Embrace the Counter-Reformation... Yes or no?

[PhroX]

Both of your points are the baseless, pop-culture nonsense that the current tech malus from Counter-Reformation appeals to. Let me break it down. First of all, regarding medical cadavers:

"...virtually all of the early work on anatomy took place at Church-sponsored universities throughout the period that he claimed dissection was condemned, 1300 to 1500. In fact, no historical evidence exists of any widespread dissection ban by the Church. Guy de Chauliac, a fourteenth-century surgeon and doctor who is considered one of the "fathers" of anatomical studies, served three popes as personal physician. He openly encouraged the use of dissection in the study of human anatomy and would hardly have been allowed to do so if such practices were condemned by his employers. Rather than serving as some kind of obstacle to medical advancement, the Church was the source of medical research for centuries." (Lockwood, 2007)

As for Galileo, the Church's opposition to Galileo's heliocentric model of the solar system was also voiced by many secular scientists, many of whom would have no reservations about criticizing the Church. His theory was not opposed because of its objection to theology, but because he lacked sufficient evidence to prove that his model was superior to the prior Ptolemaic and (original) Copernican models.

Furthermore, the point that actually brought about Galileo's conflict with the Church wasn't his 'free-thinking' or whatever buzzword historical revisionists like to bandy about, but because he essentially threw an incredibly ill-conceived tantrum after being denied and immediately began publishing works that belittled and ridiculed not only the Pope, but also the clergymen who had helped him attain his fame and position in the first place!

It would not be until Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton added onto the heliocentric theory with their own findings that it found acceptance among the Church and scientific community. Despite the assertions of fedora crowd today, the Bible is not nor ever was considered an unimpeachable science textbook by the Catholic Church. When clear evidence was provided proving the heliocentric model with elliptical orbits, the Church adopted it with little issue.



Yet, despite all this supposed 'tolerance,' it was the Protestants who burned the most 'witches' and held the most deep-seated devotion to anti-scientific Biblical literalism. True, tarring all sects with the same brush is dishonest, but to say that their multitude of 'faith' somehow produced tolerance is an absurdity when you look at how much the various Protestant and Reformed sects bickered and fought with one another.

And don't even get me started on the atrocities that Protestants committed against Catholics in countries where they gained control. For all the hate and vitriol that the Spanish Inquisition gets, the centuries of British oppression, execution, and forced conversion of Catholic priests and laymen alike go blithely ignored.

This forums needs a like button so badly. Excellent post.

The last paragraph in particular is something that gets so often overlooked and airbrished out of popular history. Elizabeth I, for example, did far far worse to Catholics than her sister "Bloody" Mary did to Protestants...

 

[1337Hospitaller]

The Counter-Reformation should decrease tech costs if we're keeping close to reality. Maybe replace the tech cost with an economic cost to represent state funding of the Counter-Reformation?

 

[ben931015]

Here is an example out of my own historical research on miracles in the seventeenth-century bishopric of Antwerp – undoubtedly the centre of the Counter-Reformation, or better yet, the “Catholic Reformation” in the Spanish Netherlands – which nuances the popular view of the relation between the sciences and the Catholic Church as distrustful. From 1637 onwards, a number of spectacular (even ‘supernatural’) healings occurred in the small parish community of Duffel at the image of Our Lady of Benevolence. Like in many other cases – e.g. Montaigu or ‘Sharp Hill’ – this image had been found in a tree during times of great peril, full of war, mortal diseases and economic recession. Many inhabitants of the Spanish Netherlands sought her assistance and immediately, Our Lady performed a number of ‘wonders’. This pilgrimage site soon obtained the official recognition of the bishop of Antwerp in 1638. However, the decrees of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) stated

“[that no] new miracles [are] to be accepted, or new relics recognized, without the bishop similarly examining and approving them. And as soon as he learns of something of this kind, he should consult with theologians and other devout men and decide as truth and devotion suggest.” (N.P. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 776)

The parish priest recorded the statements of those who were healed from their illness by the grace of Our Lady – 124 ‘supernatural’ healings in total – certainly with the purpose to have these recognized by the bishop of Antwerp, in accordance with the Tridentine decrees. The existence of approved miracles attracted a continuous flow of new pilgrims, who contributed to a temporary economic revival and also left large amounts of money (sometimes in the form of silver ex-voto’s) for, amongst others, the building of a new parish church.

Besides pilgrims, these miracles also attracted the attention of ‘foul’ protestants in the ‘United Provinces’ who ridiculed the Catholic Church and their followers for their irrational beliefs in miracles. Therefore, the bishop had to conduct a thorough investigation if someone claimed to have experienced a miraculous healing. Not everyone’s case made it to the bishop: the parish priest already sifted out unbelievable ‘supernatural’ healings after his own preliminary investigation. In this first phase, the parish priest actively searched for the testimonies of witnesses and family members who could back the claims of the miraculé. A solid scientific base was surprisingly provided by physicians and surgeons (not the same!) who were in most cases even the treating doctors during the illness of the miraculé. They attested to the incurable nature of his or her disease and expressed their utmost astonishment in his or her healing. We should remember that medical knowledge wasn’t as profound as today and many of these healings probably had natural causes.

In a second phase, the bishop appointed two or three commissioners who were tasked to conduct their own research. It followed the same pattern as the aforementioned first phase and could therefore be perceived as mere corroboration of the findings of the parish priest. In this phase, they again questioned the witnesses and consulted physicians and surgeons. Some investigations lasted for months (or even years in a few cases). Eventually a report was made for the council of the bishop and his theologians on which it could decide if – in casu – it was a true miracle or not. By 1717, only 14 ‘supernatural’ healings were proven worthy of the title of ‘miracle’. In the archives of Duffel and the bishopric of Antwerp and the cathedral archive, one can still consult these statements, which testify of a genuine sceptic stance towards those who claimed to have experienced the grace of Our Lady. It was vital for the Catholic Church to have the backing of doctors to quell all criticism of the protestants in the North.

This is a very sketchy description of my findings in my research. However, it really underlines the fact that the Catholic Church and the (medical) sciences weren't distrustful of eachother. Even in the eighteenth century, cardinal and former 'Advocate of the Devil' Prospero Lambertini (later Pope Benedict XIV) wrote a gigantic, four-volume work on how to investigate the lives and miracles of contemporary saints. In this work, he referenced regularly to academic works of physicians and surgeons (e.g. Paolo Zacchia) which provided clues and guidelines to the symptoms of diseases and how they could heal in natural way. The Congregatio Sacrorum Rituum had therefore their own scientific work in hand to decide wether to bless or canonise a as 'holy' venerated person.