Christian Slavery - Bad News About Christianity

slavery. In an Instruction dated 20 June 1866 the "Holy Office", which rules on matters of faith
and teaching, declared :
"Slavery, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the
natural and divine law. There can be several just titles of slavery and these are
referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons [of
the Catholic Church]. It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to
be sold, bought, exchanged or given."
Popes continued to own slaves until they lost control of the Papal States in the nineteenth
century. In 1888, after all countries other than the Vatican State, had abandoned the practice of
slavery, Pope Leo XIII condemned slavery in general terms. In 1918 a new Code of Canon Law
promulgated by Pope Benedictus XV condemned 'selling any person as a slave'. There was still
no condemnation of slave owning, only of slave trading - so three of the four "just titles" still held.
In Gaudium et spes, 1965, the Second Vatican Council finally gave up on slavery, denouncing all
violations of human integrity. To date the Catholic Church has not apologised for it's part in any of
the Slave Trades it established or participated in. In March 2000, Pope Jean Paul II, hinted at his
Church's culpability asking unspecified people for forgiveness for unspecified crimes committed
by unspecified Catholics against unspecified victims 39 .
Slavery - still a charged issue in the USA
There are still Christians prepared to uphold the
traditional Christian line on slavery. In 1996 Charles
Davidson, a devout Christian Senator from Alabama,
said that slavery had been good for blacks, and
pointed out that the practice had biblical approval,
citing the traditional prooftexts such as Leviticus 25:44
and 1 Timothy 6:1 40 .
Many Christian books and websites seek to establish
that Black slavery was fundamentally different from
Roman slavery. According to them, Roman slavery
was a much more benign system, and this was the
system referred to in the Bible. The argument is flawed
in two ways. First, the rules applied to Black slavery,
and Christian justification for it, were based on the Old
Testament, which regulated the rules for Jews, not
Romans. Rules about slave owning were similar across many ancient societies, so apologists
sometimes try to regard them as the same thing. But even if slavery had been based on Roman
practices in the New Testament, then the argument still does not work. The important differences
between Roman slavery and Christian slavery do not lie in the rules. They are almost the same,
and where they differ the Christian rules are generally harsher than the Roman rules. Slaves
were bought and sold, often at auction. Prisoners captured in war were enslaved. The children of
slaves also became slaves. The master had a right to control slave marriage and regulate slave
family life - regarding slaves as breeding stock. Slave-girls were available for sex. As one Roman
said of his time, Whoever heard of a man prosecuted for sleeping with his concubine? Escaped
slaves were hunted. Rewards were offered for their return. Once returned they could be punished
in the most cruel ways, not merely flogging, but amputation of a foot or "half a foot".
It is certainly true that Roman slavery was often more benign than Christian. We know that
Roman slaves were often educated, well treated, given good food and medical attention,
appointed to responsible offices, and even treated as friends. But this reflects the relative level of