Skip to comments.How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization
Posted on 05/03/2005 7:53:16 AM PDT by CathNY
Today is the official release date for my new book, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. From the role of the monks (they did much more than just copy manuscripts) to art and architecture, from the university to Western law, from science to charitable work, from international law to economics, the book delves into just how indebted we are as a civilization to the Catholic Church, whether we realize it or not.
By far the book's longest chapter is "The Church and Science." We have all heard a great deal about the Churchs alleged hostility toward science. What most people fail to realize is that historians of science have spent the past half-century drastically revising this conventional wisdom, arguing that the Church's role in the development of Western science was far more salutary than previously thought. I am speaking not about Catholic apologists but about serious and important scholars of the history of science such as J.L. Heilbron, A.C. Crombie, David Lindberg, Edward Grant, and Thomas Goldstein.
It is all very well to point out that important scientists, like Louis Pasteur, have been Catholic. More revealing is how many priests have distinguished themselves in the sciences. It turns out, for instance, that the first person to measure the rate of acceleration of a freely falling body was Fr. Giambattista Riccioli. The man who has been called the father of Egyptology was Fr. Athanasius Kircher (also called "master of a hundred arts" for the breadth of his knowledge). Fr. Roger Boscovich, who has been described as "the greatest genius that Yugoslavia ever produced," has often been called the father of modern atomic theory.
In the sciences it was the Jesuits in particular who distinguished themselves; some 35 craters on the moon, in fact, are named after Jesuit scientists and mathematicians.
By the eighteenth century, the Jesuits "had contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter's surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn's rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon effected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light. Star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics all were typical Jesuit achievements, and scientists as influential as Fermat, Huygens, Leibniz and Newton were not alone in counting Jesuits among their most prized correspondents" [Jonathan Wright, The Jesuits, 2004, p. 189].
Seismology, the study of earthquakes, has been so dominated by Jesuits that it has become known as "the Jesuit science." It was a Jesuit, Fr. J.B. Macelwane, who wrote Introduction to Theoretical Seismology, the first seismology textbook in America, in 1936. To this day, the American Geophysical Union, which Fr. Macelwane once headed, gives an annual medal named after this brilliant priest to a promising young geophysicist.
The Jesuits were also the first to introduce Western science into such far-off places as China and India. In seventeenth-century China in particular, Jesuits introduced a substantial body of scientific knowledge and a vast array of mental tools for understanding the physical universe, including the Euclidean geometry that made planetary motion comprehensible. Jesuits made important contributions to the scientific knowledge and infrastructure of other less developed nations not only in Asia but also in Africa and Central and South America. Beginning in the nineteenth century, these continents saw the opening of Jesuit observatories that studied such fields as astronomy, geomagnetism, meteorology, seismology, and solar physics. Such observatories provided these places with accurate time keeping, weather forecasts (particularly important in the cases of hurricanes and typhoons), earthquake risk assessments, and cartography. In Central and South America the Jesuits worked primarily in meteorology and seismology, essentially laying the foundations of those disciplines there. The scientific development of these countries, ranging from Ecuador to Lebanon to the Philippines, is indebted to Jesuit efforts.
The Galileo case is often cited as evidence of Catholic hostility toward science, and How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization accordingly takes a closer look at the Galileo matter. For now, just one little-known fact: Catholic cathedrals in Bologna, Florence, Paris, and Rome were constructed to function as solar observatories. No more precise instruments for observing the sun's apparent motion could be found anywhere in the world. When Johannes Kepler posited that planetary orbits were elliptical rather than circular, Catholic astronomer Giovanni Cassini verified Kepler's position through observations he made in the Basilica of San Petronio in the heart of the Papal States. Cassini, incidentally, was a student of Fr. Riccioli and Fr. Francesco Grimaldi, the great astronomer who also discovered the diffraction of light, and even gave the phenomenon its name.
I've tried to fill the book with little-known facts like these.
To say that the Church played a positive role in the development of science has now become absolutely mainstream, even if this new consensus has not yet managed to trickle down to the general public. In fact, Stanley Jaki, over the course of an extraordinary scholarly career, has developed a compelling argument that in fact it was important aspects of the Christian worldview that accounted for why it was in the West that science enjoyed the success it did as a self-sustaining enterprise. Non-Christian cultures did not possess the same philosophical tools, and in fact were burdened by conceptual frameworks that hindered the development of science. Jaki extends this thesis to seven great cultures: Arabic, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu, and Maya. In these cultures, Jaki explains, science suffered a "stillbirth." My book gives ample attention to Jaki's work.
