Early Catholicism placed extremely high value on communal wellbeing, as well as work-life balance. Also they valued scholasticism and held lots of festivals and feasts. The sick and elderly and poor were cared for. The misfits could join the clergy and still serve an esteemed life. “Black people” is a concept of racialism that was invented in the modern period, this was not anything anybody in Medieval Times would have any idea what you’re talking about. It’s you that’s muddling your timelines.
Nowadays you have prosperity gospel, where the core central tenet is that being wealthy makes you righteous (and vice versa). Straight up worship of mammon. Protestant “work ethic” being developed to force slave-like conditions on proles. You have the abomination that is Calvinism that has seeped into every Protestant religion by osmosis. It was this toxic stew from which Witch Hunting arose, not from early feudal catholicism but from modern protestantism. Yes, modern Protestantism arose from feudal Catholicism, but it’s one more degree removed. We are talking relativity here.
While witch hunts were undoubtedly in part a measure of social control in the early modern period, the concepts involved in a “trad wife” (A wife who is unemployed, who engages solely in tasks like cleaning, cooking and child rearing and who is subservient to her husband) would be completely fucking alien to a medieval or even early modern european person. You are inventing a time period that is somehow the medieval period, the early modern period and the first industrial revolution at the same time.
Yes it would be alien to medieval women, which is what I said and was my point. No it was not alien to early modern women, hundreds of millions of women were forced into this role starting around the 1500s and the advent of capitalism.
I’m not “inventing” any time period. I’m pointing out how witch hunting, trad wives and now racialism did not exist in the medieval world. They are modern age artifacts that we project back anachronistically on previous time periods to justify to ourselves “well at least life is better than back then” or, in reactionaries case, “we can retvrn to when it was so awesome” (both reaching back at a fantasy past that never existed)
What.
While it’s true that the church ran hospitals, and that the monasteries (Not the clergy. Come on) provided some measure of a social release valve. This screed goes beyond rose tinted glasses into pure trad cath delusion.
By the period we usually call the high middle ages joining a monastary would usually involve both a literacy requirement and providing an endowment of land or a gift of money to the monastary, which effectively removed the poor from consideration. As a result several movements emerged to create impromptu monastic life in urban centers (Primarily by women too poor to join a convent or who did not wish to live in seclusion) which were all cracked down on by the church.
“Black people” is a concept of racialism that was invented in the modern period
The valladolid debate took place in 1550, which places it firmly in the early modern period, which is where I said it took place.
Nowadays you have prosperity gospel, where the core central tenet is that being wealthy makes you righteous (and vice versa).
The medieval church literally made the aristocracy God’s representatives on earth. The emperor was literally a symbol of God’s power on earth and imbued with the absolute power to kill in his name as per the two swords doctrine.
Nowhere did I universally defend catholicism or say it had no issues. Obviously their incestuous relationship with aristocracy is the number one problem, and the biggest contradiction which caused protestantism to take off in the first place. It was highly corrupt.
I’m just pushing back on the Liberal “understanding” that Medieval Catholicism was super backwards compared to modern ideologies, when in fact it didn’t gain the racist aspect until the Modern Age - further supporting my argument and not detracting from it by the way. Modern religions and ideologies are fucked up in a way that medieval people could not even dream of, with new types of reactionary technology they would never even think about.
I’m also pushing back on the Liberal “understanding” that medieval peasants had the worst existence in human history and it was universally terrible for them, and the enlightenment made everything better across the board. These types of flat progressive views of history are anti-Marxist and are not dialectical. I’m providing the other side of the dialectic for people in here who think trad wives and witch hunting was a thing in medieval europe.
You sought to forward a view of history that saw an institution that any material analysis of history would show you existed to prop up a a regressive and exploitative social order, actually being better than a modern institution that does the same based on the existence of made up virtues.
It is pure reaction to modern christianity without a real analysis of the older christianity to which you are comparing it.
