How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

[Stephen168]

What about non Catholic composers, and **Asian, African, and meso- **and South American civilizations.

I would think to contribute to “Western Culture” one would first have to be part of it.

**To me, this whole thread is summed up by two quotes from Gandhi, **whatever great good the Church may have done despite all the allegations of what it supposedly stopped from being done.
When after a tour of London Gandhi was asked his opinion of Western civilization he replied “I think it wold be a very good idea!”
He also said “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians; they are so unlike your Christ.”

To a critical cynic that would be true.

I have no argument with the sincerity and enthusiasm many rightfully have for their faith, but there is such a thing as perspective.

And your perspective is that Catholics should not discuss in public their enthusiasm; seems to be in line with the “tolerance me but I don’t have to tolerate you” voice in American discourse.

 

[Whadyamean]

I would think to contribute to “Western Culture” one would first have to be part of it.
To a critical cynic that would be true.
And your perspective is that Catholics should not discuss in public their enthusiasm; seems to be in line with the “tolerance me but I don’t have to tolerate you” voice in American discourse.

No, not at all. We are
Western," but before we are Western we are all “God’s children,” as it might be put. Maturity always being in a direction away from personal ego, it might do us to be a bit less centric and admit as well that our Church has a few skeletons as well.

And Gandhi was rightfully critical given what Christian Western civilization did for his Country, but not a cynic. He was making valid observations if you think about it.

 

[Stephen168]

Well, I am just asking who are Catholic composers…

I met various Catholic African composers of liturgical music.

This is addressed primarily to those who believe the anti-Catholic tracts…catholicism man made, statue idolatry, anti-science, etc.

Whadyamean’s post(s) reminded me of a college party with a group discussing Henry Ford’s contribution to the American automobile. Up walks a stoner who yells, “What about Karl Benz and Gustave Trouve….this whole conversation reminds me of what Gandhi once said, “I like the idea of the automobile.” As if being critical and quoting Gandhi or Nietzsche gives one some intellectual high ground or even makes sense. Which always left me thinking, contribute to the conversation or go back to your room and smoke another one.

 

[Whadyamean]

Whadyamean’s post(s) reminded me of a college party with a group discussing Henry Ford’s contribution to the American automobile. Up walks a stoner who yells, “What about Karl Benz and Gustave Trouve….this whole conversation reminds me of what Gandhi once said, “I like the idea of the automobile.” As if being critical and quoting Gandhi or Nietzsche gives one some intellectual high ground or even makes sense. Which always left me thinking, contribute to the conversation or go back to your room and smoke another one.

Thanks for illustrating my point so well. And I am so pleased that you were able to make your statement uncritically!

1

 

[KathleenGee]

There is a thread here on CAF going back to 2009, what composers were devout Catholics…Antonin Dvorvak comes up, including Josef Hayden, son of Bach was a convert…

 

[adrift]

Galileo was imprisoned for violatiing his sentence on him by the Roman Catholic Church in 1616.

He was prohibited from supporting Copernicus.

Copernicus, as you know, showed that Aristotle is wrong.

The Church preferred to believe what is wrong and prohibited Galileo from publishing what is correct.

In 1616, he could not prove mathematically his Copernican assertions (but, Aristotle did not either, though because of it being geo-centric, the Church accepted it).

Later, Galileo was invited to explain himself again. Armed with Kepler’s math, and a new Pope, he agreed.

He failed to present the math properly and was charged for his continued support of Copernicus.

He was sentenced to prison, for life, by the Church.

Your history is lacking. Do you have a source to back up your claims?
The Galileo Controversy

Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.

 

[eddadonkey]

Galileo did not have sufficient proof, in 1616: correct. But, there was no proof of the Aristotelian view, either: the view adopted by the Church. The Church had huge issues with him publishing the Copernican view and banned him from publishing.

Well, the proof of Aristotelian view back then was in the pudding, so to speak. The Aristotelian system simply worked. It could calculate locations of planets, chart the seeming movement of stars and the sun. These are very important in time keeping and navigation.

