Evolution of Islam and Catholisism

[Seraphim73]

so one Pope out of 200+ during the 1500s. Oh please. i don’t think Julius II is on any Saint list. Yes, there are Popes that sinned while they are Popes. The Catholic church never claimed that Popes were going to be impeccable. Op’s implication here is that Popes, (plural) were riding out to battle with with swords drawn ready for action. And all we can cough up is one Pope during the 1500 which was a very turbulant time to begin with. We need to stop judging the past by today’s political standards and veiw events and people from the past in the context of their time.

You don’t need to be so defensive. The poster pointed out an interesting event in history I didn’t know about. You seemed to imply it didn’t happen when it did. That’s all.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

amazon.com/The-Popes-Soldiers-Military-History/dp/0700617701

Most students of history assume that the age of the “warlord popes” ended with the Renaissance, but, long after the victory of Catholic powers at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, the Papacy continued to entangle itself in martial affairs. The Vatican participated in six major military campaigns between 1796 and 1870, flew the papal flag over a warship as late as 1878, and during the Second World War mobilized more than 2,000 of its own troops to defend the Pope.

strategypage.com/bookreviews/722.asp

Alvarez then discusses in some detail more serious efforts to reform the armed forces that began in the post-Napoleonic era. Each time a good start was made, however, war intervened, pitting the half-ready (Papal - note - my addition) troops against better equipped, more numerous foes. Against Austrian regulars in 1848-1849, Piedmontese regulars and Italian nationalist insurgents in 1861, and finally, Italian regulars in 1871, papal troops often served with skill and discipline, but they were always so greatly outnumbered as to be fighting against hopeless odds.

 

[JimmyG88]

you make a number of false statements here. Claiming our Church engaged in tortue etc is totally false. If you are going to talk about history and what happen in the past, please be factual about it and stop using the usual false generalizations.

If you think that the Catholic Church did not engage in torture and quasi judicial execution and persecution of groups including Jews, Cathars, Protestants and Franciscans you are very much mistaken. Which statement is incorrect.

 

[abucs]

In general I think it can be mistaken to equate the evolution of two different movements. There are always going to be similarities but I think any two religions will be intrinsically too different to expect those similarities will be caused or lead to identical events.

If you think that the Catholic Church did not engage in torture and quasi judicial execution and persecution of groups including Jews, Cathars, Protestants and Franciscans you are very much mistaken. Which statement is incorrect.

Hi Jimmy, if possible could you please link to examples of this. Thank you.

 

[GKC]

I don’t do links very often; I do books. On that particular topic, David Kertzer’s THE POPES AGAINST THE JEWS is recommended. Kertzer is a Jewish academic, the book is massively documented, including from Vatican archives (esp. those of the Holy Office, recently opened) and files of Osservatore romano and Civilta cattolica. It looks back to this Bull, but focuses more on the late 18th century, through the dissolution of the Papal States, and into the early 20th century. A sad story.

GKC

 

[robwar]

If you think that the Catholic Church did not engage in torture and quasi judicial execution and persecution of groups including Jews, Cathars, Protestants and Franciscans you are very much mistaken. Which statement is incorrect.

The proof falls on you to document and show the evidence for your assertion.

 

[robwar]

You don’t need to be so defensive. The poster pointed out an interesting event in history I didn’t know about. You seemed to imply it didn’t happen when it did. That’s all.

Op made a number of blanket statements with the implication that Popes were leading armies to kill others. The only evidence is one Pope who usually makes the 10 worst popes lists in the 1500’s to begin with. One pope leading an army is not the same as a bunch of popes leading armies to war.

 

[Seraphim73]

Op made a number of blanket statements with the implication that Popes were leading armies to kill others. The only evidence is one Pope who usually makes the 10 worst popes lists in the 1500’s to begin with. One pope leading an army is not the same as a bunch of popes leading armies to war.

It seems like for some people they have to just reflexively defend pretty much anything the Church has ever done. One poster made the statement that the Church has killed people and another poster said it’s not true. Then some compelling evidence was put forth that the Church did kill people including the case of at least one pope personally marching at the head of an army and others as late as the 19th century ordering papal soldiers into combat. I mean if it is a papal army and the pope orders them into battle he is still “leading armies to war.” To argue otherwise is just stretching the bounds of reason.

 

[gmcbroom]

I recommend I book by Krocker called Triumph. I think we all need to step back and realize that the popes are people as we all are and as such are sinners. Triumph is a history book on the catholic church. You’ll read about good times and bad times but through it all the church remains. Comparing Catholicism to Islam though by use of a body count while it may seem relevant; its still apples to oranges. Case in point The Spanish Inquisition. When ever someone says the church killed tens or hundreds of thousands of people if they read Krockers book they’ll see it was really either 400 or 4,000 over a 300 year history. A fraction of the deaths attributed to the Church. Plus a lot of those deaths are due to the civil authorities that have a stake in civil order and retaining authority rather than through the Catholic Church its self. Now Islam’s system of jurisprudence doesn’t work like that. Sharia law is very beneficial to Muslims as it should be, but it subjugates all other faiths under it (which isn’t what the catholic church advocates even if the catholic kings did when in power). All in all the evolution of both faiths involved innocent blood spilt, that doesn’t mean the Catholic Church and Islam are the same though.

