[jimbob]

Yah, there is a difference between advancement and progress. As I've read it, just holding onto old knowledge was a feat in and of it's self in the medieval period. It's a bit like the debate in Alberta over our Premier (Governor if you prefer). Is Alberta doing better economically because our Premier is such a smart, organized kinda guy? Or is our economy doing well because we've a huge deposit of oil under us, and world prices are soaring? It could well be a bit from column A, and a bit from column B, but good luck ferreting out exactly how good or bad Premier Ralf has actually been - for all we know he could be lining his pockets with gold, yet the economy keeps booming.

I'd propose that the situation is fairly analogous (but inverted) to what happened in the medieval period. The powerful empires had faded and fallen to smaller tribes, civilization centres such as major cities had been besieged, sacked, and in some cases burned. Wealthy supporters of inovation simply evaporated while tribalism and external threats mounted. In light of such an economic and civilizational crisis, it isn't surprising to see that advancement would for the most part halt. But was the Church responsible for holding back advancements during this period?? It seems that it was unlikely that much of any advancement was going to occur in this environment! To blame the Church, the only social stabilizer of the era, for the paucity of advancement during the period is a bit like blaming the doctor for "killing" the patient when it already died in the Ambulance. Could the doctor save the patient if it hadn't died in transit - who could ever know?

And that's why I think it's just a little to convenient to blame the Church for screwing up Europe. If however you wish to engage in such historical constructions, you should probably start praising Islam for the incredible growth of science (during the same era) throughout the middle-east... fair is fair after all...