Encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903)
- A Critique by
Eddie D’Sa,
Here we
examine the following encyclicals from a Third World perspective.
- IM 1888: to American bishops on Italian
migrants.
- SB 1888: to the Bishops of Brazil on slavery
following the freeing of many slaves in
- SA 1890: to the Missionaries in
- RN 1891 on the condition of workers
addressed to all bishops remains Leo’s most popular encyclical.
- C4 1892: to bishops of
- NC 1893: to all
bishops on the training of Native Clergy (in
Pope Leo is in no doubt about his
own authority, affirming that he is "indeed, the Vicar of Christ" (SB 1890). His encyclicals (as also those
of other popes) are all addressed to various European clerics and his system of
thought and frame of reference are starkly European - more in line with another
papal title, Patriarch of the West.
But the pope claims a third title, Supreme
Pontiff of the Universal Church.
If this title has any meaning, we
expect the pope
1)
to be mindful of the diverse cultures that make
up the Catholic fold and to project an all-inclusive vision of humanity;
2) to
challenge intervention and conquest by the powerful and to support the weak
against them;
3) to take
account of the total political and cultural context on an issue before
responding and passing judgment.
How does Pope Leo fare by these
criteria?
On conquest
& empire
How did conquest begin? In SB 1888
Leo explains: "Toward the end of the 15th century, states were anxious to
increase their empire… the leaders of the explorations, though Christian,
wickedly used arms and ingenuity to impose slavery on these innocent
nations" (
Leo does not question the right to
intervene nor mention
Galeano tells how the Indians were used to mine the silver in
Between 1500 and 1660, 185,000 kg of
gold and 16 million kg of silver arrived in
Leo simply assumes (like the
conquerors) that the world outside
Note however that Muslims were
resented as an alien presence when they occupied Latin Europe and the
So how often did Leo (and earlier
popes) rebuke the colonizers for their occupation and demand retribution for
the land grab and native trauma? We don't know. Leo does cite those popes who
were concerned about slavery but disingenuously excludes others who backed
colonialism.
What Leo said about papal concern over slavery
“ Pius II (1458-64) condemned such wickedness (the maltreatment of natives)
in 1462. Leo X (1513-21) used his influence with
Leo adds: "Later Pontiffs,
Urban VIII (1623-44), Benedict XIV (1740-58) and Pius VII (1800-23), were
strong asserters of liberty for the Indians and Moors."
What Leo did not
say
++ Pope Nicholas V (predecessor of Paul
II) had issued a bull (edict) around 1454 blatantly backing conquest and
dispossession - here is an extract:
"After careful deliberation, we
have conceded to King Afonso (of
Here was the 'Vicar of Christ'
openly sanctioning the subjugation of non-Christian peoples by force and
takeover of their lands.
++ The dissolute Alexander VI
(1492-1503) took it upon himself to divide the
Bound by papal edicts, bishops and
missionaries became an integral part of the colonial project of conquest and
exploitation. (Leo XIII used the same term 'barbarous' 300 years later to
describe non-Europeans.)
++ Leo XIII cites Leo X (1513-21)
but does not say he encouraged
Here is a man of God openly
encouraging violence and loot! (Incidentally, Martin Luther wrote in disgust
about the same Leo X in 1516: "It is terrible to see the Head of
Christendom boasting of being the Vicar of Christ and living in a pomp that no King or Emperor can equal…")
Conclusion 1:
Interventions, conquest and settlement in non-Europeans lands
seem acceptable to the church; they provide opportunities for 'civilising' and
evangelising the lesser peoples outside
An encyclical
on Italian migrants in the
The pope addressed a special
encyclical (IM 1888) to the bishops of
"So many unhappy sons of
No similar appeal is made to the
same American bishops on the blacks groaning under
Leo next turns to the Arab slave
traders in
"The Mohammedans (assert) that Ethiopians are very little superior to
brute beasts - they invade the villages, lay waste, destroy and seize
everything. The men, women and children, captured and bound, are dragged away
by force into slavery. They must conform to the religious rites of Mahomet."
(SB 1888)
But European colonial deeds were no
less evil and the church also forced conversion on the natives.
Leo writes about the trans-Atlantic
slave trade (SA 1890):
"We have taken every occasion to openly condemn this gloomy plague of
slavery. How horrible it is to recall that almost 400,000 Africans are
forcefully taken away each year from their villages. Bound and beaten, they are
transported to a foreign land and sold like cattle. We have instructed Cardinal
Lavigerie to go the principal countries of
To Leo, the Africans are a miserable
race but there is no matching tag for their oppressors.
