Now before the insults start to rain in, let me make my motives clear.

Now I am also black and am very curious about what the church's position was then. Secondly the church during those time wielded so much power then compared to these days, I would want a civil discussion,NO COPY AND PASTE, no probs in quoting other people ideas but I would prefer UR VIEWS AS SOMEONE WHOSE ANCESTORS WERE TRADED.

Now my first question is did the church condemn or blessed the activities of those dark ages?

the roman catholic church is the one who sanctioned it

How can they condemn something that is glorified in the "holy bible"? Didn't Joseph's brothers sell him into slavery? Weren't the Israelites enslaved? Didn't Moses promote slavery? I am yet to see one chapter or verse from the book of Genesis to Revelation that condemns slavery AND I DARE ANYONE TO QUOTE ME WRONG! ! !

harakiri: How can they condemn something that is glorified in the "holy bible"? Didn't Joseph's brothers sell him into slavery? Weren't the Israelites enslaved? Didn't Moses promote slavery? I am yet to see one chapter or verse from the book of Genesis to Revelation that condemns slavery AND I DARE ANYONE TO QUOTE ME WRONG! ! !

first off you dont know what you are talking about. the bible is a HISTORY book as well as a book of LAWS and PROPHESYS. when you read about slavery in the bible, you are reading about the history of a people called the israelites and all the slavery they went through from the egyptian to babylonian to assyrian and then the prophesy of their american slavery. this is not condoning it. you are reading history. what happens to all those who enslaved the israelites ? they all got destroyed by the lord. the only people left to be destroyed for their slavery is america.
why do you think the somalians and ethiopians are always in famine and hunger and starvation ? they were the ancient egyptians (somalians) and ancient babylonians (ethiopians) who had the israelites in slavery. its americas turn soon. so the bible does not condone slavery. its obvious you havent read the book in its entirety.

Someone can have the slightest doubt that the Catholic Church, on behalf of Christ the King promoted and supported slavery?
Africans came to America in the holds of ships, they were by hundreds in a confined without light, air, water ... almost without food. The vast majority of them died on the voyage and were thrown overboard. To those who came very sick ones were left on the beaches, and left the dogs to eat.
The first thing I did was baptize slaveholders in God's name then given the name "Christian", banning their language ... They were separated from their children and wives ... Then animals were sold with the consent of the church and the same church allowed the terrible punishment and violations. The church declared that the American Indians and black Africans had no soul ... for that reason could be treated like animals.
In the city of San Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, still retains the "Pelourinho", which is a tree located in the center of the main square where slaves were tied and were whipped in front of others to serve example, this happened a few meters from the main church.
Anyone have doubts about the role of the Catholic Church and Christians in these atrocities? Anyone doubt that the African genocide has been the largest in the history of mankind considering the dead / people?
There anyone in this world that can deny or justify that?

This subject has been explored in depth by historians. The church dogma previously classed Africans as barbarians without souls and subhuman with the white man being superior and godsend. This essentially encouraged trafficking in African slaves in which over 8 million African lives were lost. But bear in mind that before the transAtlantic trafficking, a tranSaharan trade in slaves to Europe and the middle east was in existence.

The church's position was a mainly pecuniary decision coupled with its disdain for the black African. Recall that black signifies everything evil in church ideology then. Also, the new world colonizers payed handsomely for royal charters and church approvals which they use to stake claims in the new world. The trade continued for 300 years untill protestant christians in Britain contested the catholic dogma of Africans being subhuman without souls. A lot of debate erupted and thankully Africans were admitted as members of the human race and God's family. The fight to stop the trade then lasted another 50+ years.

A lot of controversy still rages round the number of slaves involved. Documented records indicate over 8 million transported. Deaths were only reported by official cargo ships and a lot of the illegal trafficking were never documented.

In all, the atrocity which can be aptly termed genocide, was like many other issues in which the church goofed, a great stain on the church's integrity and seriously questioned its authority as the divine representative on earth. Up till today the issue is mostly hushed and the late Abiola's efforts at compensation, just like the jews were compensated for Hilter's holocust, was rebuffed.