The medieval church defended slavery and used enslavement as a tool of discipline, it defended a regressive social order, it participated in genocide, and it existed for the defense of the feudal order. And you say that modern christianity is an abomination in comparison to it based on the existence of sects that defend a modern regressive social order.
Early Catholicism placed extremely high value on communal wellbeing, as well as work-life balance. Also they valued scholasticism and held lots of festivals and feasts. The sick and elderly and poor were cared for. The misfits could join the clergy and still serve an esteemed life. “Black people” is a concept of racialism that was invented in the modern period, this was not anything anybody in Medieval Times would have any idea what you’re talking about. It’s you that’s muddling your timelines.
Nowadays you have prosperity gospel, where the core central tenet is that being wealthy makes you righteous (and vice versa). Straight up worship of mammon. Protestant “work ethic” being developed to force slave-like conditions on proles. You have the abomination that is Calvinism that has seeped into every Protestant religion by osmosis. It was this toxic stew from which Witch Hunting arose, not from early feudal catholicism but from modern protestantism. Yes, modern Protestantism arose from feudal Catholicism, but it’s one more degree removed. We are talking relativity here.
Yes it would be alien to medieval women, which is what I said and was my point. No it was not alien to early modern women, hundreds of millions of women were forced into this role starting around the 1500s and the advent of capitalism.
I’m not “inventing” any time period. I’m pointing out how witch hunting, trad wives and now racialism did not exist in the medieval world. They are modern age artifacts that we project back anachronistically on previous time periods to justify to ourselves “well at least life is better than back then” or, in reactionaries case, “we can retvrn to when it was so awesome” (both reaching back at a fantasy past that never existed)
What. While it’s true that the church ran hospitals, and that the monasteries (Not the clergy. Come on) provided some measure of a social release valve. This screed goes beyond rose tinted glasses into pure trad cath delusion. By the period we usually call the high middle ages joining a monastary would usually involve both a literacy requirement and providing an endowment of land or a gift of money to the monastary, which effectively removed the poor from consideration. As a result several movements emerged to create impromptu monastic life in urban centers (Primarily by women too poor to join a convent or who did not wish to live in seclusion) which were all cracked down on by the church.
The valladolid debate took place in 1550, which places it firmly in the early modern period, which is where I said it took place.
The medieval church literally made the aristocracy God’s representatives on earth. The emperor was literally a symbol of God’s power on earth and imbued with the absolute power to kill in his name as per the two swords doctrine.
I’m just… what are you doing?
Nowhere did I universally defend catholicism or say it had no issues. Obviously their incestuous relationship with aristocracy is the number one problem, and the biggest contradiction which caused protestantism to take off in the first place. It was highly corrupt.
I’m just pushing back on the Liberal “understanding” that Medieval Catholicism was super backwards compared to modern ideologies, when in fact it didn’t gain the racist aspect until the Modern Age - further supporting my argument and not detracting from it by the way. Modern religions and ideologies are fucked up in a way that medieval people could not even dream of, with new types of reactionary technology they would never even think about.
I’m also pushing back on the Liberal “understanding” that medieval peasants had the worst existence in human history and it was universally terrible for them, and the enlightenment made everything better across the board. These types of flat progressive views of history are anti-Marxist and are not dialectical. I’m providing the other side of the dialectic for people in here who think trad wives and witch hunting was a thing in medieval europe.
You sought to forward a view of history that saw an institution that any material analysis of history would show you existed to prop up a a regressive and exploitative social order, actually being better than a modern institution that does the same based on the existence of made up virtues. It is pure reaction to modern christianity without a real analysis of the older christianity to which you are comparing it. The medieval church defended slavery and used enslavement as a tool of discipline, it defended a regressive social order, it participated in genocide, and it existed for the defense of the feudal order. And you say that modern christianity is an abomination in comparison to it based on the existence of sects that defend a modern regressive social order.