\u2026seem to me to be utterly oblivious to the Church\u2019s development of doctrine with respect to slavery. Reader Raphael Winters chronicles this development:<\/p>\n
The Catholic Church from the time of the Apostles tolerated the practice of slavery. Was there critique? Yes. Was there regulation? Yes. Was kidnapping eventually outlawed? Yes. The classical liberal (conservative) will attempt to make the case that the catholic church universally condemned slavery since the beginning, and seize upon a few critiques or summaries in order\u00a0to consolidate their current anti-papal position. The honest historian will see a varying degree of\u00a0critique, regulation, and toleration throughout the centuries showing \u2018what is allowed\u2019 has in fact changed repeatedly. One of the most thorough documentation of this is the Letters of John England to the Honorable Forsyth.<\/p>\n
Here are some common statements, rebuttals, and counter-rebuttals:<\/p>\n
Statement: The church tolerated slavery since the time of the apostles<\/p>\n
Rebuttal: The church critiqued slavery many times! It\u2019s been against chattel slavery since the early church!<\/p>\n
Counter-Rebuttal: The church gave a critiqued restriction or a toleration but never a general firm repudiation\u00a0until Vatican II.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
Statement: The church can regulate the morality of the practice of an act\u00a0regardless\u00a0of its inherent nature<\/p>\n
Rebuttal: The church cannot change the inherent moral nature of an act<\/p>\n
Counter-Rebuttal: Church authority most certainly\u00a0regulates the moral practice of an act regardless of its inherent nature. And the church (not reason) is the surest messenger of knowing what the moral practice of an act should be, regardless of its inherent nature which exists invisibly in a distant unearthly plane of existence.<\/p>\n
Most of the relevant scholarly articles are attached as google drive links to this e-mail. What do they refer to?<\/p>\n
Up until 1839, the Catholic Church tolerated (but regulated) chattel slavery. Kidnapping+enslavement was prohibited, as was the enslavement of the first peoples of North America and surrounding islands. Therefore some priests and even bishops owned slaves. In 1839 the Pope denounced the buying and selling of slaves.<\/p>\n
Most of the American Bishops 1840 onward would reject this and claim he was only referring to the Transatlantic Slave Trade which involved the kidnapping then the buying and selling of slaves. The primary Bishop rejecting this was Bishop John England of Charleston, SC but there are quotes on the records from a few other bishops and journalists against \u2018abolitionism\u2019\u00a0as well. They outweigh the solitary bishop and handful of intellectuals of the time against slavery.<\/p>\n
Therefore we have a conservative \u2018schism\u2019 as it were\u00a0(and documented in the following articles) where the conservative american catholics \u2018held to [1838 and prior] tradition and custom\u2019 against the [liberal] Pope.<\/p>\n
Regardless, when the civil war ended in 1865- it was only then that the Bishops released their slaves. Most theologians would stick to the pre-1839 \u2018traditionally tolerated but regulated\u2019 idea until Vatican II when it was unilaterally denounced as a practice especially when used against women or children.<\/p>\n
What would have been the consequence if American Catholics had prioritized what the Pope said in 1839? Well, at the time American Catholics were more concerned with their own parochial concerns (just like most catholics in most historic periods) such as the vice of alcoholism, the danger of mixed catholic and non catholic marriages, and the corrupting influence of public schools against vocations and catholic morality. So their \u2018list of concerns\u2019 was already quite\u00a0full. The Pope then- as well as now- seemed to be talking about something which was not a historic concern, was not a local concern, therefore they ignored it and imagined nothing bad could happen.<\/p>\n
John England in his 1840 letters to Secretary of State Forsyth mentioned that if the Pope was listened to- it would inevitably lead to a peaceful abolition of slavery where the government compensated slave holders, and in turn\u00a0set the slaves free- just as it happened\u00a0in England. So if Catholics had listened to the Pope in 1840 when his encyclical was published in English- we might have avoided the civil war.<\/p>\n
However, as I said previously, the parochial and local concerns always take priority over the papal priority in most historic situations. The consequence is the ignored papal priority (which is usually a farsighted moral strategy) leads to long term\u00a0negative social consequences even if on a personal level there is much benefit temporarily (like most sin).<\/p>\n
This leads us necessarily to a need to categorize papal and church statements- from mandate to absolute prohibition. It is because otherwise the dedicated researcher can dig through the history of the church, find one critique of slavery in ancient times, then claim (falsely) the church had always prohibited it (just like modern conceits) therefore the historican is wrong.<\/p>\n