Anyways, all that is history. I only pray the Nigerian people will see through the red blood-thirsty mists of religion to realize that the African has suffered long and only the common brotherhood of place/location binds us rather than the warped dogmas we sometimes profess.

May we have the hearts to see and the courage to take the decisions that lead us to greatness.

@arbiter, most interesting are the perspectives you've brought up.

First could you provide fact for linking the end of slave trade to the Protestant movement.

Also was the issue of slavery ever really an issue to the Protestants when they protested,

And @ all thanks for your contribution, I would summarise most responses as admitting that the church goofed on this one. But I would also add that it was because the bible didn't provide any clear direction on the issue of equality of mankind, if anything there are instances some races are refered to derogatorily this would have provided ammunition for proponents of the slave trade to justify it, which indeed the church did.

Mai-suya:

And @ all thanks for your contribution, I would summarise most responses as admitting that the church goofed on this one. But I would also add that it was because the bible didn't provide any clear direction on the issue of equality of mankind, if anything there are instances some races are refered to derogatorily this would have provided ammunition for proponents of the slave trade to justify it, which indeed the church did.

In one sentence you have exposed your abject ignorance on the biblical stance on slavery. I encourage you guys to read and research on these issues as opposed to sentimental generic statements.

But, and this is not to derail the topic, the Quran and it's hadiths, are quite clear on the issue of slavery. We have heard what happened to the black slaves of Arabia, how their women were raped and the men castrated.

Don't try to make ISLAM look good by falsifying the biblical stance on important issues.

My dear frosbel I knew this thread was never complete without ur contribution, but as I said I don't want copy and paste no problem if you quote others but I would want your judgement at the end of it.

Now I would have preferred not to reply your comment on Islam as it will derail the thread as you rightly opined, but I would use it to point out the bearing of this discussion. Just one verse of the Quran answers your concern "o mankind We have created you from pairs of male and female, and have made you nations and tribes SO THAT YOU MAY RECOGNISE EACH OTHER, verily the most honoured of you in the sight of ALlah is the most pious of you, ...."

Now this provides a guidance on the issue of slavery from islamic view point or saying black is evil (or what ever the Europeans want us to believe), now any Arab or Muslim nation that breaches this is clearly against the tenet of Islam. Turning to the church some priests actually used scriptures to justify slavery in those dark ages, so basically what I want us to dicuss was why this happened with the blessing of the church. AND NOT ISLAM VS CHRISTIANIY

The Catholic Church have clearly committed many attrocities but "Mai Romo" Didnt muslim trade slaves? Im curios and note that i am NOT religious so its not a religious backlash...

^
kindly refer to me by the name my fafa gib me
I would prefer we discus that on a different thread so that we don't derail this one, so I'll just oblige ur curiosity. Muslims traded slave but were Neva intstructed to do so by Islam, just like some Muslim gamble even though it is forbidden. What I am out to discuss is what was the religious stance of the church/Christianity during slave trade. Note I am not asking why the Europeans (who happen to be Christians) traded slave (infact that's why I am weary of any thing European, first slavery then colonialism and now... U tell me?)

I have seen that the defn of church in this thread has been restricted to the RCC.FYI while the RCC might share some blame the protestants are equally guilty

buzugee: first off you dont know what you are talking about. the bible is a HISTORY book as well as a book of LAWS and PROPHESYS. when you read about slavery in the bible, you are reading about the history of a people called the israelites and all the slavery they went through from the egyptian to babylonian to assyrian and then the prophesy of their american slavery. this is not condoning it. you are reading history. what happens to all those who enslaved the israelites ? they all got destroyed by the lord. the only people left to be destroyed for their slavery is america.
why do you think the somalians and ethiopians are always in famine and hunger and starvation ? they were the ancient egyptians (somalians) and ancient babylonians (ethiopians) who had the israelites in slavery. its americas turn soon. so the bible does not condone slavery. its obvious you havent read the book in its entirety.

Not only did the biblical god sanction slavery, he laid out rules on slave acquision, treatment and ownership.

