling.

• 1537 – Pope Paul III issues Sublimus Dei saying native peoples should not be made chattel slaves.
• 1591 – Gregory XIV issues the bull Cum Sicuti, which reiterates the prohibitions against enslaving native peoples.
• 1639 – Pope Urban VIII issues Commissum Nobis supporting Spanish King Philip IV’s edict prohibiting enslavement of the Indians in the New World.
• 1741 – Benedict XIV issues Immensa Pastorum reiterating that the penalty for enslaving Indians is excommunication.
• 1839 – Gregory XVI issues In Supremo condemning the enslavement of Africans.
• 1888 – Pope Leo XIII issues the encyclical In Plurimis ordering Brazilian bishops to abolish slavery.
• 1890 – Pope Leo XIII issues Catholicae Ecclesiae reiterating the condemnation of slavery.

So while individual Catholics may have been involved in ‘the slave trade’ or even held slaves, the Catholic Church did not sanction chattel slavery.  It has nothing for which to apologize.

The ‘Doctrine’ of Discovery

Some people, however, say that the Church also needs to apologize for yet another papal bull.  The papal bull they refer to is Inter Caetera. It was issued by Pope Alexander VI on May 4, 1493, and it divided up the undiscovered world (at that time) between Spain and Portugal.

Known today as the Doctrine of Discovery, the bull said that any land “discovered” that was not inhabited by Christians, could be claimed by Portugal or Spain.

Far from being a doctrinal Church teaching, Inter Caetera was a secular, legal document.  Pope Alexander was simply serving as an arbiter between two countries.  (Years later Canada and the United States both embraced the document as an endorsement of national expansion.)

But today some indigenous peoples are saying the Catholic Church should repudiate this papal bull because it stands in the path of reconciliation.  As Sean Fitzpatrick points out, however, “the Bull does not require rescinding as it was abrogated long ago.”  Regardless, repudiation will not change the fact the document exists.  And it will not change history.

Pope Francis in Canada

Why then, did Pope Francis take a trip to Canada?

Some have praised his action and what he called a “penitential pilgrimage, which I hope, with God’s grace, will contribute to the journey of healing and reconciliation already undertaken.”  Others have said he has nothing to apologize for.  And still others have criticized his remarks.

During the trip, Pope Francis did not apologize for any sins committed by the Catholic Church.  He did, however, say that “I ask forgiveness, in particular, for the ways in which many members of the Church and of religious communities cooperated, not least through their indifference, in projects of cultural destruction and forced assimilation promoted by the governments of that time, which culminated in the system of residential schools.

“I humbly beg forgiveness for the evil committed by so many Christians against the indigenous peoples.”

I commend him for taking this trip to Canada and for the tenor of his remarks.  As he said, it was a ”penitential pilgrimage.”  He took it upon himself to do penance for any harm any Christians may have have inflicted on the indigenous peoples of Canada.

He also neatly side-stepped the trap that the secular progressives had set.  Their real aim was to shame the Catholic Church.

So let’s be clear on this.  The Catholic Church has not harmed anyone.  Bad and misguided individuals, as has always been the case throughout history, cause harm.  Shame on the secular progressives for trying to shame the Catholic Church!