As Catholics, how are we to view the Crusades?

[Matthew91]

Hey everyone, I was not exactly sure where to put this but here seemed like the best place.

So, my question is: As Catholics, how are we to view the Crusades?

I’m really not sure how to answer this question, and was hoping for some help. I’m well aware of the bias that is around in our modern culture, but I’m not entirely sure how we are supposed to view them in terms of morality, like if they were justified or not.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

So, my question is: As Catholics, how are we to view the Crusades?

There are many interesting issues surrounding the Crusades but the most important thing to remember is that they were, at the most basic level, a war between Christendom and Islam. As hard as it is to imagine today, the Middle East was once a Christian land. Islam changed that, not by theological persuasion but by military conquest. Muslim extremists may claim dominion over Spain because it was once Islamic but Christian extemists could as eaily claim dominion over Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, and northern Africa on the same basis.

The most interesting historical question to ask is not why the Crusades occured but why Christendom waited so long to respond to Islamic conquests of Christian lands.

 

[Matthew91]

There are many interesting issues surrounding the Crusades but the most important thing to remember is that they were, at the most basic level, a war between Christendom and Islam. As hard as it is to imagine today, the Middle East was once a Christian land. Islam changed that, not by theological persuasion but by military conquest. Muslim extremists may claim dominion over Spain because it was once Islamic but Christian extemists could as eaily claim dominion over Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, and northern Africa on the same basis.

The most interesting historical question to ask is not why the Crusades occured but why Christendom waited so long to respond to Islamic conquests of Christian lands.

Thank you for the response, but also are the Crusades something we should feel bad about? Or should we see them as war (which is always unfortunate) with a just cause? Like if someone claims that Islam is a violent religion, and then someone else says that Christianity is too, because of the Crusades. How should we respond? Should we defend the Crusades?

 

[wardrandolph]

First as I’m sure you are aware,there was more than one crusade.Were they "all’ just?No.Some were carried out for political or matterial gain by rulers of certain countries,some were carried out for the right reason(my opinion).Is war ever justified?Yes.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Thank you for the response, but also are the Crusades something we should feel bad about? Or should we see them as war (which is always unfortunate) with a just cause? Like if someone claims that Islam is a violent religion, and then someone else says that Christianity is too, because of the Crusades. How should we respond? Should we defend the Crusades?

Unfortunately, there is no simple answer. First, as wardrandolph points out, there were many Crusades. Also, all armies in those days behaved very badly compared to modern standards. And even in the most just war, armies were often comprised of mercenaries and even non-mercenaries expected compensation not just in pay but also in booty. Finally, while the Crudaders were Christians it is debatable whether the Crusades were a Christian enterprise or an enterprise of Christians.

But overall, I think you have to begin with the fact that the Crusades were a (belated) response to Islamic conquest.

I would suggest that the best response is to say that Crusades were no worse than other wars of the period and were essentially defensive in nature and, therefore, reasonbly justified though rather imprudent (nothing much was accomplished by them) and therefore, ultimately, a waste of life. At most, it was a brief Christian flirtation with religious war which left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.

 

[JimG]

But overall, I think you have to begin with the fact that the Crusades were a (belated) response to Islamic conquest.

Yes, that was the reason the Crusades was called for. I suppose that had Christendom simply ignored the Islamic conquests in the Holy Land, Islamic conquests might well have advanced much faster and further, eventually overtaking all of Europe.

To the extent that the Crusades were able to defend Christendom and Christian countries, they were a good thing. The defense of Christendom is a good thing. The defense of one’s country and civilization is a good thing.

It is a peculiarly modern idea that all war is bad. Perhaps moderns are willing to give up their civilization without a fight. But I would hope not.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Would anybody happen to know how this would fit in with “turn thy cheek”?

 

[JimG]

Would anybody happen to know how this would fit in with “turn thy cheek”?

The admonition to turn the other cheek is a personal moral counsel, intended to keep us from personal anger and vindictiveness. It says nothing about the obligation for the protection of our loved ones, our country, or our civilization.

Christianity is not a pacifist religion.

Suppose that one’s wife or mother were being viciously attacked by a mugger or rapist. Would one’s obligation as a Christian be to stand aside and say, “a violent response to violence serves no purpose. I cannot use force to stop this attack.” ? Obviously not: our obligation is to defend the innocent.

The Christian obligation at the time of the Crusades was to stop the Islamic conquest of the Holy Land.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Would anybody happen to know how this would fit in with “turn thy cheek”?

I’m not a theologian, but here’s my take on it.

We are, at minimum, encouraged to “turn the other cheek” when an injustice is done to us. However, we are not obliged, nor is it charitable to turn someone else’s cheek so he/she can be hit, killed or oppressed.