Exodus 21:1 “These are the laws you are to set before them:

Hebrew Servants
2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
…
20 “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Lev 25:1 The LORD said to Moses on Mount Sinai…

Lev 25:39 ” ‘If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.

44 ” ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

47 ” ‘If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien’s clan, 48 he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself. One of his relatives may redeem him: 49 An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in his clan may redeem him. Or if he prospers, he may redeem himself. 50 He and his buyer are to count the time from the year he sold himself up to the Year of Jubilee. The price for his release is to be based on the rate paid to a hired man for that number of years. 51 If many years remain, he must pay for his redemption a larger share of the price paid for him. 52 If only a few years remain until the Year of Jubilee, he is to compute that and pay for his redemption accordingly. 53 He is to be treated as a man hired from year to year; you must see to it that his owner does not rule over him ruthlessly.

54 ” ‘Even if he is not redeemed in any of these ways, he and his children are to be released in the Year of Jubilee, 55 for the Israelites belong to me as servants. They are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

The bible permits slavery with direct commandments from God. The rules are somewhat complicated, with differences between Hebrews vs. gentiles and men vs. women. The verses above are not all the rules on slavery, but they are direct quotes from God if you believe the bible to be literal.

For Hebrews, slavery was a way to pay off a debt. After 6 years of work, a Hebrew slave would be set free in the year of Jubilee – as long as the slave is male. A father has the right to sell his daughter into slavery. Exodus 21:7-11 describe rules for selling a daughter as slave, but the verses seem to interchange female slavery and marriage.

Exodus 21:20-21 permit slave owners to beat their slaves so that they are unconscious for 2-3 days!

Leviticus 25:44-45 describes how gentile slaves are to be treated, which is very different from Hebrew slaves. Gentile slaves are not to be set free in the year of Jubillee but are passed from father to son as an inheritance.

Another thing to point out is the Exodus 21 is one chapter after the 10 commandments in Exodus 20. Most American Christians who promote displaying the 10 commandments with taxpayer money have no idea where the 10 commandments are located, much less any idea that slavery is endorsed only a few sentences after these commandments. If we have the right to display Exodus 20 with tax money, then don’t we have the right to display Exodus 21 with tax money?

Mai-suya:
^
kindly refer to me by the name my fafa gib me
I would prefer we discus that on a different thread so that we don't derail this one, so I'll just oblige ur curiosity. Muslims traded slave but were Neva intstructed to do so by Islam, just like some Muslim gamble even though it is forbidden. What I am out to discuss is what was the religious stance of the church/Christianity during slave trade. Note I am not asking why the Europeans (who happen to be Christians) traded slave (infact that's why I am weary of any thing European, first slavery then colonialism and now... U tell me?)

i'll be waiting for the thread.

Logic Mind:

Not only did the biblical god sanction slavery, he laid out rules on slave acquision, treatment and ownership.

Exactly..buzzgee what do you have to say?

Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do. Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves.

Many Jews and Christians will try to ignore the moral problems of slavery by saying that these slaves were actually servants or indentured servants. Many translations of the Bible use the word "servant", "bondservant", or "manservant" instead of "slave" to make the Bible seem less immoral than it really is. While many slaves may have worked as household servants, that doesn't mean that they were not slaves who were bought, sold, and treated worse than livestock.

The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated.

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6)

Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave. What kind of family values are these?

The following passage describes the sickening practice of sex slavery. How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave?

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11)

So these are the Bible family values! A man can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he feeds them, clothes them, and screws them!

What does the Bible say about beating slaves? It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don't die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2)

In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48)

^^^^ praise be to big marvelous sky daddy and his wonderful son jhizuz!

