Pope Leo XIV’s visit to an African church linked to slavery reflects on his own complex heritage
Pope Leo XIV will visit the Church of Our Lady of Muxima in Angola, a former slave trade site built by Portuguese colonizers. The church, once a gathering point for enslaved Africans to be baptized before transport to the Americas, has become a Catholic shrine after a reported Marian apparition in 1833. The visit highlights the historical link between Catholicism and the Atlantic slave trade, with Angola sending more than 5 million enslaved people, the largest number among African nations. It remains uncertain whether the Pope will address slavery during his African tour, though past papal visits have tackled the issue.
about 17 hours ago
Pope Leo XIV’s 11‑day African pilgrimage brought him to the Church of Our Lady of Muxima in Angola, a 16th‑century shrine that once served as a baptismal point for enslaved Africans before they were shipped across the Atlantic. His prayer of the Rosary at the riverside site highlighted the complex legacy of the Catholic Church in the slave trade and resonated with revelations about the pope’s own mixed Creole ancestry, which includes both enslaved people and slave owners. The visit sparked reflections from clergy, scholars, and Angolan officials on history, reconciliation, and the Church’s role in addressing modern injustices.
Pope Leo XIV arrived in Muxima on 19 April 2026, praying the Rosary before an estimated 30,000 gathered faithful and speaking in Portuguese about building “a better, more welcoming world” without war, injustice, poverty, or dishonesty 3.
He did not explicitly name slavery, but his presence at a former slave‑trade hub was seen as a powerful gesture of healing by Black Catholics and Angolan believers 1 2.
The white‑washed Church of Our Lady of Muxima was erected by Portuguese colonizers at the end of the 16th century as part of a fortress complex on the Kwanza River.
Before becoming a popular pilgrimage site after a reported Marian apparition in 1833, the chapel was where enslaved Africans were baptized before a forced march of about 145 km to Luanda’s port for transport to the Americas 1 2.
Angola supplied more than five million people to the trans‑Atlantic slave trade—more than any other African region—accounting for nearly half of the estimated 12.5 million Africans shipped across the ocean 1 3.
Genealogical research in 2025 uncovered that the American‑born pope, Robert Prevost, has Creole roots; his maternal great‑grandparents were recorded as people of color in Louisiana, linking him to both enslaved ancestors and slave owners 1 2.
Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. presented these findings to the pope in July 2025, noting that 17 of his American ancestors were identified as Black or mixed‑race in census records 3.
Leo XIV has not publicly addressed this heritage, prompting scholars like Mariana Candido and Tia Noelle Pratt to caution against imposing narratives on him while acknowledging the significance of his background for Black Catholics 1 3.
Angolan priest Fr. Celestino Epalanga said the pope’s Rosary would “give that place a new significance,” transforming a site of “evil” into one of sacred hope 1 2.
Nigerian priest and professor Stan Chu Ilo highlighted Leo XIV’s efforts to elevate African leaders in the Vatican, such as the promotion of Monsignor Anthony Ekpo 1 2.
Opposition lawmaker Olivio Nkilumbo called for the pope to be a “pilgrim for peace and reconciliation” and to speak forcefully on democracy, social justice, and corruption in Angola 1.
Black Catholic scholar Anthea Butler described the visit as an “important moment of healing,” noting the historical link between Catholicism, the Code Noir, and the forced baptisms of enslaved people 3.
The Vatican noted that Leo XIV would address exploitation of natural and human resources, corruption, and authoritarian regimes during his African tour 1.
Historians reminded that 15th‑century papal bulls—Dum Diversas (1452) and Romanus Pontifex (1455)—granted Portugal the right to enslave non‑Christians, laying groundwork for the Doctrine of Discovery 3.
While the Vatican repudiated the Doctrine of Discovery in 2023, it has not formally rescinded those earlier bulls, and scholars like Rev. Christopher J. Kellerman argue that a papal apology for the Church’s role in the slave trade would be powerful 3.
The pilgrimage underscores a growing emphasis on African voices within the global Catholic Church and may encourage further dialogue on historical accountability.
If Leo XIV chooses to acknowledge his ancestry or the Church’s past involvement in slavery, it could shape future Vatican policies on reparations, education, and reconciliation with African and African‑descended communities.
Investigate the Catholic Church’s role in the Atlantic slave trade
The Catholic Church’s role in the Atlantic slave trade is best understood as a two-part historical reality: (1) the Church’s magisterium progressively condemned the slave trade as incompatible with justice and human dignity, and (2) yet, within the complex machinery of European colonial commerce, the Church’s moral authority did not always translate into immediate abolition on the ground—especially where political and economic power exceeded ecclesiastical influence. The sources provided here show both the strong condemnations and the tragic persistence of the traffic.
Leo XIII explicitly frames the Church’s concern as rooted in Christ’s own teaching: the Church is described as having sought to “completely eliminate slavery” because Christ was the “strong champion of freedom.” He also emphasizes that Christ taught the fraternal necessity that unites all humanity and that everyone shares the same origin and redemption and is destined to the same eternal happiness.
