As Catholics, how are we to view the Crusades?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Matthew91
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lujack said:
The wars with the Ottomans in the later centuries and the fighting in the Crusades were different wars with different motivations. There was a time span of about 150 years between the 9th Crusade and the fall of Constantinople, so even if every war between the Western Catholics and Ottoman Turks counts as a crusade, that’s still a lapse of several generations.

If you are going to define every war between a Christian faction and a Muslim faction as a Crusade, than the Crusading era began when the Byzantine army fought the Arab army in the 7th century. Under that definition, though, the term dilutes to meaninglessness.
Click to expand...
A traditional numbering scheme for the crusades totals nine during the 11th to 13th centuries. This division is arbitrary and excludes many important expeditions, among them those of the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries. In reality, the crusades continued until the end of the 17th century, the crusade of Lepanto occurring in 1571, that of Hungary in 1664, and the crusade to Candia in 1669.[13] The Knights Hospitaller continued to crusade in the Mediterranean Sea around Malta until their defeat by Napoleon in 1798. There were frequent “minor” Crusades throughout this period, not only in Palestine but also in the Iberian Peninsula and central Europe, against Muslims and also Christian heretics and personal enemies of the Papacy or other powerful monarchs.
 
While I recognize the last several posts have been more of a history lesson than the original topic of how Catholics are to view the Crusades, I do want to thank you two for the information you shared. I teach RE to 8th graders and our next unit touches on the Crusades so this entire thread has been most helpful.

Do you have any links to the maps referred to in this discussion? I do think that is a proper approach to use in addressing the subject with my students.

Also, don’t answer in this thread but do feel free to send a private message with your thoughts on this dvd I’m considering using for the class (The Crusades: Crescent & the Cross). It’s History Channel so I suspect it may not put the Catholics in the best light. I’m interested in knowing if it adequately covers the bigger picture behind the crusades without bashing the Catholics too much.
 
YinYangMom said:
While I recognize the last several posts have been more of a history lesson than the original topic of how Catholics are to view the Crusades, I do want to thank you two for the information you shared. I teach RE to 8th graders and our next unit touches on the Crusades so this entire thread has been most helpful.

Do you have any links to the maps referred to in this discussion? I do think that is a proper approach to use in addressing the subject with my students.

Also, don’t answer in this thread but do feel free to send a private message with your thoughts on this dvd I’m considering using for the class (The Crusades: Crescent & the Cross). It’s History Channel so I suspect it may not put the Catholics in the best light. I’m interested in knowing if it adequately covers the bigger picture behind the crusades without bashing the Catholics too much.
Click to expand...
I don’t know about the History Channel video, because I’ve never seen it, but I do know of a website that does have some very useful resources:
crusades.boisestate.edu/classroom.shtml

A lot of the stuff there is on a much higher level of detail then you’ll probably need or want, but there are some very good maps. There’s also a timeline and a collection of primary sources. The most useful resource on there, though, are the secondary sources that are identified as being written by Knox. They are pretty readable and concise, and can give you a good idea of the course of the Crusades.
 
YinYangMom said:
While I recognize the last several posts have been more of a history lesson than the original topic of how Catholics are to view the Crusades, I do want to thank you two for the information you shared. I teach RE to 8th graders and our next unit touches on the Crusades so this entire thread has been most helpful.

Do you have any links to the maps referred to in this discussion? I do think that is a proper approach to use in addressing the subject with my students.

Also, don’t answer in this thread but do feel free to send a private message with your thoughts on this dvd I’m considering using for the class (The Crusades: Crescent & the Cross). It’s History Channel so I suspect it may not put the Catholics in the best light. I’m interested in knowing if it adequately covers the bigger picture behind the crusades without bashing the Catholics too much.
Click to expand...
catholic-pages.com/dir/crusades.asp - 14k
 
As Catholics how are we to view the Crusades?

From what I gather the Crusades were kind of well intentioned and appropriate, given the time period and the circumstances. The big mistake was the cannibalism of pagans when they took Jerusalem. That, it appears, is behind much of the Jihad which is taking place today. Where we in the west barely touch upon the crusades in our homes/classrooms, the muslims still tell the tales of Saladin as if the events took place in recent history. It seems to keeps the disgust and hate of the west alive.

What I wonder about is what life was like under Islamic rule in Jerusalem before the Crusades. I read and hear that for the 400 years of that rule Christians were permitted to worship, live, trade, in peace among the muslims, but that they grumbled about it and wanted the lands back.

It was Alexius’ request for help in defending Constantinople which presented the opportunity for the Crusades. It appears his need for assistance was a power play and Pope Urban led the people to believe the Muslims were brutalizing Christians. Were Christians being attacked, tortured, abused or was it just about land and power?

As Catholics we are to view the Crusades in proper context of the times and conditions of the era. Trying to get a handle on what that ‘proper’ context is seems to be the challenge. War is war, though. Regardless of good intentions, when it comes down to it, soldiers are human, as are the leaders. Stress, hunger, horrid conditions can lead some to do horrible things which reflect on the country behind the movement. It is true of the past, and of the present.
 
YinYangMom said:
As Catholics how are we to view the Crusades?

