Church Fathers? No.
St Thomas Aquinas? No.
Was it because they had a purely allegorical reading of Genesis? No. They agreed that it was at once literally true and an allegory for higher things, like the Friday of Creation Week was an allegory for Good Friday - without ceasing to be literal truth - or Noah's Arc being an allegory for the Church "outside which there is no salvation" - also without ceasing to be literal truth.
The French Wikipedia on the curse of Ham - malédiction de Cham - cites one Johann Ludwig Hannemann and his thesis about it: Curiosum scrutinium nigredinis posterorum Cham i. e. Æthiopum.
Now, the year for the work is 1677, the place is Kiel (Kiloni) in Northern Germany, so we are dealing with a Lutheran area. But the author deserves further scrutiny:
Johann Ludwig Hannemann (1640–1724) was a professor of medicine who famously opposed the idea of the circulation of the blood. He studied the chemistry of phosphorus, gold, and hematite; wrote articles on metallurgy, botany, theology, and various medical topics. He was an adherent of the views of the ancients and pre-Renaissance alchemists. He trained his medical students according to the schools of Galen, Hippocrates, and Aristotle.
He first studied theology before studying medicine.
In 1675, he became a Full Professor at the University of Kiel.
And 1677 in Kiel is where the racialist work is from. However, this is not all. Hannemann was possibly not originally Lutheran: born 1640 in Amsterdam he was very probably a Calvinist.
And furthermore, on the title page of the work he cites the English Philosopher Hobbes. C.7 De Homine / [On Man] (which THomas Hobbes wrote in 1658).
Hobbes was a materialist - not a Classical Christian philosopher like Aquinas.
So, even before reading further on this poor professor in Kiel - Lutheran (he cites "noster Lutherus"), a fan of materialist Hobbes, opposed the theory of Circulation of Blood, AND wrote like a racialist - we can note that a Catholic inerrantist reading of Genesis, including the chapter where Noah curses, is not the origin of this kind of racism. Rather materialism, which returns in today's Darwinists, is one suspect.
And such racialism could be opposed and was opposed on strictly inerrantist grounds, like when the Judge Samuel Sewall of Boston wrote in June 1700 (according to French wikipedia article) that it was Chanaan whom Noah cursed, and it was not Chanaan but Kush who was the ancestor of negroes. So, it was not the negroes whom Noah cursed. When I look on the English article of Samuel Sewall (not the cogressman, but the other one) I find he criticised slavery in an essay entitled The Selling of Joseph - precisely from 1700.
He was as literalist as to have been involved in the Salem Witch Trials - and according to wikipedia he apologised for it.
Now, it would seem that some Doctors of Medicine, some Lutherans, some Materialists who have accused me by some kind of "guilt by association" to be racialist because I believe in the Literal Truth of Genesis (as much as Samuel Sewall did) owe this Catholic Literalist an Apology or two.
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St William of Bourges
Two days later I find following stats, despite distributing url slips precisely in Paris, France:
Ex-Communist world "likes" me? Perhaps likes to dissuade from me as well?