The Crusades were not about the Christian combatants avenging personal affronts or reprisals. Arab armies had conquered Greek Christians and Levantines. The Arab rule grew weak and was more and more dominated by various Turkic groups from Central Asia. The rule of the latter was quite harsh, and not only on Christians, but on many Arabs Muslims as well. The initial Crusades were against the Seljuks, a ferocious Turkic tribe that really was oppressing Christians in the Middle East. It was thought, and probably rightly, that the Muslim world posed a threat to Christian Europe. After all, the Muslim Moors were barely defeated at Tours, in France, and had sacked Christian churches in Italy and Spain and hauled Christians off to be sold in the slave markets.

Ultimately, the Crusades failed, mainly because Turkic tribes kept coming out of Central Asia, and not only drove out the Crusaders, but essentially destroyed Arab civilization; something from which it has never really recovered.

It must be remembered that Spain had its own Crusades; which the Christians ultimately won after centuries of struggle. The remoteness of Spain from the Central Asians would have played a part in that.

The Byzantine Empire, of course, fell to the Ottoman Turks, who essentially stamped out Christianity in what is now Turkey. The Ottomans attempted to conquer all of Europe twice, and were narrowly turned back each time.

That’s not a failure to “turn the other cheek”. That’s defending the potential victims.

 

[MarcellusW]

Thank you for the response, but also are the Crusades something we should feel bad about? Or should we see them as war (which is always unfortunate) with a just cause? Like if someone claims that Islam is a violent religion, and then someone else says that Christianity is too, because of the Crusades. How should we respond? Should we defend the Crusades?

If you are talking about the crusades in the public education system, I assume they are talking about the crusades that were aimed at Jerusalem.

You do not need to feel guilty about these crusades. In fact why should you feel guilty any other wars fought by people hundreds of years ago from different, presently non-existing nations? Did you have influence over their decision making processes or their outcomes? I certainly hope you dont think that !

If you are hearing that you should feel guilty, you are only receiving a post- modernist’s interpretation of the crusades that feels, in general, somehow western and Christian culture need to have a collective guilt for every single wrong that has occurred in history. It is a sense of self-hatred really that those who feel we should feel guilty for being Christian or western for wrongs committed in the past without presenting the wrongs done by other cultures.

As others have posted , the crusades in the middle east were defensive. If your teacher or author has an issue with them, you can simply ask him to point out the christian lands in the middle east on map in 600 A.D., then ask again for the year 1080 A.D. (just before the first crusade). That should confound their argument enough. You could also ask them what happened to the Byzantine Empire, which was officially Christian (obliterated by the turks).
If your talking with your teacher, dont get caught up in trying to debate them, just keep asking questions in a manner deferring to their authority, yet, if truthfully answered, point out the obvious conclusions showing they(the teacher) are wrong.

 

[SSTeacher]

Hi Jim,

The admonition to turn the other cheek is a personal moral counsel, intended to keep us from personal anger and vindictiveness.

I agree.

It says nothing about the obligation for the protection of our loved ones, our country, or our civilization.

I agree.

Christianity is not a pacifist religion.

I respectfully disagree. Christ said, “Blessed are the peacemakers.”

Suppose that one’s wife or mother were being viciously attacked by a mugger or rapist. Would one’s obligation as a Christian be to stand aside and say, “a violent response to violence serves no purpose. I cannot use force to stop this attack.” ? Obviously not: our obligation is to defend the innocent.

I agree. But I daresay most Christians would consider themselves under a moral obligation to use only reasonable force.

The Christian obligation at the time of the Crusades was to stop the Islamic conquest of the Holy Land.

Do you think it might be more accurate to use the term Catholic obligation? We Protestants hadn’t yet arrived on the scene and it seems unlikely that Orthodox Christians would have felt the same obligation since they ended up on the receiving end. Some commentators have described that Fourth Crusade as a “disgrace.” Didn’t Pope John Paul II, speaking in his official capacity back in 2004, express “indignation and sorrow” about that one?

Helpfully,
Mick

 

[c659smith]

First and foremost one must know the history of the crusades from all sides.

The crusades was fairly much a fight over the Holy Lands and to assure safe travel for Catholics to the Holy land.

Many of the other battles was to stop the Islamic crusades from taking over most of Europe.

Islam Fundamendalist are still fighting that war.

That is why Islamic run countries still for the most part resemble the years 500 to 1100 along with their laws. You talk about the Spanish Inquisition they are still conducting the Islamic Inquisition

Today we call it repression and terrorism.

 

[JimG]

I respectfully disagree. Christ said, “Blessed are the peacemakers.”

Yes. That’s one of the things he said. But he didn’t found a pacifist religion. I use pacifist in the same sense used by the Selective Service and by many actual pacificsts: opposed to all war, and often to all violence. True pacifists may apply for conscientous objector status when the draft is in effect. The great majority of Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, do not do that.

