Book Recommendations? Catholic History (especially alleged wrongdoing throughout history)

  • Thread starter Thread starter MNathaniel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MNathaniel

Guest
Recent adult convert to Catholicism, couple years in. My family and all pre-conversion friends are non-Catholic (most non-theistic entirely).

Recently, multiple family members and friends have approached me with accusation after accusation about alleged Catholic ‘atrocities’ throughout history. While not wanting to whitewash wrongdoing by individuals within the Church, I also suspect that in many cases the historical realities were more complex than what’s being alleged – but I’m not a historian myself, nor am I well-read in history. I asked related questions as I entered the Church, but was fully satisfied by the answers I heard (and now forget), and also by the answer that the Church is not responsible for the sins of her members, so historical incidents were no barrier to my conversion, and I didn’t have to dig too much on my own account, making this an area I’m little-qualified to help my family with.

I don’t really know what my family/friends need to hear on this. They show little sign of wanting to hear a good answer (like I did when I was seeking truth and converting). My sense is they’re mostly giving reasons why they feel justified in considering everything relativistically, dismissing the Church, and not thinking further about it. Regardless of their motivations in tossing around the accusations, I do wish I could give more specific and knowledgable answers about concrete historical facts – and ideally resources they could explore themselves. Academically solid but accessible, if possible (my family is highly educated so will scrutinize anything I give them, but I don’t know how much of a grind they’ll be willing to put themselves through to learn).

Recent accusations thrown my way:

1.) The Crusades ⚔️ (I’m relatively okay at answering this one just by even knowing how many crusades there are and explaining how the first one started, which usually the accuser had no idea about. But if there are any additional suggestions, it’s an obvious common one. I’m already thinking about purchasing Weidenkopf’s book (‘The Glory of the Crusades’); any others?)

2.) Catholic abuses against First Nations peoples of the Americas ⛵ (especially South America).

3.) The Inquisition ⚖️ (I don’t think people usually have more than a vague idea of what they mean with this accusation, and I’ve had some success with finding online information from a neutral source and pointing a friend to it – but is there any published book I could keep on my shelf?)

4.) Catholics preventing people from reading Bibles for themselves way back when. 🙈

Those are the main four. Alternatively, is there a really solid book/resource out there for helping people to move on from whatever motivates the historical-event accusation issue, without having to become a historian themselves? Again, it’s not a problem I really had, so I’m struggling with how to help others here.
 
Ask them if they are bringing up these things in an attempt to dissuade you from your faith. You don’t have to answer these things. Ask the relevant question.

IF they continue to bring these things up, ask for the history, the facts, the peer reviewed facts. Don’t whitewash. Never do that. But first and foremost ask them if they are trying to dissuade you from your faith.
 
Dear MNathaniel,

I would say in my experience of being a Catholic, you will never know all the answers. Moreover, many non-catholics will have strong views that they aren’t willing to give up even if you have the answers.
 
MNathaniel said:
I’m already thinking about purchasing Weidenkopf’s book (‘The Glory of the Crusades’); any others?)
Click to expand...
I don’t think that would be considered a sound academic study. It’s basically a defense of the Crusades from a Catholic perspective. Steve Weidenkopf would not be considered an expert on the Crusades outside of conservative Catholic circles. Foremost among serious scholars of the Crusades would be the late Jonathan Riley-Smith. Also important is Riley-Smith’s former student Norman Housley. From an earlier generation, Steven Runciman was a scholar of the first rank and his work remains influential, if somewhat dated. Among more recent scholars, Thomas F. Madden and Helen Nicholson are worth a mention. Among recent surveys of the subject, The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land by Thomas Asbridge (2011) is both accessible and rigorous.

It’s a while since I’ve studied the Inquisition, but I do recall that a fundamental text was Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision (4th edn., New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014). I don’t believe that he has written extensively on the Inquisition, but it may be worth checking out some more general works by John Elliott, the undisputed doyen of Spanish history.
 