Economic thought is another area in which more and more scholars have begun to acknowledge the previously overlooked role of Catholic thinkers. Joseph Schumpeter, one of the great economists of the twentieth century, paid tribute to the overlooked contributions of the late Scholastics mainly sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Spanish theologians - in his magisterial History of Economic Analysis (1954). "[I]t is they," he wrote, "who come nearer than does any other group to having been the 'founders' of scientific economics." In devoting scholarly attention to this unfortunately neglected chapter in the history of economic thought, Schumpeter would be joined by other accomplished scholars over the course of the twentieth century, including Professors Raymond de Roover, Marjorie Grice-Hutchinson, and Alejandro Chafuen.
The Church also played an indispensable role in another essential development in Western civilization: the creation of the university. The university was an utterly new phenomenon in European history. Nothing like it had existed in ancient Greece or Rome. The institution that we recognize today, with its faculties, courses of study, examinations, and degrees, as well as the familiar distinction between undergraduate and graduate study, come to us directly from the medieval world. And it is no surprise that the Church should have done so much to foster the nascent university system, since the Church, according to historian Lowrie Daly, "was the only institution in Europe that showed consistent interest in the preservation and cultivation of knowledge."
The popes and other churchmen ranked the universities among the great jewels of Christian civilization. It was typical to hear the University of Paris described as the "new Athens" - a designation that calls to mind the ambitions of the great Alcuin from the Carolingian period of several centuries earlier, who sought through his own educational efforts to establish a new Athens in the kingdom of the Franks. Pope Innocent IV (124354) described the universities as "rivers of science which water and make fertile the soil of the universal Church," and Pope Alexander IV (125461) called them "lanterns shining in the house of God." And the popes deserved no small share of the credit for the growth and success of the university system. "Thanks to the repeated intervention of the papacy," writes historian Henri Daniel-Rops, "higher education was enabled to extend its boundaries; the Church, in fact, was the matrix that produced the university, the nest whence it took flight."
As a matter of fact, among the most important medieval contributions to modern science was the essentially free inquiry of the university system, where scholars could debate and discuss propositions, and in which the utility of human reason was taken for granted. Contrary to the grossly inaccurate picture of the Middle Ages that passes for common knowledge today, medieval intellectual life made indispensable contributions to Western civilization. In The Beginnings of Western Science (1992), David Lindberg writes:
[I]t must be emphatically stated that within this educational system the medieval master had a great deal of freedom. The stereotype of the Middle Ages pictures the professor as spineless and subservient, a slavish follower of Aristotle and the Church fathers (exactly how one could be a slavish follower of both, the stereotype does not explain), fearful of departing one iota from the demands of authority. There were broad theological limits, of course, but within those limits the medieval master had remarkable freedom of thought and expression; there was almost no doctrine, philosophical or theological, that was not submitted to minute scrutiny and criticism by scholars in the medieval university.
"[S]cholars of the later Middle Ages," concludes Lindberg, "created a broad intellectual tradition, in the absence of which subsequent progress in natural philosophy would have been inconceivable."
Historian of science Edward Grant concurs with this judgment:
What made it possible for Western civilization to develop science and the social sciences in a way that no other civilization had ever done before? The answer, I am convinced, lies in a pervasive and deep-seated spirit of inquiry that was a natural consequence of the emphasis on reason that began in the Middle Ages. With the exception of revealed truths, reason was enthroned in medieval universities as the ultimate arbiter for most intellectual arguments and controversies. It was quite natural for scholars immersed in a university environment to employ reason to probe into subject areas that had not been explored before, as well as to discuss possibilities that had not previously been seriously entertained.
The creation of the university, the commitment to reason and rational argument, and the overall spirit of inquiry that characterized medieval intellectual life amounted to "a gift from the Latin Middle Ages to the modern world...though it is a gift that may never be acknowledged. Perhaps it will always retain the status it has had for the past four centuries as the best-kept secret of Western civilization."
Here, then, are just a few of the topics to be found in How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. I've been asked quite a few times in recent weeks what my next project will be. For now, it'll be getting some rest.
Welcome to Free Republic!
Big Catholic ping! Ping your peeps! ;-)
Are you Thomas E. Woods, Jr.?
LOL, I thought I read "perps" -- that's why I pinged the free baptist. Let him read this!
No, just a guy. Haven't actually read this book yet but ordered it from Amazon yesterday. Sounds like one we can all agree on, trads, conservatives, etc. (Dare I say even liberals? Nah.)
bump for later read
LOL. Hoped you'd like it!
