the crusades

[Valke2]

So, I didn’t cover everyone in my quick post?

I mean do you believe their criticism of the Crusades is justified or propoganda of some sort.

 

[Timmy_Z]

Recently, in a forum, there was a person that said he was confused about his beliefs. He claimed that He was thinking about converting to buddism. he went on to explain that there is no pressure on him because his mother is not a practicing catholic and his father is an atheist. So I told him to research the Catholic faith, so he can find that it is the true church of
Christ. But I got a reply about The crusades and what I think about them(from another person, not the OP.) What am I supposed to do with this? I have little understanding on this subject but I feel obliged to anwser to this person. I tried looking on the Catholic Answers Library, but couldn’t find anything. Please Help me out

How does the stupid behavior of Christians (the crusades) have any effect on the validity of Christianity? Christianity is the belief in a Trinitarian God that became incarnate as the Jewish messiah for the purpose of dying for mankind’s sins. Leaving that faith because hundreds of years later people who claimed that faith did awful things makes no sense.

-Tim

 

[Randy_Carson]

From my understanding the basics are that the Muslims were essentially taking over the ancient world, invading and conquering. The Pope at the time declared a “Holy War” to drive them out of Christian lands. Some answered this call to war nobly and with honor. Others took advantage of it and used the protection of “God’s will” to hide behind as they did many dishonorable and terrible things. The Catholic Church is not responsible for those who took advantage of things. The Catholic Church did nothing wrong.

I have not really studied the subject, but that is my limited understanding of the Crusades.

Your understanding is not so limited…it is dead on.

 

[SPH1]

I mean do you believe their criticism of the Crusades is justified or propoganda of some sort.

You’ll have to refresh my memory as to what the “Jewish” criticism is.

 

[Valke2]

You’ll have to refresh my memory as to what the “Jewish” criticism is.

Basically, it resulted in the murder and persecution of many jews. Many crusaders found it easier to kill jews in their own back yards than to travel to Israel to kill Muslims.

 

[The_Confused_1]

I hope that helps!! i have a similar explanation about the spanish inquisition which the Church is blaimed for but was truly the work of the spanish crown who had full authority (the Pope did not)… please let us know how it goes!

I Certainly will, and I want to thank you and Everyone who has contributed to my help. Thank you all and may God bless you all

 

[SPH1]

Basically, it resulted in the murder and persecution of many jews. Many crusaders found it easier to kill jews in their own back yards than to travel to Israel to kill Muslims.

I don’t consider that part of the Crusades, their own back yard.

 

[Chancellare]

I disagree with the argument that the Church bears no responsibility for horrific acts committed during the Crusades. But this is a debate that pops up on here time and time again, and everyone’s opinion is pretty set on this matter.

Be careful with this argument. What if a lawyer acting on your behalf in court decided to shoot the judge? Do you bear the criminal responsibility?

 

[Valke2]

Be careful with this argument. What if a lawyer acting on your behalf in court decided to shoot the judge? Do you bear the criminal responsibility?

If I encouraged my client to bring a gun and told him that the Judge was responsible for killing his God…

 

[Valke2]

The Crusaders gave the Jews two choices in their slogan: “Christ-killers, embrace the Cross or die!” 12,000 Jews in the Rhine Valley alone were killed as the first Crusade passed through.

Once the army reached Jerusalem and broke through the city walls, they slaughtered all the inhabitants that they could find (men, women, children, newborns). After locating about 6,000 Jews holed up in the synagogue, they set the building on fire; the Jews were burned alive.

.
Among many Jews and Muslims, the term crusade evokes visions of genocide, mass murder, and mass extermination of innocent people. However, among many Christians it has become a positive term, frequently used to refer to mass rallies and campaigns to win converts - as in the Billy Graham Crusades.

religioustolerance.org/chr_cru1.htm

 

[Valke2]

The Crusades turned into campaigns of slaughter, rape, and pillage, and woe to the poor Jews in the way. Indeed, the Crusades mark the first large-scale mob violence directed against Jews which is going to become, unfortunately, the pattern for the next hundreds of years. The later pogroms are just going to be a repeat of this idea.

Pope Urban II promised plenty of plunder for those who signed up for the first crusade. In addition to the 15,000 that heeded his call, a peasant army joined up as they marched.

An eyewitness account of what this led to for Jews:

The Jews of the city, knowing of the slaughter of their brethren fled in hope of safety to the Bishop of Ruthard. They put an infinite treasure in his guard and trust having much faith in his protection. He placed the Jews in a very spacious hall in his own house that they might remain safe and sound in a very secure and strong place.

“But … the band held council, and after sunrise attacked the Jews in the hall with arrows and lances, breaking down the bolts in the doors. They killed the Jews, about 700 in number who in vain resisted the force of an attack of so many thousands. They killed the women also and with their sword pierced tender children whatever age and sex…”

It is estimated that between 30-50% of the European Jewish community suffered a similar fate at the crusades. I have seen a lot of apologetics for the crusades, motsly centering around “The Church can’t be responsible for what Christians did”.