I think you’re right about them not being interested in any answer to their accusations, as I’ve been in your boat many times. Even so, the right way to answer is in the way you’ve already done, by acknowledging that the Church is not exempt from political mistakes and have done some awful things in the past and present. I don’t think you should start lecturing someone like this on the historical accuracy of their examples when they accuse the Church. They are really just making an argument, that the Church can make bad political decisions, and that argument is true, even if their example of it is not.

I don’t mean to discourage you from learning more about history or about the truth behind many controversial topics, but I’m just saying that defending the Crusades or the Inquisition is best done in an academic discussion rather than an apologetic one. If you do wish to learn more about these topics then I suggest you research their history normally from the authoritative scholars and sources, they’re not as biased as you might think.
 
I would take a look at Steve Weidenkopf’s works. He has books which specifically debunk or at least place a lot of this non-sense in correct context.
 
MNathaniel said:
Recent adult convert to Catholicism, couple years in. My family and all pre-conversion friends are non-Catholic (most non-theistic entirely).

Recently, multiple family members and friends have approached me with accusation after accusation about alleged Catholic ‘atrocities’ throughout history. While not wanting to whitewash wrongdoing by individuals within the Church, I also suspect that in many cases the historical realities were more complex than what’s being alleged – but I’m not a historian myself, nor am I well-read in history. I asked related questions as I entered the Church, but was fully satisfied by the answers I heard (and now forget), and also by the answer that the Church is not responsible for the sins of her members, so historical incidents were no barrier to my conversion, and I didn’t have to dig too much on my own account, making this an area I’m little-qualified to help my family with.

I don’t really know what my family/friends need to hear on this. They show little sign of wanting to hear a good answer (like I did when I was seeking truth and converting). My sense is they’re mostly giving reasons why they feel justified in considering everything relativistically, dismissing the Church, and not thinking further about it. Regardless of their motivations in tossing around the accusations, I do wish I could give more specific and knowledgable answers about concrete historical facts – and ideally resources they could explore themselves. Academically solid but accessible, if possible (my family is highly educated so will scrutinize anything I give them, but I don’t know how much of a grind they’ll be willing to put themselves through to learn).

Recent accusations thrown my way:

1.) The Crusades ⚔️ (I’m relatively okay at answering this one just by even knowing how many crusades there are and explaining how the first one started, which usually the accuser had no idea about. But if there are any additional suggestions, it’s an obvious common one. I’m already thinking about purchasing Weidenkopf’s book (‘The Glory of the Crusades’); any others?)

2.) Catholic abuses against First Nations peoples of the Americas ⛵ (especially South America).

3.) The Inquisition ⚖️ (I don’t think people usually have more than a vague idea of what they mean with this accusation, and I’ve had some success with finding online information from a neutral source and pointing a friend to it – but is there any published book I could keep on my shelf?)

4.) Catholics preventing people from reading Bibles for themselves way back when. 🙈

Those are the main four. Alternatively, is there a really solid book/resource out there for helping people to move on from whatever motivates the historical-event accusation issue, without having to become a historian themselves? Again, it’s not a problem I really had, so I’m struggling with how to help others here.
Click to expand...
Seven Lies About Catholic History by Diane Moczar.
 
MNathaniel said:
Recently, multiple family members and friends have approached me with accusation after accusation about alleged Catholic ‘atrocities’ throughout history.
Click to expand...
That is rude and inappropriate. Your family and friends are out of line and you’ll have to learn how to establish boundaries and tell them that bashing your choices is off limits.
 
while its ok to dissmis historical fallacies , we have to admit some people of the curch did some

crusdes yes the seljuks where a menace , but the whole point of the crusade was to help the byzantines. and they did also the crusaders broke their oath ( this would become a trope that repeats its self so much that its borderline a meme)
and didnt give back antioch or edessa .

