Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you're confused. The Catholic Church preserved the classical works of the Roman Empire at a time when anglo barbarians, moslem nomads and the likes were pillaging Europe and the Eastern Empire. The church stopped the Huns from destroying Italy with nothing more than the pope's word - no guns, no pirate ships, no commodities or taxes stolen from colonies. Parliamentary democracy? Maybe good for writing pieces of paper but not for creating beautiful objects like Pieta.
"Catholic Church preserved the classical works of the Roman Empire "
Are you talking about all the Roman buildings it demolished and quarried so it could build St. Peters?
The earlier popes had a long and colorful history of waging wars all over Europe, and beyond, and profiting well from the religious empire they had, and the revolution that Luther started didn't just spring out of the ground because everyone was bowled over at how great the Catholic church was, the Inquisition wasn't just a bump, and putting Galileo under house arrest for the remainder of his life was exactly advancing Western civilization.
You can point to the benefits and the disadavantages of the Catholic Chrurch and its role in Western civilization, but to state it is "single-handidly responsible for building Western civilization as we know it" - thats LMFAO!
"Catholic Church preserved the classical works of the Roman Empire "
Are you talking about all the Roman buildings it demolished and quarried so it could build St. Peters?
The earlier popes had a long and colorful history of waging wars all over Europe, and beyond, and profiting well from the religious empire they had, and the revolution that Luther started didn't just spring out of the ground because everyone was bowled over at how great the Catholic church was, the Inquisition wasn't just a bump, and putting Galileo under house arrest for the remainder of his life was exactly advancing Western civilization.
You can point to the benefits and the disadavantages of the Catholic Chrurch and its role in Western civilization, but to state it is "single-handidly responsible for building Western civilization as we know it" - thats LMFAO!
Oh please Luther's religious education was subsidized by the Catholic Church at a time when state support for education was nil. And the church paid him to teach theology since he didn't have the skills to build something that would sell.
And please do not revise history. St. Peter's Basilica was built over another church that was falling into ruin. You're right, the old church was a "Roman bulidling" in the sense that at was commissioned by Constantine but not of the same significance as the Colosseum. Exaggerating the value of the predeccesor structure is LMFAO!
Come on FHD, you can't be of the position that the Catholic Church single handedly did it! It was in opposition to many things which are positive attributes of Western civilizatiion. You're taking it as an attack on the Catholic church when it isn't.
I'm not clear why you're unaware as to the extent to which the Cathloic church in Rome regularly raided still-standing Roman buildings for its own architectural purposes. Probably the same denial that Pope Urban copped after stealing all the bronze from the Pantheon.
You can't make that point by changing facts. St. Peter's Basilica was not built over "Roman buildings". And taking bronze from the Pantheon? Back in the early 1600s, the papacy was practically the economic engine of Rome at a time when it was surrounded by powers that could've swallowed it up. If they had to take bronze from the Pantheon to improve St. Peter's (some of the bronze was used to fortify the Vatican), then so be it.
With regards to Western civilization, a better way to put it is to ask if the Renaissance would've happened without the Catholic Church. The answer is no. Galileo remained a devout Catholic to his death after all.
OK - mis-communication here - when I said "Are you talking about all the Roman buildings it demolished and quarried so it could build St. Peters?" - I wasn't talking about the old St. Peters it replaced, I was talking about using the standing Roman buildings of the time - they were quarried and/or demolished to get a bunch of the materials. Actually, until you wrote it here, I was not aware the old St. Peters could be considered "Roman"
Would the Renaissance have happened - no, at least not in the way it did. At least now we've backed off the single-handed construction of Western civilization idea. I don't think you believed that anyway.
Just another "back then" comment...the condition of those Roman buildings weren't the same as the Pantheon or Colosseum today. Nor was Rome the same tourist destination as today - outside of religious purposes, its economy was nonexistant. Pilgrims (ie "tourists") and patrons poured into the city primarily because of the church. So one should understand the justification for harvesting materials from decaying buildings and using these to build something equally (if not more) beautiful.
JB, what Leo did centuries ago has great implications on the kind of civilization we have today. Only the ignorant will mentally detach that relationship. It's not about religion, it's about history.
The rest of your post is nothing but a useless, unscholarly rant. You cannot keep up with Ratzinger on any topic about theology and philosophy, nor can you speak as many languages even with your best efforts so you are in no place to criticize him.
I don't see how you figure? What does it matter how many languages the man speaks? So if you are a polyglot it's okay to abuse children? I think it's great he can say "Stop screaming, it will all be over soon.." in 12 languages, but that doesn't mean that I can't criticize a man who systematically helped protect the rapists of thousands upon thousands of children.
And I don't need to argue with Ratzinger on issues of philosophy or religion. I don't need too. No one can win an argument on these things. Ratzinger is very clear in his ecclesiastical opinions. Let me sum it up for you. "Women are inferior to men, their place is in the kitchen or the birthing room. Gays are intrinsically evil and the greatest threat to humanity, above even nuclear proliferation. Kids are tattle tales and should just walk it off when they take a shot from a priest. It is better for people to contract AIDS then to educate them about condoms." There you go, Ratzinger's humanity summed up in 4 easy sentences.
Why bother arguing with that? Opinions on religion are a dime a dozen, and just b/c someone has read a book on the subject doesn't mean it's okay to be misognynistic or homophobic, which old Ratzinger is.
How about you focus on the FACTS of what I am talking about. The Catholic Church, and Ratzinger, supported kiddy rape. You keep on talking about how many languages the Kiddy rapist can speak. Who cares?
Less Catholic schools means less rapists will have access to victims and an entire billion dollar industry helping to hide their crimes. That is awesome, and definately a pro.
You do realize that nearly all Catholic schools are staffed with mostly lay people, yes? Gone are the days of 50-60 years ago where the staff was almost exclusively nuns, priests and brothers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
