Has the roman catholic church's legacy to the western world been mostly positive or negative.....?

A few things (in addition to leading billions to Christ) where the Catholic Church has made the world a better and brighter place are:

+ Relief from the Barbarian invasions of the early middle ages

+ Rescued Christian and pre-christian literature

+ Condemned slavery since 1435

+ Spread agricultural and animal husbandry knowledge

+ Started and protected universities

+ Sponsored and supported science and medicine

+ Created International Law theory

+ Developed and sponsored modern economic theory

+ Invented charity as we know it

+ Codified, expanded, and improved Western Law

+ Developed Western Morality

+ Created just war theory

+ Sponsored and influenced music, art and architecture

+ Developed the concept of inalienable rights

I suggest you read the books:

+ "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

+ "Seven Lies About Catholic History" by Diane Moczar

+ Crusades +

Muslim armies had conquered Syria, Persia, Palestine, Egypt, North Africa, Spain, Sicily, Southern Italy, Cyprus, Rhodes, Sardinia, Majorca, Crete, and Malta which had been some of the most heavily Christian areas in the world. They attacked Rome and came within 100 miles of Paris before being pushed back.

Thousands, and possibly millions, of Christians died during this drive to eventually bring the entire world under Islam.

The First Crusade was launched in 1095 by Pope Urban II to check the advance of the Muslims and regain control of the city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land.

If this defensive war was not fought then we would probably all be Muslim today.

I am sure that some atrocities were committed by individuals of both sides during this war but by most people's judgment this was a just war.

For more information, see:

+ The Crusaders by Régine Pernoud

+ The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude (1996) by Bat Ye’or

+ God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades (2009) by Rodney Stark

+ The Inquisition +

Modern historians have long known that the popular view of the Inquisition is a myth. The Inquisition was actually an attempt by the Catholic Church to stop unjust executions.

Heresy was a capital offense against the state. It was considered a type of treason. Rulers of the state, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw heretics as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath.

When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig. It was not easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. The lord needed some basic theological training, very few did. The sad result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent judge of the crime.

The Catholic Church's response to this problem was the Inquisition, an attempt to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges.

From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.

Most people tried for heresy by the Inquisition were either acquitted or had their sentences suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ. The underlying assumption of the Inquisition was that, like lost sheep, heretics had simply strayed.

If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely left the flock, there was nothing more that could be done. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to secular authorities with pleas for mercy that were frequently ignored. Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.

For more information, see:

+ The Real Inquisition, By Thomas F. Madden, National Review (2004) http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406...

+ Inquisition by Edward Peters (1988)

With love in Christ.

Well I'm not so sure that your negatives are all negative.

-Crusades

I prefer the current legal system to Sharia

-Inquisition

People used to volunteer to have their matters heard at the inquisition because it was considered fairer. It wasn't perfect and I think things have improved but it was the better alternative at the time. Now there were some bad situations with overzealous participants who ended up getting excommunicated for it but overall was it really such a negative in the historical context?

-antisemitism(persecution of jews)

Given all the Catholic Church has done in the opposite direction I think more balance is needed. Have you read Rabbi Dalin's The Myth of Hitler's Pope?

-current sex abuse scandal

You can hardly blame the Church as a whole for some bad eggs within it when they are disproportionately low. Unlike the celebrity sex abuse scandals where Hollywood stars publically come out in support of the perpetrators no Catholic speaks up in favor of those baddies. Then of course we have the current Pope who leaves no stone unturned trying to rid the Church of that "filth" as he describes them.

-opposition to contraception

Like the Sharia Law thing it is again a question of perspective. My God said to fruitful and multiply. God knows best. Would people having sex without contraception exclusively in marriage really be so bad?

-corruption of many of the popes(like pope alexander sixtus)

This is worthy of mention given the overall corruption that has always been around?

Anyway there are a few thoughts.

Most of your negatives are not negatives. They also are based upon urban legends if you actually think they belong in the negative category.

Read D'Nesh D'Souza's book What's So Great About Christianity. It will open your eyes a bunch.

The Roman Catholic Church INVENTED THE UNIVERSITY AND THE HOSPITAL for humanity. It also remains the single largest private charity on earth and in the USA. Millions of people, Catholic and non-Catholic, are fed, sheltered, clothed, healed, and educated by Catholic charities every day throughout the world.

Apart from the recent cover up scandal with a relatively small number of priests in the schools (which is truly appalling). The vast majority of work by the Catholics is a benefit to society. Hospitals, schools, SVDP society, caritas, catholic aid, hospices, to name a few.

Catholicism also doesn't subscribe to 'young earth creationism' nonsense, and accepts evolution as a fact. I don't believe in god, but as far as religion goes, the Catholics are one of the better ones.

There is some truth in that, but then I think of the art, literature, music, the doings of the many saints, the sponsored medical efforts, some beautiful architecture. On balance, the contribution has probably been just positive.

I think that the positive outweighs the negative by tons. But as a Catholic my opinion might be considered biased.

Overall, I think that it's been negative. Especially in that it teaches servility and the many evils of Christian thought. Christianity is a cult that emphasizes what happens after we die -- whether we end up happy forever or tortured forever. The mythical story of Jesus' crucifixion is a horrible, sadistic story of human sacrifice. Christians even celebrate it by ceremoniously drinking his blood and eating his body. This is ritual vampirism and cannibalism.

The idea of blood sacrifice for vicarious atonement (i.e. the mythical Jesus dying for other people's sins) is immoral -- punishing the innocent to free the guilty. But, it's good marketing.

The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation teaches that the wine and cracker actually become the blood and body of Jesus. Yum!

For almost 2000 years, the Roman Catholic Church has attempted to control people's thoughts and actions. The heretic burnings (in addition to their intrinsic evil) were designed to keep people in line and the Roman Catholic Church in power. Just 400 years ago you could be burned alive for writing that the Earth goes around the Sun.

Just because a few priests made advances in science does not mean that the Roman Catholic Church was good for science.

In addition to your list, the Roman Catholic Church was behind or encouraged or didn't speak out against:

The Holocaust

The book burnings

Hindering of science

Hindering of medicine

Hindering of social advancement

Hindering of education

Backing of slavery

Subjugation of women

Child rapes by religious leaders, and the cover-ups for hundreds of years

...and much more.

I'd like to prevent repeats.

Negative.

The main error of the Roman church is that she teaches that worshiping the Lord with pagan festivals, pagan rituals, pagan images and man-made doctrine is acceptable to Him.

Doing this does not bring people to the Lord, but instead steers them away from the only One that can save.

Be Blessed:-D

I have no thoughts but you been TBR'd *****