Didn't the Trappist play a major part in agriculture? I might be wrong but I believe they came up with the idea of rotating crops and I think one of them discovered hybrids using peas to bring about a stronger plant.
The Catholics may have built Western Civilization but the Irish saved it! Just kidding. Thanks for posting this and Welcome to FR.
You might be thinking of Gregor Mendel.
Just finished reading this book myself and thoroughly enjoyed it! Though I knew some of the facts in it, other things caught me by surprise...like the Scholastics' contribution to the free-market ideas that are traditionally assigned to the Englightenment.
I would definitely recommend it--I'm thinking of buying it for liberals I know :)
That's the guy. Thanks!
As a convert, he brought his private judgement ideas along with him and he has yet to learn to be obedient before the authority Jesus established.
There is no doubt he is a very bright man. As to judgement and wisdom and reigning in his willfulness..He is a prototypical libertrad
by Thomas Storck
Even among otherwise orthodox Catholics in the United States there is generally little knowledge of or interest in Catholic social doctrine, that body of Catholic teachings which concerns man in society, especially with reference to the political and economic orders. Since Leo XIII began vigorously to develop and apply this teaching to the changing conditions of the modern world, especially with his encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891), Catholic social doctrine has seemed to many to constitute an alternative both to free-market capitalism and all forms of socialism and communism. But lately an objection to Catholic social teaching has arisen from an unexpected source, in fact, from some of those who claim to be especially devoted to Catholic life and tradition as it existed before the Second Vatican Council. This is ironic, for during that era Catholic social teaching was championed much more than it is today by the hierarchy, including the papacy, and was, I think, much more in the consciousness of the ecclesiastically literate Catholic. But the objection that has arisen from some who call themselves traditionalists is novel in one respect, yet in another respect not. It is novel in that it bases its explicit rejection of such doctrine on the supposed teachings of the science of economics. But it is not novel in that the hallmark of dissenters and heretics throughout the ages has been precisely to take some human science, theology or philosophy often, elevate it above the teaching magisterium of the Catholic Church and pose the false quandary: If I accept such and such a teaching of the Church I must go against my God-given reason. But since reason is from God, I cannot contradict it. Therefore I must reject this teaching of the Church.
The latest among those who take this approach is one Thomas Woods, Jr., who argues that Catholic social teaching and economic science are fundamentally at odds, and that it is the former that must yield to the latter. Woods is not shy about stating his position.
The primary difficulty with much of what has fallen under the heading of Catholic social teaching since Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum (1891) is that it assumes without argument that the force of human will suffices to resolve economic questions, and that reason and the conclusions of economic law can be safely neglected, even scorned.... This attitude runs directly counter to the entire Catholic intellectual tradition, according to which man is to conform his actions to reality, rather than embarking on the hopeless and foolish task of forcing the world to conform to him and to his desires ["Catholic Social Teaching and Economic Law: An Unresolved Tension," paper delivered at the Austrian Scholars Conference at the Mises Institute, Auburn, Alabama, March 2002, p. 4. The entire paper is available here].
And he dismisses as "perfectly nonsensical" the claim that his position "involves himself in `dissent' from Church teaching" ("The Trouble with Catholic Social Teaching," lecture delivered at the Austrian Scholars Conference, Mises Institute, Auburn Alabama, March 2004, p. 2.). Why? Because
In the absence of any attempt to address these issues [i.e., the issues that Woods considers important], it is difficult to see how the economic claims of the social encyclicals can actually constitute authoritative Catholic doctrine binding upon the consciences of all the faithful ["Catholic Social Teaching and Economic Law: an Unresolved Tension," pp. 33-34].
And he goes on to say:
One hesitates to describe Catholic social teaching as an abuse of papal and ecclesiastical power, but surely the attempt to impose, as moral doctrine binding the entire Catholic world, principles that derive from the popes' intrinsically fallible reasoning within a secular discipline like economics, seems dubious. At the very least, it appears to constitute an indefensible extension of the prerogatives of the Church's legitimate teaching office into areas in which it possesses no inherent competence or divine protection from error [Ibid., p. 35].
This is the question in a nutshell: Thomas Woods believes that certain teachings of Leo XIII, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II, teachings which these pontiffs certainly conceived of as part of their legitimate teaching authority, are wrong because he thinks they contradict the tenets of economics.
Now in the first place, I must agree with Woods, that both cannot be right. If these economic beliefs are correct then the papal teaching is wrong, for truth cannot contradict itself. Otherwise we would be headed toward the notion of a double-truth which was implicit in some of the theories of the medieval Latin Averroists, that is, that the same thing could be true in philosophy and false in theology. But as every loyal Catholic knows, there is not nor can there be any conflict between authentic Catholic teaching and the genuine findings of any human science. Such as thing is not possible.