No, the restrictions or loosening of restrictions do\u00a0vary historically. They can be categorized with a simple number line of your own devising or thus:<\/p>\n
+5 Absolute Mandate \u201cSince Always\u201d (Absolutely Necessary)
\n+4 Firm Directive \u201cSince Historic\u201d (Necessary for all persons)
\n+3 General Injunction (Almost Certainly helpful for all)
\n+2 Variable Prescription (Helpful for most Persons)
\n+1 Commented Sanction (Regulated practice, mostly tolerated)
\n+0 Toleration (Regulated but not Inherently Sinful or Virtuous)
\n-1 Critiqued Restriction (Fault, occasionally venial, regulated but tolerated)
\n-2 Variable Proscription (Usually venial sin, worsened by proximity, reason, graveness)
\n-3 General Admonition (Usually mortal, reduced by proximity, reason, graveness)
\n-4 Firm Repudiation \u201cSince Historic\u201d (Almost certainly mortal)
\n-5 Absolute Prohibition \u201cSince Always\u201d (Always Mortal)<\/p>\nSo when we find a critique of slavery before 1839 we would place it as a \u201c-1\u201d on the scale of regulation. After 1839 we would place the buying and selling of slaves as a \u2018-3\u2019 whereas the majority of\u00a0american catholics would hold it was only a \u201c-1\u201d or \u201c0\u201d until the end of the civil war. Since Vatican II any practice of slavery would be a \u201c-4\u201d and this repudiation has been widely accepted in the United States.<\/p>\n
The idea of differentiating teachings of the church is again, absolutely\u00a0necessary if we are to understand the thought processes of historic catholics against the Pope and how arguing about the morality of an act can consume so many decades of controversy.<\/p>\n
A \u2018critiqued restriction\u2019 \u2013 such as on the buying and selling of chattel slaves before 1838- or on capital punishment before 2018- may or may not change the \u2018inherent nature\u2019 (a loophole beloved by classical liberals) but it still exists thanks to the authority of the papacy which can morally bind a catholic to not commit an act under the virtue of obedience by the god-given authority of the papacy itself. That is not mere theological speculation, it is Canon Law.<\/p>\n
Can. 749 \u00a71 In virtue of his office the Supreme Pontiff is infallible in his teaching when, as chief Shepherd and Teacher of all Christ\u2019s faithful, with the duty of strengthening his brethren in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals.<\/p>\n
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.<\/p>\n
Can. 752 While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ\u2019s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.<\/p>\n
Why is this important? Because critics- acting in the \u2018classically liberal\u2019 tradition will put human reason to judge what is \u2018scripture and tradition\u2019 against the Pope. Assuming we are not going by events such as \u2018acclamation\u2019 or \u2018populism\u2019 we would then be assuming that the \u2018majority of Scripture Professors and majority of Patristic Professors\u2019 can somehow outweigh papal authority. Does it? Does acclamation of points of scripture or tradition, or majority opinions of scripture professors or patristic professors outweigh the Pope? Does quoting from the early church fathers or scripture defeat papal judgment? Nay. Why? Well let\u2019s look at canon law (skipping over\u00a0Vatican I for now)<\/p>\n
Can. 331 The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church of Rome. He is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the Pastor of the universal Church here on earth. Consequently, by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power.<\/p>\n
Can. 332 \u00a71 The Roman Pontiff acquires full and supreme power in the Church when, together with episcopal consecration, he has been lawfully elected and has accepted the election. Accordingly, if he already has the episcopal character, he receives this power from the moment he accepts election to the supreme pontificate. If he does not have the episcopal character, he is immediately to be ordained Bishop.<\/p>\n
\u00a72 Should it happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns from his office, it is required for validity that the resignation be freely made and properly manifested, but it is not necessary that it be accepted by anyone.<\/p>\n
Can. 333 \u00a71 By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only has power over the universal Church, but also has pre-eminent ordinary power over all particular Churches and their groupings. This reinforces and defends the proper, ordinary and immediate power which the Bishops have in the particular Churches entrusted to their care.<\/p>\n
\u00a72 The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling his office as supreme Pastor of the Church, is always joined in full communion with the other Bishops, and indeed\u00a0with the whole Church. He has the right, however, to determine, according to the needs of the Church, whether this office is to be exercised in a personal or in a collegial manner.<\/p>\n
\u00a73 There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgement or a decree of the Roman Pontiff.<\/p>\n