also? why attack jerusalem who was under the dominion of the fatimid caliphate and the turks. the turks had been conquering the byzantines and the fatiminds never attacked the crusaders since they to disliked the seljuks .
there is alseo the 4th crusade , the crusades against the pagans .
oh ever heard of the Cathars? no ? if not then inocent succeded , and even then it was a faliure since not every single cathar was killed , but as pasionate indiduval of history was ultimate succesfull if we
and they say no , then he did succed.
and sure these conflicts do have their politcal reasons but the curch endorsed them so yeah.
  1. catholic abuses … eh the spanish really hated non catholic traditions anyone the inti raymi and all other inca tradtions where banded.
    and the spanish used the excuse of preaching the word to god , to commit their massacres
    like for example the encounter of atahualpa which the man has never seen a book in his life .
and show him a book what do you expect? ,
also with lovely words like:
i request and requiere for you to recognize the church as you mistress and as governess of the entire if not we shall make war with you every way we can .
(ps the full conversation is worse)

i can see why atahualpa was angered by them since the inca had a traditional way of diplomacy and the friar, was just shouting treats to him .

note this was not a battle as the inca , where in a parade over the victory over hauscar an thus the inca had no weapons .
so there was no self defense the spanish just flat out comited a massacre.

not far from here in lima we had african slaves who made statues to their gods but hid them by combining them with catholic elements to avoid spanish persecution

catholisim was also used to justify slavery and the spanish caste apartited system

The Inquisition , while not as bad as some claim , and you can tell that to protestans the number of deaths

but what is true that this era was really anti science and the to conservitave backlash this has more to with the collapse of the 13th 14th and early 15th centuries wich led to the church becoming anti technology and later on with the protestan reformation fully anti science for a time .
  1. the church not wanting the bible to be spread to common people this is a myth made by protestans , but It is true that the church severely persecuted people who wanted to translate the Bible. I can’t imagine a good excuse for the church to act in such a way. i guess its the conservitave backlash of that era
the point of this is yes some exagerate but i see the oppossite problem in these case as many catholics try to make an excuse or downplay the atrocities that happen
 
Last edited:
I think your intuition is correct here. I do believe they’re bringing these things up in an attempt to dissuade me from Catholicism. (Perhaps they hope it’s just a ‘phase’, and if they can get me to see it in the same objectionable light they do, I’ll ‘come to my senses’ and disavow religious affiliation.) I appreciate your reminder that I “don’t have to answer these things.” 🙂 It seems a healthy reminder, at least for my own sake.

At the same time, even if my questioners have aggressive intent, it still strikes me as an opportunity to bring more light into their lives through introducing them to new information, or a new way of looking at things that they haven’t considered before. Which is why I’m hoping to learn more about the history they’re alluding to, or find a resource for a constructive response that helps them as well as me.
 
Thank-you for the recommendations, Do Justly! I appreciate the feedback about the Weidenkopf book; I’d just heard of it on Catholic Answers radio which is why I knew the title.

That Henry Kamen book looks pretty solid! I’ll throw that on my list.

For the Asbridge title you cite, can I ask your thoughts about an online review (of a similar Asbridge book I think; not this exact one) written by The Guardian? (easy to google; unsure if links allowed here. ‘The Crusades: The War for the Holy Land by Thomas Asbridge and Holy Warriors: A Modern History of the Crusades by Jonathan Phillips’, book review by Malise Ruthven.) Basically this review (though only one of the two books is Asbridge’s) is giving me pause.

Ruthven summarizes the books with mentions of how they describe “… cruelty… blood-curdling details… The papacy’s real agenda… to install a short-lived puppet regime… The Franks thought nothing of violating nuns, “tearing children from mothers and mothers from children, treating the virgin with wanton shame in holy chapels, viewing with fear neither the wrath of God nor the vengeance of men”… Another Greek writer contrasted the brutality of the westerners with the humane treatment [of] the Muslim hero Saladin…” And the book(s) review ends with: “If a common message can be gleaned… it is that fragments of human decency can survive the furies inspired by contested symbolic appropriations of a jealous Abrahamic god.”