What can one say in reply to Woods, then? First, that since a whole series of popes has taught certain moral truths connected with economics which they believed was entirely within their competence, it is monstrous for anyone claiming to be a Catholic to argue against this teaching, and second, that what Woods represents as the teaching of economics is in fact simply one economic view among many, and that thus it is not the science of economics that is at odds with Catholic doctrine, but simply one school of thought representing ultimately the fallible reasoning of human beings.
In the first place, then, any instructed and orthodox Catholic will have no difficulty in dismissing Woods' claims at once, even without investigating his arguments. When confronted, for example, with claims by psychologists or sociologists that the findings of their particular disciplines invalidate this or that teaching of the Church, we can know that their claims are not to be taken seriously. Of course, usually it is necessary to refute them in order to show those outside the Church, or those weak in faith, that the teachings of the Church have not been disproven. But in principle, Woods' claims are no different from those made by many another partisan of one pet theory or idea after another. The popes have been quite explicit about their competence to teach in these areas of economic morality. Let us look at just two of their statements.
We approach the subject with confidence, and in the exercise of the rights which belong to Us. For no practical solution of this question will ever be found without the assistance of Religion and the Church. It is We who are the chief guardian of religion, and the chief dispenser of what belongs to the Church, and We must not by silence neglect the duty which lies upon Us [Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, no.
13]. We lay down the principle long since clearly established by Leo XIII that it is Our right and Our duty to deal authoritatively with social and economic problems. It is not of course for the Church to lead men to transient and perishable happiness only, but to that which is eternal. Indeed "the Church believes that it would be wrong for her to inferfere without just cause in such earthly concerns"; but she never can relinquish her God-given task of interposing her authority, not indeed in technical matters, for which she has neither the equipment nor the mission, but in all those that have a bearing on moral conduct. For the deposit of truth entrusted to Us by God, and Our weighty office of propagating, interpreting and urging in season and out of season the entire moral law, demand that both social and economic questions be brought within Our supreme jurisdiction, in so far as they refer to moral issues [Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, no. 41].
Mr. Woods may think that they have overstepped the bounds of moral theology into technical economic questions, but that is not what they thought. When not just one, but even more so many supreme pontiffs teach the same truths and consider that they have a perfect right to do so without this constituting an "abuse of papal and ecclesiastical power," then surely any orthodox and loyal Catholic must accept the popes' own notions of the limits of their teaching authority. As I said above, every dissenter and heretic in the history of the Church elevates some idea of his own, which he feels he has good reason to accept, into a principle higher than Catholic teaching. What makes Woods different from them? If a psychologist or sociologist claimed that his knowledge made it impossible for him to accept Catholic teaching on sexuality, we would dismiss his arguments as worthless, and rightly so. But who is Thomas Woods to set up his own boundaries as to what is and what is not acceptable for the Church to teach? What are his credentials to constitute a parallel magisterium? The Catholic Church has been teaching in the area of economic morality for centuries. Mr. Woods' quarrel is not with a few recent popes but with the entire tradition of Catholic teaching on economic morality.
Lest anyone argue that the Church has never defined infallibly the social doctrines stated in papal encyclicals, we should remember that infallibility extends beyond merely the teachings of the solemn magisterium to the teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium. (The First Vatican Council, in its Dogmatic Constitution, De Fide, chap. 3, taught: "Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal teaching [magisterium], proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed.") At least some of the contents of the papal social encyclicals, for example, the doctrine of the just wage, would seem to have been repeated enough times so that they qualify as part of the ordinary and universal magisterium. And even those matters which may not rise to the level of the universal magisterium, are by no means optional matters for Catholics. Pius XII authoritatively stated in his encyclical Humani Generis of 1950 the following:
Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority [Magisterium]. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority [Magisterio enim ordinario haec docentur], of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"... [No. 20].
And the Second Vatican Council, in its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium of 1964, taught:
[A] loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated [No. 25].
