Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How the (Catholic) Church Built Western Civilization
Zenit News Agency ^ | September 26, 2005

Posted on 09/27/2005 7:37:51 AM PDT by NYer

Interview With Historian Thomas Woods Jr.

CORAM, New York, SEPT. 26, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Contrary to popular opinion, the Catholic Church historically has been the champion of scientific, economic, legal and social progress.

So says Thomas Woods Jr., history professor at Suffolk County Community College and author of "How the Church Built Western Civilization" (Regnery).

Woods shared with ZENIT how the Church has contributed to science, the development of free-market economies, Western legal systems and international law, and why Catholic intellectual and cultural figures desperately need to redeem Western civilization.

Q: How did it come to be that the Church is considered the enemy of progress, freedom, human rights, science, and just about everything else modernity champions, when in fact your book claims that the Catholic Church is at the origin of these phenomena?

Woods: There are many reasons for this phenomenon, but I'll confine myself to one. It is much easier to propagate historical myth than most people realize.

Take, for instance, the idea -- which we were all taught in school -- that in the Middle Ages everyone thought the world was flat. This, as Jeffrey Burton Russell has shown, is a 19th-century myth that was deliberately concocted to cast the Church in a bad light. It couldn't be further from the truth.

The matter of Galileo, which most people know only in caricature, has fueled some of this fire. But it is both illegitimate and totally misleading to extrapolate from the Galileo case to the broader conclusion that the Church has historically been hostile to science.

It may come as a surprise to some readers, but the good news is that modern scholarship -- say, over the past 50 to 100 years or so -- has gone a long way toward refuting these myths and setting the record straight.

Scarcely any medievalist worth his salt would today repeat the caricatures of the Middle Ages that were once common currency, and mainstream historians of science would now be embarrassed to repeat the old contention that the relationship between religion and science in the West has been a history of unremitting warfare -- as Andrew Dickson White famously contended a century ago.

Q: Can you briefly describe the Church's particular contributions to the origins and development of modern science?

Woods: Let's begin with a few little-known facts. The first person to measure the rate of acceleration of a freely falling body was Father Giambattista Riccioli. Father Nicholas Steno is considered the father of geology. The father of Egyptology was Father Athanasius Kircher, and the man often cited as the father of atomic theory was Father Roger Boscovich.

The Jesuits brought Western science all over the world. In the 20th century they so dominated the study of earthquakes that seismology became known as "the Jesuit science."

Some Catholic cathedrals were built to function as the world's most precise solar observatories, and the Basilica of San Petronio in Bologna was used to verify Johannes Kepler's theory of elliptical planetary orbits.

The science chapter of "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" is by far the longest. In addition to discussing examples like the ones I've just mentioned, it also notes that certain aspects of Catholic teaching -- including the idea of God as orderly and even mathematical, thus making possible the idea of autonomous natural laws -- lent themselves to the development of modern science.

Q: One question you have examined in particular in your books is the Church's role in the development of free-market economies. Many historians, including Catholics, claim that it was only with the Enlightenment and Adam Smith that Western nations were able to expunge "medieval" notions of economics and bring about the Industrial Revolution. Why do you think this is a misreading of history?

Woods: Recent scholarship has discovered that medieval economic thought, particularly in the High and Late Middle Ages, was far more modern and sophisticated than was once thought.

Many scholars, but above all Raymond de Roover, have shown that these thinkers possessed a deeper understanding and appreciation of market mechanisms, and were more sympathetic to a free economy, than traditional portrayals would suggest.

In general they did not believe, as has been commonly alleged, in an objectively ascertainable "just price" of a good, or that the state should enforce such prices across the board. To the contrary, the Scholastics were deeply indebted to Roman law, resurrected in the High Middle Ages, which described the value of a good as what it could commonly be sold for.

The common estimation of the market in effect determined the just price. Debate and discussion on this matter continues, but no serious scholar has been so foolish as to reject de Roover's findings root and branch.

I develop this point at even greater length in my book "The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy," which has received the endorsements of the economics chairmen at Christendom College and the University of Dallas.

An interesting tidbit, by the way, that I discuss in "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" is that at the very time Henry VIII was engaged in the suppression of England's monasteries, those monks were on the verge of developing dedicated blast furnaces for the production of cast iron. Henry may have delayed the Industrial Revolution for two and a half centuries.