Galileo’s system, on the other hand, failed in that respect. Galileo insisted that the planets rotated the sun in circular orbits, not elliptical. Such a mistake (and a bullish one at that: it was Kepler who first proposed elliptical orbits of the planets, but Galileo refused to consider them; this is in my opinion unforgivably stupid as the two are in constant dialogue by mail at that time) would throw off calculations on the movement of the celestial bodies, which could result to wrong calendars, wasted crops, and lost ships.

With the newly elected Pope, he was invited back to explain his views. Once again he supported Copernicus, but, unfortunately misapplied Kepler’s math, as proof. The Church charged him not with failure to convince the second time, but violating their 1616 ruling against supporting Copernicus.

And so I would have too. Galileo came with a faulty view of the universe (and let me reiterate: universe. Galileo said that the universe revolved around the sun), then arrogantly told those in power they were stupid (have you read any of his letters? Go here and see for yourself Galileo being a pompous three-letter-word).

Going in front of the scientific and theological authorities of the time not only unprepared but arrogantly dismissing the help of his friend (Kepler on elliptical orbits) as well as the intellect of those going to try him?

Read more on history, friend.

 

[EWTN_News]

ROME, ITALY, December 14 (CNA/EWTN News) .- Lord Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom and British Commonwealth, told Pope Benedict XVI that he fears Europe is…

Full article…

 

[Curious_Seed]

Depends on what you mean by proven. Kepler’s laws of planetary motion explained the motion of the planets in a heliocentric universe such that all of the planets revolve around the sun with an elliptical orbit. This explanation happened to be more consistent with observable reality than the explanation put forth in the Aristotelian model, which required that all planets have an epicycle in their orbits to explain why the planets would occasionally seem to backtrack in the sky. This we would say proved that the planets orbit the sun, or at the very least that a heliocentric model combined with Kepler’s laws of planetary motion is a better model than a geocentric model.

Good thinking here, thank you, for the oxygen.

Some Catholics are so driven to “defend” the Church that they fail to recognize when It is not being attacked.

Some of these same Catholics resort rapidly to being rude to any person espousing ideas, in opposition, and assuming, in doing so, they have progressed the debate.

On this thread, your posts are a pleasure for me to read.

 

[John21652]

Some Catholics are so driven to “defend” the Church that they fail to recognize when It is not being attacked.

Many here, myself included, are of the impression that you do nothing but denigrate the Church through your sniping and through your failure to engage in meaningful debate and discussion.
Let’s see if we can discern whether or not the Church has been attacked -

Please, the influence of the Roman Empire and Greek Thinking is the bedrock of Western Civilization, not the Roman Catholic Church - and that influence is still durable, to this day - unlike that, of the Roman Catholic Church.

I have no doubt education, in “English speaking” countries, is tainted; but, it is not blind, either.

The problem for Galileo - not with Galileo - was a Church overstepping Its jurisdiction into science, and an unwillingness, by the same Church, to permit differing interpretations of Scripture, by penalty of imprisonment should one do so.

Fortunately, despite Church dogma, the truth is exposed.

Galileo was “allowed.”

That certainly says it precisely.

Manual seems unfamiliar with the bias and bigotry within catholicism that must be re-evaluated periodically.

Galileo was imprisoned for violatiing his sentence on him by the Roman Catholic Church in 1616.

He was sentenced to prison, for life, by the Church.

All the above quotes by you, Curious, are thinly veiled swipes at the Catholic Church as an authoritarian and bigoted institution. You have attempted to prove that the treatement of Galileo is proof of your opinion of the Catholic Church. Others have refuted you and yet you have refrained from enetering into any meaningful debate. You simply come back with cheap shots.

Furthermore, despite the title of this thread, you have refrained on enagaging with anyone who states that the Catholic Church built Western Civilisation. You posted, quoted above, that the influence of Greek thinking and the Roman Empire built Western Civilisation. When challenged on that you responded with this -

It is not my intention to disprove the Catholic Church built Western Civilization.

The Church’s influence is monumental, but foundational? I don’t think so.

You displayed an unwillingness to support your own assertions, except when you saw an opportunity to show the Catholic Church as a bigoted and authoritarian institution, evidenced in this post -

It is not my intention to disprove the Catholic Church built Western Civilization.

