October 20, 2011
A. Hewit wrote to his sister on 24 September 1861:
“The sentiment of loyal Americans, whether Catholics or not, is getting always more strong and united every day against slavery and that without any change of principle. We have always taken the ground that it was an evil and a disgrace which might be tolerated for a time, but oght to be gradually abolished. The constitutional rights of the States forbade, however, any direct meddling and even made it our duty to prevent the institution of slavery against unjust aggression. Now, however, since slaver is so destructive to our national prosperity, and the South by its rebellion has forfeited all claim to the forbearance of the North, we think the time will soon come to expel slavery from our entire country. I begin to think it will probably that the South will be conquered. She is almost exhausted and we are every day growing stronger.”
What was the Paulist position on the issue of slavery? This task was difficult, as the correspondence of the Paulists during the Civil War years, is more noted for the absence of slavery in their discussion of the war than for it. Father Hewit’s statement to his sister represents the most extensive commentary we have in the archives. These few short lines, however, reveal a great deal about Hewit’s thoughts on the issue. His opinions are in concurrence with the arguments promoted by the American hierarchy throughout the antebellum periods. How did the American bishops approach the issue of slavery?
The bishops rested on their argument on official church teaching and their understanding of American principles. As John Maxwell discusses in his study on slavery and the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church had reconciled her teachings to the existence of slavery as a legitimate system of labor in the 6th century.1 The church considered this system of enforced labor to be an outgrowth of human need and intervention, and thus accepted the presence of slavery in the world as a social phenomenon.2 Further, and more importantly, the church had rationalized the practice of slavery with its teachings by defining it as a temporal matter. Because the official church had limited its definition to this narrow scope, she did not regard slavery as a spiritual, or moral, issue. The church avoided the position of having to issue and official proclamation either in favor or in condemnation of slavery and announced that she merely tolerated its presence in society, but did not regard it as a malum in se.
The owning of slaves, according to this definition, was not considered to be incompatible with the exercising of one’s faith.3 It must be noted, however, that the church’s tolerance of slavery was subject to a set of strict conditions which defined the form of slavery that was acceptable to her. These regulations were laid down to protect both the dignity and personality of the slave, as well as to prevent the misuse of power by the slaveholder. A primary responsibility of the master under these conditions was to provide for both the material and spiritual needs of the slave. The slave in return was to obey and respect his master’s demands, thus establishing a relationship premised on a reciprocal acknowledgment of each party’s rights and obligations. 4 Underlying this system, and central to its successful implementation, was the acceptance of an organic view of nature and the social order. The church was also firm in its conviction that slavery was not to be a condition that was hereditary, but was to end upon the death of the individual enslaved.5
When discussing the issue of emancipation, the Catholic Church once again held a very distinct position from other religious bodies. The church, while never intending her position to be interpreted as one that defended slavery, promoted the concept of gradual emancipation. Desiring to work within the existing constructs of a particular society the church’s plan was to bring about the end of slavery through a process of example and teaching.6 The call for immediate emancipation, the Church argued, would not be to the benefit of the black community. To the contrary, the church believed it would be against that community’s best interests.
The church premised her argument against immediate emancipation on the belief that it would leave blacks unprepared for freedom. This situation, the church argued, instead of dismantling previous barriers separating the races and the accompanying prejudices, would lead to even greater evils in society, with the resulting greater injustices being afflicted on the black community. It would only be through the church’s example of a gradual and constant struggle against this institution that blacks could be properly assisted and trained for taking their place in society when liberation was assured. The church then rejected the proposals of such radical groups as the abolitionists as injurious to society as a whole.7 No society could withstand the aftereffects of such a drastic act.
In the years preceding the Civil War, internal strife within many of this country’s Protestant sects over the morality of slavery forced these religious groups to issue formal statements on slavery. The aftermath to many of these pronouncements would lead to schism and the formation of regional churches. With the Protestant position on slavery now clarified, many Catholics turned to their church and awaited an answer. It did not come. The American hierarchy decided not to issue a statement. They chose to remain silent instead. At a time when the American people were actively soliciting moral guidance from their churches, the American hierarchy sacrificed their role as teacher for the sake of interchurch unity.
