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.
Maybe I should pray to Mary? Or is there a patron saint of understanding who I can pray to?
Mary would be great since she always points to her son: "do what ever He tells you". But the Holy Spirit is who is the font of knowledge and understanding.
You talk about the use of the word church as a physical institution and bureaucracy. It is not. In the Bible, the word church has two meanings. First, the individual congregations. Second, the Body of Christ, all those who are saved.
The Catholic Church is not a church at all, it is a synod: Those who walk in faith together. The Catholic Church is made up of churches and some members of the Catholic Church are members of the Body of Christ, but not all.
When the word church is used in the Bible to describe the Body of Christ, rather than individual churches, Jesus is always the head with the saints as the body. When used this way, the church represents only those who are saved.
I do admit that I do not understand the keys given to Peter. I'm OK with that. The keys are never mentioned again. If the keys are an integral part of the Gospel, why are they only mentioned in one of the Gospels? Why are the keys never mentioned as part of the Good News?
The power to bind and loose is given to all the apostles.
The keys do not affect how others treat Peter.
Galatians 2:11
[ Paul Opposes Peter ] When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.
Just because I do not understand the keys, does not mean I must to agree with someone who wrote about the keys in 220, so his organization could have worldly power.
I shivered a little when you wrote that it would be great to pray to Mary. I just find it repulsive: the idea of praying to a dead, created being.
I don't have a problem asking my live friend to pray for me. But no where does God promise that the dead can hear me.
snicker, snicker...
That's funny. Why in the world would you think that those prayers were to the elders?
Who gave the elder's their thrones, crowns, white garments, harps, or golden bowls? Why would you assume that they were given empty bowls that they themselves filled? That's just funny!
There is no promise that the dead can hear our prayers.
There is no promise that the dead will interceed.
All prayers in the Bible are directed directly towards God.
Ha, ha, very funny.
In the Bible, there is no promise that anyone, except for God, can hear our prayers. Period. No doubt about it. End of discussion.
In the Bible, there is no example of Christian prayer except to God. Period. No doubt about it. End of discussion.
I guess you can claim oral tradition or inspiration. I'd be curious to know year that started.
Minus the part in parentheses, the title is quite true.
But what are we, the Church, doing today?
What Church? Catholic? Scripture reveals this Church to be the one Jesus Christ built upon the rock of Saint Peter (Matt. 16:18). By giving Peter the keys of authority (Matt. 16:19), Jesus appointed Peter as the chief steward over His earthly kingdom (cf. Isaiah. 22:19-22). Jesus also charged Peter to be the source of strength for the rest of the apostles (Luke 22:32) and the earthly shepherd of Jesus' flock (John 21:15-17). Jesus further gave Peter, and the apostles and elders in union with him, the power to bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). This teaching authority did not die with Peter and the apostles, but was transferred to future bishops through the laying on of hands (e.g., Acts 1:20; 6:6; 13:3; 8:18; 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6).
By virtue of this divinely-appointed authority, the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture (what books belong in the Bible) at the end of the fourth century. We therefore believe in the Scriptures by the authority of the Catholic Church. After all, nothing in Scripture tells us what Scriptures are inspired, what books belong in the Bible, or that Scripture is the final authority on questions concerning the Christian faith. Instead, the Bible says that the Church, not the Scriptures, is the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and the final arbiter on questions of the Christian faith (Matt. 18:17). It is through the teaching authority and Apostolic Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 1 Cor. 11:2) of this Church, who is guided by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16,26; 16:13), that we know of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, and the manifold wisdom of God. (cf. Ephesians 3:10).
But what are we, the Church, doing today?
"We", the Catholic Church, are holding a Synod on the Holy Eucharist. Present, but not voting, at this Synod, are representatives from all the major religious groups - Judaism, Islam, Orthodoxy and the various protestant denominations. We're continuing to proclaim the word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit.
There has never a man alive who understood Revelation, even the man who had it. To try and interpret Revelation according to common sense, and claim absolute certantude, is pathetic.
In the Bible, only God promisses to hear our prayers.
In the Bible, all prayers are directed towards God.
You have been nailed!
Are you getting confused about what a saint is? I realize that the Catholic Church has changed the meaning of words, but when Revelation says the prayers of the saints, it means the prayers of christians. You see, christian and saint mean the same thing in the Bible. In fact, I'm a saint and you're a saint.
The only examples of saints praying in the Bible are from earthly christians to God. So if these prayers of the saints where to saints in heaven, it would need a qualification. If these prayers of the saints were from saints in heaven, they again would need a qualification.
So Scripture isn't self revealing? You mean we need a guide to help us understand what Scripture is truly revealing? Maybe that's one of the reasons Christ established a Church first...
Right! So in that verse form Revelation, you see those in heaven offering the prayers of we here on earth, in other words, they are interceding on our behalf. Do you see?
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.