Book link on Amazon

Written by Rodney Stark

Just started reading this based on a recommendation. Can't put it down, and almost done with it. It is a book written by a non-catholic academic, and it debunks centuries of anti-catholic history.

Growing up in a protestant world as I did, I assumed almost every single one of these things to be true, but my God, it is amazing how this history has been skewed.

Contents (summarized):

• Anti-semitism
• Suppressed Gospels
• Persecution of Pagans
• The "Dark Ages"
• The Crusades
• The Inquisition
• Anti-science
• Defending slavery
• Tyrannical rule
• Protestant Modernity

I seriously challenge any and all of you to pick up and read this book. It has had a huge impact on me.

If you've read it, I would love to hear your thoughts...

Just bought it on Kindle. Will let you know

Could you summarize the points you like? I've got a lot of experience with the Church in the 16-18th centuries and it's often not a pretty history. So how is he getting around that? And what do you think of this review?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lectio/2016/05/debunking-the-debunking-a-review-of-rodney-starks-bearing-false-witness/

Dr. Watson said:

---

Could you summarize the points you like? I've got a lot of experience with the Church in the 16-18th centuries and it's often not a pretty history. So how is he getting around that? And what do you think of this review?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lectio/2016/05/debunking-the-debunking-a-review-of-rodney-starks-bearing-false-witness/

---

I'll get to the really interesting parts perhaps later when I have time, but as for that review (which is difficult to do, because it has me trying to prove a negative)...

Read the reviewers comments on the first chapter, which is on antisemitism.

The book repeatedly shows historical examples of how bishops defended the Jewish people throughout their lands. The persecutors were state authorities. Even Bernard of Clairvaux, who has always, to me, been demonized as a violent anti-Semite, is shown, through historical evidence, to be exactly opposite. He showed up to defend the Jews being persecuted.

The reviewer's comments that the whole of the book (which, frankly, based on the review, I'm not sure he read) is a well, "it wasn't as bad as you think" is WAY off. The author actually shows how, most of the time, it was exactly the opposite of what common thinking was. That is, in fact to say, the Church not only wasn't the big nasty in the Spanish Inquisition, but was actually defending life and those being persecuted by states.

The reviewer also seems to have trouble defining what the 'Church' is. The author of the book takes the historical view, which is the Church seen in the New Testament- that which began with Jesus, Peter, and the apostles, handed down as a very specific construct. A real and very clear institution.

Looking at the reviewer's background shows why this might be a problem- his course on 'Christianities of Antiquity' which approaches the early era in a non-historical and revisionist view- that the Church was just groups of people, not a visible, formal, construct, is a both a-historical, but also part of the culture that the book argues against (convincingly and shockingly.) The writings of the 'Church fathers' attest to this, and shows how it is very mislead. (and, it was most likely used by protestants to show how the 'early church' was more closely aligned to their beliefs, which, as history shows, is very clearly inaccurate. A book I recommend on this, which is almost entirely source material, is The Fathers Know Best.)

The author of the book wrote this book, because he worked in other areas authoring other books and research materials- including those sponsored by Jewish groups. In fact, his work was given to the people involved in the second Vatican council before their work, and, helped guide the statement on defense of the Jewish people which came out of that work.

I highly recommend you read the book- it is well-done, and very well cited. It is eye-opening for me, and I suspect, everyone born in and around the bible belt as well.

The thing is I've read most of the revisionist historiography by historians. The Inquisition was not the Black Legend used by Protestants, but neither was the Church actively protecting life in a large number of cases. Auto de Fes happened regularly and often those who weren't executed had their estates confiscated by the Church or the state.

Antisemitism was an extremely complex topic in Medieval and early modern Europe, but here the reviewer has a point. You can say, "So and so protected the Jews," while ignoring the monks and priests (often Dominicans and Franciscans) who led pogroms against Jewish communities or preached the doctrine of deicide. And often those bishops who formally protected the Jews turned a blind eye to the activities that led to attacks on Jewish communities. They played politics. The Jews were useful financially in these regions and served as good scapegoats.