Moreover, when one looks closely at this matter, one will discover that what Woods solemnly proclaims to be the teachings of economics are in fact only the opinions of one particular sect of economists. In fact, the Austrian school, to which Woods adheres, is a minority school of economists. It is true that many neoclassical economists would agree with many of Woods' criticisms, but there are other schools of economic thought whose findings harmonize well with Catholic social thought. Woods himself mentions, and excoriates, the German historical school. There is also the American institutionalist school, and there are others. Woods has no more right to consider his own economic ideas as equivalent to the entire field of economics than a Kantian philosopher has to regard the teachings of Kant as equivalent to the entire field of philosophy. If such a philosopher were to say, "There is a conflict between the teachings of the First Vatican Council and the science of philosophy on the ability of human reason to demonstrate the existence of God," we could easily point out to him that there are other schools of philosophy, such as Thomism, that have no such conflict, and that he is wrong to claim for his own school the mantle of philosophy as a whole. But this is exactly what Woods has done for economics. His own school says this, therefore economics as a whole says this. The faulty reasoning here should be evident. Woods quotes with approval the following statement of Professor William Luckey:
The fact that Catholic economic teaching, put forth as unchanging and required of belief, did not square with what Austrian economists know to be true, has created an agonizing crisis of conscience for such economists ["The Trouble with Catholic Social Teaching," p. 6, my emphasis].
Woods and Luckey have raised the fallible reasoning of a group of economists, a group which does not even command majority opinion within its own discipline, into an infallible voice of truth which they consider to be able to trump the teachings of the supreme pontiffs! Contrary to what Woods continually asserts, to question Austrian economics is not to question the validity of human reason; it is simply to question the validity of certain dubious conclusions reached by one group of men who enjoy no charism of infallibility.
Woods also makes much of the economic teaching of a group of sixteenth and seventeenth-century Spanish theologians who have sometimes been claimed as precursors of Woods's views, or of something like them anyway. There is some reason to question whether this similarity between their views and his own has not been greatly overstated. (I will instance only one example. In his first paper Woods (p. 8) quotes a passage from Juan de Mariana on the folly and evil of a ruler attemping to set a price of a good "in such a way that the legal price should differ from the natural.... Men are guided in this matter by common estimation founded on considerations of the quality of things, and their abundance or scarcity." Now "common estimation" was a traditional scholastic way of discovering a just price. Common estimation was the common opinion of men in general as to what was a reasonable price, and though it might in many cases be based in part on factors that included certain market forces, such as the "abundance or scarcity" of the item in question, the important point to recognize is that common estimation and the market price of Austrian or neoclassical economics do not mean the same thing. That is, even if in some cases they might coincide, they do so for different reasons. Moreover, this subject opens up the entire question of what is a market price, since all markets are subject to legal and customary rules, and whether in fact it makes any sense to speak of a market price. Rather, the question is: what market price exists under such and such a legal and social regime.) In addition, I will point out two things. First, if it were the case that these theologians agreed completely with Woods, what would that mean? Absolutely nothing. They have no special status above other theologians, and against the teaching of the popes their views carry no weight whatsoever, any more than the myriad of theologians of today whose views are widely quoted against authentic papal teaching. And secondly, if, as Woods avers, the vicars of Christ have overstepped the bounds of moral theology by their teachings on economic morality, what gives these Spanish scholastics, who were theologians not economists, any particular authority in this field? Is Woods making an argument from authority? If he is it fails, for by his own claims theology has nothing to say on these particular questions. If, on the other hand, he is simply claiming them as intellectual precursors, and appealing to the weight of their arguments, then I do not see any reason why I should specially attend to them, particularly as they (according to Woods) teach contrary to the popes and are no more infallible than any other economic writers.
Woods is especially agitated because he thinks that without his own conception of economics it must cease to be a science. Although I know of nothing in scripture or tradition that guarantees that economics is a science, nevertheless what he says does not necessarily follow. Heinrich Pesch, the great Jesuit economist, whose thought provided the background for the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, and whom Woods criticizes, strongly defended the status of economics to be a science, but a human and a social science, one that depends at least in part on the free acts of human beings. We are not required to give up the claim that economics is a science if we accept Catholic social teaching.
