How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

[Snow]

I just finished How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods Jr. PhD.

The premise of the book is that the what we learned in schools - that the middle ages were the dark ages, full of ignorance and suppression, not in the least part maintained by the Catholic Church - is false, and not just false but wholly and completely false. The author tells us that contrary to what we think, in fact it is the Catholic Church that is responsible for all that is good and right in the modern world. He writes that the Church formed or originated:

-Western Art
-Western Music
-Modern Economics
-International Law
-Western Law
-Charity
-Hospitals
-Astronomy
-Higher Education
-Science
-and so on
-and so on
-and on and on.

Occasional he'll making a passing observation that the Catholic Church was less than 100% perfect but, you know, the rest is so great that all Western civilization is their doing.

First, I found the book very informative. I picked up lots of facts and a perspective I didn't have before. However I thought it was less a book and for the most part more an awfully long list of all the many wonderful things the author could dig up.

Second, I think it is disputable that everything on the list belongs on the list. For example he attributes the University system in general and Oxford in particular to the Catholic Church. I think the Greeks were onto higher learning long before the Catholics and the Oxford website paints a different history than does the author.

Third, every one and their dog was Catholic. Of course most things, good or bad, had to arise from under the Catholic Umbrella.

Forth, there is no balance to the book or discussion how things might have progressed had they not been fostered or, as we have been taught, held back by the Church.

Catholics would eat the book up I'm sure and it's gotta be an apologists dream - in fact it is an apologetic work. However, I can't recommend it to the general reader unless you read a ton or are willing to dig into the subject beyond just this book to get a balance picture.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 22 2005, 09:53 PM
I just finished How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods Jr. PhD.*
*
The premise of the book is that the what we learned in schools - that the middle ages were the dark ages, full of ignorance and suppression, not in the least part maintained by the Catholic Church - is false, and not just false but wholly and completely false. The author tells us that contrary to what we think, in fact it is the Catholic Church that is responsible for all that is good and right in the modern world. He writes that the Church formed or originated:* ... Fourth, there is no balance to the book or discussion how things might have progressed had they not been fostered or, as we have been taught, held back by the Church.

While I have not plowed through these pages yet, a quick perusal of Amazon.com's reviews, as well as a look at Woods' previous works, gave me enough of a picture to comment on Snow's painfully objective review.

1. Woods is not trying to be balanced himself. He is providing a balance to generally anti-religious, certainly anti-Catholic historical myth that the Church was all about ignorance, and oppression of intellectuals, Jews, Muslims, and Bible translators. The author did not need to rehash the negative history. His goal was to correct the skewed picture that most previous histories of this era have offered.

2. A discussion about how things might have gone had the Catholic church not been there would have resulted in something we call historic fiction. Woods is a historian. He's writing about what happened, and should not be expected to engage is speculation, for the sake of appearing objective or balanced.

3. While Mormons, evangelicals, and even religious Jews and Muslims, may have serious theological disagreements, we would all benefit from cooperation to counter the anti-religious bias in academia. This is why I supported an LDS schoolboard candidate in my community, why I support Towards Tradition (a Jewish-Christian group advocating conservative mores to the social marketplace), and why I even reluctant to join those who want to label all things Catholic as apostate, idolatrous, or useless.

In fairness, my response here is not a review, but a review of reviews. At 200+ pages, this book sounds like an approachable, I may look into reading.

As we say in corrections, "Thanks for the intel., Snow!"

[Snow]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain+Dec 23 2005, 02:27 AM-->

While I have not plowed through these pages yet, a quick perusal of Amazon.com's reviews, as well as a look at Woods' previous works, gave me enough of a picture to comment on Snow's painfully objective review.

1. Woods is not trying to be balanced himself. He is providing a balance to generally anti-religious, certainly anti-Catholic historical myth that the Church was all about ignorance, and oppression of intellectuals, Jews, Muslims, and Bible translators. The author did not need to rehash the negative history. His goal was to correct the skewed picture that most previous histories of this era have offered.

2. A discussion about how things might have gone had the Catholic church not been there would have resulted in something we call historic fiction. Woods is a historian. He's writing about what happened, and should not be expected to engage is speculation, for the sake of appearing objective or balanced.

[snapback]87173[/snapback]

[/b]

You can't have it both ways. True that historians don't/speculate on things that cannot be reasonably surmized and often present the facts and allow the reader to draw his/her own conclusions so your 2nd point is vailid and I will rephrase my criticism in just a moment. But also, a historian's job is to present an accurate or as unbiased portrait of the past as is possible. They have an obligation to include the right things and possibly exclude the wrong things so as to present as true a version as can be. You argue that Wood's role of as a historian precludes him from speculating but despite arguing that he is a historian, you attribute to him no responsibility to present a full or complete or accurate or balanced account of the past.

He may be a historian by training but this is not the best kind of history. This is pure apologetics.

Let me rephase my criticism: Woods covers all the best that he can attribute to the Catholic Church but completely ignores the ways in which the Church repressed or hindered progress that might otherwise have been made if not for the Church's ubiquitous influence.

It seems natural that so much that flowed out of the middle ages would be stamped with the Church's influence since there is little that the Church did not control or sway or influence. And, some of the best and brightest were absorded into the clergy and monastic life. In a way that might have been helpful because where else could they get a paid gig studing the stars but on the other hand, it was quite a drain on the gene pool.

