The Crusades

[ICXCNIKA]

This evening at a dinner party, while I was out of the room, my sister in law’s ex husband brought up the Pope’s recent comments about Islam. My wife said to him “Wait. Wait 'til Joe get’s back I want him to hear this.”

When I got back he told us what he’d heard (the same stuff on the news). I asked him his source and he said, “I think I heard it on API.” So I told him that I had a copy of the entire speech and enlightened him. He then went on to point out that it was interesting the Pope would comment on conversion using violence since the Church had done the same thing in the past.

I asked him when the Catholic Church had used violence to convert and he asked “are you serious? Are you kidding?” I replied “No. Tell me exactly when has the Church used violence to convert people.” He asked me, “haven’t you ever heard of the crusades.”

When I told him that the purpose of the crusades was not to convert people he said “okay, I shouldn’t have brought this up. I’m sorry.” Even after my wife told him that we didn’t mind disucssing it, he refused to talk about it any further.

Typical.

However, I would like to find a well written book on the subject of the crusades for him to read. Any suggestions. I’ll read it first, of course.

Thanks.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello ICXCNIKA,

I do not think it is the Crusades as much as South America which was converted by the sword. The Spanish came in and those who accepted baptism lived and those who did not accept baptism died by the Spanish sword. There was Church participation in that there were priests on hand to baptize the surviors.

Today the Church treasures having a Catholic South America. The way South America became Catholic is not so treasured by the Church.

 

[BJRumph]

Well, if you are looking for a historical book on the crusades, then I’ll have to suggest, as ever, Jonathan Riley-Smith’s “The Crusades: A Short History”. A very well done and clear history from the crusading movement’s beginnings until their final death with the last military actions of the Knights of Malta (a holy order) against Napoleon. Very well-balanced scholarly accounts of the various episodes, written before the current popular movement to politisize or allow crass bias to be included in historical works.

However, as I am a new Catholic, I cannot say I know of a particular book about the crusades from the Church’s perspective, per se.

 

[Axion]

Hello ICXCNIKA,

I do not think it is the Crusades as much as South America which was converted by the sword. The Spanish came in and those who accepted baptism lived and those who did not accept baptism died by the Spanish sword. There was Church participation in that there were priests on hand to baptize the surviors.

Today the Church treasures having a Catholic South America. The way South America became Catholic is not so treasured by the Church.

This is not true. Catholicism grew in the Americas largely by the hard work of missionaries, including the Jesuits in North and South America and the franciscans in Central America.

The appearance of Our Lady at Guadalupe was very benmeficial in inspiring conversions.

The Spanish did stop the human sacrifices and other barbaric practices by force - but anyone would have done that.

 

[Donald45]

There’s a fairly new book out that’s really terrific:

Thomas F. Madden, Crusades: The Illustrated History (Duncan Baird, 2004) [ISBN 1-84483-040-3]

Also, there’s an excellent summary article written by the same author:

crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

Hope this helps.

Don
+T+

 

[estesbob]

Hello ICXCNIKA,

I do not think it is the Crusades as much as South America which was converted by the sword. The Spanish came in and those who accepted baptism lived and those who did not accept baptism died by the Spanish sword. There was Church participation in that there were priests on hand to baptize the surviors.

Today the Church treasures having a Catholic South America. The way South America became Catholic is not so treasured by the Church.

It shoud be noted that the Conquistadors didnt go to South America to convert the natives-they went there to steal their riches and enslave them. they used the “conversion” aspect to justify what they did.

 

[Fidelis]

Hello ICXCNIKA,

I do not think it is the Crusades as much as South America which was converted by the sword. The Spanish came in and those who accepted baptism lived and those who did not accept baptism died by the Spanish sword. There was Church participation in that there were priests on hand to baptize the surviors.

Today the Church treasures having a Catholic South America. The way South America became Catholic is not so treasured by the Church.

I don’t know what your source is for this, Steve, but as a Hispanic and a student of history (especially Church history), I hope you can recognize this a gross over-generalization. Were there forced conversions in Latin America by the Spaniards? You bet. Is this the only (or even the primary) way the Faith was established and spread there? Absurd fundamentalist and atheistic propaganda unworthy of a Catholic to uncritically repeat.

 

[Verita]

I am currently reading “The Crusades” by Hilaire Belloc. It might be a bit hard to find (I got it through inter library loan) but it is fantastic so far. Belloc has an amazing appreciation for history and how history should be interpreted and learned from. He clearly shows that the first Crusade was in direct response to the Muslim assault on the Byzantine Empire. The Crusade was fought to preserve Christendom from being conquered and overrun by the Turks. If you can get it I highly suggest this book.

Also my husband recently read and recommends Concise History of the Crusades by Thomas F. Madden. It is by an unbiased author so maybe better trusted by non-Catholics. It demonstrates how if the Crusaders had just done what the Pope told them to do the atrocities that the Crusades have come to be known for would not have happened.

 

[Saint_Michael]

Hello ICXCNIKA,

I do not think it is the Crusades as much as South America which was converted by the sword. The Spanish came in and those who accepted baptism lived and those who did not accept baptism died by the Spanish sword. There was Church participation in that there were priests on hand to baptize the surviors.

Today the Church treasures having a Catholic South America. The way South America became Catholic is not so treasured by the Church.

Steve I think as others have pointed out you have over-generalized the Spanish conquest of South America, and the preaching of the Gospel on the continent.