I could go on. The relationship between the Church and Native Americans or African slaves is very complicated and depended on the Church authority and the location. While Jesuits tended to treat Native Americans with dignity, Franciscans and Dominicans treated them like disposable labor. When the Church tried to restrain the abuses of Native Americans they did so by encouraging African slavery.

History is extremely complicated and I'm very, very wary of any book that claims to completely overturn existing historiography. What I can see of the book does look like a lot of straw man arguments.

I would encourage you to keep an open mind and read the book. This book attacks, with evidence, from a non-catholic academic, the very stories you are discussing. It does so convincingly.

I think you would find it valuable.

Catholic church contains the fullness of truth. There is a great line from Fulton Sheen "There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be."

A lot of untruths/ lies, ignorance on the church. But there is one absolute truth that protestants get correct and that is the Catholic church has been filled with sinners. Through the past 2000 years there has been - bad popes, bishops, priest and Catholic leaders. But even though there have been sinners in Church we have the guarantee and of Jesus. Matt. 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Jesus does not lie, the proof: The oldest organization in the world is the Catholic church. Note: some will say the older organization is the Japenese royal line is older.

Good news whether you are in or out of the church we are still brothers in Christ.

booboo91 said:

---

Catholic church contains the fullness of truth. There is a great line from Fulton Sheen "There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be."

A lot of untruths/ lies, ignorance on the church. But there is one absolute truth that protestants get correct and that is the Catholic church has been filled with sinners. Through the past 2000 years there has been - bad popes, bishops, priest and Catholic leaders. But even though there have been sinners in Church we have the guarantee and of Jesus. Matt. 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Jesus does not lie, the proof: The oldest organization in the world is the Catholic church. Note: some will say the older organization is the Japenese royal line is older.

Good news whether you are in or out of the church we are still brothers in Christ.

---

I appreciate your points, booboo, but this book is not so much interested in finding the true church, or what is full or not full of truth, it is focused on debunking literally centuries of misinformation, fraud, propaganda, etc.

It is really eye-opening.

But please, let's not derail this thread debating who is the real church or whatever.

Dr. Watson said:

---

The thing is I've read most of the revisionist historiography by historians. The Inquisition was not the Black Legend used by Protestants, but neither was the Church actively protecting life in a large number of cases. Auto de Fes happened regularly and often those who weren't executed had their estates confiscated by the Church or the state.

Antisemitism was an extremely complex topic in Medieval and early modern Europe, but here the reviewer has a point. You can say, "So and so protected the Jews," while ignoring the monks and priests (often Dominicans and Franciscans) who led pogroms against Jewish communities or preached the doctrine of deicide. And often those bishops who formally protected the Jews turned a blind eye to the activities that led to attacks on Jewish communities. They played politics. The Jews were useful financially in these regions and served as good scapegoats.

I could go on. The relationship between the Church and Native Americans or African slaves is very complicated and depended on the Church authority and the location. While Jesuits tended to treat Native Americans with dignity, Franciscans and Dominicans treated them like disposable labor. When the Church tried to restrain the abuses of Native Americans they did so by encouraging African slavery.

History is extremely complicated and I'm very, very wary of any book that claims to completely overturn existing historiography. What I can see of the book does look like a lot of straw man arguments.

---

1) The crusades were long and complicated, there were bad things done by Christians. But it gets way over blown and taken out of context. It all started with battle of Islam radicals. You also had power of politics involved. Something we can easily see today.

2) Spanish Inquistion is another that is way overblown. Bad things happened, country was battling Muslim influence, much of violence was done by the state and not the church. Occured over long period of time, few deaths.

3) Another lie is the American Indians in North and South America were ALL peaceful, they were in harmony until the evil Europeans came and messed up everything. This is BS. The Indians followed the normal human nature: there were good, ok and bad indians (Commanche, Aztecs- still performed human sacrifice). The Indians on the bottom of the power network worked with the Europeans to change the power position.

