Tea at Trianon: Catholicism and Slavery

John Wilson Croker on Marie-Antoinette

"We have followed the history of Marie Antoinette with the greatest diligence and scrupulosity. We have lived in those times. We have talked with some of her friends and some of her enemies; we have read, certainly not all, but hundreds of the libels written against her; and we have, in short, examined her life with– if we may be allowed to say so of ourselves– something of the accuracy of contemporaries, the diligence of inquirers, and the impartiality of historians, all combined; and we feel it our duty to declare, in as a solemn a manner as literature admits of, our well-matured opinion that every reproach against the morals of the queen was a gross calumny– that she was, as we have said, one of the purest of human beings."

~from History of the Guillotine by John Wilson Croker, 1844

Edmund Burke on Marie-Antoinette

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely there never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like a morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh, what a revolution....Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fall upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look which threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded...."

~Edmund Burke, October 1790

Monday, March 18, 2024

Catholicism and Slavery

From Samuel Gregg at The Acton Institute:

On the level of formal teaching, the Church’s record, Kengor illustrates, is one of consistent opposition to slavery. Very quickly, slavery was understood to be sinful by the Church. The position emerged more or less directly from the Gospels and the writings of Saint Paul. It was also considered universal in its application.

This last point matters because a few scholars have argued that the Church was opposed only to the enslavement of Christians, whether by Christians or non-Christians, the implication being it was acceptable to enslave non-Christians. Certainly, some statements by popes and councils refer explicitly to Christians, but the omission of references to non-Christians is not intentional. For one thing, most church documents on slavery refer to the wrongness of enslaving anyone. It is also the case that statements about enslaving Christians by popes like Eugene IV were accompanied by other documents composed by the same popes “that addressed the welfare of all people.”

In making his argument, Kengor analyzes a formidable amount of material to demonstrate the consistency of official Catholic magisterial teaching on the inherently evil nature of slavery. Especially concise statements were issued by the Holy Office (today’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith) in the 17th century. These spelled out in question-and-answer format not only the wrongness of slavery itself but also the obligation of captors, buyers, and owners of slaves to free and compensate them. There is no mention of the guilt and responsibility of anyone involved in the slave business being diminished by cultural, psychological, or sociological factors that might affect their personal culpability for their actions.

Catholic teaching on slavery, Kengor also illustrates, was “far ahead of the world.” Though it is politically incorrect to say so, Kengor underscores that slavery simply was not questioned in any meaningful way in pagan Europe or pre-Christian cultures in North America, Latin America, Africa, and Asia. At a time in which there are tendencies to idealize such cultures—or even deny that brutal things like mass slavery and human sacrifice occurred in Mesoamerican cultures—these truths bear repeating. (Read more.)