Although it is not my primary intention to engage in an economic debate with Woods, I must say just a word to show how the economic arguments he makes are far from compelling. The model of an economy which both neoclassical and Austrian economics present, and the economic policies which Austrian economists usually champion, are not the obvious conclusions of economic reasoning as they would have us believe. For economic activity always takes place within a legal, social and technological framework, and the structure of that framework to a great degree conditions and determines the shape which economic activity takes in any particular society. There was no economic reason, for example, why the guilds of the Middle Ages, which controlled the urban economies of Europe and severely limited competition among craftsmen, need have come to an end, and the economy which resulted from the demise of the guilds was largely the creation of a changed intellectual climate, not the result of so-called economic laws. Nor are limited liability corporations, which currently dominate our economy and which were created only in the nineteenth century due to emerging state general incorporation laws, the inevitable products of economic forces, but rather were brought into being by the free acts of legislatures. Market forces always work within a certain framework, and economic outcomes depend more on how these frameworks are structured than on the market forces alone. Thus within broad limits human beings have the ability to structure the way in which they conduct economic activity, and the notion that there is only one way which is sanctioned by so-called economic laws is false. Human beings create their legal and social institutions and can alter them. There is no reason why these institutions cannot be designed or reformed in such a way so as to facilitate the application of Catholic social teaching. (A concrete instance of how market forces always work within an institutional framework is the story of the Nova Scotia fishermen from the 1930s. "Their catch of fish and lobsters was handled by local dealers who in many cases kept the fishermen in a state of peonage. While Maine fishermen were getting about fifteen cents a pound for lobsters, the Nova Scotian fishermen were receiving as little as two cents a pound. All other prices were scaled down in the same ratio. For everything they bought, however, from their scanty food purchases to nets and lines, they paid top prices, with the result that they were invariably bowed down with a load of debts. Appalling poverty, illiteracy, poor health and the worst possible housing conditions existed throughout this section." In order to better their condition, priests from St. Francis College helped the fishermen organize cooperatives. By means of marketing cooperatives they were able to bypass the local middlemen and deal directly with wholesalers in large cities. In their first shipment of lobsters to Boston they received fifteen cents per pound net. The distribution of income before the establishment of the cooperatives was not the result of the operation of economic laws, but rather of the legal and social institutions within which these economic forces operated. These institutions were changed and a new set of institutions was created within which market forces could operate. This is an illustration of the freedom men have to change the framework and thus change the way economic forces operate to bring about a more just distribution of income. See Bertram B. Fowler, The Co-operative Challenge (Boston : Little, Brown, 1947) pp. 128-29.)
Lest any reader be tempted to think that I am too exercised over this topic, and my disagreement with Woods is simply a small matter over different interpretations of Catholic social doctrine, let me quote from Pope Pius XI. In his first encyclical, Ubi Arcano of December 1922, Pius introduced the notion of "social Modernism." He spoke of those Catholics who give lip service to doctrine concerning the social order, including "Catholic teaching concerning...the rights and duties of laborers...in industry" but who "by their spoken and written word, and the whole tenor of their lives" disregard and belittle this teaching. Pope Pius says of this, "In all this we recognize a kind of moral, judicial, and social Modernism, and We condemn it as strongly as We do dogmatic Modernism." I am sure that Thomas Woods would not like to be placed among the dogmatic modernists, but Pius XI definitely places him among the social modernists. And thus that saintly and traditional pontiff condemns Thomas Woods' views, condemns them "as strongly as We do dogmatic Modernism."<>end of quite<>
Beware Mr. Woods. He is a libertrad whose piping will lead many astrray
Woods is a bit of light weight, at least judging by
"Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" (or whatever the title was).
I'll stick with Belloc.
OK, so you don't like Woods. That much is clear. Maybe this is a good book, though. Can't you spare us the viciousness? Are you against a book on how the Church built Western civilization? Or are you just going to dislike it because Woods -- whom you admit is a smartie -- wrote it? Good grief, can't all the bickering stop for FIVE MINUTES?
So you are going to judge him on the basis of a book he wrote for a popular audience? Have you read his other stuff, like his book published by Columbia Univ. Press? I've actually read Woods's books, with the exception of this one. His Columbia book has been endorsed by totally mainstream people in the Catholic world. Lighten up, man. Criticize stuff you don't like about him, fine, but it poisons the Catholic world when a guy writes a positive book and people still go after him. That's just wrong.
You are being overly generous to the Catholic West and deafeningly silent on the Byzantine East (Orthodox Church). Western civilization was not built by the Catholic Church - extended and enhanced based as it is on the Eastern Orthodox Church in some ways yes, but built? Not hardly!
He gives nothing else concrete with which to criticize Woods' position.
Heaven knows, I disagree with Woods theologically, but just what particular view of economics does he have that trumps Catholic social teaching?
We don't have a clue from Storck.
* I posted nothing that was "vicious." I posted the excellent analysis by Mr. Storck to alert my brothers and sisters that Mr. Woods is an opponent of the Magisterium.
I won't buy his book but I hope it is acccurate. I have read the books by Mr. Jaki. Those works by the orthodox Fr. Jaki are too little known by Christians.
So, a libertrad historian (no degree in economics. Woods is a Lew Rockwell kooky-cutout) is going to tell the Popes what is what re economics using amoral/imoral libertarianism as the benchmark.