Q: One of the more interesting claims of your book is that Western legal systems developed from canon law. How was this possible considering the seemingly incongruous subject matter?

Woods: What I argue is that canon law served as a model for developing Western states seeking to codify and systematize their own legal systems. Harold Berman, the great scholar of Western law, contends that the first modern legal system in the Western world was the Church's canon law.

And that canon law, particularly as codified in Gratian's "Concordance of Discordant Canons," served as a model of what Western states sought to accomplish.

Scholars of Church law showed the barbarized West how to take a patchwork of custom, statutory law and countless other sources, and produce from them a coherent legal order whose structure was internally consistent and in which previously existing contradictions were synthesized or otherwise resolved.

Moreover, the subject matter of canon law was not as far removed from that of civil law as we might think.

For example, the Church had jurisdiction over marriage. The canon law of marriage held that a valid marriage required the free consent of both the man and the woman, and that a marriage could be held invalid if it took place under duress or if one of the parties entered into the marriage on the basis of a mistake regarding either the identity or some important quality of the other person.

"Here," says Berman, "were the foundations not only of the modern law of marriage but also of certain basic elements of modern contract law, namely, the concept of free will and related concepts of mistake, duress and fraud."

Q: Additionally, you note that the concepts of international law and human rights were developed by 16th-century Spanish scholastics such as Francisco de Vitoria. How might this fact be relevant to today's discussions of international law, as well as the Holy See's role in shaping international institutions?

Woods: People such as Francisco de Vitoria were convinced that international law, which codified the natural moral law in international relations, could serve to facilitate peaceful coexistence among people of disparate cultures and religions.

The idea of international law, as the Late Scholastics saw it, was an extension of the idea that no one, not even the state, was exempt from moral constraints. This idea ran completely contrary to the Machiavellian view that the state was morally autonomous and bound by no absolute moral standards.

While the idea of international law is morally indispensable and philosophically unimpeachable, there are practical difficulties associated with its enforcement by an international agency.

If the institution has no coercive powers it will be impotent; if it does have coercive powers then it, too, must be protected against and becomes a threat to the international common good.

There is also the risk that the organization will seek to go beyond mediation and peacekeeping and seek to intervene in the domestic matters of member states or to undermine traditional institutions in those states.

This, of course, is what has happened today, what with the radical politics on constant display at the United Nations. The Holy See's role in international relations, it seems to me, is both to advance peace by means of its own initiatives, and to remain the great obstacle to the leftist social agenda put forth at typical U.N. conferences.

Q: It seems that over the last 40 or 50 years, Catholic contributions to art, literature and science have waned. Additionally, Catholic influence in the academy and other important cultural institutions has also declined. Why do you think this is the case?

Woods: This is a tough one to answer in brief, though I take it up to some extent in my book "The Church Confronts Modernity." That book looks at the great vigor of the Catholic Church in America during the first half of the 20th century.

Here was a self-confident Church that engaged in healthy interaction with the surrounding culture without being absorbed by it.

Hilaire Belloc observed at the time that "the more powerful, the more acute, and the more sensitive minds of our time are clearly inclining toward the Catholic side."

Historian Peter Huff notes that the Catholic Church in America "witnessed such a steady stream of notable literary conversions that the statistics tended to support Calvert Alexander's hypothesis of something suggesting a cultural trend."

According to historian Charles Morris, "Despite the defeat of Al Smith, American Catholics achieved an extraordinary ideological self-confidence by the 1930s, much to the envy of Protestant ministers."

That self-confidence and sense of mission has, for a variety of reasons, diminished substantially since the 1960s.

It is dramatically urgent that Catholic intellectual and cultural figures regain that old confidence and sense of identity, for people need to hear the Church's message more than ever. Pope Benedict XVI has made abundantly clear his displeasure with the moral condition of Western civilization and its need for redemption.

Simone Weil once wrote, "I am not a Catholic, but I consider the Christian idea, which has its roots in Greek thought and in the course of the centuries has nourished all of our European civilization, as something that one cannot renounce without becoming degraded."

