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.

[–] Keld@hexbear.net 4 points 1 week ago

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.