 

[GKC]

I recommend I book by Krocker called Triumph. I think we all need to step back and realize that the popes are people as we all are and as such are sinners. Triumph is a history book on the catholic church. You’ll read about good times and bad times but through it all the church remains. Comparing Catholicism to Islam though by use of a body count while it may seem relevant; its still apples to oranges. Case in point The Spanish Inquisition. When ever someone says the church killed tens or hundreds of thousands of people if they read Krockers book they’ll see it was really either 400 or 4,000 over a 300 year history. A fraction of the deaths attributed to the Church. Plus a lot of those deaths are due to the civil authorities that have a stake in civil order and retaining authority rather than through the Catholic Church its self. Now Islam’s system of jurisprudence doesn’t work like that. Sharia law is very beneficial to Muslims as it should be, but it subjugates all other faiths under it (which isn’t what the catholic church advocates even if the catholic kings did when in power). All in all the evolution of both faiths involved innocent blood spilt, that doesn’t mean the Catholic Church and Islam are the same though.

For the Spanish Inquisition, the book I recommend is Kamen’s SPANISH INQUISITION. Or, for mind-numbing detail, Netanyahu’s THE ORIGINS OF THE INQUISITION IN FIFTEENTH CENTURY SPAIN. Four thousand is closer.

GKC

 

[JimmyG88]

I wonder if any thought has been given to how organised religion evolves. Given that Islam was founded in 622 AD. If we compare our own religion in the 14th century with Islam now are there not paralells. Our church was engaged in brutal practices including torture and cruelly devised execution. It treated unbelievers including the Jews and Cathars abominably killing hundreds. The ghetto was part of daily life in the Papal States et al Is it possible that as the earthly practice of any religion evolves it simply goes through a period of zealotry, cruelty and intolerance

I’m the original poster. My post was more of a question than a statement. It would be interesting for me to learn about our religion on a historical or sociologal basis. I don’t doubt my faith. I’m merely trying to place current affairs in a historical context

 

[Crow]

I’m the original poster. My post was more of a question than a statement. It would be interesting for me to learn about our religion on a historical or sociologal basis. I don’t doubt my faith. I’m merely trying to place current affairs in a historical context

I don’t believe you can compare the evolution of Christianity with islam on a pure time basis as you did on your first post. The social constructs, technologies, overall human knowledge and condition being hundreds of years apart from the two, I don’t believe a fair comparison can be made.

Also, fundamental differences between the two prevent that they should have similar evolution in my opinion. Just the fact the Jesus is our founder, and mohammed is theirs, comparing the examples those two provide which each group sees as the perfect example, I don’t think its possible that both religions will ever find a common ground. Mohammed personally beheaded his enemies who refused to convert, sold their woman and children to slavery, wrote laws ensuring he would get his share of the booty when his people went to war… don’t see much common ground here with Jesus… do you?

 

[Contarini]

In a marriage & family counseling class I took many yrs ago there was comment made by the instructor that when Mary was declared a saint by the Church in the 11th century that it changed western civilization forever. Putting a woman in such a position on a par with men elevated the status of all women and ushered in the age of chivalry. To this day I am shocked that a professor in a secular college would make such a claim but there it was. Now compare that to Islam which still treats women as property or worse. peace

Actually no–Islamic law has never treated women as property, but has given them rights, albeit not equal rights. Christian societies were, until relatively recently, more likely to treat women legally as property.

Mary wasn’t declared a saint in the 11th century–she was venerated long before that. But the emphasis on Mary characteristic of modern Catholicism began then (actually in the 12th century). This may have been affected by secular courtly love culture, which may in turn have been affected by Islamic culture. . . . .

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

A good summary of the Church’s involvement in the killing of heretics is the chapter called “The Willingness to Kill,” from Brad Gregory’s Salvation at Stake (Gregory is Catholic, and the chapter talks about Protestant persecution as well as Catholic, which is why I recommend it, because it summarizes common knowledge on the subject and can’t reasonably be accused of anti-Catholic bias).

For more detail, see Malcolm Lambert’s classic Medieval Heresy.

Edwin

 

[Paleocon]

Christian societies were, until relatively recently, more likely to treat women legally as property.

Incorrect.

 

[JimmyG88]

Incorrect.

It’s not ‘incorrect’ but de facto true. If this was as a result of the society being Christian or not is open to debate

 

[Paleocon]

It’s not ‘incorrect’ but de facto true. If this was as a result of the society being Christian or not is open to debate

Cite a medieval law recognizing women as property.

You can’t because there were no such laws.

 

[JimmyG88]

Cite a medieval law recognizing women as property.

You can’t because there were no such laws./QUO
I just agreed that the likelihood of being treated as property as a woman in chrisian society was high. Not enshrined in law. Although until the 1980s in Britain rape in marriage was legal and rape outside of marriage was dealt with in a statute covered by the burglary act. De facto is different from De Jure. Certainly Droit du seigneur existed in fact rather than in law

 

[Patti_M]

Actually no–Islamic law has never treated women as property, but has given them rights, albeit not equal rights. Christian societies were, until relatively recently, more likely to treat women legally as property.

Mary wasn’t declared a saint in the 11th century–she was venerated long before that. But the emphasis on Mary characteristic of modern Catholicism began then (actually in the 12th century). This may have been affected by secular courtly love culture, which may in turn have been affected by Islamic culture. . . . .

Edwin

You may have missed the “big picture” of my post. That being because the Church recognized women as on a spiritual par with men this was a philosophical game changer and Western Civilization changed significantly because of it; or so my class instructor believed. Compare this notion with Islam; where is the spiritual equivelant for women of the 72 virgins reward for men? Is there one? I don’t think so.

 

[tomarin]

I was under the impression that women in the West had always been freer than their Middle Eastern counterparts and that it scandalized Muslim visitors to medieval Europe that the Westerners did not sequester their women. Not sure what that says about their legal status, however.