The pope is impressed that "new
roads and commercial enterprises are being undertaken in the lands of
Leo was writing at a time when
conquest and colonialism were in full swing. Leo made it a point to point out
Arab cruelties, so in fairness why also not the ravages by the Spanish in Latin
America, the French in Algeria, the US in Latin America, the British in South
Africa, Australia And China?
Conclusion 2:
Leo cannot relate to native & black suffering from
European domination and continues to support the colonial order.
The Poor &
Oppressed must bear their lot
In SB 1888, Leo claims that
"The Roman Pontiffs who have always acted as the protectors of the weak
and the oppressed have done their best for slaves."
This statement is at odds with the
facts - the Roman church has routinely aligned with the ruling classes in
++ How come the Church worked alongside
the Latin American elites who exterminated and exploited whole generations of
natives and blacks for some 4 centuries? Even Catholic clerics in
++ How many condemnations did the
Popes issue to the
While Leo professes concern on slavery,
he also adds that the church "disapproved any hasty action toward
liberating the slaves as this would have led to disorder…" Instead "with singular wisdom" the
church preferred the slaves to be Christianised and bear their lot. Slaves
should not seek freedom by violent means, "the church has always condemned
these efforts as unlawful and taught them to be patient and feel they enjoyed
higher dignity than their heathen lords."
Likewise in his encyclical on
Socialism (1878), Leo had advised the poor not to envy the rich but "to be
contented with their lot."
This response is characteristic of
the church - it will not challenge an oppressive social system or encourage the
victims to do so, rather they must endure their lot and await their reward in
heaven. This stand is consistent with the church's close relations with the
ruling classes.
Then there are the Jews: the church
has harassed them for centuries. Over 100 documents are known to have been
issued against them between the 6th and 20th centuries. John XXIII was one pope
who acknowledged church guilt: "Forgive us, Lord, for the curse we falsely
attributed to the Jews. Forgive us for crucifying Thee a second time in their
flesh."
Conclusion 3:
The poor and oppressed must put up with their lot and derive
comfort from Christian teachings and the hope of reward in the next life.
On
"like
ravening beasts, killing, terrorising, torturing and destroying the natïve people and doing it with the most varied methods of cruelty
never seen or heard before." The Indian population of
But Pope Leo sees it differently.
Writing to the American bishops (C4 1892), the Pope waxes eloquent over the
exploit of
"this immortal achievement… the highest and grandest ever accomplished by
man…"
"Through
the constant interchange of business and ocean trade, an incredible addition
was made to our knowledge of nature while the prestige of the European name was
marvellously increased… Those countries hitherto uncultivated and inaccessible
have made such rapid strides in civilisation, wealth and fame…"
Note the triumphalist
tone. The pope sounds more like a European colonialist here. How can he ignore
the genocide of the natives at whose cost the European settlers gained
knowledge, land, wealth and fame?
Leo continues "The whole world is eager to celebrate the
memory of the event and glorify its author."
He must mean the European world.
Were the natives of the
"
…(He had to) bear the sufferings (from) the adverse opinions of the
learned, fights with savages, criminal conspiracies…".
In contrast to the pope's blatantly
Eurocentric insensitivity, the US Council of Churches on the 500th anniversary
of
"an invasion and colonization with legalized occupation, genocide,
economic exploitation, institutional racism and moral decadence." It
called for "a year of repentance and reflection rather than celebration."
Rerum Novarum
This encyclical on the condition of
workers appeared in 1891 and has attracted the most attention from many
commentators, including later popes. In summary, Leo condemned socialism
outright and partially censured capitalism. He also proposed the notion of a
just wage. He is addressing European workers. The massive exploitation of
labour in the colonies and through American slavery is simply ignored. This
encyclical is best reviewed in conjunction with commemoratives encyclicals by
later popes.
Conclusions
The encyclicals are littered with
clichés and pious platitudes but short on concrete prescriptions.
Here is a sample taken from SB 1888:
it starts off with a string of platitudes such as
"…
the worst slavery is the slavery of sin … many miseries have sprung from the
sin of our first parents…the condition of slavery is deeply to be deplored… The
Supreme Author decreed that man should exercise dominion over beasts, not over
men…From the first sin came many evils… in the disputes and wars that broke
out, the stronger reduced the conquered into slavery… slaves were regarded as
so many chattels - not as persons but as things…"
Are there any startling insights to
be found in these statements?
Leo’s encyclicals are essentially
documents written by a European in the context of European realities. At the
start of this article, we had introduced three criteria that the pope should
have adhered to as Supreme Pontiff of the