Still - none of my criticism is to down play the contributions I have now learned about.

[prisonchaplain]

Snow says: A historian's job is to present an accurate or as unbiased portrait of the past as is possible. They have an obligation to include the right things and possibly exclude the wrong things so as to present as true a version as can be. You argue that Wood's role of as a historian precludes him from speculating but despite arguing that he is a historian, you attribute to him no responsibility to present a full or complete or accurate or balanced account of the past.

Two comments. First, your expectations of historians in general is accurate. If I were preparing a Masters or Doctoral thesis, I would certainly need to offer some material that is positive, negative and nuetral, preferably from primary sources. I would then synthesize the findings, and offer my take on the most valid conclusions. However, all this assumes I am writing an academic work for an academic audience, from an aggressively objective stance. So, my second comment is that Woods is doing no such thing. He is playing a second role historians sometimes take on--that of popularizer. He digests the historical materials, and offers them already prepared for us. Furthermore, as the title suggests, he makes no pretensions about being objective. He believes historians up to now have not been, and he is offering a corrective: a polemic work that intentionally puts the best Catholic foot forward.

He may be a historian by training but this is not the best kind of history. This is pure apologetics.

Yes it is. However, Woods is upfront about it. A 200-ish page book is not a comprehensive history. This is an over polemic. Again, he's presenting what amounts to a rebuttal of the anti-religious, anti-Catholic fare that has generally been available on the subject to date.

Let me rephase my criticism: Woods covers all the best that he can attribute to the Catholic Church but completely ignores the ways in which the Church repressed or hindered progress that might otherwise have been made if not for the Church's ubiquitous influence. It seems natural that so much that flowed out of the middle ages would be stamped with the Church's influence since there is little that the Church did not control or sway or influence. And, some of the best and brightest were absorded into the clergy and monastic life. In a way that might have been helpful because where else could they get a paid gig studing the stars but on the other hand, it was quite a drain on the gene pool.

Still - none of my criticism is to down play the contributions I have now learned about.

I guess this all goes back to whether Christianity, and specifically the Catholic Church, have been an overall positive, nuetral, or negative. And theologically, this may come down to whether you believe Christianity has been apostate sense the early post-apostolic age or not.

[Snow]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 23 2005, 08:38 PM


I guess this all goes back to whether Christianity, and specifically the Catholic Church, have been an overall positive, nuetral, or negative.* And theologically, this may come down to whether you believe Christianity has been apostate sense the early post-apostolic age or not.*

[snapback]87227[/snapback]

I don't think so. Most Christianity, Mormons excepted, do not believe the Catholic Church was apostate since the early apostolic age. What's taught in schools and accepted in the public consciousness is hardly a production of Mormon theology.

[prisonchaplain]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 23 2005, 11:25 PM

I don't think so. Most Christianity, Mormons excepted, do not believe the Catholic Church was apostate since the early apostolic age. What's taught in schools and accepted in the public consciousness is hardly a production of Mormon theology.

True that. I've already postulated that most academics are predisposed to anti-religious interpretations. We hear this popularized all the time, as follows: We can't allow the religious right (the Catholic Church, the Creationists--choose your spiritual whipping boy) to take over, or we'll end up back in the Dark Ages.

I was also observing that LDS readers in particular, might find a Catholic defense deficient, because of the theological presupposition that the RCC was indeed apostate during the time in question.

[Snow]

I was looking this book on Google today and was surprised to see that this thread was of the top three hits.

[abqfriend]

I have the book-and read the book- and found it interesting.
The focus of the book was on the Middle Ages/Dark Ages-where the Catholic Church was indeed helpful in saving the basic institutions of learning that may have been lost.
Although I an a Catholic-I do not approach any history with rose colored glasses.
I found the book interesting and insightful-and I encourage everyone to get a copy- and read it-if they are interested in history and make their own conclusions.

A series of books I recommend are by author Thomas Cahill including "How the Irish Saved Civilization," and his study on the Middle Ages-"Mystery of the Middle Ages."
Thomas Cahill | Catalog

You cannot tell a book by it's cover-so I encourage the reader to make his or her own judgement.
Any book on history is subjective-so there is no "perfect" history book-so read several.

-Carol

[Snow]

Originally Posted by abqfriend

A series of books I recommend are by author Thomas Cahill including "How the Irish Saved Civilization," and his study on the Middle Ages-"Mystery of the Middle Ages."
Thomas Cahill | Catalog

You cannot tell a book by it's cover-so I encourage the reader to make his or her own judgement.
Any book on history is subjective-so there is no "perfect" history book-so read several.

-Carol

The Hinges of History series. Very Good.

I also enjoyed his brief biography on John XXIII for the Penguin Lives Series.


... but as I look back at my original post in this thread... I liked the book more upon reflection than when I first read it.

[annewandering]

hmm sounds interesting. i was taught in my western civ class at college that the muslims were all that stood between eternal darkness and enlightenment. the teacher was very conviincing but i have to admit i had some doubts as to his unbiasedness. (he sure was good at teaching war and weapon stratagy in history though!)

it would be interesting to read a book with almost exactly the opposite bias.