It is an argument that is abhorrent to me. But if it is going to be made, try not to make it sound like we are talking about a few isolated acts here and there that resulted a some scattered deaths of innocent people.

 

[yeshua]

I find the amount of historical revisionism on this thread absolutely remarkable. I encourage everyone who is participating on this thread to research scholastic resources on this topic and not the personal renditions of history blanketed by religious bias; yes, that rules our Wikipedia as well.

I am a Catholic, a Maronite Catholic, if it wasn’t for the Crusades my people would probably not have rejoined Rome, however, it is irresponsible and un-Christian to deny what took place or that the Church bore the consequences of the atrocities committed. I have lived, breathed, and worshiped in the land that this history comes from, I ensure you there is more to it than these little quips and denials being offered here. It is disrespectful to my ancestors and those who fought on both sides of the sword. Take this issue carefully, if not for their sake.

Peace and God Bless, Have a Great and Blessed Lent

 

[NPS]

No reason to get too defensive about the Crusades.

Crusades 101: ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/jakin_crusades_sept06.asp

Crusades myths: ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/tmadden_crusademyths_feb05.asp

 

[Chancellare]

If I encouraged my client to bring a gun and told him that the Judge was responsible for killing his God…

So, with what you said, the lawyer anyway went on a killing and raping spree and you are condemned together with that lawyer, is it ok with you?

 

[Valke2]

So, with what you said, the lawyer anyway went on a killing and raping spree and you are condemned together with that lawyer, is it ok with you?

you put a gun in a child’s hands, you’re resposible for his actions. But we don’t need to swap metaphors when we can discuss the real thing.

 

[Sarabande]

An excellent, fair historical analysis of the First Crusade is by Thomas Asbridge “The First Crusade”. He is not on the mission to villify or praise the Church, but gives a very fair and accurate account on both sides.

 

[Chancellare]

you put a gun in a child’s hands, you’re resposible for his actions. But we don’t need to swap metaphors when we can discuss the real thing.

You did not answer my question. Then you changed the metaphor to a child’s hand. Then you want to stop swapping metaphors. Come on, make up your mind.
The point is, you are not willing to accept responsibility for the actions of somebody who did heinous crimes on your behalf. Accept it then let’s move on.

 

[SPH1]

Once the army reached Jerusalem and broke through the city walls, they slaughtered all the inhabitants that they could find (men, women, children, newborns). After locating about 6,000 Jews holed up in the synagogue, they set the building on fire; the Jews were burned alive.

Yes, and one can paint the same picture with the bombings of Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, etc. It’s just that today, we can do it from a little further distance, lessening the personal and psychological aspect. Taking a city or fortress in any age wasn’t pretty.

I read somewhere not too long ago that in centuries past, if a city or fortress did not surrender to an assaulting force, the city or fortress risked wide-spread slaughter as punishment for the cost the assaulting force had to endure. So resisting an assaulting force was a calculated choice, which one did not do unless one were pretty sure one would prevail. This might help explain why many Christian areas in the Middle East surrendered to Islam without much fight.

I believe I read this regarding Oliver Cromwell and his treatment of some opposing cities, that Cromwell was acting under the prevailing practice of warfare.

I would think that perhaps the Alamo was the last modern example.

Or maybe not. See my references to Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki above.

One should not take certain atrocities as judgment whether or not a war was “justified.” One cannot judge Vietnam on My Lai nor the current war in Iran with “Gitmo.” So you are, IMO, proffering a red herring of sorts.

 

[Valke2]

You did not answer my question. Then you changed the metaphor to a child’s hand. Then you want to stop swapping metaphors. Come on, make up your mind.
The point is, you are not willing to accept responsibility for the actions of somebody who did heinous crimes on your behalf. Accept it then let’s move on.

I didn’t answer your question because it has nothing to do with the crusades.But if you want, I’ll use the same metaphor and ask you, if your lawyer wins a big case, should you get the credit?

 

[Valke2]

Yes, and one can paint the same picture with the bombings of Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, etc. It’s just that today, we can do it from a little further distance, lessening the personal and psychological aspect. Taking a city or fortress in any age wasn’t pretty.

Except here we are discussing the murdering of Jews, which were not the enemy of the crusaders. And in fact, did not have their own country or their own army. Nor were they armed. Nor was their a military goal that required the murder of the jews.

I read somewhere not too long ago that in centuries past, if a city or fortress did not surrender to an assaulting force, the city or fortress risked wide-spread slaughter as punishment for the cost the assaulting force had to endure. So resisting an assaulting force was a calculated choice, which one did not do unless one were pretty sure one would prevail. This might help explain why many Christian areas in the Middle East surrendered to Islam without much fight.

IF the goal was to wrest jerusalem from muslims, how does burning a synagouge full of jews, after taking the city, fit into the plan? But even leaving aside the atrocities commited in Jerusalem, there is still the fact that between 35 and 50% of European Jewry was murdered during the crusades. None of them were holed up in a fortress that refused to yeild.