Slavery

[Aloysius]

it's different in terminology only. if they're forced to work for the government of the society until the government decides to release them their life is owned by the government whether or not it is termed that way.

using them as a means to the end is not a valid argument in my opinion. the person works for shelter and food. that's the same as a person in our society who works for money with which he pays for shelter and food.

i do not believe slavery is an intrinsic always and everywhere evil. it would be evil to do it in today's society and in today's age, however, in a differnt time and a different culture it was necessary and useful for people to work for food and shelter. as long as the person they worked for provided adequate food and shelter in exchange for their work, it would not be considered evil. i stand by my original analysis and have yet to see someone provide an argument against it. it isn't "using them as a means" but rather employing them. In the past, as long as they are treated with dignity and given adequate food and shelter, it was not wrong to own slaves. It was wrong to own them on the basis of racism, the African slave trade as well as all other racist slavery was wrong. Abusive slavery was wrong. But slavery that worked like an employment giving the person food and shelter was not wrong.

[Theoketos]

Al, I have great respect for you and am really enjoying this discussion.


[quote]Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, [b]slavery[/b], prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, [b]where men are treated as mere tools for profit[/b], rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.[/quote]

Gaudiam et Spes under 27

It is never necessary to 'own' a human person. 'Ownership' implies people are objects. People are bodies and souls not objects. God always provides a way not to do evil.

[quote]it's different in terminology only. if they're forced to work for the government of the society until the government decides to release them their life is owned by the government whether or not it is termed that way.[/quote]

Prisoners are [i]not[/i] owned by a government. The point of labor of prisoners is not for the good of the government but for the reablitation of the guilty. Many of them are not forced to labor either, labor in the prison system is a privilage. Many times they are actually paid to work as well (in America).

Keeping the guilty away from society until they have paid their debt is the point of the judicial system, and is the good that the system seeks.

The system actually gets its authority from God, which is why it should rule with justice. (In reality the American Prison system to fails many of the necessary properties to make it just but for the sake of argument let us simply talk about how things should be.)

Also From Gaudiam et Spes under 29

[quote]Human institutions, both private and public, must labor to minister to the dignity and purpose of man. At the same time let them put up a stubborn fight against any kind of slavery, whether social or political, and safeguard the basic rights of man under every political system. Indeed human institutions themselves must be accommodated by degrees to the highest of all realities, spiritual ones, even though meanwhile, a long enough time will be required before they arrive at the desired goal.[/quote]

The Prison System thus should look like and be nothing like that of Slavery.

Last thing

[quote]i do not believe slavery is an intrinsic always and everywhere evil. it would be evil to do it in today's society and in today's age, however, in a differnt time and a different culture it was necessary and useful for people to work for food and shelter. [/quote]

What would you say if I said this about abortion or homosexuality? Some people use that same argument.

[Aloysius]

wow :tiphat: thank you for your respect, I respect you as well.

Abortion and Homosexuality are always and everywhere evil. This is defined by the Church.

However, some things are not always and everywhere evil, but some things are objectively neutral and subjective to the time and culture of the society can be considered allowable or not allowable.

The Church has never defined all slavery as always and everywhere evil. The Bible itself along with numerous Church Documents support just slavery while abhoring unjust slavery. With this in mind about the constant position of the Church, the only way in my right Catholic mind I can interpret where that quote's mention of slavery is referencing unjust slavery. Of course people are not objects and their person can never be owned. However, their time and work can be owned if they provide it in exchange for food and shelter. This is the same way prisoners are "owned." Their time and work is owned by the government. They get payed, yes. However, cannot one be payed with food and shelter?

Anyway, as I see it the Church has never defined all forms of slavery as always and everywhere evil, only unjust slavery. Just slavery it appears to me is morally neutral and is only allowable in a case when the society and culture create a necessity for slavery as the means of work for those who need to work for food and shelter. In that case a person pays a person for their time and work with food and shelter. This, of course, is not a necessity in today's society. The only other reason for a form of slavery is punishment for a crime, as I continue to hold that prisoners working is a form of just slavery. That is the only form of just slavery allowable in today's society.

