Way Back When...

[txdinghysailor]

Were people in Catholic Europe 500 years ago holier than most people living in a "Western Judeo-Christian society" now? My mom says yes, I say no. I say human nature doesn't change. She says that people paid more attention to their Faith and let it influence them more back then.

[Vincent Vega]

No. People did then everything that people do now, they just weren't as talkative.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='txdinghysailor' date='22 December 2009 - 12:14 PM' timestamp='1261498498' post='2024389']
Were people in Catholic Europe 500 years ago holier than most people living in a "Western Judeo-Christian society" now? My mom says yes, I say no. I say human nature doesn't change. She says that people paid more attention to their Faith and let it influence them more back then.
[/quote]And what depravity, suffering, or institutionalized suffering was avoided back then?

[CatherineM]

Public executions for petty crimes comes to mind.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I speculate that people were generally more devout and moral in Europe of 500 years ago. Sure, human nature doesn't change, but it is possible to have a culture that is more conducive to spirituality and holiness, and a society that does not promote and/or tolerate sin as much as another. It does not seem illogical to suppose that people living in a society would be, generally speaking, of a superior moral and spiritual character.

Sure, you could find plenty of sin, even some pretty major structures of sin in the society, but overall I think mine is a reasonable opinion. I think it is similar in principle to a question such as, are the students of Christendom College generally more 'holy' than the students at [insert some playboy party college]? This doesn't mean that there are no sinners at the former college, and no saints at the latter college, but in terms of inferring a generalization an affirmative answer makes sense. But ultimately I do not know; just saying my gross and uneducated opinion.

What I am really curious about is why you are asking. What's the deal bro?

[Jaime]

You should listen to your mom.

From just a technology standpoint, people have much more opportunities to sin today than 500 years ago.

[txdinghysailor]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='22 December 2009 - 12:30 PM' timestamp='1261499426' post='2024408']

What I am really curious about is why you are asking. What's the deal bro?
[/quote]

Well last night we got into an argument regarding the numbers that are thrown around in our circle of friends regarding Aztec human sacrifices, the number of Aztecs converted in the 1400-1500s and stuff like that. I said that you can't assume that the numbers are perfectly accurate, because the people writing the numbers probably had something to gain by exaggerating things in their favor. And then my mom said that people were holier back then so they wouldn't. And I just find that hard to believe. So yeah, that's why I'm asking.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='txdinghysailor' date='22 December 2009 - 11:36 AM' timestamp='1261499762' post='2024413']
Well last night we got into an argument regarding the numbers that are thrown around in our circle of friends regarding Aztec human sacrifices, the number of Aztecs converted in the 1400-1500s and stuff like that. I said that you can't assume that the numbers are perfectly accurate, because the people writing the numbers probably had something to gain by exaggerating things in their favor. And then my mom said that people were holier back then so they wouldn't. And I just find that hard to believe. So yeah, that's why I'm asking.
[/quote]
Oh okay, that's different. I would actually be inclined to agree with you on that one.
The vast majority of people living in Europe 500 years ago were simple folks, most likely rural families and the like, and that informed my conclusion about people being holier. The institutions, the elite minorities and the militant explorer type people represent a different type of culture and I considered them to be statistically insignificant in generalizing the character of all European people. I know that a lot of the European accounts of the New World business have been exposed as biased in different ways so your suspicions are not unfounded. For example, to this day children are often taught epic lies about Pizarro's conquest of the Inca so I hear ya.

[Winchester]

It used to be that sin was considered sin and shameful, even as it was committed. Now it's simply justified.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='22 December 2009 - 11:30 AM' timestamp='1261499426' post='2024408']
I speculate that people were generally more devout and moral in Europe of 500 years ago. Sure, human nature doesn't change, but it is possible to have a culture that is more conducive to spirituality and holiness, and a society that does not promote and/or tolerate sin as much as another. It does not seem illogical to suppose that people living in a society would be, generally speaking, of a superior moral and spiritual character.
[/quote]

[kamiller42]

This question sounds very similar to a question I asked in faith formation, "Is there more or less evil in the world today than in the past?"

[JimR-OCDS]

No people weren't more holy 500 years ago.

They belonged to the Catholic Church mostly because they were forced to.

It was economic suicide to be outside the Church, and when the King mandated what religion
his country would follow, so did the people, without question.

This is not holiness, but out of such harsh times, God brought forth, very holy people.

Jim

[Socrates]

[quote name='txdinghysailor' date='22 December 2009 - 11:14 AM' timestamp='1261498498' post='2024389']
Were people in Catholic Europe 500 years ago holier than most people living in a "Western Judeo-Christian society" now? My mom says yes, I say no. I say human nature doesn't change. She says that people paid more attention to their Faith and let it influence them more back then.
[/quote]
Only God can provide a certain answer to this question, since God alone has access to the inner state of everyone's soul.

But based on historical evidence, I'd guess yes. Human nature is the same, but human society and culture can be more or less Christian or conducive to holiness and virtue, and the state of Christian society has fluctuated through history. In the era of medieval Christendom, society openly proclaimed Christ as Lord, and encouraged devotion to the Catholic Faith. Public life centered around the Christian religion, as evidenced by the building of the magnificent cathedrals which were at the heart of society. Art and literature was often centered around Christian themes.
Of course, there was plenty of sin and evil then too, and there never was a perfect golden age.

I don't think 1509 was really a high point for the Church, though. Many Catholic historians consider the 13th century "the greatest of centuries," though it was far from perfect, and was followed by two centuries of religious decline and increased corruption in the Church, culminating in the Protestant Revolt of 1517.

However, I think it very safe to say that, despite problems and abuses, people and society as a whole took the Faith much more seriously then than now.

