A reader writes:
What is the best response to someone who asks, “Why didn’t Jesus condemn slavery?”
I would point out several things:
1. The Gospels do not offer us an exhaustive record of what Jesus said and did, therefore, it cannot be ruled out that he condemned slavery in a way not recorded in Scripture.
2. He did implant in his Church an implicit rejection of slavery that flowered in later years. Thus the New Testament speak of slavery in negative ways in a variety of contexts. St. Paul counsels slaves who can obtain their freedom to do so (1 Cor. 7:21). He warns masters to treat their slaves kindly lest Jesus treat them harshly (Eph. 6:9). He stresses the equality of slaves and free before God (Gal. 3:28). And he devotes an entire epistle (Philemon) to the subject of God’s compassion for the slave.
3. Slavery was deeply embedded in Mediterranean culture, and the early Church was a tiny, persecuted minority that had no chance of eliminating slavery in the short term. Therefore, since the New Testament is addressed to first century Christians, it is primarily focused on enabling new converts (both slave and free) to live together in harmony until such time as its implicit anti-slavery current could flower and slaves everywhere would be given the opportunity to gain their freedom.
4. Christianity’s compassion for the slave was well recognized at the time, and Christianity spread rapidly among slaves, who were specifically excluded from the rites of many contemporary religious groups. In the eyes of some, Christianity was perceived to a significant degree as “a slave religion.”
5. According to some early Church sources, the slave who is the subject of Philemon (Onesimus) later appears to have become a bishop. He may have played a crucial role in preserving and collecting St. Paul’s epistles (one of which directly concerned himself), and thus we may owe the formation of the New Testament as we have it to a former slave.
There’s Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical, In Plurimis that addresses the question:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13abl.htm
And
his encyclical Catholicae Ecclesiae
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13slv.htm
James, what is this “Christiantianity”? I couldn’t find it in the Catholic Encyclopedia. 😉
Also, it’s important to note that slavery is not intrinsically wrong. Otherwise, God would not have allowed it to the Israelites in the Old Testament. God can put people under the subjection of other people, should he so please. It is in no way unjust.
Careful, Jason. You’re going to have a tough job if you want to argue that way. God can allow all kinds of things that he regards as evil. He allowed the Israelites to divorce their wives and remarry “because their hearts were hard” even though “it was not so from the beginning.” He may have allowed the Israelities to enslave people because their hearts were hard, and not because it was his design from the beginning. After all, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve and a couple of servants.
David: Thanks, and typo fixed.
The Law forbids “manstealing” and gives it the penalty of death, to be carried out by the civil magistrates.
To hold a man or woman against their will, as chattel property, when, as Jesus pointed out, we are made in the Image of God, and we ought to give to God what is God’s, is stealing men from God, or manstealing. The American government is guilty for not having executed all the slavers at the end of the Slaver Rebellion.
Jesus also taught us to love our neighbor as ourselves. It would be rather difficult to rationalize holding a person against their will and treating them harshly, considering this.
It is also Catholic theology that there are four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. One is withholding from the workers their pay. That would rather obviously include the pay owed to slaves for the work that they have done.
>>>”He may have allowed the Israelities to enslave people because their hearts were hard, and not because it was his design from the beginning.”
No, it certainly wasn’t his design from the beginning. But that doesn’t make it intrinsically evil.
To elaborate a little more:
In the Old Testament, God wanted to show how low man had brought himself through sin. Slavery and the low status of women was around because God wanted to emphasize his justice. In Christ, who makes all things new, he lifts up the slave and the woman to the dignity and equality he originally intended for them. But, as I said above, God’s original design is a distinct question from the intrinsic moral nature of slavery. God does not owe anyone anything. If he chooses to place one man under the dominion of another, whether for punishment of his sins or to teach him humility, that is God’s business. That right, however, belongs to God alone, and so only God could establish slavery as a practice, not man.
Jimmy,
Do you mean *chattel* slavery (which I guess is what just about everybody means by “slavery” these days)?
From what we’ve discussed so far, would it be safe to say that God allowed the Israelites to keep persons as property?
It is my understanding that the Catholic Church does not consider all forms of slavery to be intrinsically evil (an example would be racial slavery, which has no basis in natural or divine law).
Other forms of slavery (I forget all the terminology) are perhaps not ideal, but are not evil.
We can compare this to war. Patricipation in war is certainly contrary to the Catholic ideal (which is why priests and religious have USUALLY been barred from participating in it), although it is not intrinsically evil. And you do have certain kinds of wars (unjust) that are evil.
Hmm?
>>> “We can compare this to war.”
No, we cannot compare it to war. The difference is because God has given the state the authority to wage war to defend itself. God has not given man the authority to place other men at his service against his will. If God wanted such a practice established, he has to do it himself. We have no right to do it.
Paul frequently mentions slaves, but he never tells a believer to go out and get slaves. He tells the slave owner to treat the slave as a brother, and he tells the slave to serve the owner out of love (even if he is not a Christian). Paul was telling them to accept their status in the world, but to conquer that status through love and humility, much as love conquers death.
At least one This Rock author sees chattel slavery as essentially different from the sort of slavery found in Old Testament times.
See:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0006.html
A lot of people like to think of Jesus as a social revolutionary; however Jesus pointed out that his kingdom was not of this world. Whether a person was slave, free, Roman citizen was not important. What was important was their acceptance of his teaching.
Jesus did not teach against slavery, the treatment of women is Israel and other 20th century social concerns. He taught about loving God and our neighbor and left it to us to work out the details.