So Canon 333 \u00a73 (which is very easy to remember) states there is no appeal against a decree of the Roman Pontiff- and classical liberals (conservatives) however are using reason to appeal to their personal interpretation (or group interpretation) of doctrine or discipline against him. Therefore, they deny the teaching of the church which says \u2018there is no appeal\u2019.<\/p>\n
But wait, they will appeal, they will claim that \u2018if the Pope can change discipline, he can change what is inherently immoral into a mandate! He could say gay marriage is now permissable!\u2019 No, unlike President Trump the Pope is not \u201cfine\u201d with gay marriage (in fact, he calls it of the devil). And the Pope isn\u2019t going to the U.N. and saying he will promote LGBT rights (unlike Trump).<\/p>\n
Trump is a classical liberal (classical economics mixed with mercantilist ideas on tariffs and borders) mixed with some modern liberalism (LGBT, divorce, abortion critiqued but tolerated).<\/p>\n
No, while the Pope can change discipline (what is regulated and how) he doesn\u2019t change dogma. The Pope has never said \u201ccapital punishment MUST be practiced for these following crimes for these following ways forever and all time\u201d no, it has been more like, \u201cThe freedom of the authority of the state to allow for such and such a punishment will be tolerated but abuses will be critiqued.\u201d i.e. a discipline somewhere between -1 and\u00a0+3 or so\u00a0on the above number line- but never a \u201c+5 dogma or adamantium doctrine.\u201d<\/p>\n
If it were such a thing, then there would be papal teachings on the necessity of execution for certain crimes exactly in line with the allowance for personal vengeance in the old testament which are the oldest \u2018teachings from God\u2019 that we have. A \u2018traditionalist\u2019 reading of capital punishment in its narrowest, most longest lasting \u2018natural law\u2019 or \u2018oldest historic usage\u2019 would then by necessity be forced to admit say, the allowance of parents to conduct personal vengeance against corporations whose pollutions have poisoned or killed their children- but\u00a0 no, they do not allow for that. For classical liberals (conservatives) hold to the consensus\u00a0 slowly built from the early church against \u2018natural law capital punishment\u2019 as a freedom of the state which is tolerated\u00a0and regulated but not morally mandated. Rather then a \u2018dogma\u2019 it is in fact a \u2018discipline\u2019 which can and does\u00a0change based on the decision of the papacy on the freedoms of the state depending on the historic period. So we have the 3 D\u2019s:<\/p>\n
Dogma: Unchanging. There is no dogmatic list of \u2018what is dogma and what isn\u2019t\u2019 to the chagrin of conservatives who want to toss out catholic teachings on catholic social teaching and capital punishment \u2018because it\u2019s not ex cathedra\u2019. The two Marian dogmas and the creed are the best dogmas we have- everything else is technically doctrine.<\/p>\n
Doctrine: Doctrine can develop, and developments can restrict a freedom which was once tolerated. From the most recent historical reaction (\u201cThe schism of 1840-1865\u201d) we see\u00a0development\u00a0of doctrine which restricts a prior economic freedom or state freedom will often\u00a0be hotly contested\u00a0by catholics who see they have \u2018much to lose\u2019 socially if they take a stance against a popular act.<\/p>\n
Discipline: Wildly variable, discipline will change from century to century. We once did not allow death bed communion for public sinners who lived a lifetime of scandal, now we do. This tends to upset people who wanted a \u2018set list\u2019 of what was allowed and not allowed and feel upset when discipline of an action becomes greater It almost never becomes lesser, such as when the Pope allowed for Ember Days to be removed from Lent.<\/p>\n
Modern Liberals tend to\u00a0interpret the change in discipline as allowing for a change in dogma. So whereas the morality of engaging in \u201cthe love which dares not speak its name\u201d has been morally prohibited since the Old Testament and New Testament (-5) they forsee it coming from a -5 to\u00a0+1 and anticipate the \u2018future doctrinal developments of the church\u2019 in doing so.<\/p>\n
Regardless, moral acts which are an \u201cabsolute prohibition\u201d since the beginning are\u00a0quite\u00a0different\u00a0 from a \u201ccritiqued restriction\u201d or a \u201ccommented sanction.\u201d It is a fine point of doctrinal development which is not appreciated by most people involved in the subject as modern liberals wish to fit in with the latest fads of sin, and classical liberals want to begrudgingly accept it after a few decades of resistance.<\/p>\n