Baptism, by the very word indicates immersing something; dipping or plunging something into something else (e.g. a solid object into a liguid medium. It also can refer to the operation of God (Colossians 2:11,12) placing (immersing) the believer into (the body of) Christ. Again, there is no reference or connection in any such verses to one particular human agency; not one particular church organization.
What about the millions of Roman Catholics who have never been immersed, dipped or plunged, which is what took place in the baptism in 2 Peter. (And, by the way, those who were immersed, dipped and plunged there, were those who refused to believe Noah's prophesy -- refused to repent, and were drowned. Noah and the other seven on the ark were never in the water.)
Not all references to "saved" and "salvation" in the Scriptures are to the soul, but some are to deliverance of God's people from cataclysmic judgments on this earth. And not all references to "baptism" are to an event that can be seen and felt with mortal senses (solid object into liquid medium, remember, is only one example of the use of the word).
Noah and his family, and their posterity (in the seed line of Jesus Christ) were saved (from that wicked, demon intermingled generation) by the baptism of the wicked into the judgment of the flood. God dipped, immersed, plunged, baptized -- DROWNED -- the entire population of the world in order to save or preserve the "seed of the woman" (see Genesis 3:15) through Noah, being described in Genesis 6 as being "perfect in his GENERATIONS." This has to do with the fact that the seed of Noah's family had not been intermixed with the "sons of God" (i.e. indivdual creations of God; fallen angelic beings that co-habitated with the daughters of men to bring about a race of God-hating demonic giants -- Gen. 6:1-7; see these "sons of God associated with Satan in Job chs. 1 and 2 and other passages), like those still seen "and also after that"(6:4) in the sons of Anak (Numbers) and in Goliath, who fought David, and his brothers, etc. etc.
Baptism in the 2 Peter reference has nothing to do with the sprinkling or dampening of infants' foreheads with water, examples of which are nowhere found in Scripture.
But then, as a God-called preacher of the Goespel, I have baptized (by immersion, plunging, dipping in water) scores of believers, who with knowledge and forethought, deliberately repented of any hope outside of the Person and Redemptive Sufferings and Resuurection of Jesus Christ our Savior, and resting the safety of thier eternal soul in Christ, wanted to give a public testimony of that faith by water baptism. They were making the public position and giving open witness that the Death (in payment for sin and sins), Burial and Resurrection (for the believer's justification - a dead savior, obviously, would be no savior at all) of Jesus Christ provided the only means of their soul's redemption, and that they have accepted this fully by faith.
The Roman Catholic Church cannot admit that God has called me or any other non-Catholic to preach Christ. The RCC cannot admit that God would use anything except the Vatican's liturgical and sacramental religious system. The RCC could not admit that those who came to Jesus Christ as we preached the Gospel were admitted to Christ and His salvation by faith without the RCC, and the RCC cannot admit that our immersion baptism of self-professing believers (as opposed to infants) is legitimate by the very same Scripture references: Matt. 28; Mark 16; Acts 8, 10, 16; etc.
All Vatican Counsels, especially since Trent have cursed all Christians outside of the liturgy and sacraments of the RCC. It is in writing, "Let them (us) be anathema."
Further, There are tares in every church or religious organization, but those who profess to be ministers set themselves up as targets when their public demeanor is questionable; they should expect to be challenged.
Furthermore, There is no such thing as "THE Baptist Church," unless you are speaking about (1.) one local congregation within a specified, say, acre or less where they assemble; or about (2.) a voluntary association or convention of multiple local assemblies into one organiztion. One historical distinctive of Baptist peoples is the absolute autonomy and independence of the local congregation. A Baptist "bishop" (overseer) or "elder"(1 Timothy ch. 3; Titus ch. 1) is the pastor (say, presiding elder)within a single local congregation. He is never the overseer of multiple, involuntarily affiliated congregations. There are rare cases where one Baptist preacher is indeed the pastor of more than one congregation (I've never heard of it being more than two assemblies), but those local congregations are not involuntarily affiliated, and either may dismiss the man as pastor if need be, without him being dismissed from the other one. It is a congregational decision.
Then, there are Baptist (say, church-planting)missionaries, who, similarly to the apostles of old, may have the care of several new, fledgling congregations until pastors can be taught/trained and ordained for those local assemblies. This is sometimes the case in remote (domestic or foreign) locales where few if any churches had hitherto existed.
And before Constantine's day, there were hundreds, perhaps thousands of Gospel preachers (No, not called "Baptists") who were doing just as I've described above, without any connection with either Constantinople or Rome. The RCC wants to deny and bury all such history, but that history is truly out there.