I simply cannot just throw out the fact that the Holy Spirit inspired St. Paul to advise slaves of Christians not to run away but to stay there in obedience, while telling Christian slave "owners" to treat their slaves with dignity. So long as the "owner" pays the slave with food and shelter, he owns the slave's time and work. Again, it is not allowable in today's society, but in times past it should not all be condemned. African slavery should be condemned, it was done on the basis of racism making it unjust. Also, the slaves were treated poorly, making it all the more unjust. However, just slavery did exist so long as the person gave their time and work in exchange for adequate food and shelter.

[Theoketos]

You responded almost as fast as dUSt took back the title for Mini Golf.

'Just Salvery' is not really salvery then. I will come back with more later.

[Aloysius]

lol, I actually faked that. That was my avatar. I changed it back to normal though, dUSt always had the minigolf title (he probably fixed the game )

Perhaps you're simply thinking of the word "slavery" differently than me. I'm talking about what slavery has meant since the time of Saint Paul through the age of Christendom. The African slave trade was an abuse of the idea of slavery as St. Paul knew it. However, there was once just slavery in St. Paul's time and in the age of Christendom, while there was probably also abuses which led to unjust slavery during those times as well.

Unless we understand the idea of just slavery in the past, we cannot justify the words of St. Paul nor countless Popes including one Catholicguy quoted above.

[Theoketos]

I have heard it explained to me that St. Paul did not condone Philomon's Salvery and I am re- reading that letter to remember where that argument lies. Also I wonder if the some of the Church Documents that mention slavery are not ex-cathedra regrading slavery.

[Aloysius]

I'm pretty sure it's been discussed in councils as well.

I'd be interested to see a legitimate argument that he didn't support the slavery. I understand the idea that the Bible is just talking about how we should all be obedient to those in authority over us. While that is the spiritual meaning that teaches all of us, that does not dismiss the actual meaning in which he is adressing slaves telling them to remain slaves. This was a case of just slavery. There is such a thing as just slavery.

The Church through history allied itself with an ideal of just slavery while always opposing unjust slavery. While it doesn't necesarily have ex-cathedra statements, that doesn't invalidate the fact that the Universal Church in her moral teaching always taught slave "owners" not to set all their slaves free but rather to treat their slaves with dignity and give them just recompense of food and shelter for their time and work.

[qfnol31]

Didn't Abraham have slaves and it was okay then? If something is okay at one point in history and in just one culture by moral law, it can't be intrinsically evil. Even if the Church today says it's wrong, that doesn't apply to all of history so the act cannot be intrinsically evil. (This is of course, not with regards to those cases which deal with ignorance).

Edited July 21, 2004 by qfnol31

[Guest JeffCR07]

Zach, while many would argue with you that thee societies in the past were all laboring in invincible ignorance, I don't buy that. I agree with you, and with what has been said since my last post. Slavery in its nature is not wrong, but can become a grave sin and injustice to human dignity in its application. As I said before, a murder who becomes slave of the victim's family is not unjustly enslaved, for death is a worse punishment than life and so his debt to the family is unrepayable. However, even that family must treat him with respect.

Everyone should remember that racial slavery of all kinds is a mortal sin by application, and is to be abhorred at all times.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Aloysius]

Yep, I beleive i mentioned that about racist slavery in every one of my posts on this thread

Along with slavery as punishment, I also propose that depending on the economic and social conditions of a society, slavery can also be considered just when it is the best way to provide work for those who need work. This existed in Christendom in a way, and was not condemned by the Church.

Today's society is different where all have the oppurtunity to work thus that type of slavery can no longer be allowed.

[Theoketos]

So it comes to this:2414 The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, . . . both in the flesh and in the Lord."

I have come to understand that there is something as "just slavery", but "just slavery" is never racial slavery, and probably never occured in America proper.

[Guest Aluigi]

exactly.

[jasJis]

To the Father!
---------------

Romans 8:15-16

For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, "Abba! Father!" it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God.

--------------------
The squishy vision of fatherhood conjured up by most sentimentalist religosity is closer to the little butterball of a Sultan in Disney's "Aladdin" than to the image of the Father presented in Scripture. To say that such a harmless little guy wuvs us is not a revelation but simply a warm fuzzy. But to say that the God of Israel loves us and bids us call him "Father" - that is like being kissed by a thunderbolt. Glory be to the Father!