@ Mai-Suya I would rather refer you to the works of two historians considered authorities on the subject but unfortunately, i am currently in transit and without access to my library. I promise to post the titles and authors in a future post. But in the meantime the wikkipedia entry below caputures the essence of what i had posited:

Link = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Effecting_the_Abolition_of_the_Slave_Trade

Now before someone starts raising dust that Quakers were mentioned and not protestants. Kindly note that protestants were so named because they protested (rebelled) against mainstream English church ideology as practiced then and formed their own church. They were persecuted but finally prevailed. Evangelical christians were a later phenomenom. Readers of wikkipedia may find a passing reference to Dominincan (catholic) friars as the first religious body to condemn slavery. I wont urge too much emphasis on that as an exoneration of the catholic church. The friar involved was constantly harrassed for his views and the laws enacted were merely symbolic.

Logic Mind:

Not only did the biblical god sanction slavery, he laid out rules on slave acquision, treatment and ownership.

those rules are mosaic rules for the israelites. slavery in the sense of the word slavery wasnt what it is today. slavery back then just means helper. someone you take in your home and they helped you. joseph was a slave in egypt and he rose up to be the second in command to pharoah. shedrach meshyac and abednego and daniel were slaves in babylon but they ended up being the rulers of babylon along with king nebuchadnezzer. slavery only acquired a bad name when the ishmaelites (arabs)and the edomites (whites) got involved. so those laws were written in righteousness for humane slavery ( house-helps). so they figured, hey, if we are going to have househelps, we may as well have laws to govern how they are treated. the further away from the initial skin color God created man to be, man morphed into, the more diabolical their actions became. because they are further away from being HUE (COLOR) MAN. HUMAN. HUE-MAN. thats why slavery got forked up when the mutants (arabs and whites)got involved

mkmyers45: Exactly..buzzgee what do you have to say?

those rules are mosaic rules for the israelites. slavery in the sense of the word slavery wasnt what it is today. slavery back then just means helper. someone you take in your home and they helped you. joseph was a slave in egypt and he rose up to be the second in command to pharoah. shedrach meshyac and abednego and daniel were slaves in babylon but they ended up being the rulers of babylon along with king nebuchadnezzer. slavery only acquired a bad name when the ishmaelites (arabs)and the edomites (whites) got involved. so those laws were written in righteousness for humane slavery ( house-helps). so they figured, hey, if we are going to have househelps, we may as well have laws to govern how they are treated. the further away from the initial skin color God created man to be, man morphed into, the more diabolical their actions became. because they are further away from being HUE (COLOR) MAN. HUMAN. HUE-MAN. thats why slavery got forked up when the mutants (arabs and whites)got involved

The Arbiter: This subject has been explored in depth by historians. The church dogma previously classed Africans as barbarians without souls and subhuman with the white man being superior and godsend. This essentially encouraged trafficking in African slaves in which over 8 million African lives were lost. But bear in mind that before the transAtlantic trafficking, a tranSaharan trade in slaves to Europe and the middle east was in existence.

The church's position was a mainly pecuniary decision coupled with its disdain for the black African. Recall that black signifies everything evil in church ideology then. Also, the new world colonizers payed handsomely for royal charters and church approvals which they use to stake claims in the new world. The trade continued for 300 years untill protestant christians in Britain contested the catholic dogma of Africans being subhuman without souls. A lot of debate erupted and thankully Africans were admitted as members of the human race and God's family. The fight to stop the trade then lasted another 50+ years.

A lot of controversy still rages round the number of slaves involved. Documented records indicate over 8 million transported. Deaths were only reported by official cargo ships and a lot of the illegal trafficking were never documented.

In all, the atrocity which can be aptly termed genocide, was like many other issues in which the church goofed, a great stain on the church's integrity and seriously questioned its authority as the divine representative on earth. Up till today the issue is mostly hushed and the late Abiola's efforts at compensation, just like the jews were compensated for Hilter's holocust, was rebuffed.

Anyways, all that is history. I only pray the Nigerian people will see through the red blood-thirsty mists of religion to realize that the African has suffered long and only the common brotherhood of place/location binds us rather than the warped dogmas we sometimes profess.

May we have the hearts to see and the courage to take the decisions that lead us to greatness.

Excellent exposure!
I applaud!
How could fix what they did? With money? Some things have no price ... If God cayholic really exists, he is responsible for settling accounts.
At some point in history appeared isolated characters trying to stop the atrocities, but the official position of the church for centuries was for barbarism.
Only the union, and forget old quarrels may be the answer.
Best wishes!

