A call to Rationalism

[Paolo Emilio I of Trebia]

Ok, so, I've been enjoying the first days of my science bachelor so far, I like the teaching method of my science professor, and everything has been nice. But suddenly today, our professor began criticizing the (Catholic) Church (and I don't blame him) for the inquisition, and how the Church left us stuck in the dark ages. Well, I believe three things:

1. The dark ages were not dark, and I repeat, they weren't dark
2. The (Catholic) Church was often corrupted and infiltrated by evil people. May I suggest, most members of the medieval clergy were atheist hypocrites that lied for money.
3. Despite this evidence that I am preparing against my own professor's stance, I do believe the Church made a big mistake. Our ancestors were superstitious. Out of pure invention, and nonsense, they sponsored the burning of witches, the killings of cats, under the belief that they were satanic beings, the corruption of the Church, and the pogroms against Jews.

I believe that science and religion are deeply connected. I see Creationism as a Biblical metaphor, while the Big Bang theory is the real stuff that happened. Out of this ignorance, lot's of people died, innocent, and the black plague killed lots of people. If the plague was indeed, a punishment from God, as medieval man saw it, I don't believe it's something based in spontaneous generation, magic, sorcery, or what it is. I believe God sent a microscopic being to infect us to punish our ignorance.

I believe the Church has some of the stuff it had coming, because scientists, even Catholic scientists, were burned at the stake while the Church blindly claimed the truth. But, as well, the Catholic Church nowadays is aware of this, and this is why you see great Popes, like John Paul II, apologizing in the Vatican for all the crimes made by the Inquisition, to both the people there and God.

If the Church wants to regain power, I believe Christianity in general, not just Catholicism, has to adopt Rationalism, and forget the superstition, the spontaneous generation, and the ignorance. This weapons the medieval Church used against their own people, now are the weapons, secularists, atheists, protestants and even some "light Catholics" (that claim to follow the Catholic Church but inside they are atheists too), use against the Church, leaving it powerless as in the days of today. I believe in the Church, as part of the Credo. It's in my Catholic faith. But, Faith might be the best, if not the only, source of Salvation, and also the best source of power and peace. But faith is also a weapon of mass destruction, deadlier than a tsar bomba. Faith is a weapon of double edge. You need wisdom to use it for good.

[Sir Benedict]

I couldn't agree more. Reason without faith leads to post-modernism, atheism, moral relativism, and nihilism; conversely, faith without reason leads to superstition and ignorance. One of the many reasons why I love our faith is that it is the perfect combination of both; our faith is strong, but it is also backed up by an equally strong rationality based on natural law. Many of the worlds greatest minds (Aquinas, Galileo, and Erasmus just to name a few) were Catholic.

[Paolo Emilio I of Trebia]

Everything in balance. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

[Pan Kristoff Drevo]

Exactly. We need to be prudent while evangelizing to the modern world. Not to say that we need to adjust ourselves to every day and age. No, Christianity is a message for all ages and all times. Our actions in past centuries has been regrettable, and extremely imprudent. Many of the Crusades were almost spontaneous. The Inquisition and forcing Native Americans to convert were not the way things should have happened at all. While we can't start entirely over, we can live a Christian life as God intended us to.

[Paolo Emilio I of Trebia]

Well, I do justify the Crusades.

[Pan Kristoff Drevo]

Yes, the original idea of Crusade was good, insofar as it protected Christendom from Islam. The First Crusade and Lepanto, along with the Seige of Vienna, were the most successful victories against the Turks by Christendom. I do not consider the fall of the Ottoman Empire in WWI a Christian victory because it was also facilitated by Lawrence of Arabia and his Arab Revolt, which was Muslim. A Crusade I condemn is the Fourth Crusade, I think it was, that sacked Constantinople. Perhaps the Crusades united Western Europe, but they also intensified the Great Schism between East and West. The Byzantines never fully regained after the Sack of Constantinople, and if it had not happened, Islam would not have gotten so far after 1453. The idea of Crusade was also used for evil purposes, for example, the Crusade against the Albingensians. They were Christian, and as far as I know, posed no threat to the Christian heritage of Western Europe. Crusade has also been used when Evangelization would have been a better idea. Crusade has been used as an excuse for dominating and Christianizing "uncouth" neighbors, thus giving the natives an eternal hatred of Christendom. Had a few monks gone in to preach the Gospel, things would have gone over much better, and the country that sent the monks would still gain political influence over the new Christian region. Also, the Crusades did not entirely unite Western Europe. The failure of many later Crusades was due nearly entirely to internal strife. Had the other Crusades been as united as the First Crusade, things would be very different.

My main argument is that once the idea of Crusade shifted from being protective to aggressive, it backfired onto whoever participated in the Crusade.

EDIT: Learned some more about the Cathars, and I take back what I said about them.  

[Paolo Emilio I of Trebia]

I do agree. The Fourth Crusade was not inspired by Christ. It was inspired by evil, greed, proselytism, and vanity. Venice, the local naval superpower, was strong enough to provide the only navy for the Crusaders. However, it was rather expensive too, and they never gathered enough Crusaders to pay for the ships. The "solution", a revolting vassal of Venice, Croatia (which was Catholic, of course) was crushed by the Fourth Crusade. The Pope excommunicated the Crusaders (This means the Church actually opposed the Fourth Crusade too). After that the "Crusaders" plundered, sacked, ransacked and destroyed Constantinople. The Byzantine empire never recovered and then the filthy turks came. Thanks to that we lost fundamental cities for Christianity, like Philadelphia (the original one, not the US city), Nicaea, Ephesus and Constantinople. As if the loss of Damascus, Jerusalem, Tyre, Alexandria, Leptis Magna, Antioch, Ascalon, Bethelem, and Edessa with the arabs was not enough. It was a sad year for Christendom, 1453.

Also, the fall of the Ottoman Empire in WW1 isn't a Christian victory not only because it was supported by the Arabs, but because by that time, most European powers (France, England, USA...) Were more secularized. In fact, I might suggest that the time between 1789 (French Revolution) and 1945 (WW2) was the age in which Christendom slowly died.

I believe, a good Crusade eliminates threats to Christendom. It isn't a good idea to spread the faith if Evangelization is possible.