Sinclair,
Many thanks for the absolutely fascinating snippets.... apparently the reality
(the suppression of facts in the Catholic Encyclopedia) is far far worse than I
knew. I have read parts of the on-line edition*, and have noted (with a smile)
that it nicely avoided all controversy by bobbing and weaving around the
difficult bits. I did not know that significantly earlier editions of the
Catholic Encyclopedia were around and readily available for comparison.
It has always troubled me that the organization with the most long term
stability and hence the best preserved records (the Papacy) has not been
willing to share them in toto with historians. I suppose it is because so many
current historians have what appears to be significant residual anti-Catholic
bias... after all, why ship arms to your enemies?
(begin sermon/diatribe)
One would think that in our enlightened century all historians could free
themselves from our current values and mores when we peer back into the past...
but it doesn't seem so. Open any recent "multiculturally correct" history
textbook some time for a treat. They judge Columbus and the early colonists
by the same politically correct standards we expect a modern "sensitive man" to
uphold. (visualize a smiley face here) There is no appreciation whatsoever of
the struggle that we have waged (primarily in the west) to slowly and painfully
develop political and legal systems that ensure (more so than any time in
history) the rights of man through just laws and a (near) universal respect for
the law. It's very amusing, but with an ugly undercurrent. If we have any
hope of maintaining and further improving the civilization we now enjoy, we
must understand how it evolved, and how difficult the struggle really was. The
current crop of multiculturally correct "history texts" don't help at all.
(end of sermon/diatribe)
Thanks for the post!
Joe Erkes
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/
***************
Sinclair wrote:
> Dear Joe,
>
> The original documents speak for themselves. The interpretation of those
> documents are the problem. The 1908 Catholic Encyclopaedia is another
> matter, it is
> biased and blind to abuses. It is a view through rose coloured glasses is
> what we are presented with I do not think that apologising for past actions
> is in the case of as venerable institution as the Church is appropriate.
>
> What is most interesting, to me is that The Portuguese Order being discussed
> has also been credited with building the Newport Tower. "The Portuguese
> theory begins in Tomar, a city in central Portugal. It is not a legend nor a
[ Excess quotations omitted. ]