Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
Okay, let me clarify the context of my assertion. Harold had made the blanket statement that nothing good had ever came out of religion. Now, knowing Harold, his definition of religion is quite broad, probably encompassing everything Christian except each individual's personal walk with God, and probably some of that, too. In other words, what he would call religion probably includes some of what most Christians would consider the legitimate work of the church. In this case the preserving nature of being the salt of the earth. This was the context of my statement about the contributions of the Catholic era.
So I pointed out that European civilization owes a lot to the work of the Catholic church in preserving antiquity and well as medieval history and knowledge. There were simply very few record keepers during that time except those of the church.
Another service the church offered was cultural unification. Europe was a collection of various wandering tribes, who after the fall of the Roman Empire had regressed politically and culturally. Though not quite the barbarians of Conan myths, they still were not what we today would considered civilized for the time. The spread of Christianity in Europe via the Catholic church tamed these bands.
Keep in mind that for most intents and purposes the Catholic church was the only serious church representative on the earth from the 4th century until the 15th, at least until Eastern Orthodoxy became independent, roughly in the 11th. Everyone who considered themselves a Christian also considered themselves a Catholic. This continued in Western Europe until the Reformation.
It is inappropriate in this context to compare medieval culture and church to our present day standards. The question is, what would Europe had been like in 1500 if the Roman empire had fallen but the church had not stepped in to fill the void? Although we cannot know for sure, especially since the catalyst of Christianity helped spell Rome's doom, it's my belief that the extent of civilization seen in Europe in 1500 would have been highly unlikely.
|
I was very impressed by Martin Luther's biography when he describes his visit to Rome. What hit me was that the corruption in Rome was a great shock to a priest from the outskirts.
When we read of the sins of the Catholic church, the Popes and some priests. We should realize that in the midst of this situation there was probably a very devout "silent" majority. Would Europe have been better off without the corruption of Rome? Probably. Was Europe better off for having the Catholic church in most towns, probably. Today are we better off that many writings from antiquity have been preserved by the Catholic church. Of course.