Need trustworthy sources on crusades / inquisition

[kepha1]

****The REAL Crusades **http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

---

**Blaming the whole Church over the mistakes of a few crazy so-called Catholics in the Crusades is like blaming the whole US government for the Mi Lia massacre in Viet Nam. The reasoning is equally as stupid. **
**
The Crusades were launched in the middle ages because Muslims invaded Europe and the Holy Land. At the time local Kings and kingdoms did not have the ability to raise armies to fight against these invaders and thus looked to the Church for help. The Church in its compassion used its influence to raise armies to defend against these invaders.

If the Muslims or any other group were to invade Europe and invade and blockade the Holy Land everyone would have no problems raising an army to defend our allies in Europe and the Middle East.

It is hypocritical for people today to be in favor of raising armies to defend Europe, the Holy Land, or ourselves, and then in the same breath criticize the Crusades.

The Inquistion
No serious historian believes any of that post-reformation propaganda of “millions”. http://www.geocities.com/militantis/inquisition2.html

Over a 350 year period, about 4000 were tried and executed. St. Joan of Arc was illegally tried and executed. Most were found not guilty. The 150,000 “witches” burned at the stake in a 50 year period by reformist fanatics had no trial. Protestant revisionist critics will overlook this fact. The whole thing is a nowhere argument from the start.
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5236

http://www.geocities.com/militantis/inquisition2.html

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14783a.htm

 

[gomer_tree]

ChrisR246:

I’d have to ask, what conclusion is he then drawing about the Church from these incidents? The Church Militant is comprised of sinners. But that can’t be a proof that the Church is not true, as it would be a proof against any other claimant, also. He’s not clainming his group is free of sinners, is he?

First, thanks to all for the recommendations.

Regarding this question, I have used this logical argument already. However, I still don’t want him to “get away with” misrepresenting the facts. I am honest enough to understand that not everyone and every decision was honorable. But getting the facts squared away can help frame this argument a little better. If someone really believes that the Popes led a scourge of Europe and sanctioned mass-murder, it’s a little different than the case where one can present the view that the Crusades - in general - were not an evil thing but certain evil things did happen.

 

[gomer_tree]

Fidelis:

Is this person coming from a secular viewpoint? If he is a Protestant (or even if he’s not), I’m betting most of the (mis)information he has now about the Crusades/Inquistion has come from biased Protestant sources (as most secular history about these events is based on anyway). If that is the case, how can he in all fairness expect you to provide materials from non-Catholic sources? Sounds like you may volunteering to fight with one hand tied behind your back.

In addition to the recommendations above, here are a couple of links to get you started from the Catholic Educators Resource. You’ll probably pick up some book references from these articles:

Crusades
catholiceducation.org/links/search.cgi?query=crusades

Inquisition
catholiceducation.org/links/search.cgi?query=inquisition&submit.x=16&submit.y=18

Secular viewpoint, which is the reason why I also wanted “secular but balanced” recommendations.

I have no problem presenting him with Catholic authors and books. But I’d also like to bridge the argument that it’s all a bunch of biased resources by providing others in addition to Catholic sources.

 

[metal1633]

gomer tree:

Secular viewpoint, which is the reason why I also wanted “secular but balanced” recommendations.

I have no problem presenting him with Catholic authors and books. But I’d also like to bridge the argument that it’s all a bunch of biased resources by providing others in addition to Catholic sources.

crusades.boisestate.edu/1st/

 

[Grolsch]

Jonathan Riley-Smith is the leading Crusade historian today, you can looks up some of his books such as “What Were the Crusades” and the “Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades”

Here is a good article from him in the Economist:

Many Muslims, for instance, still reckon that the crusades initiated centuries of European aggression and exploitation. Some Catholics want the pope to apologise to the world for them. Liberals of all stripes see the crusades as examples of bigotry and fanaticism. Almost all these opinions are, however, based on fallacies. The denigrators of the crusades stress their brutality and savagery, which cannot be denied; but they offer no explanation other than the stupidity, barbarism and intolerance of the crusaders, on whom it has become conventional to lay most blame. Yet the original justification for crusading was Muslim aggression; and in terms of atrocities, the two sides’ scores were about even.

grailwerk.com/docs/The%20Economist_files/frameset_files/CAKTQB89.html