From this perspective, the Church’s stance is not merely policy-making; it is a matter of justice and charity—the slave trade treats human beings as instruments for profit rather than as persons.
Sources (for this section):
The most direct evidence in the provided sources is that multiple popes condemned not only slavery in general but the slave trade itself—including the purchase/sale and transport of enslaved Africans.
In In Supremo Apostolatus (1839), Gregory XVI reviews earlier papal interventions and then condemns the continuation of slave trading among “numerous Christians.” The text describes what the Church was opposing in vivid moral terms:
the traffic in Blacks, “as if they were not men but rather animals” … “bought, sold, and devoted sometimes to the hardest labour,” in contempt of “the rights of justice and humanity.”
It then issues a formal prohibition:
This matters for your question because it indicates that the Church was not only lamenting abuses; it used the Church’s authority to forbid defense of the trade and to mark it as a grave moral wrong.
Sources (for this section):
The Catholic Encyclopedia article Slavery and Christianity provides a consolidated list of papal actions and condemnations across centuries (e.g., Pius II, Paul III, Urban VIII, Benedict XIV, Pius VII, Gregory XVI), and it explicitly states that popes condemned the slave trade and slavery’s injustice.
It also states that Leo XIII addressed bishops (e.g., in Brazil) urging the banishment of slavery’s remnants.
While this encyclopedia is not itself a magisterial act, it is consistent with the more primary papal texts included elsewhere in the set (especially Gregory XVI and Leo XIII).
Sources (for this section):
Condemnation alone does not show what the Church did. The sources also show missionary and charitable activity aimed at abolition and relief.
Leo XIII directed that church collections be sent to Rome and used primarily to “eliminate slavery in Africa.” He calls enslaved conditions a “blemish of human commerce” and urges special assistance from the faithful to abolish it.
This indicates a practical channel: rather than treating abolition only as moral discourse, the Church organized material support for missions tasked with ending slavery.
Sources (for this section):
In 1890, Leo XIII describes the forced removal of Africans:
“almost four hundred thousand Africans … are forcefully taken away each year from their villages! … Bound and beaten, they are transported to a foreign land, put on display, and sold like cattle.”
He then reports that he delegated the task to Cardinal Lavigerie to show the shame of the practice and to incline European leaders and citizens to assist enslaved people. The pope also points to Brussels and Paris meetings as efforts by European leaders and private citizens to defend the “Negro cause.”
This is relevant because it shows the Church doing more than issuing anathemas; it sought to shape public action through diplomacy, clerical leadership, and coordination with anti-slavery efforts.
Sources (for this section):
Your question specifically concerns the Atlantic world. The provided sources include a direct window into how the trade functioned and how Church servants responded.
Butler’s Lives of the Saints describes the slave trade being “established in the Americas” and highlights Cartagena as a “clearing-house.” It explains that enslaved Africans were transported across the Atlantic in “foul and inhuman” conditions, with major mortality, and that thousands were landed annually.
It then states a key historical point: even with papal condemnation (it names Paul III and Pius IX as condemning the “great crime” / “supreme villainy”), the trade continued “to flourish.” The same source notes that many owners’ “response” was to baptize enslaved people without providing real religious instruction or alleviating physical suffering, so baptism functioned as a “sign and symbol of their oppression.”
That portrayal is important for a balanced “investigation”: it suggests that, in practice, some enslavers used religion instrumentally, while clergy had limited power compared to owners and the economic system.
Finally, it describes the pastoral task as one of “individual ministration, corporal and material” among tens of thousands. This is consistent with the general Church pattern: moral condemnation paired with charitable works where possible.
Sources (for this section):
The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Negro Race similarly presents a narrative in which the popes condemned slavery and the slave trade, and missionary and Christian sentiment developed against it. It also notes that Cartagena became a notable slave market and explicitly identifies St. Peter Claver as working there.
Sources (for this section):
Any investigation must address historical controversies—especially because some early papal bulls were invoked in colonial contexts.
The provided excerpt of Romanus Pontifex indicates that people (including “Guineamen and other negroes”) were “taken by force” or by barter and then sent to kingdoms, with the claim that they could be converted. On its face, that wording can be read as part of a broader colonial framework that treats coerced transfer as compatible with conversion efforts.
The 2023 Joint Statement on the “Doctrine of Discovery” (Dicasteries for Culture/Education and for Promoting Integral Human Development) states clearly:
Although this statement speaks primarily about indigenous dispossession and colonial jurisprudence, it directly addresses how papal documents were used as instruments to justify moral wrongdoing within colonial settings.
Given the materials provided, the clean conclusion is:
However, the sources you provided do not supply a direct, single document that definitively explains the Church’s role in authorizing the Atlantic slave system from beginning to end. Instead, the set gives:
So, the most faithful “investigation” using only these sources is to say: the Church condemned the slave trade while it simultaneously lived through a colonial environment where coerced human transfer and economic exploitation were sometimes justified with religious language that later magisterial clarifications repudiate.
Sources (for this section):
From the Catholic sources provided, the Church’s role in the Atlantic slave trade is characterized by:
If you want, I can also focus this into a chronological timeline (15th century → 19th century) using only the documents present in your sources.