CaptMermethyl said:

---

I appreciate your points, booboo, but this book is not so much interested in finding the true church, or what is full or not full of truth, it is focused on debunking literally centuries of misinformation, fraud, propaganda, etc.

It is really eye-opening.

But please, let's not derail this thread debating who is the real church or whatever.

---

Sorry thought Fulton Sheen's quote was what you were saying.

booboo91 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

The thing is I've read most of the revisionist historiography by historians. The Inquisition was not the Black Legend used by Protestants, but neither was the Church actively protecting life in a large number of cases. Auto de Fes happened regularly and often those who weren't executed had their estates confiscated by the Church or the state.

Antisemitism was an extremely complex topic in Medieval and early modern Europe, but here the reviewer has a point. You can say, "So and so protected the Jews," while ignoring the monks and priests (often Dominicans and Franciscans) who led pogroms against Jewish communities or preached the doctrine of deicide. And often those bishops who formally protected the Jews turned a blind eye to the activities that led to attacks on Jewish communities. They played politics. The Jews were useful financially in these regions and served as good scapegoats.

I could go on. The relationship between the Church and Native Americans or African slaves is very complicated and depended on the Church authority and the location. While Jesuits tended to treat Native Americans with dignity, Franciscans and Dominicans treated them like disposable labor. When the Church tried to restrain the abuses of Native Americans they did so by encouraging African slavery.

History is extremely complicated and I'm very, very wary of any book that claims to completely overturn existing historiography. What I can see of the book does look like a lot of straw man arguments.

---

1) The crusades were long and complicated, there were bad things done by Christians. But it gets way over blown and taken out of context. It all started with battle of Islam radicals. You also had power of politics involved. Something we can easily see today.

2) Spanish Inquistion is another that is way overblown. Bad things happened, country was battling Muslim influence, much of violence was done by the state and not the church. Occured over long period of time, few deaths.

3) Another lie is the American Indians in North and South America were ALL peaceful, they were in harmony until the evil Europeans came and messed up everything. This is BS. The Indians followed the normal human nature: there were good, ok and bad indians (Commanche, Aztecs- still performed human sacrifice). The Indians on the bottom of the power network worked with the Europeans to change the power position.

---

1. Muslims have not been a unified group since the 7th century. The idea that the Crusades were launched against Arabs, Turks, and Kurds because of what the Moors did is asinine.

2. The Spanish's inquisition targeted anyone who had family that was not Christian. And it was a violent process. Focusing on deaths alone does not give the full picture. Torture was a regular part of court proceedings in that era.

3. Who said Indians were all peaceful? Try not to use idiotic straw man arguments. My point is that Dominican and Franciscan priests and monks used Indians as little more than slave labor under the guise of "saving them."

Dr. Watson said:

---

booboo91 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

The thing is I've read most of the revisionist historiography by historians. The Inquisition was not the Black Legend used by Protestants, but neither was the Church actively protecting life in a large number of cases. Auto de Fes happened regularly and often those who weren't executed had their estates confiscated by the Church or the state.

Antisemitism was an extremely complex topic in Medieval and early modern Europe, but here the reviewer has a point. You can say, "So and so protected the Jews," while ignoring the monks and priests (often Dominicans and Franciscans) who led pogroms against Jewish communities or preached the doctrine of deicide. And often those bishops who formally protected the Jews turned a blind eye to the activities that led to attacks on Jewish communities. They played politics. The Jews were useful financially in these regions and served as good scapegoats.

I could go on. The relationship between the Church and Native Americans or African slaves is very complicated and depended on the Church authority and the location. While Jesuits tended to treat Native Americans with dignity, Franciscans and Dominicans treated them like disposable labor. When the Church tried to restrain the abuses of Native Americans they did so by encouraging African slavery.

History is extremely complicated and I'm very, very wary of any book that claims to completely overturn existing historiography. What I can see of the book does look like a lot of straw man arguments.

---

1) The crusades were long and complicated, there were bad things done by Christians. But it gets way over blown and taken out of context. It all started with battle of Islam radicals. You also had power of politics involved. Something we can easily see today.

