max
Clerk
Posts: 2
|
Post by max on Dec 2, 2012 19:30:01 GMT
i am researching about "to what extent did the catholic church affect the progress of medicine in the middle ages".
so far i have these information. can anyone add to the points?
Church suppressed the progress of medicine • One of the most influential Pope of the middle ages, Pope Gregory I, stressed that religious prayers to God were more important than medicinal cures. • Council of Tours pronounced that there would be no bloodshed from the church. "ecclesia abhorret a sanguine" in 1163. • Pope Boniface VIII banned the mutilation of the dead in his decree, “Detesande feritatis” • Clerical healers were one of the only sources of medical aid available to the commoners • Since dissections were prohibited by the church, medical practitioners worked upon Galen’s studies on animal bodies. This ultimately led to many issues as we do not share the same body as animals.
Church had little significant effect on medicine development • The impact of Arab science on the Western world grew as they made innovations. • “Make use of medical treatment, for Allah has not made a disease without appointing a remedy for it, with the exception of one disease, name was old age.” This quote shows the ideology that Mohammed instilled in the Muslim which encouraged many to find cures. From Sunan Abu-Dawud • Muslim conquest of parts of Europe spread their medical knowledge. They established clean and efficient hospitals and taught health and hygiene in Europe. Pharmacy and drugs also flourished as a sector during their rule. • Arabic polymath Ibn Sīnā compiled The Canon of Medicine which is one of the most famous books in history of medicine. This book was influential to the early medical practitioners in the West.
Church advanced medicine • "Beforehand above all things, care must be taken of the sick" was noted in the Rule of Saint Benedict. • The church built the first universities and monastic schools which were initially made for the study of Christian theology. Eventually, these became the only places were medicine was taught. • Council of Clermont brought an end to practice of medicine by monks. This led to more scholastic medicine as the science fell to secular clergymen.
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Dec 3, 2012 17:22:31 GMT
Max 'fraid I am no expert but looking at what you have posted I suspect you have received a rather cyclopean view of matters. Perhaps it would help to expand your reading (don't know where you got your points from - not an atheist or Islamic website I hope! - not likely to be very objective). Try "Atheist Delusions" by David Bentley Hart. For example this is from a review: orthocath.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/book-review-atheist-delusions-by-david-bentley-hart/So where are we now? Clearly not in a Christian – or even post-Christian age — but more probably an anti-Christian one. It is equally apparent to some that this age cannot last. There comes a time when old paradigms must be cast away. Sometimes a good idol-smashing does this, or better yet, a nice book-burning. Hart describes one such book-burning which gave rise to the modern age. It was on June 24, 1443, when Paracelsus took copies of all the medical books written by Galen and Avicenna in his possession, and publicly burned them, thereby destroying the stranglehold of Aristoteleian pseudo-science on the Christian and Islamic worlds. Hart makes a convincing case that it was only by such an audacious act that the modern age of scientific inquiry could begin.As for the Islamic contribution, as Hart points out in the book, Islam, through its aggressive imperial expansion did manage to envelop the learning of other cultures. But as he says (p 71 paperback) "The Islamic world could boast four and a half centuries of scientific preeminence, it is true, but no more progress than a moderately clever undergraduate today could assimilate in less than a single academic year. In a large part, this was merely the consequence of the condition of the Hellenistic science that the Muslim world inherited: its vitality long exhausted, its inventiveness all but non-existent, its methods (to the degree that it had any) practically useless."The great value of the book is I feel that it escapes the boundaries of atheist and Islamist indoctrination. By giving a rather more original and historically-verifiable view you may pick up marks for originality and accuracy, though there is always the danger that you may be marked down for political incorrectness Anyway, hope this helps!
|
|
|
Post by gregmita on Dec 3, 2012 23:23:49 GMT
Just a few quick notes: i am researching about "to what extent did the catholic church affect the progress of medicine in the middle ages". so far i have these information. can anyone add to the points? Church suppressed the progress of medicine • One of the most influential Pope of the middle ages, Pope Gregory I, stressed that religious prayers to God were more important than medicinal cures. This by itself does not deny the importance of actual medicine. Also, Gregory I was from the 600s, not Medieval. • Council of Tours pronounced that there would be no bloodshed from the church. "ecclesia abhorret a sanguine" in 1163. fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Ecclesia_abhorret_a_sanguine.jpg• Pope Boniface VIII banned the mutilation of the dead in his decree, “Detesande feritatis” I think they mean "Detestande Feritatis". This was an often misunderstood proclamation that banned the practice of "dispersed burial", which was used by both nobles and clergy as a way to generate income from the burials of families/fellow order-members in as many places as possible. This did not ban medical dissection. • Clerical healers were one of the only sources of medical aid available to the commoners • Since dissections were prohibited by the church, medical practitioners worked upon Galen’s studies on animal bodies. This ultimately led to many issues as we do not share the same body as animals. This is funny since the reason Galen used animals was because Roman law prohibited human dissection. There was no such blanket ban in Medieval Europe. The works of men like Mondino de Lucci supplanted Galen for anatomical texts.
|
|
max
Clerk
Posts: 2
|
Post by max on Dec 5, 2012 2:35:34 GMT
thank you sandwhiches and gregmita for replying I believe Gregory I counts as Middle Ages since the Wiki page notes the time ranges from 5th to 15th centuries. I have chosen to remove the evidence of medieval churches condemning dissection as I've found overwhelming evidence disproving that conception. Would the following be correct to say? I took the information from Hannam's book "God's Philosophers". •Many physicians in the middle ages were influenced by Christianity. Paracelsus was a physician who famously opposed the traditional Galenic medicine. His work was a mixture of religion and alchemy to create “chemical philosophy”. He analyzed the Genesis and believed that God has shown which herbs could be used to cure diseases. This gave birth to the “doctrine of signatures”. Andreas Vesalius was an anatomist whose career was influenced by religion. After his lectures at universities gained popularity, Vesalius set out to complete Galen’s works by investigating human anatomy himself. Many works became the product of his studies including his masterpiece, On the Fabric of the Human Body published in 1543. His book was seen as a paean to the handiwork of God as uncovered by his servant Vesalius.