Western civilization seems to be learning that one the hard way.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: catholic; churchhistory; thomasewoods; vatican; westerncivilization; woods
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 261-263 next last
To: safisoft; mike182d
If you can show me in Scripture where anyone other than the Levitical priesthood, or the order of Malki-Tzedek are priests, I am ready to read.

Gen. 14:18 - this is the first time that the word "priest" is used in Old Testament. Melchizedek is both a priest and a king and he offers a bread and wine sacrifice to God.

Psalm 76:2 - Melchizedek is the king of Salem. Salem is the future Jeru-salem where Jesus, the eternal priest and king, established his new Kingdom and the Eucharistic sacrifice which He offered under the appearance of bread and wine.

Psalm 110:4 - this is the prophecy that Jesus will be the eternal priest and king in the same manner as this mysterious priest Melchizedek. This prophecy requires us to look for an eternal bread and wine sacrifice in the future. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Catholic Church.

Malachi 1:11 - this is a prophecy of a pure offering that will be offered in every place from the rising of the sun to its setting. Thus, there will be only one sacrifice, but it will be offered in many places around the world. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Catholic Church in the Masses around the world, where the sacrifice of Christ which transcends time and space is offered for our salvation. If this prophecy is not fulfilled by the Catholic Church, then Malachi is a false prophet.

Exodus 12:14,17,24; cf. 24:8 - we see that the feast of the paschal lamb is a perpetual ordinance. It lasts forever. But it had not yet been fulfilled.

Exodus 29:38-39 – God commands the Israelites to “offer” (poieseis) the lambs upon the altar. The word “offer” is the same verb Jesus would use to institute the Eucharistic offering of Himself.

Lev. 19:22 – the priests of the old covenant would make atonement for sins with the guilt offering of an animal which had to be consumed. Jesus, the High Priest of the New Covenant, has atoned for our sins by His one sacrifice, and He also must be consumed.

Jer. 33:18 - God promises that His earthly kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever. This promise has been fulfilled by the priests of the Catholic Church, who sacramentally offer the sacrifice of Christ from the rising of the sun to its setting in every Mass around the world.

Zech. 9:15-16 - this is a prophecy that the sons of Zion, which is the site of the establishment of the Eucharistic sacrifice, shall drink blood like wine and be saved. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the priests of the Catholic Church.

2 Chron. 26:18 - only validly consecrated priests will be able to offer the sacrifice to God. The Catholic priests of the New Covenant trace their sacrificial priesthood to Christ.

121 posted on 09/28/2005 1:43:34 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: safisoft
So that means all your Catholic priest are Kohen [descendants of Aharon], right? Wrong, they merely participated in the murder of countless kohenim, descendants of Levi.

Now Safisoft is literally accusing "all" Catholic priests of participating in the murder of "countless" Jews. I don't know why I bothered to try to educate him on the historical realities of the Inquisition earlier today, since logical argumentation is obviously not what he's here for.

Somebody else can waste bandwidth on Safisoft if they want. I'm content to call him what he is--a Catholic basher, and not even a particularly artful one--and move on.

122 posted on 09/28/2005 2:03:49 PM PDT by d-back
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: d-back

That is OK. Hysterical reactions like this are useful in showing the reader who is interested in history and who -- in myth-making.


123 posted on 09/28/2005 2:20:13 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The Catholic priests of the New Covenant trace their sacrificial priesthood to Christ

Circular logic. Of course THEY trace that, where is another priesthood established? By whose authority other than what your circular logic requires?

Taking Malki-Tzedek as a type for King Messiah, where do you get that there are any other priests other than sons of Aharon? Just because you have an order of Malki-Tzedek does not mean you have Catholic priests operating within that order, nor can you show any reference to any priests other than descendants of Aharon. Study up. There is far more to Bible-study than repeating Catholic dogma.

This promise has been fulfilled by the priests of the Catholic Church, who sacramentally offer the sacrifice of Christ from the rising of the sun to its setting in every Mass around the world.

Apparently, you still haven't read Hebrews. I am pretty sure that the 'Catholic Bible' has that one. < grin >

For Messiah is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of G-d for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others. For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Messiah was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. Hebrews 9:24-28

You guys crack me up (when you aren't busy making excuses for the murderous past of the Catholic church). Have you ever considered picking up a Bible and studying it for the pure enjoyment of it? There is a lot more to it than you may think.
124 posted on 09/28/2005 2:21:32 PM PDT by safisoft (Give me Torah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: d-back
Now Safisoft is literally accusing "all" Catholic priests of participating in the murder of "countless" Jews.

