Crusades were not Evil

[Ruthmary]

From time to time I’ve noticed references to the Crusades which imply that the poster considers them to have been evil. Catholics need to learn their history so they can teach others the truth. Below is a website which will lead to many articles which explain the true nature of the Crusades for any who wish to learn the truth about them.

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ421.HTM#The%20Crusades

God bless you,
Ruthmary

 

[Dagnarille]

You mean genocide is not evil?

I won’t buy that. Murder is murder. Murder in the name of God is not a good thing. Why would God want you to kill off a race of people, who are your brothers and sisters?

 

[Genesis315]

It’s too complex to be strictly good or evil. The Muslims were the original aggressors so the crusaders were justified to repel them from the Holy Land. Some of the Crusaders definitely went overboard however.

 

[Brendan]

Of course they were not evil.

They were defending Christians from outside invaders.

The Turks were from central Asia, all of Asia Minor was Christian Greek.

All of North Africa was Latin speaking Roman Christian.

They were invaded by Arabians, Moors and Turks, and the Crusades were the fighting back of the invasion.

If the Apache came down to help the Aztec fight off the Spanish, would we consider that evil in any way. Would we talk how terrible it was for the Indians to be attacking the Spanish??

 

[gnjsdad]

Dagnarille:

You mean genocide is not evil?

I won’t buy that. Murder is murder. Murder in the name of God is not a good thing. Why would God want you to kill off a race of people, who are your brothers and sisters?

I think you need a history lesson. Where on earth did you get the idea that the Crusades were ‘genocide’?

The first Crusade was announced by Pope Urban II in 1096. Do you really believe a Pope of the Catholic Church would order a genocidal campaign??

 

[Philip_P]

Yeah, burning down Constantinople was a real good, Christian move. Maybe next we can torch Rome, en route to Damascus. Please.

 

[Milliardo]

Philip P:

Yeah, burning down Constantinople was a real good, Christian move. Maybe next we can torch Rome, en route to Damascus. Please.

The Pope (don’t know who it was when this occured) also excommunicated those who partook of Constantinople’s sacking when he learned of it.

 

[JimG]

Milliardo:

The Pope (don’t know who it was when this occured) also excommunicated those who partook of Constantinople’s sacking when he learned of it.

You are right. The Pope certainly did not condone the sacking of Constantinople.

The alternative to the Crusades would have been Islamic conquest of Europe.

(Just as the alternative to WWII would have been Nazi conquest of Europe. And heaven knows it was nearly impossibe for FDR to overcome American isolationism in order to get the U.S. to enter the war until very late in the game.).

 

[trth_skr]

JimG:

The alternative to the Crusades would have been Islamic conquest of Europe.

.

I think that is happening right now. Of course thosde who criticise the Crusades will be happy that it is being done peacefully (an voluntarily by the Europeans).

MJW

 

[JimG]

trth_skr:

I think that is happening right now. Of course thosde who criticise the Crusades will be happy that it is being done peacefully (an voluntarily by the Europeans).
MJW

Yes, the Islamization of Europe is apparently already underway. It may be peaceful but it may also be violent. I don’t recall which–it was either Belloc or Chesterton–who warned that the defeat of the Ottoman Empire was not the end for Islam, and that it would rise again to become a further threat to the West.

 

[ScottH]

I would urge all of you to read Madden’s “A Concise History Of The Crusades”. (I think its Thomas Madden- surely not John!)

Fantastic book. He’s a medieval historian- who I don’t even think is Christian (He doesn’t indicate in the book). Yet he ends up concluding that the crusades were self defense of the Christian West, particularly since Islam -then AND now- believed in spreading by the sword. The Moors invasion of Spain was the wakeup call for the church- and we rallied accordingly.

Several other myths are dispelled too- such as the nobles and Christian knights being pilliagers. He contends that history shows that the crusades were NOTORIOUSLY awful for spoils and booty, plus these noble Christians spent their own money to go on these crusades- often their life savings.

however, revisionist historians have done a huge disservice to the history of the crusades, all in the name of refuting the merits of Christianity.

They seem to forget that Spain was invaded, France was threatened, and that the Turks were pushing north towards Romania and the Balkans with force.

These weren’t mere nomadic Muslims looking for a new life. This was invasion for the purpose of conversion to Islam. (As ORDAINED by the Koran, though our own President calls it a “Religion of Peace”.

Sad. I hope the new movie “The Kingdom of Heaven” by Ridley Scott- paints an accurate picture, and not a revisionist one. (But that remains to be seen.)

 

[ScottH]

Check this out
nationalreview.com/comment/comment-madden110201.shtml

 

[jeffreedy789]

You mean genocide is not evil?

I won’t buy that. Murder is murder. Murder in the name of God is not a good thing. Why would God want you to kill off a race of people, who are your brothers and sisters?