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Dec 5, 2012 10:51:05 GMT
gregmita, are you able to translate the jpeg for those non-French speakers among us?
|
|
|
Post by bvgdez on Dec 6, 2012 21:43:43 GMT
Sorry if gregmita has already prepared a translation. This is what I came up with: could only be doubtful to minds blinded by prejudice. Thus it was not ideas intrinsic to surgery itself which first caused it to banned from universities; it was merely an age-old prejudice which led to its exclusion, Ecclesia abhorret a sanguine (The church abhors blood): 8a) this fear is natural; blood has in itself a horror which takes hold of us inspite of ourselves: whether instinct or a weakness (left over) from childhood, it is only through applying strenuous efforts that we are able to conquer this repugnance or revulsion that we feel at the sight of blood. Legislators, in order to safeguard our lives, have wisely made use of a feeling that is a secret law dictated by nature. The church desired to remind us of this feeling by the customs and rules to which it subjects its.. The footnote is maybe interesting too - but I had more trouble with this a) Partant, named PASQUIER(??) page 873, seems to be quite right in including the surgeon as well as the physician in the body of the university, there being nothing that would have excluded him prior to this except the cruelty which is considered to be a part of the exercise of his profession; and just as the Church abhors nothing so much as blood so it does not make the university its daughter by its first/foremost institute.( )
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Dec 7, 2012 6:09:30 GMT
The footnote is maybe interesting too - but I had more trouble with this a) Partant, named PASQUIER(??) page 873, seems to be quite right in including the surgeon as well as the physician in the body of the university, there being nothing that would have excluded him prior to this except the cruelty which is considered to be a part of the exercise of his profession; and just as the Church abhors nothing so much as blood so it does not make the university its daughter by its first/foremost institute.( ) I think "Partant, dit PASQUIER" means "Thus, said Pasquier" and "y" could be translated as "there", leaving "Thus, said Pasquier, there seems to be good reason to...". So it's probably paraphrasing what this person wrote.
|
|
|
Post by bvgdez on Dec 7, 2012 10:20:14 GMT
Hi, ignorantianescia,
You are quite right. I realized this morning that I'd completely misunderstood "partant". I should leave this stuff to the experts and/or be more careful in future!
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Dec 7, 2012 18:13:07 GMT
Hi, ignorantianescia, You are quite right. I realized this morning that I'd completely misunderstood "partant". I should leave this stuff to the experts and/or be more careful in future! Well, errare humanum est. And I don't think you have to leave it to others, but if you want to, be sure to leave it to experts (like turoldus), and not fellow amateurs like me!
|
|
|
Post by gregmita on Dec 7, 2012 21:35:22 GMT
I'm an amateur too, but remember that "amateur" means "lover". I only have my rusty, incomplete French from school, but I think bvgdez's translation for the main text paragraph is basically correct. The footnote is the author (Quesnay) quoting Pasquier. I don't know which book of Pasquier's though. The point of my posting the link was the description for the screen shot farther down the page: "The famous quote "Ecclesia abhorret a sanguine" is never found in any document of the Catholic Church. It has been created by François Quesnay in his history of surgery in France written in the year 1744. The image is the scan of the page containing the quote. This is its first ever source. No older sources can be found. (See the discussion of this source in Charles H. Talbot, Medicine in Medieval England, London: Oldbourne, 1967)"
|
|
|
Post by himself on Dec 24, 2012 0:58:51 GMT
max13th century: medical schools founded in Bologna, Padua Hugh of Lucca: Denounced some of Galen's teachings; Used wine to clean wounds; founded school of surgery at Bologna in 1204. John of Arderne: employed hemlock anesthesia; so-called 'soporific sponges' date from XI century Henri de Mondeville: pioneered aseptic treatment of wounds and use of sutures Boniface VIII supposedly forbade dissections of the human body in a bull, De sepulturis, AD 1300; but this bull simply forbade the boiling of the bodies of dead Crusaders to reduce them to bones and lower the shipping costs of sending them home for burial. In reality, in the late 1200’s in Western Christendom, dissection of the human body was permitted for the first time anywhere. Never allowed in Islam; done sporadically in China for forensic purposes at trial, but not for science or medicine. Romans had a horror of touching dead bodies and employed a special priesthood for the sole purpose of doing so. 1315: First public demonstration of human anatomy 1316: Mondino de Luzzi published Anatomia, the first manual on dissection. Guy de Chauliac stressed anatomical dissection in training surgeons William of Saliceto recorded his dissections in ChirurgiaUseful reference: David Lindberg, ed. Medieval Science.
|
|
|
Post by meriady on Sept 15, 2017 9:03:29 GMT
|
|