The decision of the hierarchy’s to remain silent can also be related to its interpretation of the church’s role in American society. Reaffirming their commitment to the principle of the separation of church and state, the American bishops believed that it was not their role to interfere in temporal matters. Such decisions were to be left to the appropriate social institutions.
When discussing the issue of emancipation, the American hierarchy upheld the church’s official position by calling for a process of gradual emancipation. While producing many tracts in defense of this position, the American hierarchy never produced a substantive plan that would help implement such a concept. Their argument never advanced beyond that of the theory. As a result, their call for gradual emancipation rang hollow for many outside the American Catholic community.
The position of the American hierarchy is further weakened when one compares the church’s official position on slavery to the situation as it existed in the United States. The form of slavery practiced in the United States was in direct violation of the church’s teachings. American slavery was an extreme form of chattel slavery. Not only was the human dignity of the slave denied in this system, but the condition of bondage was one of perpetuity, thereby condemning the children of those first enslaved to the same fate.
Argument can be made that the decision of the American hierarchy to remain silent on the issue of slavery was due to the extenuating circumstances of the time. The American church at mid-century was undergoing a period of upheaval and transition. The large waves of immigrants that were arriving on American shores during these years not only placed a tremendous strain on the existing institutional structure of the American church, but also exacerbated Protestant animosity toward the increasing presence of Catholicism in American society. The internal and external pressures experienced by the American church at this time would lead the hierarchy to adopt a conservative position in all areas of social policy and teaching. This new conservatism would express itself in a decision to withdraw from matters of national interest.
The internal problems of the American church at the time of the Civil War does not excuse it from blame. The American hierarchy had supported, and even participated in, the practice of slavery in this country since the eighteenth century. They never recognized the violations of the slave system as they existed, nor were they vigilant in their admonishing of masters towards their duties as slaveholders, particularly in spiritual matters. The Holy See can also be faulted for not pointing out the disparities between the church’s official teaching and the conditions that existed here in the United States. Ultimately, however, blame rests with the American hierarchy and their decision to remain silent. In deferring to the authority of the state over the issue of slavery the American hierarchy can be seen as having relinquished its position as moral leader within the Catholic community.
Examining our Catholic past can be both exciting and disappointing. We place our hopes on the possibility that our predecessors had the moral foresight to question the injustices that predominated in that age, in this case slavery. Review of the American church’s position on this issue reveals a record that is sadly both contradictory and irresponsible.
The Paulist opinion on slavery then, as it was expressed by Father Hewit, was compatible with the position of the American bishops in his time. Perhaps before we too quickly criticize the failure of the American bishops to speak out on slavery, we should look within ourselves to see if we are not guilty of the same.
Footnotes:
1 John F. Maxwell. Slavery and the Catholic Church. London: Barry Rose Publishing, 1975, p.10
2 Cuthbert Edward Allen. “The Slavery Question in Catholic Newspapers, 1850-65,” Historical Records and Studies, XXVI (1936), p. 124.
3 Charles P. Connor. “The Northern Catholic Position on Slavery and the Civil War: Archbishop Hughes as a Test Case,” Records of the American Catholic Historical society of Philadelphia, 96 (1985), p.37.
4 Joseph D. Brokhage. Francis Patrick Kenrick’s Opinion on Slaver. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, p. 41.
5 Maxwell, p. 113
6 Allen, p. 124
7 ibid, p. 171
Bibliography:
Articles
Allen, Cuthbert Edward. “The Slavery Question in Catholic Newspapers, 1850-65” Historical Records and Studies, XXVI (1936): 99-169.
Connor, Charles P. “The Northern Catholic Position on Slavery and the Civil War: Archbishop Hughes as a Test Case,” Records of the American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia, 96 (1985): 35-48.
Books
Brokhage, Joseph D. Fracis Patrick Kenrick’s Opinion on Slavery. Washington, DC: The Cahotlic University of America Press, 1955.
Maxwell, John. Slavery and the Catholic Church. London: Barry Rose Publishing, 1975.