From what I gather the Crusades were kind of well intentioned and appropriate, given the time period and the circumstances. The big mistake was the cannibalism of pagans when they took Jerusalem. That, it appears, is behind much of the Jihad which is taking place today. Where we in the west barely touch upon the crusades in our homes/classrooms, the muslims still tell the tales of Saladin as if the events took place in recent history. It seems to keeps the disgust and hate of the west alive.

What I wonder about is what life was like under Islamic rule in Jerusalem before the Crusades. I read and hear that for the 400 years of that rule Christians were permitted to worship, live, trade, in peace among the muslims, but that they grumbled about it and wanted the lands back.

It was Alexius’ request for help in defending Constantinople which presented the opportunity for the Crusades. It appears his need for assistance was a power play and Pope Urban led the people to believe the Muslims were brutalizing Christians. Were Christians being attacked, tortured, abused or was it just about land and power?

As Catholics we are to view the Crusades in proper context of the times and conditions of the era. Trying to get a handle on what that ‘proper’ context is seems to be the challenge. War is war, though. Regardless of good intentions, when it comes down to it, soldiers are human, as are the leaders. Stress, hunger, horrid conditions can lead some to do horrible things which reflect on the country behind the movement. It is true of the past, and of the present.
Click to expand...
Well not quite right, In the Moslem controlled lands they put up with the Christians but Christians were not alowed in public office, to own property, and paid enormous amout of tax in order to practice Christianity.
Remember Mohammed and his immediate decendants were warriors and persued in conquering lands and anyone not Moslem in their Jihads during that period. These Jihads included many areas including Turkey, Africa, Middle East,Central and Southwest Asia and involved the slaughtering of the peoples in these lands if they did not convert to Islam and subject themselves to Allah and the Koran.

Don’t fall prey that the crusades were not a reaction for Christian,Jewish, and secular survival.

For the most part if not a Moslem and refusing to convert the sentence was death.
 
Matthew91 said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is no one authorised “party line” on this - so people differ. The Church does not require a single view on any event in history - perhaps because events are open to endless research, reconsideration, & re-interpretation.​

 
Came across this pamphlet (The Crusades: New Perspectives) at my parish the other day and read through it. It pretty much answered the OPs question.
 
We should view the crusades, and the inquisition as evidences that Popes are indeed not infallible.
 
Excuse me? Popes have been making mistakes for quite some time. Popes have been responsible for murders, some actually married and had children, some had affiars with women. Popes made decisions to sell indulgences, burned people at the stake, and killed people unjustly. Does that sound like infallability to you? If it does, I’ve got some swamp land here in Maine I’d like to sell you.
 
Oh, I almost forgot. Recent Popes and Bishops turned their backs on homosexual pedophile priests who hurt the lives of children by abusing them. Popes lost their tag of infallability when the first Pope made a decision that was clearly wrong…like the crusades and the inquisition. Probably before that even. When you say something is wrong when history clearly reports it as right what does that say about you? Or, Catholics for that matter?
 
Linna said:
Oh, I almost forgot. Recent Popes and Bishops turned their backs on homosexual pedophile priests who hurt the lives of children by abusing them. Popes lost their tag of infallability when the first Pope made a decision that was clearly wrong…like the crusades and the inquisition. Probably before that even. When you say something is wrong when history clearly reports it as right what does that say about you? Or, Catholics for that matter?
Click to expand...
So basically your on a Catholic forum arguing against Catholic position, yet you have no idea what your talking about.

Reading your posts I can already pin you for a “cookie cutter poster” from an anti Catholic mold. But a look at your profile says “Catholic,” so whether it is there for lip service or your very uninformed on Catholic teaching I can not decide.

I’d suggest you go read up on what exactly “Infallibility” governs and pertains too.
 
I know better than anyone since I was a Catholic, but have been ostracized because I remarried after a divorce. Denying the sacraments to remarried divorcees is a wrong decision and therefore the Pope is not infallable.
 
Linna said:
I know better than anyone since I was a Catholic, but have been ostracized because I remarried after a divorce. Denying the sacraments to remarried divorcees is a wrong decision and therefore the Pope is not infallable.
Click to expand...
Look I can’t argue with you because there isn’t anything to argue about.

I’m guessing you still don’t understand what his infallibility pertains to.

Now about the Church denying sacraments to remarried divorcees? Your obviously angry at the Church for your circumstances. Make another thread for this or PM me. We can talk there if you want. No need to hijack this thread.
 
Ridgerunner said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Ridgerunner:

This was very impressive. Your grasp on historical forces and political conflict which is still affecting us today was an eye opener. Thanks for your insight. It makes me want to pull out my books and reread…I never focused on the ottoman turks and their role…

…I have never participated in a forum before, but your contribution certainly makes me want to keep reading. thanks. kathrine.
 
You don’t have any right to tell me not to hijack the thread which is how we should view the crusades. The crusades were authorized by the Pope and therefore the Popes infallability is a falsehood. Sorry, you don’t want to hear that the Pope was wrong in supporting the crusades. He’s actually wrong about alot of things. I’m on this thread for a reason. Sorry you don’t like the message.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top