2) Spanish Inquistion is another that is way overblown. Bad things happened, country was battling Muslim influence, much of violence was done by the state and not the church. Occured over long period of time, few deaths.

3) Another lie is the American Indians in North and South America were ALL peaceful, they were in harmony until the evil Europeans came and messed up everything. This is BS. The Indians followed the normal human nature: there were good, ok and bad indians (Commanche, Aztecs- still performed human sacrifice). The Indians on the bottom of the power network worked with the Europeans to change the power position.

---

1. Muslims have not been a unified group since the 7th century. The idea that the Crusades were launched against Arabs, Turks, and Kurds because of what the Moors did is asinine.

2. The Spanish's inquisition targeted anyone who had family that was not Christian. And it was a violent process. Focusing on deaths alone does not give the full picture. Torture was a regular part of court proceedings in that era.

3. Who said Indians were all peaceful? Try not to use idiotic straw man arguments. My point is that Dominican and Franciscan priests and monks used Indians as little more than slave labor under the guise of "saving them."

---

I'd prefer if we stay on topic, and just discuss the book.

CaptMermethyl said:

---

I would encourage you to keep an open mind and read the book. This book attacks, with evidence, from a non-catholic academic, the very stories you are discussing. It does so convincingly.

I think you would find it valuable.

---

Let me put it this way, I've read the chapter on slavery. He conveniently ignores that non-Christian slaves were permitted by the Church and that one of the reasons the Spanish turned to African slavery was because of the loss of Muslim slaves in Spain. The papal bull he mentions from Paul III is not as cut-and-dry as he wants it to be. Portions of the bull were rescinded and Paul sanctioned slavery in Africa and he Muslim world. It also did not prevent all Indian slavery if those Indians were declared "enemies of Christendom." In other words, this is not a pure upstanding moral document. It's complicated. Stark wants to pretend it's simple.

Dr. Watson said:

---

CaptMermethyl said:

---

I would encourage you to keep an open mind and read the book. This book attacks, with evidence, from a non-catholic academic, the very stories you are discussing. It does so convincingly.

I think you would find it valuable.

---

Let me put it this way, I've read the chapter on slavery. He conveniently ignores that non-Christian slaves were permitted by the Church and that one of the reasons the Spanish turned to African slavery was because of the loss of Muslim slaves in Spain. The papal bull he mentions from Paul III is not as cut-and-dry as he wants it to be. Portions of the bull were rescinded and Paul sanctioned slavery in Africa and he Muslim world. It also did not prevent all Indian slavery if those Indians were declared "enemies of Christendom." In other words, this is not a pure upstanding moral document. It's complicated. Stark wants to pretend it's simple.

---

Thanks- a good reply. I would love if you would put more meat on the arguments. Sources, and quoting from the book would be great. I would especially like to see sourcing on your comments on the papal bull.

I'm working my way through it, and, although I don't necessarily like his writing style, his research seems quite good.

Also, 'Stark wants to pretend it's simple'- I'm not sure I agree with that.

I think what does help in seeing how he focused his argumentation is again on 'what is the Church'.

He focuses on the visible successors of the apostles, as well as the official teaching (I believe this would over-archingly be called the 'Magesterium'.)

It is a clear line to some, but it seems others have a more difficult time separating members of a group from the group itself. However, in the case he laid out in chapter 1, it was quite clear. I still recommend reading it. In fact, I think you are the perfect person to read it in sum, and address it in detail. I would love to hear your thoughts.

Dr. Watson said:

---

I've got a lot of experience with the Church in the 16-18th centuries and it's often not a pretty history.

---

Did everyone gloss over the fact that Dr Watson is a time traveler? I've got some favors to ask.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

I've got a lot of experience with the Church in the 16-18th centuries and it's often not a pretty history.

---

Did everyone gloss over the fact that Dr Watson is a time traveler? I've got some favors to ask.

---

Oh, I have some requests. Can we get a new phrase that's more fun than "no true scotsman?" I was about to use it in this thread, but I'll wait for DW to revise history as badly as this book apparently does...