If you have read all of this way then you should be ready to deal with the example of Gregory XVI, the variable disciplines on slavery (read the letters of John England to Forsyth), the \u2018schism\u2019 of 1840-1865, and you should be ready to deal with questions of \u2018if it is inherently good, the church cannot prohibit it\u2019, \u2018the inherent nature of the act is all that is important, not the authority of the pope\u2019, and the usual questions and critiques of classical liberals against the authority of the papacy on the morality of the death penalty or allowing spouses to be forgiven in the \u201cprivate forum\u201d of confession just like any other sinner in his absolutely\u00a0necessary attempt to build a \u201cpro-family\u201d coalition of church going catholics against all forces arrayed against the church going catholic and christian family and against its unique privilege of educating and raising the next generation.<\/p>\n
Such an alliance is required for historically we see from papal and church history, not a \u201cbritish\/scottish style railing loudly and publicly against evil\u201d is not necessarily the most chosen papal strategy but rather\u00a0an \u201calliance of mutual co-belligerants for a cause\u201d seeing as \u201cthe papacy, by itself, and without a sufficiently strong catholic state to support it, must rely on allies as it can find them\u201d in order to \u201caccomplish actions, and not mere words.\u201d Such a strategy was used anywhere historically from the crusades to the Papacy becoming reconcilatory to the Orthodox and other Religions as a sort of\u00a0vague alliance against communism for most of the 20th century- repudiated by conservatives especially from the \u201cbritish\/scottish loud railing tradition\u201d which places an emphasis on bold, public proclamations rather than decisive strategic moral actions on high level moral issues.<\/p>\n
You now understand most of the major critiques of the papacy and its actions, and should be able to answer some objections as to\u00a0why the pope seems to put emphasis on deeds not words, why he eschews the british\/scottish preaching tradition, and why he seems \u2018so out of touch\u2019 i.e. putting strategic moral issues ahead and above parochial and local issues which seem much more present and visible.<\/p>\n
This e-mail should contain most of the intellectual structure and framework necessary for understanding and responding to critiques of papal authority from the classically liberal side. To wit, the following major errors are present: human reason championed over papal authority, the idea\u00a0that papal authority can be resisted \u2018unless it\u2019s about a proclaimed dogma\u2019, that the authority of the church has \u2018usurped\u2019 the rights of state power [which includes capital punishment], and a national church can be established apart from the Pope [most traditionalists would be in favor of this]. Such falsehoods were condemned in 1864.. excerpts\u2026<\/p>\n
The Syllabus Of Errors
\nPope BI. Pius IX \u2013 1864<\/p>\n3. Human reason, without any reference whatsoever\u00a0to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations.<\/p>\n
22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. \u2014 Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, \u201cTuas libenter,\u201d Dec. 21, 1863.<\/p>\n
23. Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals. \u2014 Damnatio \u201cMultiplices inter,\u201d June 10, 1851.<\/p>\n
37. National churches, withdrawn from the authority of the Roman pontiff and altogether separated, can be established. \u2014 Allocution \u201cMultis gravibusque,\u201d Dec. 17, 1860.<\/p>\n
You should now be ready to use the power of the 19th century against the current errors and failings to put papal priorities above local concerns. Such failures seemed to be documented\u00a0in the 19th century and it would be useful to know them for our 21st for the current generation has forgotten the errors of the prior, and imagine\u201d they are representatives of a movement which has been ever faithful up\u00a0until now, therefore their opinion against the pope should be seen all the greater.\u201d<\/p>\n
P.S.<\/p>\n
The papal encyclical in 1839 (published in the united states in 1840) repudiated the idea of\u00a0buying and selling human beings, and only allowed for it as a punishment for crime. This is the exact\u00a0same idea which was only embraced by the United States\u00a0in Amendment XIII after the Civil War. If we had embraced the ideas of the encyclical- the self same ideas in the Amendment XIII- we could have avoided the civil war, although, at the cost of \u2018respectability\u2019 in Southern Catholicism and at the most strenuous protest and hatred of Southern Slaveowners \u201cforced\u201d to sell their slaves to the government and subsequently manumitted and set free. The Southern Catholic Church made a deal with the devil to repudiate the Pope, and side with the Southern (protestant, and also Mason) idea of slavery in exchange\u00a0for religious toleration.<\/p>\n
P.P.S.<\/p>\n
John England stated slave owners seemed to be the most best of all liturgical celebrants- my interpretation they were the most emphasized their reverence, their respect, and their appearance in the liturgy which he took to be a sign of virtue, but which I take to be a social commentary on how those who violate moral customs of the church especially in the economic realm will strive to use a certain strident and disciplined participation in the liturgy to excuse their toleration of \u201cmoral ills\u201d condemned by the pope but tolerated by popular practice.<\/p>\n
P.P.S.<\/p>\n