Mai-suya:
@arbiter, most interesting are the perspectives you've brought up.

First could you provide fact for linking the end of slave trade to the Protestant movement.

Also was the issue of slavery ever really an issue to the Protestants when they protested,

And @ all thanks for your contribution, I would summarise most responses as admitting that the church goofed on this one. But I would also add that it was because the bible didn't provide any clear direction on the issue of equality of mankind, if anything there are instances some races are refered to derogatorily this would have provided ammunition for proponents of the slave trade to justify it, which indeed the church did.

From the perspective of what happened in America, Protestants did absolutely nothing. A Catholic priest was the exception, but there was no Protestant moviese only one finger against barbarism.

@ Mai-Suya, here are the book titles as i promised:

1. Transformations in Slavery: A History of Slavery in Africa by Prof. Paul E. Lovejoy
This history of slavery in Africa from the fifteenth to the early twentieth century examines how indigenous African slavery developed within an international context. Professor Lovejoy discusses the medieval Islamic slave trade and the Atlantic trade as well as the process of enslavement and the marketing of slaves. He considers the impact of European abolition and assesses slavery's role in African history. The book corrects the accepted interpretation that African slavery was mild and resulted in the slaves' assimilation. Instead, slaves were used extensively in production, although the exploitation methods and the relationships to world markets differed from those in the Americas.

2. The Slave Trade Debate by John Pinfold
At the height of the debate about the slave trade and its abolition in the 1780s and '90s, each side issued pamphlets in support of its position. This publication reproduces a selection of representative pamphlets encompassing the arguments put forward by each side. The pamphlets discuss many of the issues including humanitarianism and the Rights of Man, the economic well-being of Britain's colonial territories in the aftermath of the loss of the American colonies, the state of the British merchant marine and the Royal Navy, the condition of the poor in England, and, not least, the economic and moral condition of the slaves themselves, not only in the West Indies but also in Africa. Both sides drew freely on scriptural sources to support their case, thus providing a fascinating sidelight on theological debate of the time.The book includes pamphlets written by the Duke of Clarence, later King William IV, and by Sir John Gladstone (father of the Prime Minister) in support of the trade, and sets these against the leading abolitionists such as Wilberforce. It also includes a transcript of part of the unpublished journal of James Ramsay, a well-known abolitionist, in which he provides model answers for abolitionists asked to testify before a committee of enquiry.

http://www.taringa.net/posts/noticias/1606171/Documentan-que-la-Iglesia-Catolica-utilizo-esclavos.html
Document that the Catholic Church used slaves in Nazi Germany

Documented slave labor during the Nazi Catholic Church
The German Bishops' Conference has compiled research on such practices in this period

A comprehensive documentation on the use of slave labor in the German Catholic Church during the Nazi era was presented at the Germanic city of Mainz.

Under the title "Slave Labor and the Catholic Church - 1939 to 1945", the German Episcopal Conference presented the work that made the most ambitious in recent decades, where he compiled research on slave laborers and prisoners of war who were employed in that period.

The first comprehensive study on the subject documents the fate of 4,829 workers and 1,075 foreign prisoners of war who were forced to perform different tasks in organizations dependent on the Catholic Church.

The documentation presented today does not imply in any way "an end to the work of reconciliation," he said about the bishop of Mainz, Cardinal Karl Lehmann, who until February headed the German Bishops' Conference.

The work, totaling over 700 pages, not to be understood not as a "definitive statement" of the Church's role during the Nazi period, he added the prelate.

"It is rather a new and very important pillar of the work of reconciliation of Christians in Germany and Europe," he said.

During the Second World War and under the Nazis, millions of prisoners of war and displaced from the territories occupied by Germany, particularly in Eastern Europe and especially Poland and the Soviet Union were forced to work for industry. But the Church also benefited from the hand of this work for free.

