I actually read the article, which was actually very good. Thanks for posting it.
I found Bernstein's argument interesting. It made me think.
I did have some critiques, however.
First off, the calamity that was the collapse of the western Empire in the fifth century was enormous. With wave after wave of illiterate ultra-violent barbarians sweeping over western Europe, life became very dangerous and uncertain. Western Europeans, finding no signs of light in public life, turned inward seeking solace in the next life. Bernstein seems to be conflating the
effects of the "Dark Ages" (lowered standards of living, illiteracy) for the
causes (Huns, Vandals, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Lombards, Vikings, etc.)
Historian Ralph Raico of Buffalo argues (persuasively, in my view) that the existence of the Church as a separate public institution not under state control was a key factor in the rise of the West.
Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, prohibiting Emperor Theodosius from going into the Church.
This was different from the east (e.g. The Abbasid Empire, Safavid Persia, Imperial China), in which the church and the state were one. He seems to conflate religious and civil liberty, but, if you keep them separate, the problem is solved, the Church has no power to execute or silence anyone. What really helps liberty, including liberty of inquiry, is decentralized
political authority.
Next, while he mentions it, he underestimates the value of the work of the monasteries in keeping ancient texts alive in the west. While there were obvious abuses of authority that Bernstein mentions, he undervalues the work of the Monastics in breaking out of the intellectual doldrums of the Medieval period.
I do not see an inevitable dichotomy between the Monastics and Aristotle.
As for the savagery in the sack of Beziers, I attribute that to a lack of Christian pity or charity and to the general savagery of warriors of the day. The fact that they resorted to a religious excuse says more about those soldiers than it does about the Church.
Religious differences are resorted to and exacerbated for political purposes worldwide. Look at Catholic France fighting on the side of the Protestant Dutch against Catholic Spain and Austria in the 30 Years' War, or France's alliance with the Muslim Ottoman Empire 1534-1798, or The Troubles in Northern Ireland up to the last couple of decades. Were these religious matters or political matters with a religious veneer?
Finally, I have to agree with Nate (which is surely a sign of the Apocalypse), Professor Bernstein went into this with an ax to grind (not that he dies not make many excellent points).
It is also a little ironic that he teaches at an institution founded by a Catholic Brotherhood.
Overall, though, I found this paper intriguing. Thanks for posting it.