If Christianity were truly a pacifist religion, there ought to be no Christians in the military, and no chaplains. And since a majority of the U.S. is Christian, that would leave us pretty much undefended.

And if Christendom had been pacifist at the time of the Crusades, (and yes, it was all Catholic back then), we would have been at the mercy of conquering Islamic armies. Christians might not have survived, except as Dhimmis under Islamic rule.

A great many of the Crusades were failures, some dismal failures. But the original impetus to save the Holy Land and protect Christian pilgrims was good. And to the extent that Islamic aggression was set back, the result was good. Like all wars, there were atrocities and mistakes, (although none so bad as in the wars of the 20th century).

 

[SSTeacher]

Yes. That’s one of the things he said. But he didn’t found a pacifist religion. I use pacifist in the same sense used by the Selective Service and by many actual pacificsts: opposed to all war, and often to all violence. True pacifists may apply for conscientous objector status when the draft is in effect. The great majority of Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, do not do that.

If Christianity were truly a pacifist religion, there ought to be no Christians in the military, and no chaplains. And since a majority of the U.S. is Christian, that would leave us pretty much undefended.

And if Christendom had been pacifist at the time of the Crusades, (and yes, it was all Catholic back then), we would have been at the mercy of conquering Islamic armies. Christians might not have survived, except as Dhimmis under Islamic rule.

A great many of the Crusades were failures, some dismal failures. But the original impetus to save the Holy Land and protect Christian pilgrims was good. And to the extent that Islamic aggression was set back, the result was good. Like all wars, there were atrocities and mistakes, (although none so bad as in the wars of the 20th century).

Well said.

I’m not sure that I entirely agree with you but the horror of war and how a Christian should respond to it is something with which I continue to wrestle. I can’t fault your logical thinking, though. I’m grateful that I’ve been able to live my life under the freedom provided by others. Some of those others took lives and some of them had to sacrifice their own lives and it’s possible that all of them may have been better men than I am.

It’s heartbreaking that we live in such a sin–cursed world.

Sadly,
Mick

 

[Magnus467]

The Crusades seem to be a cliche argument for atheists and others. These are great ways to explain it. Thank you.

 

[LutheranDK]

Thank you for the response, but also are the Crusades something we should feel bad about? Or should we see them as war (which is always unfortunate) with a just cause? Like if someone claims that Islam is a violent religion, and then someone else says that Christianity is too, because of the Crusades. How should we respond? Should we defend the Crusades?

I see the Crusades as being on par with the campaign to free Europe from the Nazi tyranny. Things happened during both campaign which we need to distance ourselves from (e.g. the bombing of Dresden, and the random slaughter of whole cities during the Crusades), but basically the cause was just. I only wish we’d won - and I’ll ain’t ask any pardon for the Crusades. Europe does not have to be ashamed of the Crusades. We basically need to be proud of them. Only thing that bothers me about them is that we didn’t win. There would be a lot less terrorism in the world now, if we had.

 

[Shlomey]

I’m not so sure about the “turn the other cheek” and how some people say this is about individuals only and not to be kept by everyone as a whole considering the first Christians were martyred and did not fight.

From a political perspective, I fully support the crusades: they were a LONG overdue necessary response to stop the Mohammedan hordes.

From a Christian perspective: see above: not sure. But then again the Pope has the Swiss Guards, St. Martin was a Roman soldier…

either way, here is a video about 2 popular myths about the crusades and a bit of history as to how things were under the Mohammedan yoke.

youtube.com/watch?v=9SlRZNUpzaA

 

[LutheranDK]

I’m not so sure about the “turn the other cheek” and how some people say this is about individuals only and not to be kept by everyone as a whole considering the first Christians were martyred and did not fight.

I would say that the first Christians are prime examples of how “turn the other cheek” is relating to our individual conduct, and not a command to worldly leaders in matters of politics.

 

[MarcellusW]

I would say that the first Christians are prime examples of how “turn the other cheek” is relating to our individual conduct, and not a command to worldly leaders in matters of politics.

This is also the Catholic view as there is such a thing as the Just War Doctrine.

 

[Lujack]

The Crusades shouldn’t be viewed as anything; they were a very complex story involving heroes and villains on all three sides. Yes, there were three sides: Franks, Muslims, and Byzantines. If you want to get even more confusing, you can divide the Muslims into three groups (Abbasid loyalists, Turks, and Fatimids), toss in the Jews and Nestorians, divide the Catholics into Normans, French, English, and priests, and even add the Mongols for good measure.

They aren’t a good argument to use against the Church, but they aren’t something for Catholics to be proud of, either. Such a complex story is certain to be ambivalent; how does one weigh Raymond of Toulouse and Reynald de Chatillon, King Baldwin the Leper and Bohemund?