The contemporary era is arguably unique in society's promotion of immorality and vice as virtue, and in its condemnation of virtue, even among so-called "Christians." People committed sins in all past eras, yet these were not promoted as "rights" and being good in themselves, and people as a whole sought to avoid these vices. Today, society openly promotes every kind of perversion, and scorns and ridicules "traditional morality."

Past ages may have been prone to hypocrisy, but hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.
Today, virtue is paid no tribute, much less practiced, and vice is extolled as virtuous.

Anyone who thinks modern society is the best there's ever been is deluding himself.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Socrates' date='22 December 2009 - 02:06 PM' timestamp='1261508786' post='2024501']
Past ages may have been prone to hypocrisy, but hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.
[/quote]
Is this an original thought? It's spectacular.

[Winchester]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='22 December 2009 - 01:40 PM' timestamp='1261507256' post='2024485']
No people weren't more holy 500 years ago.

They belonged to the Catholic Church mostly because they were forced to.

It was economic suicide to be outside the Church, and when the King mandated what religion
his country would follow, so did the people, without question.

This is not holiness, but out of such harsh times, God brought forth, very holy people.

Jim
[/quote]
Overly simplistic history. Too many commas.

[Socrates]

[quote name='txdinghysailor' date='22 December 2009 - 11:36 AM' timestamp='1261499762' post='2024413']
Well last night we got into an argument regarding the numbers that are thrown around in our circle of friends regarding Aztec human sacrifices, the number of Aztecs converted in the 1400-1500s and stuff like that. I said that you can't assume that the numbers are perfectly accurate, because the people writing the numbers probably had something to gain by exaggerating things in their favor. And then my mom said that people were holier back then so they wouldn't. And I just find that hard to believe. So yeah, that's why I'm asking.
[/quote]
While it's hard to get exact numbers, the evidence is that the numbers of human sacrifice were extremely high, and this horrified even the hardened Spanish conquistadors. The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice on a scale larger than any other society in known history, though the worshipers of Baal in ancient North Africa may have came close. It's an incredible story. The vastly-outnumbered conquistadors would not have acheived victory without the aid of many of the native tribes which joined them in fighting the Aztecs who oppressed them and used them for sacrificial victims.

A good (and fun) Catholic read on the topic is [url="http://www.amazon.com/Our-Lady-Guadalupe-Conquest-Darkness/dp/0931888123/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261509948&sr=1-1"][i]Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Conquest of Darkness[/i], by Warren Carroll[/url].

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Socrates' date='22 December 2009 - 12:06 PM' timestamp='1261508786' post='2024501']
Only God can provide a certain answer to this question, since God alone has access to the inner state of everyone's soul.

But based on historical evidence, I'd guess yes. Human nature is the same, but human society and culture can be more or less Christian or conducive to holiness and virtue, and the state of Christian society has fluctuated through history. In the era of medieval Christendom, society openly proclaimed Christ as Lord, and encouraged devotion to the Catholic Faith. Public life centered around the Christian religion, as evidenced by the building of the magnificent cathedrals which were at the heart of society. Art and literature was often centered around Christian themes.
Of course, there was plenty of sin and evil then too, and there never was a perfect golden age.

I don't think 1509 was really a high point for the Church, though. Many Catholic historians consider the 13th century "the greatest of centuries," though it was far from perfect, and was followed by two centuries of religious decline and increased corruption in the Church, culminating in the Protestant Revolt of 1517.

However, I think it very safe to say that, despite problems and abuses, people and society as a whole took the Faith much more seriously then than now.

The contemporary era is arguably unique in society's promotion of immorality and vice as virtue, and in its condemnation of virtue, even among so-called "Christians." People committed sins in all past eras, yet these were not promoted as "rights" and being good in themselves, and people as a whole sought to avoid these vices. Today, society openly promotes every kind of perversion, and scorns and ridicules "traditional morality."

Past ages may have been prone to hypocrisy, but hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.
Today, virtue is paid no tribute, much less practiced, and vice is extolled as virtuous.

Anyone who thinks modern society is the best there's ever been is deluding himself.
[/quote]
+1

[Socrates]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='22 December 2009 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1261508946' post='2024502']
Is this an original thought? It's spectacular.
[/quote]
Actually, no. (Though I'd love to take credit.) Don't remember where I read it; I think it's an old saying,

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Socrates' date='22 December 2009 - 03:06 PM' timestamp='1261508786' post='2024501']However, I think it very safe to say that, despite problems and abuses, people and society as a whole took the Faith much more seriously then than now.

The contemporary era is arguably unique in society's promotion of immorality and vice as virtue, and in its condemnation of virtue, even among so-called "Christians." People committed sins in all past eras, yet these were not promoted as "rights" and being good in themselves, and people as a whole sought to avoid these vices. Today, society openly promotes every kind of perversion, and scorns and ridicules "traditional morality."

Past ages may have been prone to hypocrisy, but hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.
Today, virtue is paid no tribute, much less practiced, and vice is extolled as virtuous.

Anyone who thinks modern society is the best there's ever been is deluding himself.
[/quote]
I think that's an accurate and thoughtful analysis. However, the Catholic Church destroyed itself and it's hold on power with self corruption. It's not the people who became less holy and rejected the Church, it's the Church leaders and became less holy and were actually destructive.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Anomaly' date='22 December 2009 - 02:53 PM' timestamp='1261511587' post='2024555']
I think that's an accurate and thoughtful analysis. However, the Catholic Church destroyed itself and it's hold on power with self corruption. It's not the people who became less holy and rejected the Church, it's the Church leaders and became less holy and were actually destructive.
[/quote]I must have missed the destruction part.