You have to realize that many of these nations that were put to the sword were performing human sacrifices in enormous proportiosn, that reviled the Spaniards. They honestly felt that it was 100% the work of the devil. The aztecs were rumored to have scrifice 150,000 prisoners of war and others in one year by cutting their hearts out, and then cannabilizing some fo the human flesh. This has always been a HUGE no-no to God, He deplores human sacrifice and has brought judgment on any society that performed it.

cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/08/23/aztecs.cannibals.reut/index.html

mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/latinamerica/topics/human_scacrifice.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture

Imagine being Spanish conquistadors and witnessing people having their hearts cut out, and the priest eating the still beating heart. They probably thought they were demons, and either convert or die was all they could do.

 

[Donald45]

Just to piggyback on my own post (#5 above), here’s another good essay by Thomas Madden:

ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/tmadden_crusademyths_feb05.asp

Don
+T+

 

[Photius]

I replied “No. Tell me exactly when has the Church used violence to convert people.”

what about the INQUISITION?

 

[Mannyfit75]

what about the INQUISITION?

From Catholic Answers Live Source:

Sooner or later, any discussion of apologetics with Fundamentalists will address the Inquisition. To non-Catholics it is a scandal; to Catholics, an embarrassment; to both, a confusion. It is a handy stick for Catholic-bashing, simply because most Catholics seem at a loss for a sensible reply. This tract will set the record straight.

There have actually been several different inquisitions. The first was established in 1184 in southern France as a response to the Catharist heresy. This was known as the Medieval Inquisition, and it was phased out as Catharism disappeared.

Quite separate was the Roman Inquisition, begun in 1542. It was the least active and most benign of the three variations.

Separate again was the infamous Spanish Inquisition, started in 1478, a state institution used to identify conversos—Jews and Moors (Muslims) who pretended to convert to Christianity for purposes of political or social advantage and secretly practiced their former religion. More importantly, its job was also to clear the good names of many people who were falsely accused of being heretics. It was the Spanish Inquisition that, at least in the popular imagination, had the worst record of fulfilling these duties.

The various inquisitions stretched through the better part of a millennia, and can collectively be called “the Inquisition.”

Source from: catholic.com/library/inquisition.asp

 

[Penitant]

what about the INQUISITION?

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

 

[Ghosty]

what about the INQUISITION?

Under Canon Law, both then and now, the Church has no jurisdiction over non-Catholics. The Inquisitions were not about forcing conversion, but rather about ensuring that those who had been Baptised were keeping true to the Faith. They quite literally COULD NOT do anything more than that according to Catholic teaching and law.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Photius]

**the originator of this thread said that he asked his bro in law for one incident where the church used violence, and i asked about the inquisition.
whether the violence was directed against non- catholics ( cathars, jews, muslims) or catholics, it still is violence. is it not?

  there is nothing confusing about it. in fact its crystal clear.

VIOLENCE FOR THE FAITH. **

 

[Ghosty]

the originator of this thread said that he asked his bro in law for one incident where the church used violence, and i asked about the inquisition.
whether the violence was directed against non- catholics ( cathars, jews, muslims) or catholics, it still is violence. is it not?

there is nothing confusing about it. in fact its crystal clear.

**VIOLENCE FOR THE FAITH. **

No, he asked where there was evidence of violence used for conversion, and the Inquisition was not an example of this (nor is there any major example in Christian history, so far as I know). Violence for the faith is a common denominator in all major human religions, violence for conversion is not.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Doxiemom]

I am a Catholic who is really really trying to stay Catholic. Okay, so please don’t take me as a Catholic basher.

Whatever the reasons, horrible acts on God’s humanity were done in the name of Roman Catholicsm. And whoever the reigning pope was at the time, I do not accept for one minute that he didn’t know about it. He may or may not have ordered these unbelievable sinful things to be done, but he most certainly turned a blind eye to them. As head of the Church, he would have had extrodinary influence to end it all.

All of this should have been acknowledged outright long ago.

Doxiemom

 

[Superstar905]

And whoever the reigning pope was at the time, I do not accept for one minute that he didn’t know about it. He may or may not have ordered these unbelievable sinful things to be done, but he most certainly turned a blind eye to them.

Do you know this for fact, or are you making an assumption?

 

[Ghosty]

I am a Catholic who is really really trying to stay Catholic. Okay, so please don’t take me as a Catholic basher.

Whatever the reasons, horrible acts on God’s humanity were done in the name of Roman Catholicsm. And whoever the reigning pope was at the time, I do not accept for one minute that he didn’t know about it. He may or may not have ordered these unbelievable sinful things to be done, but he most certainly turned a blind eye to them. As head of the Church, he would have had extrodinary influence to end it all.

All of this should have been acknowledged outright long ago.

Doxiemom

Popes have to go to Confession too. Nothing to indicate that a blind eye was turned to abuses. On the contrary, if you read the history, Rome was constantly trying to rein in abuses in the Crusades and Inquisitions.

The fact is that the Crusades and Inquisitions were not evil in and of themselves (in fact many consider them a good, such as my ancestors who asked Rome to save them from the Muslims in the Middle East).

Peace and God bless!

 

[Doxiemom]

I made my point and I stick to it. It was wrong. It was evil. We should admit to our Chruch’s past.

And yes, confession is good for the soul.

Doxiemom