I have to say, bringing up the Catholic Church's contributions to literature probably isn't a good idea given their nasty habit of banning people from reading the Bible in their native language. The Church systematically restricted literature to an elite as a way of enforcing their theology through depriving laypeople of any means of challenging it. You're right, and it was this very issue that led to the founding of the Anglican Church, the denomination of which I'm part; however, their contribution to the realm of literature was, even with these setbacks, unparalleled until the printing press was invented. Had they not done this, we very well may not have had ANY access to much of the Greek philosophy that has shaped the entire world.I doubt that; who's to say that they wouldn't have been translated and preserved through some other means? Plus, the church's campaigns of book-burning against heretics in attempts to totally wipe dissenting beliefs from history surely negates any benefits it may have made to literature.[QUOTE="sigh-_-"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] I've referred to its past evils. Among its past goods are: The translation of Greek texts, such as that of Plato, into then-modern languages; The creation of countless libraries and universities; The commercial transport of goods and people across Europe, The Americas and west Asia; And others. Yes, the Catholic Church has done bad stuff, but as I said, the contributions of the church have changed as much as its leadership; the Pope before Paul IV (Marcellus II) would have been extremely opposed to the idea of the Inquisitions and even tried to reform the inner workings of the Catholic Church to a more liberal ideal (sadly, he was only Pope for 22 days before his death). There've been good periods and bad periods. The bad periods get more history because they've had a more significant impact on history.Theokhoth
sigh-_-'s forum posts
[QUOTE="sigh-_-"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]TheokhothAs it happens, watching Hitchens and Fry's crushing victory in that debate was what inspired me to create this topic. Funny, by the way, that you mention Mother Theresa, the twisted, hateful woman who said of suffering 'it is the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ', and who helped to participate in the Catholic church-caused suffering of millions through arguing in favour of its prohibition on birth control. Funny also that you mention 'setting a moral code' when in fact the Church, despite its hypocritical condemnation of 'moral relativism', is quite happy to change its doctrines when they become utterly disgusting as opposed to merely unpleasant, perhaps most notably in its 1964 admission that the Jews weren't collectively responsible for deicide after all. If you're talking about collective good over collective evil then I'd hardly call Mother Theresa a "twisted, hateful woman" just because she viewed suffering as a means to get closer to God (she never went out and tortured people, saying "pray more!").Pardon me, but I can find no kinder words to describe someone with a positive view of such an obviously bad thing as suffering.
[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]I think the evils of the crusades and authoritarian laws are worse than the total of good things. I fail to see how this discussion can promote anything relevant today though, and is only meant to cause anger and arguments. The Catholic church now is doing more good than bad, in my opinion, and that is all that they should be held accountable for.Snipes_2The crusades weren't even started by Christians. They were trying to reclaim what was the "Holy Land" from Muslims who had previously taken it over. It also wasn't sanctioned by the Pope. What Authoritarian laws? :? You deny that Pope Urban II was responsible for launching the First Crusade?
Snipes_2As it happens, watching Hitchens and Fry's crushing victory in that debate was what inspired me to create this topic. Funny, by the way, that you mention Mother Theresa, the twisted, hateful woman who said of suffering 'it is the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ', and who helped to participate in the Catholic church-caused suffering of millions through arguing in favour of its prohibition on birth control. Funny also that you mention 'setting a moral code' when in fact the Church, despite its hypocritical condemnation of 'moral relativism', is quite happy to change its doctrines when they become utterly disgusting as opposed to merely unpleasant, perhaps most notably in its 1964 admission that the Jews weren't collectively responsible for deicide after all.
[QUOTE="sigh-_-"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Western culture as we know it wouldn't exist were it not for the Catholic Church, crimes and all, so yes. I like existing.TheokhothIt would be different, certainly. Better, though? I'm not so sure. Western culture was also changed irrevocably by the slave trade; by imperalism; by the Nazis. That something has had a transformative effect on Western culture is, therefore, not an argument for its goodness. True, however, as neither the slave trade nor Nazisim ever contributed any good whereas the Catholic church contributed significant good (sometimes in direct opposition to Nazism and the slave trade), and since the Catholic Church as a whole does not hold the power or the will to commit such crimes as others leading the organization has in past centuries, I think the Catholic church has, in its general unity of global communities under a single banner, contributed more good to humanity than evil, significant though its evil contributions may be. The Catholic Church as an organization should not be judged, I think, by actions committed by its leadership hundreds of years ago, as the Catholic Church has had various impacts on culture as it's had various leaders. Pope John Paul II, for instance, was a champion of human rights and religious unity; whereas Pope Paul IV (the Pope behind the Inquisitions) was, well, not. Should another man with the beliefs of Pope Paul IV become pope (very highly unlikely, but just in case), the Church no longer has the power or influence to orchestrate another Inquisition, at least not one that would be remotely successful in any part of the European or American war. The Church's leadership has also apologized for the actions of the organization (such as the trial of Galileo and the Inquisitions), which is really all it can do in this day and age, as time can't be rewound.Firstly, I was careful to state 'on balance' and thus while the church has contributed some good, the evil it has contributed must also be taken into account, and secondly, I was equally careful to word the topic's title in the past tense and thus its innumerable crimes from ages gone by must be taken into account too. So while I appreciate what you're saying, I think you're answering a different question to the one I posed.
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
Lol. You can't be serious.
The Church has done so many good things it's unconscionable to even think someone believes it's evil. :lol:
Wow.
sSubZerOo
Historically its neither a force of good or evil, its just a organization like any monarchy or government out there.. To some how suggest they are good is as ludicrious is claiming they are evil.
Yay casuistry!Oh, you're a Catholic, presumably. Good things such as?Lol. You can't be serious.
The Church has done so many good things it's unconscionable to even think someone believes it's evil. :lol:
Wow.
Snipes_2
Log in to comment