For the study were investigated, since 2000, multiple files of the Church who were in hospitals, parish houses, nursing homes and orphans and other Catholic agencies

http://www.freie-christen.com/riqueza_de_la_iglesia.html#esclavitud

Blood money based on slavery

Human trafficking and slavery increased the wealth of the Church, something that still lives.

The Church supported from a pricipio slavery, and worsened in many respects. 7) p. 520,524

Pope Nicholas V legitimized the slave trade in his bull "Divine communiti amore" (for divine love to the community) on June 18, 1452. Therefore the slave trade was legal and did not cause any qualms about the participants. 10) p. 101

The pope had slaves. Pope Gregory I kept hundreds of slaves on their estates, and consented to the laws forbidding slaves to marry free Christians.

A slave was considered livestock. The Church treated the slaves as a "good of the Church" and this worth as unmarketable. The Church Tasaba the value of church property not in the money, but as slaves. 7) p. 523

If nonetheless a slave was freed, it should reward the Church with their heritage. 7) (4. Synod of Toledo)

The Church forbade the slaves to make wills. On the death of a slave, his savings went to church.

According to Thomas Aquinas slaves were "useful for all service." 7) p. 229

The Church did everything possible to maintain slavery, and nothing to remove it. 7) p. 520

A bishop could only free a slave if it offered two to replace him. 7) p. 523

Illegitimate children of priests were enslaved for life church, this also was true for abandoned children. (3. Synod of Toledo)

The "holy" Martin of Tours (now represented in many churches dividing his coat), owned 20,000 slaves. 7) p. 524

Convents were also slaves, both for the service of the monasteries and for the service of the monks. Thousands of prisoners, Slavs and Saracens were distributed to the convents as slaves. 7) p. 528

Slavery lasted in the estates and properties papal until the eleventh century.

"It is estimated that for every slave who temporarily live until it reached African coast, ten died during ground transport and ten more died during the voyage." 10)

Protestantism followed from the beginning the same way, after Luther was theologically justified serfdom and slavery. Until well into the nineteenth century, evangelical Protestant nations, and with the consent of the missionaries theological, traded in slaves and went hunting for slaves. " p. 22 and 4) p. 150

The first ship carrying slaves English was called "Jesus." 9) p. 179



Plane loading of a ship for transporting slaves.
For centuries the Church encouraged slavery and kept slaves themselves.

I guess the Protestants weren't free of blame after all.

So my question is has the church in any time in history both Protestant and catholic issued any APOLOGY to black folks and taken concrete steps to redress this catastrophic historical SIN by the church? When and what was it.

Mai-suya:
I guess the Protestants weren't free of blame after all.

So my question is has the church in any time in history both Protestant and catholic issued any APOLOGY to black folks and taken concrete steps to redress this catastrophic historical SIN by the church? When and what was it.

I do not know if ever the Catholic Church or any church has formally apologized. It is true that the Catholic Church has a far greater responsibility than the others, by their political power, but no church made ​​a definite defense against slavery.
As far as America is concerned, there were isolated attempts by some priests, but well into the XIX century, and which did not succeed because the interests were many.
The freedom of African slaves in America is part of various political processes, at different times depending on the country concerned.
However, despite the declaration of prohibition of the slave trade, it continued for some time, and either unable to fit into society, or inability to find work, long declared free the slaves remained in solitary from slavery to serve the same master.

I’m still amazed by those who seem to believe that. . .we were from a land of savages and if not for the Grace of God and his ordained emissaries that Dark Continent would have never encountered “the way the truth and the light” in other words civilization hence we must forever be grateful, maintaining an ever forgiving countenance despite the brutish carriage in which this faith was imported because without God’s special envoys we would have surely forever been a lost people. . .

Despite the fact that many great empires in Africa predated the birth of Christ! And the sad irony today is I see many African brethren’s here in London gladly giving back the gospel to the nation who imposed their faith on us as reverse missionaries but not many want to listen to them unarmed “bible bashers” - whilst the African is perfecting his Christian posture the Europeans have happily moved on. Pity.

The missionaries were already in Africa. . .converting the illiterates.
Thereby assisting the slave traders.
The church was in partnership with the slave traders!