So sorry. I was not aware I was interacting with someone who does not know what kohenim are. Bible-literacy was assumed.

I did not accuse ALL Catholic priests of doing anything. If you will read my post I asked if ALL Catholic priests are Kohen (i.e. descendants of Aharon). In fact, they aren't. Oh, there may be a few out there, but that is not what you are arguing is it?

The fact is that the only real connection between Catholic priests and kohenim is that SOME Catholic priests have murdered kohenim.
125 posted on 09/28/2005 2:26:29 PM PDT by safisoft (Give me Torah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: ikka
That is an ignorant simile. The "Protestant" work ethic was an anti-Irish insult used by the British to rationalize and justify their superior political and economic position. It had nothing to do with the merits of the Catholic Church
126 posted on 09/28/2005 2:27:10 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: safisoft

You cannot enjoy the Bible unless you understand it, and you cannot understand it outside of the doctrine of the Catholic Church. For example, the scripture you cited indicates that there is only one sacrifice of Christ, and the Church teaches precisely that. The Eucharist is presenting to us the same, one and only, sacrifice.

You are welcome to visit the Mass, participate int he Liturgy of the Word, which will acquaint you with the bible, and observe the Liturgy of the Eucharist, even though you cannot receive it.


127 posted on 09/28/2005 2:30:27 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Hysterical reactions like this are useful in showing the reader who is interested in history and who -- in myth-making.

Minimizing the suffering, the "mild torture", etc. at the hands of the Catholic Church reveals who is interested in history, and who, like the mullahs, is only interested in defending the indefensible.
128 posted on 09/28/2005 2:30:40 PM PDT by safisoft (Give me Torah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: reflecting
"good that you agree with your church's extra biblical traditions"

If you look only to the Bible as your source of divine inspiration you will be both myopic and often mislead.

129 posted on 09/28/2005 2:32:36 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: annalex
You cannot enjoy the Bible unless you understand it, and you cannot understand it outside of the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

3,000 years of Jewish Sages would smirk at that one. They have at least a 1,000 year head start you.

You are welcome to visit the Mass

No thanks. I stick with people who live like the Master lived and honor the things He honored.
130 posted on 09/28/2005 2:35:59 PM PDT by safisoft (Give me Torah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: safisoft

I think I explained what the Holy Inquisition was with sufficient clarity and objectivity on this thread, without minimizing or maximizing anything.


131 posted on 09/28/2005 2:36:18 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: annalex
I think I explained what the Holy Inquisition was with sufficient clarity and objectivity on this thread, without minimizing or maximizing anything.

Oh, you did alright. Holy Inquisition indeed.

A coalition between Mecca and Rome would be quite formidable. Maybe you will see that some day.
132 posted on 09/28/2005 2:40:04 PM PDT by safisoft (Give me Torah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: safisoft

Indeed we should consult, without necessarily following, the Jews for their understanding of the Old Testament, albeit Christian typology of the Old Testament would not be accessible to them. However, Hebrews, that you quoted, is New Testament.


133 posted on 09/28/2005 2:40:20 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: annalex
However, Hebrews, that you quoted, is New Testament

In my Bible classes I like to tell my students that Jews can understand themselves without the church, but the church (in its broadest sense) cannot understand itself without the Jews. 1/3 of the 'New Testament' is a quote or direct allusion to the TaNaKh. The Bible of Peter and Paul was the TaNaKh.

It is a very poor exegete who starts with the 'new' to understand the 'old'. It is a very poor historian who attempts to understand history through the glasses of the present, and in defense of a person or an institution.

Having read your home page, I can see quite well that if society develops as you desire, people like yourself will hunt down people like me. See you later, Mr. Aristocrat, sir.
134 posted on 09/28/2005 2:50:14 PM PDT by safisoft (Give me Torah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I remember from my research in college that the Church promoted the study of foreign languages so that the gospel could be spread to other cultures. Even in the Middle Ages, church authorities in the universities responded to requests from students to teach non-Western languages such as Arabic, for just this reason. (I remember researching this topic for a paper in one of my grad-level courses.)