Granted, the review also claims that both authors are balanced… But based on the takeaway of the reviewer, which seems pretty harsh and cynical about the “Church’s message [being] terrifyingly simple” in medieval Europe (Ruthven’s takeaway from the books is that the Church’s message was: “There [is] no avoiding the consequences of sin… [unless you] wipe the slate clean by going on the crusade,” I’m wondering if these books might actually only bias my family more against Catholicism. Does Asbridge really make it sound like the crusades-era Church taught that there was NO avoiding damnation unless one went on crusade? Is that historically accurate? I would have thought the Church might have offered the crusade as one opportunity – but not the only beneficial thing one could do. But if this reviewer came away with this impression… might my family?
 
There is only one Asbridge book called The Crusades, but it’s been published in a couple of editions and the subtitles of the UK and American editions may also be slightly different. They are all fundamentally the same book, however. Malise Ruthven is first and foremost a scholar of Islam, not a historian of the Crusades, so it may be that these were just the points that most stood out for him. I would say that Abridge tries as hard as possible to have a completely balanced account. He is extremely aware of the historiographical background to writing about this subject. He doesn’t take sides. As he says in the conclusion of the book, the Crusades belong in the past. He carefully alternates between presenting the narrative from the Christian and Muslim perspectives. Certainly he is not writing to defend the Catholic Church, but nor do I think that he unfairly attacks the Church. Asbridge certainly knows what he is talking about where the Crusades are concerned. He teaches three undergraduate courses on the Crusades and all his graduate teaching and PhD supervision is on the Crusades.

The Church has never taught that fighting a Crusade is necessary for salvation. I think you have taken that quotation out of context. What he actually writes is, “there was no avoiding the consequences of sin. Urban II, an ambitious and ruthless Frenchman, launched the movement with a brilliant new formula: wipe the slate clean by going on the crusade.” That is to say, going on the Crusade was one way of wiping the slate clean. He doesn’t say that Urban II said that one had to go on Crusade. Most Catholics living at the time didn’t go on a Crusade, but the Church never taught that they were not saved.
 
do_justly_love_mercy said:
The Church has never taught that fighting a Crusade is necessary for salvation. I think you have taken that quotation out of context. What he actually writes is, “there was no avoiding the consequences of sin. Urban II, an ambitious and ruthless Frenchman, launched the movement with a brilliant new formula: wipe the slate clean by going on the crusade.” That is to say, going on the Crusade was one way of wiping the slate clean. He doesn’t say that Urban II said that one had to go on Crusade. Most Catholics living at the time didn’t go on a Crusade, but the Church never taught that they were not saved
Click to expand...
Totally fair: While condensing the quote for character count, I inserted the word ‘unless’ (in square brackets) because it seemed to me to convey the gist of what the passage suggested. But you’re right that the idea of ‘unless’ isn’t necessarily communicated by Ruthven’s words, so I should have either found another connecting word for the square brackets, or included the whole quote and reduced my word count elsewhere if necessary. (Maybe it wasn’t even necessary, but I’d previously gotten dinged for overlong post attempts, so was trying for brevity in advance.) Still though, if my family read Ruthven’s words, I think they might absorb the same impression as I did (especially if they’re inclined to read malice or absurdity into the Church’s motivations or actions, similar to how I was reading the passage trying to imagine coming from that accusatory perspective)… but it’s not Ruthven’s words they’d be reading, and I’ll take your word for it that Asbridge is a careful writer.

Overall, I think this book sounds pretty worth a purchase, based on your account. Especially considering how balanced you say it is (on both sides). Thanks for taking the time and care to share such constructive thoughts 🙂
 
You are welcome. Just be aware that it’s not written from a Catholic perspective and isn’t a work of apologetics! It doesn’t sugar-coat anything, but it’s also not a hatchet job. It’s a solid, scholarly work. The thing is, if you give somebody who is not a Catholic something that is clearly written from a very Catholic perspective, they will quickly take note and assume that the whole thing is biased.
 
Nothing wrong with that; you should. And you should also read the non-Catholic perspective.

History requires reading in depth, in the round, for the best chance of gaining some insight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top