It is not my intention to disprove what I do not believe.

No one, yourself included, however, has shown that the Catholic Church has built Western Civilization.

Galileo is a prime example of miserable failure, on behalf of the Church. An outstanding example of how Western Civilization was built despite that debilitating failure.

The Church’s influence is monumental, but foundational? I don’t think so.

Other posters did indeed show examples of how Catholicism built and shaped Western Society and your responses did not address those points at all.

Still, you harped on and on about the Church’s supposed failure with Galileo.

Now along has come eddadonkey and he has brilliantly refuted your assertions regarding Galileo.

Well, the proof of Aristotelian view back then was in the pudding, so to speak. …

Galileo’s system, on the other hand, failed in that respect…

And so I would have too. Galileo came with a faulty view of the universe (and let me reiterate: universe. Galileo said that the universe revolved around the sun), then arrogantly told those in power they were stupid (have you read any of his letters? Go here and see for yourself Galileo being a pompous three-letter-word).

Going in front of the scientific and theological authorities of the time not only unprepared but arrogantly dismissing the help of his friend (Kepler on elliptical orbits) as well as the intellect of those going to try him?

Read more on history, friend.

I’ll finish with a quote from Marybeloved -

So you admittedly just brought up an irrelevant story to a discussion that you have no actual interest in engaging in? Proof of failure regarding Galileo has nothing to do with whether or not the Church built Western civilization, you appear to know this- why bring it up? Didn’t you read the OP?

I’d suggest that you brought it up because you saw a chance to denigrate the Catholic Church. Your snide remarks and cheap one liners are indeed attacks on the Church. Your legacy, listed above, is proof enough.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Curious

Rome pretty much crashed & burned huh; :stretcher:

therefore, Rome was pretty much out of the picture in the sense of a practical involvement - hard work day after day, year after year, century after century; Yes, they had their writings, culture, aqueducts, political system (although corrupted), construction etc. BIG DIFFERENCE - *Romans were not there for the peasants * The Catholic Church WAS IN THE TRENCHES for the people, doing, helping, teaching, healing, shepherding, even dying for their flock. Monasteries eventually were dotted all over Europe & because of their SKILLS, people settled around them = CITIES evolved because of the MONKS.

 

[Whadyamean]

CITIES evolved because of the MONKS.

So by your account all cities in the world developed because of monks?

 

[adrift]

Monasteries eventually were dotted all over Europe & because of their SKILLS, people settled around them = CITIES evolved because of the MONKS.

So by your account all cities in the world developed because of monks?

I don’t see the word all in Pepband Mom’s post. She said that cities evolved around monasteries. Now do you have evidence that this isn’t true?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Again, I’m a Catholic.

Here, let’s look at the Catholic source again:

Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.

In 1614, Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge that this “new science” was contrary to certain Scripture passages. His opponents pointed to Bible passages with statements like, “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed . . .” (Josh. 10:13). This is not an isolated occurrence. Psalms 93 and 104 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 also speak of celestial motion and terrestrial stability. A literalistic reading of these passages would have to be abandoned if the heliocentric theory were adopted. Yet this should not have posed a problem. As Augustine put it, “One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians.” Following Augustine’s example, Galileo urged caution in not interpreting these biblical statements too literally.

Unfortunately, throughout Church history there have been those who insist on reading the Bible in a more literal sense than it was intended. They fail to appreciate, for example, instances in which Scripture uses what is called “phenomenological” language—that is, the language of appearances. Just as we today speak of the sun rising and setting to cause day and night, rather than the earth turning, so did the ancients. From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to rise and appear to set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using phenomenological language.

The phenomenological language concerning the motion of the heavens and the non-motion of the earth is obvious to us today, but was less so in previous centuries. Scripture scholars of the past were willing to consider whether particular statements were to be taken literally or phenomenologically, but they did not like being told by a non-Scripture scholar, such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be taken in a particular sense.

During this period, personal interpretation of Scripture was a sensitive subject. In the early 1600s, the Church had just been through the Reformation experience, and one of the chief quarrels with Protestants was over individual interpretation of the Bible.

Theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on a layman’s interpretation. Yet Galileo insisted on moving the debate into a theological realm. There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt.

What is this source trying to drive at? It’s causing so much trouble because it’s conflating two separate aspects of the situation:

1. Galileo failed to provide sufficient evidence of heliocentrism (Incidentally, that’s precisely the point of science in the first place…) That’s the ground we want to “convict” him on, which is silly as again, scientific inquiry means trial and error. To consider that a crime would place the Church at odds with science writ large which is problematic.
2. The source uses point 1) to chastise him, but then it subtly sneaks this part in: the Church’s theologians got schooled by a layman scientist… on the topic of theology!

I can understand why this is an embarrassing moment in Church history, but we can’t simply wish it away. It exists, it happened, Galileo won, and an innocent man was punished.

The simple fact is that the Church needs to bow to science more often. Every time they have resisted it, they have fought a losing battle. So the real problem is not that Galileo interfered with theology, but that theology interfered with science.

 

[JustaServant]

There are so many other aspects of this topic. I wish we could put the whole Galileo debate to rest.

 

[Stephen168]

Thanks for illustrating my point so well. And I am so pleased that you were able to make your statement uncritically!

You could say it was very critical, but it contained critical thinking. Unlike the following:

So by your account all cities in the world developed because of monks?

 

[Stephen168]

Again, I’m a Catholic.

And a very proud one by your profile

The simple fact is that the Church needs to bow to science more often. Every time they have resisted it, they have fought a losing battle. So the real problem is not that Galileo interfered with theology, but that theology interfered with science.

The Church always bows to science. As you said

1. Galileo failed to provide sufficient evidence of heliocentrism (Incidentally, that’s precisely the point of science in the first place…)

The Pope/Catholic Church didn’t care if the earth rotated around the sun; but that fact would have biblical and theology implications. As Galileo himself pointed out that was not a problem for the Catholic Church because the Church did not have a literalist understanding of scripture. But the Church was not willing to entertain these implications based on a ‘theory,’ and it is the Church’s position to teach theology not Galileo’s. So the Church told Galileo to prove it as a fact or stop teaching it as a fact. Galileo could not prove it and he continued to teach it as a fact.

Protestants had a literalist view of the Bible that is why they used it to prove the earth did not move; the Bible said so. The Protestants got worked up because Galileo showed the Bible to be false by their literalist understanding of it. Therefore; the Protestants saw Galileo as a heretic and probably would have burned him at the stake.

Almost 200 years after the death of Galileo, the heliocentric theory was proven correct and was no longer an explanation of appearances.

If you are an anti-Catholic living after it was proven the earth rotates around the sun, you can point fingers at the Church. But history shows it was the Protestants who were much more anti-science at the time and Galileo knew it.

 

[Vouthon]

ROME, ITALY, December 14 (CNA/EWTN News) .- Lord Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom and British Commonwealth, told Pope Benedict XVI that he fears Europe is…

Full article…

Amen!

I very much applaud Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks for these words. I have always admired him for his words of wisdom, great spiritual insights and for his kind, warm, approachable personality.

The foundation of Western civilisation was born the day Jesus Christ was crucified on the Cross and the inscription above his head was written in Hebrew, Latin and Greek - in this one man, and in the later Church which he founded - the Catholic Church - does one find the glue which melded together the revealed moral and doctrinal truths of the Jewish Faith; Greek philosophy and science; and Roman Law and society. The Catholic Church is the glue which bound these different streams together, forming the roots of the greatest, most enlightened and most advanced civilisation - despite its obvious flaws - ever to grace the planet.

The heart of Western civilisation is the Judaeo-Christian tradition - Judaism and Christianity, the Tanakh and the New Covenant of Christ.

If the glue wears away, the entire structure will collapse in my opinion, eventually. It is eroding as we speak, with the rise of Communist China - which may one day (God forbid) overtake the United States as the world’s foremost superpower. The Chinese people are a truly wonderful race of people, with an incredible culture, a remarkable and beautiuful indiginous tradition of Taoism and have contributed much to civilisation over the long centuries in which it has existed as one of the oldest continous civilisations along with Persia (Iran).