135 posted on 09/28/2005 2:54:27 PM PDT by Ciexyz (Let us always remember, the Lord is in control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Indeed we should consult, without necessarily following, the Jews for their understanding of the Old Testament, albeit Christian typology of the Old Testament would not be accessible to them.

The Sages of Israel know far more about Messiah than you can imagine. The Talmud and Midrash Rabbah (and Zohar) have a depth of understanding of Messiah that would shock the average Christian. Where do you think you got some of it?
136 posted on 09/28/2005 2:55:09 PM PDT by safisoft (Give me Torah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Tao Yin
The keys given to Peter are an example of looking to the Bible to prove an existing belief.

No, the keys are an ancient symbol of authority and have nothing to do with a Berean like quest for verification of beliefs in Scripture. This is particularly evident since at at the time of the "keying" there was only OT Scripture.

137 posted on 09/28/2005 3:03:26 PM PDT by conservonator (Pray for those suffering)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: ican'tbelieveit
From Answers.com:

"Baptist successionism is the theory that there exists an unbroken chain of churches that have held the beliefs (though not always the name) of the current Baptist churches since the time of Christ. This theory is most commonly associated with Landmark Baptists, though not exclusively. Some Primitive Baptists, Regular Baptists and United Baptists hold a similar view. This view is distasteful to Catholics and Protestants who trace their origins through the Catholic Church. Much of the evidence that supports this theory has been lost or never existed. It is also impossible to disprove because it only requires the existence of at least one single church (could be as small as two or three people) during any particular point in history to be true. Adding to the problem is the fact that many of the groups that held the beliefs that Baptists now hold suffered great persecution by governments, as well as Catholics and Protestants alike. If these churches existed, as Landmark Baptists claim, the historical records required to prove the theory many never have existed."

So, there is a "hypothetical" Church with alleged ties to the first Christians with no concerete evidence for it and then there is the Catholic Church with an overabundance of historical data and writings proving their connection to the original 12 Apostles, to whom Christ bestowed the Church.

Unless you want to wear a tin-foil hat to Church, you would probably be safer to believe the latter, don't you think?
138 posted on 09/28/2005 3:38:33 PM PDT by mike182d ("Let fly the white flag of war." - Zapp Brannigan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
I think the answer is pretty clear.

When Paul calls for unity within the Church, being of one mind and body, what do you suppose he's referring to?
139 posted on 09/28/2005 3:39:48 PM PDT by mike182d ("Let fly the white flag of war." - Zapp Brannigan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: safisoft
Wow. Your history gets wilder and wilder. You need to get out more. You think Luther invented the ideas of Reformation? Truth be told, the excesses of the Papacy from 1200 to 1500 had a greater effect.

You're confusing the sins of men who failed to live the teachings of the Catholic Church and doctrines of the Catholic Church. Martin Luther's goal of reforming the corruption within the Church was not a new idea, as St. Francis of Assisi and St. Ignatius of Loyola later became advocates of. No Catholic should have a problem with the fact that there were some terrible sinners in the Church and that they needed to mend their ways. But that wasn't the end of Martin Luther's mission. He argued against Church doctrine, not just sins of men within the Church. When he argued against doctrine, he presupposed his own authority to supercede that of every Church council before him. He went against 1500 years of Christian theology originating from the very first Christians and that was the Church's problem. If Martin Luther hadn't been in theological heresy, he might have become a Saint within the Church for his attempts to rectify the sinner within, but such was not Luther's sole intent.

Seriously, study the history of Christianity and you will find that, apart from officially denounced heretics, no one believed in the theology taught by Martin Luther prior to his reformation.

In the words of St. Augustine in the 5th Century: "I would not believe in the Truth of the Gospels if it were not for the authority of the Catholic Church."

Right there, from one of Christianity's most brilliant theologians, is a clear rebuttal to Martin Luther's sola scriptura and there are plenty more against him. The fact of the matter is that Christianity prior to Martin Luther most definitely was not in line with Protestant theology.
140 posted on 09/28/2005 3:48:06 PM PDT by mike182d ("Let fly the white flag of war." - Zapp Brannigan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 261-263 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson