How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

[John21652]

Stop bad mouthing those who disagree with you.

Pointing out bad logic is not ‘bad-mouthing’ anyone.

Stop spinning rebuke for your bad behavior, as refusal to debate.

Pointing out bad logic and false premises is not bad behaviour.

State your view or counter view, without tagging derogatory remarks about the one you disagree with.

I have stated my view. You won’t or cant respond and so there is no debate.

I enjoy debate, I enjoy learning where I am wrong; I won’t abide as receptacle to abusive remarks.

Rephrasing questions to other posters is not ‘debating’. Debating is putting forward counter arguments. You don’t do this. Try this formula: if someone says “A”, you say “B” and then say why B is better, or more correct, than A. Try to not say “Are you saying A is something else”, because answering a question with a question is just avoiding the question, gives the impression you don’t know any answers and is quite rude. Comprende?

Civility is the oil that permits public discourse to proceed, isn’t it?

And so too is honesty. Rephrasing questions and sniping is not honesty that will permit public discourse to proceed.

Factor out your insults toward me and I will be pleased to address your perspectives on the subject.

Your feigned insult does not hide the fact that you refuse to answer the posts of others. Do you not get it? Others have pointed out the same thing to you.

 

[KathleenGee]

Sooooo…Where’s the Beef!!!

Where are the parallels to the Catholic faith and its contribution to humanity after the collapse of the Roman and Greek empires?

 

[Curious_Seed]

Pointing out bad logic is not ‘bad-mouthing’ anyone.

Pointing out bad logic and false premises is not bad behaviour.

I have stated my view. You won’t or cant respond and so there is no debate.

Rephrasing questions to other posters is not ‘debating’. Debating is putting forward counter arguments. You don’t do this. Try this formula: if someone says “A”, you say “B” and then say why B is better, or more correct, than A. Try to not say “Are you saying A is something else”, because answering a question with a question is just avoiding the question, gives the impression you don’t know any answers and is quite rude. Comprende?

And so too is honesty. Rephrasing questions and sniping is not honesty that will permit public discourse to proceed.
Your feigned insult does not hide the fact that you refuse to answer the posts of others. Do you not get it? Others have pointed out the same thing to you.

Yes.

Concerning you, I get it.

 

[John21652]

John21652;8705425:

Pointing out bad logic is not ‘bad-mouthing’ anyone.

Pointing out bad logic and false premises is not bad behaviour.

I have stated my view. You won’t or cant respond and so there is no debate.

Rephrasing questions to other posters is not ‘debating’. Debating is putting forward counter arguments. You don’t do this. Try this formula: if someone says “A”, you say “B” and then say why B is better, or more correct, than A. Try to not say “Are you saying A is something else”, because answering a question with a question is just avoiding the question, gives the impression you don’t know any answers and is quite rude. Comprende?

And so too is honesty. Rephrasing questions and sniping is not honesty that will permit public discourse to proceed.
Your feigned insult does not hide the fact that you refuse to answer the posts of others. Do you not get it? Others have pointed out the same thing to you.

Y

es.

Concerning you, I get it.


See, you’ve done it again!
A little snide remark, when I was actually trying to point out a few things to you for your own benefit.

 

[KathleenGee]

Let’s bring forward conditions following the collapse of the Roman Empire…and who were the players in rebuilding the former Empire…what was it called…what regions did it cover, etc.

 

[seeker57]

This seems to have become an “us vs them” tug o war. Pity.

I never mentioned which language was spoken by whom.

What I did mention was the wholesale destruction of a people by the Spanish invaders, who allegedly were Catholics.

They raped, plundered and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people in the New World.

They could have cared less about “enlightenment.” They wanted gold and power - period.

The priests they hauled with them tried to force the conversion of people from their traditional beliefs to Christianity. While some who are Christian today might think this was laudable, those of us who aren’t Christian probably wouldn’t be so quick to jump on that bandwagon.

That forced conversion is one reason some of the indigenous people revolted in what is now New Mexico and killed the priests - and many of the Spanish invaders. They were, of course, re-conquered at a later date.

The fact Spain was conquered by the Muslims is no excuse for the behavior of the Spanish in the Americas.

While I am sure some did not like their Muslim masters in Spain during its occupation by the Moors, the other side of that coin was that a seat of learning and of banking was established by the Muslims in Spain, and, from what I have read, very successfully. This was at a time when there was nothing similar to be found in most of the rest of Europe.

Regarding Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel, he was paid to paint it by the church, and that is fine. In the process, he created a wonderful work of art.

But the church also sought to silence scientists who offered opposing views to church doctrine, such as Da Vinci.

Other factors also influenced the development of Western Civilization.

Our civilization could not have taken the path it did if Martin Luther had not tried to reform the Catholic Church and, instead, create a rift that let to the development of the many protestant denominations.

Regarding Henry VIII and his split with Rome, old King Henry was an opportunist of the first order and saw his chance to grab a bit more power at the expense of the Catholic Church, which owned a lot of land in England at the time.

However, the church also was reportedly later involved in some underhanded dealings in England in the hopes of unseating Henry’s daughter, Elizabeth I. It didn’t work and the time when Elizabeth I was on the throne has come to be known as the Golden Age in England.

But, I digress . . .

It was some of the protestant sects, who coincidentally spoke English and Dutch, who helped form and set the direction of North America.

But, keep in mind there were French and Spanish speakers who were Catholic who also provided their own contributions. They were the first Europeans in Florida and the city now known as New Orleans.

The Catholic Church was responsible for preserving a lot of art, literature and science during the Dark Ages in Europe that otherwise would probably have been lost or destroyed.

A lot of this was done by monks in monasteries, with the blessing of the church.

For that, we should all be grateful. I would never argue the Catholic Church didn’t have a great influence on Western Civilization.

Some of this influence came from positive intervention, some not so. We could probably argue all next week about which was which, because we come from different points of view.

We should also remember these influences were not made in isolation and that, without other contributions from other arenas, Western Civilization would not exist as we know it today.

Islam had a large impact on mathematics, astronomy and medicine, for example.

Another big factor were climate shifts that took place between 1200 and 1850. During a time called the Little Ice Age, cooler than normal temperatures and more tempestuous weather let to the failure of crops, starvation and epidemics in Europe.

So, I would argue that many factors influenced and helped shape Western Civilization. To say a single entity, whether it be a person or the Catholic Church, was the determining factor would be erroneous.

Peace,

Seeker

 

[KathleenGee]

I am getting ready to go out…

I agree with you that there was indeed greed and mistreatment by the Spanish conquistadors…I read the history of Mexico, and the Spanish explorers held the Aztecs and their civilization in esteem…but what you are not mentioning either is the practice of the Aztecs worshipping the Sun God…human sacrifice where thousands were killed each year so the sun could return the next morning…and that it was the neighboring Indian tribes who did the most violent slaughter ending the Aztec rule because their own children were taken from them and used as sacrifice.

You are also not realizing that by the 1500’s, there were already higher institutions of learning in Mexico that had educated Indian professors teaching at them.

Check out Monsignor Kelly’s, ‘Blood Drenched Altars’ to get a broader view of the Spanish, and how many institutions built by the Catholic Church were destroyed by the Masonic Revolution. What followed was poverty.

Bishop Zumarraga prayed to God because he was deeply afflicted by the treatment of colonial Spaniards towards the Indians…this is documented fact. The problems then were the same as in Spain itself…the lay temporal rulers contradicting their faith. How many times do we in our times witness the Catholic laity ignoring the directives of the Church?

Bishop Zumarraga prayed for a sign of roses in December. In December, a peasant named Juan Diego was walking home…a class of Indians who did convert to Christ by the Spanish missionaries…a woman appeared to him, pointed out a bush of roses and told him to give them to the bishop…and when Juan arrived, he opened his tilma and out tumbled most beautiful roses…and on the inside of his garment the image of Mary…of Guadalupe…

There is still to this day a question about the name Guadalupe…because there is a parallel Indian name…I don’t have the spelling off hand…but it sounds very similiar to ‘Guadalupe’…and it means ‘She who crushes the head of the serpent’…

Francis Schaffer has a book out on Mary of Guadalupe…a short book, that gives a balanced picture of the Spanish and Indians, the good and the bad.

About your other points…I cannot justify Islam and the Moors attempting to take over Spain as I cannot as well for our Judeo Christian Holy Land. But they are there…but without Spain…

Looking at how many countries have collapsed under Islam, seeing the plague of relativism and its effect on society…reading the story of Mary of Guadalupe, the development of the New World under Spain vs America with its own dark history of slavery…The Spanish visited a much greater land mass than the English or Dutch or French…their suffering under the Moors perhaps…the fact they took their country back and retained its Catholic identity…in spite of all its sins and blemishes that remain up to today…I am seeing Spain in a greater light…and seeing a particular strength and character of its own.

 

[John21652]

Good…now where is your documentation showing parallel humanitarian organizations to the Catholics’ contribution?..

Great post Kathleen.

I’d like to step back a little into Roman history if I may. All the way back to the time of Nero, because at this time one can discern that Christian thinking is beginning to have an impact.

Many have heard of Tertullion. I given a link o a Wikipedia article about him. He converted to Christianity quite late in life and before he did he was an enthusiastic Roman of high birth. Nero, of course, put the blame onto the Christians for the fire of AD64. many thought he started it, so he deflected the blame by rounding up Christians and killing them in various ways. Some were nailed to crosses’ some were doused with pitch and set alight and some were wrapped up in animal skins and then torn apart by dogs. Tacitus, a Senator and historian, thought that nero’s cruelty went too far and he also thought that nero’s actions were so bad they actually provoked compassion within the wider community for Christians. However, like a good Roman citizen, he himself thought Christians were a strange mob who ‘ate’ their god during secret meetings where strange ceromonies were held; who refused to bear arms: disdained the material world and had strange notions about themselves being elevated to eternal bliss while all the pagans, which was pretty well everyone else in Rome, would be confined to a hell fire and eternal torment after they die.

However, the Christian message spread and there rose up an educated class of Romans who embraced Christianity. One was Tertullion, who, at the time of nero and in response to nero’s barbarism, wrote that “The more you mow us down, the more we grow, the seed is the blood of Christians.” Now if you read this you will see that Tertullian wrote in condemnation of things like incest and infanticide and promiscuity. he showed how Christians did not cause earthquakes and other calamities that existed long before Christianity. Others such as Justin, Origen and Clement of Alexandria embraced Christianity and refined Christian teaching and theology.

It is thinking that builds empires and the early Christians, through example and through rigorous scholarship, began to change the way people thought, about life, law and morality.

 

[Stephen168]

But the church also sought to silence scientists who offered opposing views to church doctrine, such as Da Vinci.

What scientific ideas of Da Vinici’s conflicted with Catholic Church Doctrine?

 

[John21652]

…

It is thinking that builds empires and the early Christians, through example and through rigorous scholarship, began to change the way people thought, about life, law and morality.

Just to enlarge on the idea that thinking is what builds Empires - An example of the extreme measures taken by Roman Emporers can be found in the story of Blandina, as related by the Roman historian Eusebias of Cesarea. Blandina was tortured to such an extreme, for so great a time, without once waivering from her faith, that her torturors"…those who took it in turns to subject her to every kind of torture from morning to night were exhausted by their efforts and confessed themselves beaten - they could think of nothing else to do to her." Eusebius, The History of The Church from Christ to Constantine p171 . Eusebias was another who refined the doctrines of the early Church, along with the already mentioned Origen, Tertullion, Justin.and Clement of Alexandria. Justin was particularly impressed and attracted by the strength of those who were martyred for heir faith. Clement was a convert from paganism who deepened the Church’s understanding of Christianity, and Origen, his pupil strengthened the philosophical underpinnings of Christianity and established the authenticity of the New Testament. Between the formidable thinkers and philosophers and those who were martyred for their faith, a transformation came over the way Romans thought of themselves and their relationship with each other and God. Christianity spread to the rich and the powerful, to Senators and eventually, even to Emporers.

The successors to the Apostles held councils: the first in Jerusalem in AD 51, another in Asia Minor fifty years later. The major cities of the Empire, such as Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Rome. were given pre-eminence and each had a “Patriarch” to guide the nascent religion.The first among these bishops and patriarchs was the successor to the Apostle Peter, who presided over the Christian community in Rome.Clement, thought to have been consecrated a Bishop by Peter, wrote to resolve a Church dispute in Corinth in the year 96. Victor, Bishop of Rome towards the end of the second century, ruled on the date for Easter and excommunicated a leather-seller called Theodotus, who went around saying Jesus had been a mere man. It was Victor who had the first known dealings with an Emperor’s household. The Emporor Commodus had a Christian mistress, Marcia, and she managed to gain the freedom of Christians condemned to slavery in the in the mines of Sardinia by using a list of names given to her by Victor. Thus, Christianity reached into the very seat of power in the Roman Empire.

 

[Whadyamean]

Just to enlarge on the idea that thinking is what builds Empires…

Thinking is the ordinary way anyone does anything alone or in groups. Anything.

 

[GraceSofia]

This seems to have become an “us vs them” tug o war. Pity.

And then you proceed to drag up the centuries-old misdeeds of a few Spaniards, NOT the Catholic Church, by the way, in the New World. Now that’s a pity.

Forced conversion is not condoned by the Church and although it happened in spite of Church teaching sometimes, that was not the norm. Adding to what Kathleen already said about the appearance of Our Lady of Guadalupe to the Aztec Indian Juan Diego in 1531: it caused the **voluntary conversion of millions within a few years **in Mexico, Central and South America. Considering that the Aztecs and other tribes practiced human sacrifice on an enormous scale (thousands per day), this should be considered a great good.

While I am sure some did not like their Muslim masters in Spain during its occupation by the Moors, the other side of that coin was that a seat of learning and of banking was established by the Muslims in Spain, and, from what I have read, very successfully. This was at a time when there was nothing similar to be found in most of the rest of Europe.

So you seem to be saying that although the Spanish suffered invasion and occupation by the Muslims, it is okay because they established something good, but that the Spanish conquering of the New World was all bad?

It is not true that there was nothing similar to be found in most of the rest of Europe. The Catholic Church started the university system which was thriving, and the origins of our financial system go back to medieval trade fairs which revolved around monasteries, the Italian merchant banks, and the Templars.

For that, we should all be grateful. I would never argue the Catholic Church didn’t have a great influence on Western Civilization.

Good.

We should also remember these influences were not made in isolation and that, without other contributions from other arenas, Western Civilization would not exist as we know it today.

Islam had a large impact on mathematics, astronomy and medicine, for example.

Well, the contribution of Islam was not that great. Judaism has not been mentioned yet (I don’t think), and it was far more important than Islam, as were ancient Greece and Rome.

So, I would argue that many factors influenced and helped shape Western Civilization. To say a single entity, whether it be a person or the Catholic Church, was the determining factor would be erroneous.

Hhmm… trying to imagine what Europe would look like without its Christian heritage. Would it look like India, Saudi Arabia, or China?

 

[GraceSofia]

The value of the book lies in showing how the popular parodying of Church history as now accepted and promulgated by many in the media and “education” is quite biased and due to the interests of anti-Catholic parties is often untrue.

Everybody “knows” this version of history: what is challenging and interesting to truthseekers is to read something different rather than repeating the same old, same old opinions.

Dr. Woods offers a look at some of these popular misconceptions and debunks them — with a good bibliography and extensive footnotes. I urge people to READ THE BOOK.

Regarding science, a little known fact is that great cathedrals in Paris, Rome, Bologna, and Florence were designed to function as solar observatories. For over six centuries, the Church gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy than any other institution. Science blossomed in the Catholic environment largely because of the Christian understanding of God’s world as an orderly world that men could seek to understand.

Anyway, my little summaries don’t do the book’s ideas justice nor do old canards about the Church do the thread topic justice.

 

[John21652]

Just to enlarge on the idea that thinking is what builds Empires - …

The Emporor Commodus had a Christian mistress, Marcia, and she managed to gain the freedom of Christians condemned to slavery in the in the mines of Sardinia by using a list of names given to her by Victor. Thus, Christianity reached into the very seat of power in the Roman Empire.

Some think that Commodus was the turning point in Rome’s history and the ‘decline’ began with him. He was tyrannical and idiosyncratic. The persecution of Christians declined under his reign, thanks to his Christian mistress Marcia, who ultimately was one of the conspirators in his death. meanwhile, the martydoms constinued in other areas of the Roman Empire and Christianity was affirmed and bolstered by the writings of the early Church fathers.

Among them was Ignatius of Antioch, who was thought to have been blessed by Jesus as a child and who was probably a disciple of the Apostle John. He, like other early Christian writers, thinkers and philosophers, strengthened the structure of the Church and the faith of Christians during periods of dreadful persecution.

Persecutions were fairly constant when the Antonine Emperors were in power, with Commodus usually included amongst their number. Persecution was sporadic after Commodus, depending upon the inclinations of the Emperor. Commodus’ successor, Septimius Severus, allowed persecutions but did not directly lead them. His military excursions debased the Roman currency, as happened under Nero and did much to weaken the Roman economy over the long term. One of his successors was Phillip who was said to be on friendly terms with Christians and in correspondence with Origen. His successor, Decius was proactive and brutal in persecuting Christians. During the reign of Decius, Pope Fabian sent Bishops across much of Europe to preach and teach. He himself was martyred in 250. Fabian is renowned for his theology of the Chrism.

Persecutions became most severe under the Emperor Diocletian, who unleashed what became known as the ‘Great persecution’ of 303. It eased when Diocletian retired in 305. However, before retiring, he did something which was to have far reaching effects on both Christianity and the future of Europe. Diocletian thought the Roman Empire was too large to be ruled by one man, so he created a tetrarchy. Eventually, the terarchy destroyed itself and Constantine became Emperor. It is well documented that to cement his reign he had to take battle against his rival, Emperor Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge, with an epiphany that caused him to have his soldiers to paint crosses on their shields. According to Eusebius, Constantine had a vision.

Persecutions ceased altogether under Constantine, who believed that the Christian God had bought him to power. Under the Edict of Milan in 313, all penal edicts against Christians were rescinded. The Christianisation of the Roman Empire had begun.

 

[John21652]

…
Persecutions ceased altogether under Constantine, who believed that the Christian God had bought him to power. Under the Edict of Milan in 313, all penal edicts against Christians were rescinded. The Christianisation of the Roman Empire had begun.

[The importance of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great_and_Christianity”]Emperor Constantine in the establishment of the Christian religion cannot be underestimated, because his actions placed the Catholic Church in a position of great authority which was to hold great sway once the power of Rome declined.

Constantine’s attitudes towards Christians went far beyond that of mere toleration. Bishops were made his counsellors and were allowed to use the Imperial postal service, an invaluable privilege at a time when overland travel was expensive and dangerous. A law of 333 ordered imperial officials to enforce the decisions of Bishops and to accept the testimony of Bishops over other witnesses. Constantine donated the imperial property of the Lateran to the Bishop of Rome as a site for a basilica and he promulgated laws giving the Christian clergy fiscal privileges and legal immunity. Constantine was of the opinion that when the Christians were free to render supreme service to the Divinity, they confered great benefits upon the affairs of state. Constantine called the first ecumenical Council of Nicaea in AD 325. Ecumenical refers to a ‘world view’ and Constantine did not want divisions within the Church and considered that such things were as “formidable as any war or battle”.

Another momentous decision by Constantine was to move his capital from Rome to Byzantium. It was officially declared as capital of the Roman Empire in AD 330 and renamed Constantinople after the death of the Emperor. Constantine greatly enlarged the city, building public buildings and many churches. He also held more Church councils at nearby cities such as Nicaea and Chalcedon, thus refining Church doctrine and unifying Christianity even further. In 381 Byzantium became the seat of a Patriarch, with the same status as Rome, Antioch, Alexandra and Jerusalem.

On Constantine’s death, his successor, Julian the Apostate tried to revive the old Roman religions at the expense of Christianity, but his reign was short. His successor, Jovian restored Christianity to the levels of privilege enjoyed under Constantine. Jovian, like his predecessor Julian, lost great areas of the eastern empire to the Persians, including Christian Armenia.

Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, who is credited with converting a young Augustine of Hippo, wrote that while Rome became Christian, Christianity became Roman by adopting a system of administration and a body of law like those of the empire and employing the same personel. For this, Constantine can be credited, for his idea that dissenting beliefs within the Church were as bad as an advancing army upon the Empire itself. Augustine’s theory of a Just War would one day be used to defend the Christian Empire and his rule, used to set up his Christian community in Hippo, would one day influence the setting up of monastires and Christian orders of knighthood.

The division of the Roman Empire into two, east and west, made weakened the influence of Rome in matters of state. The eastern half became the Byzantine Empire and embraced Greek language and culture. Both halves of the Empire were constantly at war with tribes and peoples from beyond their borders. In Asia, the Persians were a constant menace and in the west, across the danube and the Rhine, the barbarian tribes od Sarmatians, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Franks, Bergundians, Alamanni, Quadi, Vandals and behind them, pushing forward for unknown reasons from the steppes, the ferocious tribe of Huns. The line could not be held as a rush of “immigrants” pushed into Roman territory.

In AD 410 Rome was sacked by Aliric the Visigoth.

 

[Stephen168]

Thinking is the ordinary way anyone does anything alone or in groups. Anything.

True; in the case of Western Civilization, Catholic Christian thinking

 

[JustaServant]

The value of the book lies in showing how the popular parodying of Church history as now accepted and promulgated by many in the media and “education” is quite biased and due to the interests of anti-Catholic parties is often untrue.

Everybody “knows” this version of history: what is challenging and interesting to truthseekers is to read something different rather than repeating the same old, same old opinions.

Dr. Woods offers a look at some of these popular misconceptions and debunks them — with a good bibliography and extensive footnotes. I urge people to READ THE BOOK.

Regarding science, a little known fact is that great cathedrals in Paris, Rome, Bologna, and Florence were designed to function as solar observatories. For over six centuries, the Church gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy than any other institution. Science blossomed in the Catholic environment largely because of the Christian understanding of God’s world as an orderly world that men could seek to understand.

Anyway, my little summaries don’t do the book’s ideas justice nor do old canards about the Church do the thread topic justice.

These facts are often glossed over in the simplistic drive to erase the contributions of the Church and western thought to much of what we enjoy today. That’s why I dislike the term “Dark Ages”, as if progress suffered a stroke for 1000 years before the “Enlightenment” raised us up.
I guess people prefer simplicity over the truth.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Curious

You twist my words to fit your agenda but it doesn’t fly. It is correct to say I did not nor ever intend to say “all” - I notice this is a tactic some posters resort to all too frequently.

Have you ever been to the ancient city of TRIER, GERMANY? I have & marveled over the road smack in the middle of town that the Romans built and how that road is still serviceable. However, what I marveled over even more was the stunning baptismal font in the Cathedral.

Yes, the Romans and Greeks had their effects and still do. We are INDEBTED to them for many things, especially philosophy, math, etc, etc, etc, HOWEVER, the Greeks and Romans were UNAVAILABLE to the PEASANTS on a PRACTICAL, DALILY BASIS were they? How many peasants could READ let alone ACCESS Roman & Greek BOOKS, MANUSCRIPTS for themselves to peruse? 1%, ZERO? Would you think there was a connection between uneducated peasants of Europe with the stunning intellectual achievements of the the Romans & Greeks? Did any of that matter to poor people barely grubbing out a living in some back water village?

Throughout Europe, it would seem that some cities were founded around the monasteries.

 

[KathleenGee]

Pepband Mom…I am getting Professor Woods’ first volume for my younger son…who told me he wants to restore society.

Curious was not curious.

 

[Whadyamean]

True; in the case of Western Civilization, Catholic Christian thinking

Thinking is thinking and is “religious” thinking only insofar as content when one is thinking about religion, whether they are or are not religious and whatever brand of it they practice or don’t. Thinking is religion neutral and it is naive to say that “because x is of y faith, they invented z.” Maths were heavily influenced by Arabic and Indian cultures, but we don’t claim that Math is a Muslim activity. If we do, then all the work don by those wonderful Priests as mentioned in the book is actually Hindu or Muslim, as those are the tools they used. \Since when is there a Catholic 0, or a Catholic idea of a monastery? There were monasteries everywhere, some of them Catholic and they served the same function wherever they were.

So what we are really taking about is human cultural norms as manifested in this instance in “Catholic” Europe. Those advances as mentioned in the book happened not because those people were specifically Catholic, but because they were thinkers who lived in an environment colored by a prevalent religion. the “Pope Scope” is an instrument of astronomy, eg. As it is run by the Church, it’s findings as far as the Catholic users of it may be concerned, may be used to advance Catholic theories of cosmology. But those same results may be differently interpreted by others. But the data and the instruments and the scientific method are religion neutral. They just are. If the Muslims had taken over Europe you would be just as hot to purport that Islam is the reason for Western “civilization” because you wold be Muslim. Yes?