I am under the impression that the version of history taught in public schools is tilted against Christians and Catholics in particular. This can be seen in many ways, and in fact two (the Galileo myth and the false portrait of the Inquisition) have already been seen in this thread. But while the things we teach kids about the Church are worth debunking, there’s also the problem of the things we leave out. Perhaps the most prominent is this: throughout its history, the church has been in conflict with groups that want stricter rules, tougher enforcement, less tolerance and less individuality.
Consider the Church’s conflict with the Gnostics at the very beginning, the Manichees in the third, fourth, and fifth centuries, the forces of Islam from the seventh century onward, the Cathars in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and the Calvinists from the Reformation until quite recently, to name just a few.
In our day and age it’s automatically assumed that prosecuting for heresy was always wrong, because disputes about heresy were always just about religion. But that attitude flows from the assumption that religion is not really important because religious beliefs don’t influence the things that are important. Realistically, though, heretics were generally bad people. The Cathars, for example, heavily promoted violence, suicide, child abuse, and other things now generally agreed to be bad. I think that virtually everyone alive today, knowing the facts, would agree that we’re better off rid of them.
Are you asserting that any of my facts are false, or should my view not be based on the facts?
I agree. I suggest you consider busting many of your own myths.
The professional discourse on this subject is very long and very interesting. I would suggest a few authors in particular: Caroline Bynum, RW Southern, and RI Moore. The following is an excerpt of the preface of The Formation of a Persecuting Society:
He further notes that “historians have been assiduous in chronicling and analysing the appalling records of the inquisition of the later middle ages, the witch hunters of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth, and numberless others.”
As it turns out, I spent a fair amount of time as an undergraduate translating the records of the late medieval inquisition. It makes an interesting read. Trust me.
This is one of the most disgusting things I think I have ever read in GD in my eight years on the SDMB. The Albigensian crusade was a thinly veiled exercise in French imperialism, aimed at crushing the independence of Occitania.
Sure. I’m not denying Christianity had an effect. I just disagree that it was an absolutely critical effect in human development, or that the human race would necessarily be worse off without it.
Well, it’s not entirely fictional. There were thriving societies with codified legal systems that had little or no contact with or influence from Christianity. As I stated earlier, paraphrasing Jared Diamond, China could have become the dominant global culture, but during a critical period (~1479-1567) fell prey to factional divisions and for short-term political gain became isolationist. Is this unlucky timing, or proof of the superiority of Christianity? Both? Neither?
It’s not either/or. Run with me for a bit and take the ‘cultural advancement’ as technology idea. Cultural cohesion systems are as important as technological achievements. The unified European identity is something that has come about recently. My point is that it follows the lines of ‘Christendom’, the greatest difficulty has been the assimiliation of Muslim Turkey. The church provided the only thing representing a trans-feudal bureaucracy providing state services prior to the functioning of the state. Yes, the realization of the nation-state is also the story of movement away from the church, but prior to its arrival the church provided that framework.
‘The Rise and Decline of the State’ by Martin van Creveld is a great book on the subject.
Yes, it is kind of amusing. Speaking of which a local library my friend is a trustee of just acquired one of the copies of the Vaticans records of the Templar trial. It’s in latin so I cannot access it but it would be interesting to read a translation.
For what it’s worth, Peter Vronsky is not a medieval historian. He is a filmmaker who writes about serial killers. I am willing to concede that he has some expertise in the history of Canada, but he has no credentials whatsoever in medieval history and does not appear even to understand the contemporary sources, most of whom were hostile to the Cathars. Conveniently, they were also French, hostile to the party of Raymond of Tolouse.
As it turns out, it appears Vronski was drawing on the Historia albigensis of a monk of the abbey of Vaux-de-Cernay. His descriptions of the Cathars are, to say the least colorful. He can reliably be placed in the army of Simon de Montfort, and his narrative continues after the baron’s death.
Heresies of the High Middle Ages, ed. Wakefield and Evans, has an excellent excerpt. But most important is their commantary on the Historia:
He had an excellent understanding of the theological underpinnings of Catharism, but his descriptions leave much to be desired. Here is an example, excerpted in the ever-trusty Wakefield & Evans:
This goes on and on, becoming more over-the-top as it goes. It appears that Vronski accepted works such as these at face value and failed to do the obvious discounting.
Yeah, actually, that would be awesome. I am sure an English translation already exists somewhere, given the subject matter’s popularity. But I would love to take a look at the real thing.
All things are relative, of course, but I don’t think “decline to exaggerate” qualifies as “diminish.” And how is “necessary” loaded? I’ll say it plain:
It’s entirely conceivable to me that had Christianity not taken hold or had taken a different form (as could have happened during any of several dozen critical points in its history), or if the Huns (~450), the Muslims (~632–732) or the Mongols (~1205-1312) had consolidated their conquests into stable empires, Europe could easily be as advanced socially and technologically as it is now, or it may be centuries behind or ahead. I don’t see anything exactly specific to Christianity that requires social advancement, especially since nonChristian cultures also exhibit advancement.
I have to assume western influence will be impacted by Chinese influence as well, but the Chinese won’t win by becoming more Christian - they may win by becoming more capitalist, which as I understand it, is not an early Christian ideal or, if you prefer, emphasis.
Which trial? Proceedings from several volumes of templar trials in several cities have been published for centuries. The most recent English addition to the bibliography, to my knowledge, is Malcom Barber and Keith Bate, The Templars, in the Manchester Medieval Sources series.
Any opinion on Mark Gregory Pegg? I was recently trying to slog through his new work on the Albigensian Crusade without much success ( I don’t think much of him as a writer ). Haven’t finished it, but I’m curious how unorthodox his views are considered re: the nonexistence of “Catharism” as a discrete movement. I’ve read a couple of other general works on the topic like Malcolm Lambert’s, but it’s not an area I’m well versed in.
No one is exaggerating here, we are attempting to become more educated on the matter. Neither of us is terribly knowledgeable here.
I cannot conceive of them in any meaningful way because it’s speculative fiction. Christianity is ‘necessary’ because it’s the only religion that actually dominated Europe for over a thousand years.
Well there is a prevalent movement of Christian conversion in China going on right now. Nope, Capitalism is not, but the point for me is giving Christianity it’s due, and to get away from these inane arguments where people try to redact Christianity from history mainly because they find Evangelicals repulsive. I would like to see, “Christianity is the scourge of all society and never did nuthin’ right.”, arguments shouted down for lowering the discourse, by atheists and theists alike. Not because people agree with Christianity going forward, but because they can honestly look at the flow of history and recognize Christianity’s place in it.
People talk about Christianity being unecessary going forward but I don’t see much in the way of a secular Red Cross.
I don’t know it’s precise pedigree, but I think it includes DeMolay’s trial. For some reason the church sealed these records up for 700 years. I don’t know what common material they contain with other sources.
To be honest, I am not familiar with his work as it is too recent. I was training to be a historian of the medieval church but life took me elsewhere in 2000. I have not read very much new work on the subject since then and am not in the best position to evaluate it.
I do feel knowledgeable enough to take positions on the obvious trash, though. More useful than my own knowledge is Wakefield & Evans and RI Moore. They are the cure for all sorts of wrong belief.