However, much of this heritage has been destroyed by state-imposed atheism. In its current state China is not fit to lead the world. It must change, Christianity is growing their all the time. It needs to embrace Judaeo-Christian teachings if it hopes to ever truly be as great as the West. In China’s current state, the prospects for the world are not good if the West does not revitalize its Judeo-Christian heritage.

The only other - but much lesser - alternative for mankind is for India to become the world’s superpower. With its democracy, British legal system and its Hindu heritage (which is very moral) it has the potentiality to take the best of Western civilisation and enlightened by the morals of its own native culture, create a truly great and good society after much of the corruption of present times has been eradicated.

It is certainly a much more attractive future than the one we would all receive under the jackboot of Communist China!

But I prefer neither of those options. It is Judeo-Christianity that is needed.

 

[GraceSofia]

Many here, myself included, are of the impression that you do nothing but denigrate the Church through your sniping and through your failure to engage in meaningful debate and discussion.
Let’s see if we can discern whether or not the Church has been attacked -

All the above quotes by you, Curious, are thinly veiled swipes at the Catholic Church as an authoritarian and bigoted institution. You have attempted to prove that the treatement of Galileo is proof of your opinion of the Catholic Church. Others have refuted you and yet you have refrained from enetering into any meaningful debate. You simply come back with cheap shots.

Furthermore, despite the title of this thread, you have refrained on enagaging with anyone who states that the Catholic Church built Western Civilisation. You posted, quoted above, that the influence of Greek thinking and the Roman Empire built Western Civilisation. When challenged on that you responded with this -

You displayed an unwillingness to support your own assertions, except when you saw an opportunity to show the Catholic Church as a bigoted and authoritarian institution, evidenced in this post -
Other posters did indeed show examples of how Catholicism built and shaped Western Society and your responses did not address those points at all.

Still, you harped on and on about the Church’s supposed failure with Galileo.

Now along has come eddadonkey and he has brilliantly refuted your assertions regarding Galileo.

I’ll finish with a quote from Marybeloved -

I’d suggest that you brought it up because you saw a chance to denigrate the Catholic Church. Your snide remarks and cheap one liners are indeed attacks on the Church. Your legacy, listed above, is proof enough.

Thank you, John. I’ve been reading this thread and wanting to say something, but have not had time to post.

JustaServant:

There are so many other aspects of this topic. I wish we could put the whole Galileo debate to rest

Me, too. There are many other threads where it has been laid to rest already. I hope we can now move on because there is so much more to the book.

 

[Curious_Seed]

Many here, myself included, are of the impression that you do nothing but denigrate the Church through your sniping and through your failure to engage in meaningful debate and discussion.
Let’s see if we can discern whether or not the Church has been attacked -

All the above quotes by you, Curious, are thinly veiled swipes at the Catholic Church as an authoritarian and bigoted institution. You have attempted to prove that the treatement of Galileo is proof of your opinion of the Catholic Church. Others have refuted you and yet you have refrained from enetering into any meaningful debate. You simply come back with cheap shots.

Furthermore, despite the title of this thread, you have refrained on enagaging with anyone who states that the Catholic Church built Western Civilisation. You posted, quoted above, that the influence of Greek thinking and the Roman Empire built Western Civilisation. When challenged on that you responded with this -

You displayed an unwillingness to support your own assertions, except when you saw an opportunity to show the Catholic Church as a bigoted and authoritarian institution, evidenced in this post -
Other posters did indeed show examples of how Catholicism built and shaped Western Society and your responses did not address those points at all.

Still, you harped on and on about the Church’s supposed failure with Galileo.

Now along has come eddadonkey and he has brilliantly refuted your assertions regarding Galileo.

I’ll finish with a quote from Marybeloved -

I’d suggest that you brought it up because you saw a chance to denigrate the Catholic Church. Your snide remarks and cheap one liners are indeed attacks on the Church. Your legacy, listed above, is proof enough.

Thank you, for the revelation of your “thoughts.”