[Noumenon]

You miss the point. The Renaissance was not overtly anti-Catholic, nor was it even overtly anti-clerical. But it did mark the the beginnning of the end of the clerical stranglehold on knowledge in Europe. The printing press of that era has its analog in the Internet of today.

And for what its worth, history tells us in no uncertain terms of the Churchs' efforts to suppress the likes of DaVinci and Copernicus.

The Protestant Reformation happened for a reason - the history of the Borgia Popes had something to do with that, did they not? Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly contains an excellent account of the Borgias' folly and its consequences.

And as for you spiral-eyed fanatics, my take on the the Catholic Churh is that for a quite some time, it was the sole repository of knowledge and even civilization during the Dark and Midaeval Ages. But the Churches' inability to reign in its own corruption coupled with its loss of its monopoly on knowledge, commerce and education did much to end its primacy in European affairs.

On a personal note, I don't have much use for religions that trade in fear and guilt. Whatever else you may think God might be, I don't believe in a Supreme being that loads the dice even before you are born. So there's a poke in the eye for Calvinists as well. Deal with it.

[Unam Sanctam]

So I am a “spiral eyed fanatic” because I refuse to give a pass to Queen Elizabeth I on her suppression of the Catholic religion and lack of religious tolerance in England, or because I don’t see the Renaissance as having damaged the Church in her fundamental teachings? The Church can and has thrived in many different socio-political-intellectual milieux. The medieval model is not the only one. Please also document how the Church “suppressed” Da Vinci or Copernicus. I believe the latter received commendation from the Church. Galileo was of course a different matter.