AHC Catholic Church a progressive influence

With a POD after the Crucifiction find a way for Christianity to be roughly as strong or stronger than it it now but usuing its influence to protect disadvantaged people, less well off, disabled, women and take a clearer stand against racism earlier
 
I think OTL the Catholic Church was opposed to slavery in post-Roman Europe. At the very least, they forbade enslavement of Christians.

There's also "Peace of God" and "Truce of God," which were attempts to protect non-combatants in wartime.

Maybe in the time of the Crusades, they excommunicate people who attack the Jews? I'm pretty sure that's when the pogroms began in Western Europe--people thought it incongruous to make war upon Muslims while "Christ killers" ran free at home.

IIRC there was an incident where the local bishop protected a rabbi and his family from an angry mob--unfortunately the bishop got the idea that now would be a good time to convert his guests to Christianity, the rabbi stabbed him to death, and the mob broke in and killed everybody.

There's a book called "Constantine's Sword" or something that says Augustine said it would be wrong to kill the Jews (because then they'd go to hell, I suppose), but it was permissible to make them uncomfortable to give them an incentive to convert.

A Catholic Church that automatically excommunicates anyone who murders a Jew would be an improvement on OTL.

Also, during the Black Death, the Jews were accused of poisoning wells and the like, provoking more pogroms (and it's why there were so many Jews in Eastern Europe--the Polish king offered to protect them). The Inquisition could investigate and conclude that the main difference between the Jews and their Christian neighbors is their hygenic practices and that's the real issue there.

(They wouldn't have germ theory, but they might make a connection between hygiene and disease.)
 
You cannot have anything like the church be an entirely progressive influence. It has power. Powerful institutions always end up defending aspects of the status quo, the longer they exist, the more. Partly progressive can be done, but that's more or less OTL, if you discount the years from around 1550-1960.
 
You cannot have anything like the church be an entirely progressive influence. It has power. Powerful institutions always end up defending aspects of the status quo, the longer they exist, the more. Partly progressive can be done, but that's more or less OTL, if you discount the years from around 1550-1960.

In Spanish America it was "partly progressive" for further than 1550 (in a way). The Jesuits did a lot to proteect the Indians...
 
Yeah I'm not sure whether the church would ever go for excommunicating on mistreatment of Jews frowning upon it maybe but excommunication? I think if you stopped the Pope from ever being a secular power and forcing him to focus on theological aspects and being an embodiment of Christ on earth you might see more charitible work done and the church being more progressive
 

PhilippeO

Banned
Banning Church (and monastery) from owning land would work wonder in keeping them become too deeply associating with Status Quo.


they will still slightly pro-noble ( who could give more enormous donation), but they will have far fewer bishop-cityfolk or bishop-tenant farmer conflict.
 
Banning Church (and monastery) from owning land would work wonder in keeping them become too deeply associating with Status Quo.


they will still slightly pro-noble ( who could give more enormous donation), but they will have far fewer bishop-cityfolk or bishop-tenant farmer conflict.

Thing is, the monks need to work to provide for themselves. Donations only go so far.

Hmm...maybe they can't own more than a certain amount of land, so we see Church-driven industrialization as they need to provide for themselves but lack the land for farming? :D
 
Yeah I'm not sure whether the church would ever go for excommunicating on mistreatment of Jews frowning upon it maybe but excommunication? I think if you stopped the Pope from ever being a secular power and forcing him to focus on theological aspects and being an embodiment of Christ on earth you might see more charitible work done and the church being more progressive

Well, you could always have some medieval pope getting PTSD from seeing a Jew beaten to death in front of him as a child and upon ascension to the Chair of St. Peter implements this kind of policy.

And I didn't say "mistreatment," I said "killing." Killing would defeat the purpose of saving Jewish souls, but allowing drunk young men to forcibly shave their beards would could be construed as incentive to convert.

Furthermore, in Carl Sagan's book The Demon-Haunted World, he singles out Christian opponents of the witch trials--who often risked their lives--for praise. There were people with surprisingly non-Dung Ages views back then.
 
Yeah I'm not sure whether the church would ever go for excommunicating on mistreatment of Jews frowning upon it maybe but excommunication?

Well, OTL the Pope issued bulls every so often decrying the mistreatment of the Jews. Things like Sicut Judaeis was meant to stop Christians from forcing Jews to convert, or to harm them, or to take their property, or to disturb the celebration of their festivals, or to interfere with their cemeteries, on pain of excommunication. It was held that anyone who promoted these activities excommunicated themselves.

People just sort of ignored these bulls though and the hierarchy would move onto other issues.
 
Top