As the Jews, the Israelies (in general) continued to reject Christ, and as God scattered the believers from Palestine, Jerusalem waned in its usefulness to New Testament Christianity. Our faith is in NO earthly city, not even in Jerusalem by the Med, but our faith is in Christ, Himself, and "Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." (Galatians 4:26; and see Hebrews 13:12-14). This is why Rome and the RCC cannot be our mother. The RCC believes that it should be the mother of everyone who calls themselves "Christian." At times in history, she has taken up sword to enforce that as a goal, too.
People, even ministers, may leave Baptist and other Christian churches without being labeled heretics, notrious liars, enemies of the Church, etc. But, seemingly, no priest may leave Romes's clutches and become an independent minister of the Gospel without being labeled "heretic," "liar," "enemy," etc, or without is being declared that they were "thrown out." So Brewer, Chiniquay, and all such, must be presented by the RCC's top end as the very worst of all creatures.
It is why We recommend the reading of THEIR books and papers, along with those of Rome.
That's what the FREE REPUBLIC is all about, in't it?
I have here dozens of pages of quotes from John Wycliffe, and personal journal accounts from his hand that give the reasons that his bones were later on dug up and his ashes scattered on a river by the RCC. Some claim he was merely on the fringes of heresy, but to the RCC he was an outright heretic. He did have a definite personal connection with the Lollards of England, my friend. And his doctrinal tenets militated against Romes sacraments and liturgy in a substantial way.
Perhaps more soon.
Thanks for posting, and welcome to FR.
Might surprise you to know that I am pretty closely
associated with a Baptist preacher on a personal basis,
and he's much the better and smarter man than you,
because he's never tried to deride my religion and has
only answered questions I have posed to him regarding his and your shared religion.
What has it done ultimately to your understanding of the salvation of your soul? Are you still bound in Rome's system for salvation of your soul? Does your Baptist preacher friend tell you the truth that sacramental religion stands between men and their knowing Christ?
Well, much of the commentary that has come out of the Vatican on economics over the last century has been, to be kind, naive.
The Church may have something to say about economics, but JPII seemed to have a knee-jerk aversion to the American version of free market capitalism, and often blamed it for the plight of the third world. He almost completely ignored the tyrannical governments that keep these people in poverty.
Thanks for the ping MurphE, and another "welcome to FR" greeting for CathNY.
Is arrogance OK in your religion? How about trolling and baiting under the cloak
of civility? Your carefully worded essays are really nothing more than Catholic
bashing. You do fairly well, until that hatred of yours for Rome manages to permeate every one of your writings.
Don't fret about my salvation. Here's the tried and true stock answer.
"Are you saved?" asks the Fundamentalist.
The Catholic should reply: "As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:58), but Im also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:910, 1 Cor. 3:1215). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:1113)."
Got my copy today. Here's what Alice von Hildebrand says on the back cover: "Dr. Woods's book is a superb and scholarly refutation of the widespread and deeply rooted prejudice that the supernatural outlook of the Roman Catholic Church disqualifies her to make any valuable contirbution to the 'progress' of humanity. This book is a magnificent illustrationof Christ's saying: 'Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His justice; the rest will be added unto [you].' Whether we turn to science, legal questions, economics, education, scholarship, fine arts, Dr. Woods shows convincingly the fecundity of a supernatural approach to life. This book is highly recommended."
I dearly love Alice von Hildebrand and her work, to say nothing of that of her husband, so this means a great deal to me. If she calls it scholarly, I'll assume it is until I see otherwise.
*enlightened, inspired, and truthful is more like it, from my pov.
In my 27 years as a Christian and 26 years preaching the Gospel, and 15 years in Asia, and 6 years in the (95%+) Roman Catholic Philippines, I've never heard anything near that kind of response. You have a lot of educating to do among your own Catholic people. But (if it was you) you said that the Scriptures are profitable but insufficient. So what is your sufficiency for your soul's salvation?
Thank you for the article. I will buy the book- looks fascinating.Regards,
An excellent post. I strongly advise you to feed this troll nothing more. No answer will every be sufficient for him, because his work is not genuinely concerned with you.
Please don't be baited. :O)
I saw Thomas Woods at mass today. I mentioned that this was posted on FR. He was most appreciative.
Scripture teaches that ones final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. As Jesus himself tells us, "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt. 24:13; cf. 25:3146). One who dies in the state of friendship with God (the state of grace) will go to heaven. The one who dies in a state of enmity and rebellion against God (the state of mortal sin) will go to hell.
"By the eighteenth century, the Jesuits "had contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity."
The Chinese would argue with you very strenuously about who invented and developed the scientific things mentioned. They would claim that all of those things were invented and put into productive use long before any Europeans.