Yeah, burning down Constantinople was a real good, Christian move. Maybe next we can torch Rome, en route to Damascus. Please.

are any of you folks reading the site she posted, or are you just responding based on your misconceptions of the crusades?

 

[Jeno84]

Genesis315:

It’s too complex to be strictly good or evil. The Muslims were the original aggressors so the crusaders were justified to repel them from the Holy Land. Some of the Crusaders definitely went overboard however.

I agree with Genesis. I believe that the situation was not simple and objective. I cannot say that the crusades were virtuous, but I will affirm they were not evil.

 

[RobbyS]

Jeno84:

I agree with Genesis. I believe that the situation was not simple and objective. I cannot say that the crusades were virtuous, but I will affirm they were not evil.

The worst result of the Crusades was the overthrow of the Byzantine Empire. Constantinople never recovered from the sack of 1204. The end result was the conquest of southeastern Europe by the Ottoman Turks. So the great crime was Christian against Christian.

 

[stanley123]

RobbyS:

The worst result of the Crusades was the overthrow of the Byzantine Empire.

Yes. I think that the Fourth Crusade was seriously wrong and a horrific crime.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

I hesitate to post here,since I have already been involved in a long and contentious thread concernig the Crusades. However, here it goes…

It is almost certain to me that the Crusdaes were evil. Now, I am not saying that they were not justified–according to the Just War doctrine, CCC 2309. However, the section of the catechism on war begins: “The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.” CCC 2307.

So, at least as I see it, basically all war is evil, or is bound up with and accompanied by evil. Now, war may be the lesser of two evils–the final and grave solution to a greater evil–in this case war is justified. Therefore, I am pretty confident that the Crusades were evil, though possibly no more evil and almost certainly less evil than other armed conflicts. I’ll leave it up to everyone else to bicker about whether they were justified or not.

By the way, I have read some of Madden’s work on the Crusades–excellent stuff.

 

[Axion]

Well. You can say “All War is Evil”, but that position would leave the Nazi’s in charge of Europe.

As for constantinople, the crusaders who sacked Constantinople had been diverted from their task by the venetians, and became mixed up in a Civil Struggle within Constantinople. They wer condemned and excommunicated by the pope.

The main thing is that the Crusades as a whole preserved Constantinople, which had been threatened with destruction by the Muslims in the 1070s, after they swept into the whole of (then Christian) modern day Turkey. Instead of falling then, Constantinople held out until 1453, giving Europe breathing space to improve military technology.

 

[ScottH]

Vox Borealis:

I hesitate to post here,since I have already been involved in a long and contentious thread concernig the Crusades. However, here it goes…

It is almost certain to me that the Crusdaes were evil. Now, I am not saying that they were not justified–according to the Just War doctrine, CCC 2309. However, the section of the catechism on war begins: “The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.” CCC 2307.

So, at least as I see it, basically all war is evil, or is bound up with and accompanied by evil. Now, war may be the lesser of two evils–the final and grave solution to a greater evil–in this case war is justified. Therefore, I am pretty confident that the Crusades were evil, though possibly no more evil and almost certainly less evil than other armed conflicts. I’ll leave it up to everyone else to bicker about whether they were justified or not.

By the way, I have read some of Madden’s work on the Crusades–excellent stuff.

Okay- how’s this for irony- me, a non-Catholic Christian- defending the Crusades and the actions of Pope Urban II!!

(A true sign that we are living in the end times!!!)

Anyway- I think we need to examine war a little. Was David evil for his slaying of the Phillistines in defense of Israel? Keep in mind, the Jews were (and are) savage fighters- and even back then, the bible speaks of them taking a certain part of the male anatomy off of the fallen Phillistines as proof of how many were killed.

Did God show the Phillistines kindness when they captured the Ark of the Covenant? No… the Phillistines put the Ark in the pagan temple of Dagon (fish-man God of the Phillistines) and left it there as a trophy. The next morning, the Phillistines awoke to find that the God of Israel (via the Ark) had destroyed the huge statue of Dagon in the temple, and brought it face down before the Ark.

The Phillistines quickly latched the ark on to a mule (or cow… I forget) and let it guide itself back to the Israelites. They were terrified. God showed them no mercy, nor did he expect Israel to do so either.

(I recall in Presbyterian Sunday School- they always wimp out and leave out the David and Goliath part about David beheading Goliath with Goliath own’s sword… argh! I hate when stories are “sweetened” for consumption!)

God expects his people to defend themselves.

1 Samuel would be a good read on this topic.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Axion:

Well. You can say “All War is Evil”, but that position would leave the Nazi’s in charge of Europe.

No, because I drew a distinction between evil and justified. WW II was certainly evil, especially because of the loss of civilian life–look at CCC 2313-2314. However, I think that overall the allies fought a “just war” according to the terms of CCC 2309. Hey, I’m just following the teachings of the church here.