the crusades

[Chancellare]

The Crusades were not an isolated incident but merely another chapter in two thousand years of systematic Church persecution of the Jews. Hitler, a Catholic, quoted from Christian scriptures about Yehoshua bar Yosef driving the “money lenders” (read:Jews) from the temple. His edicts of expulsions, forcing the Jews to live in ghettoes and stripping them of all civil and legal rights were nothing more than the use of traditional Catholic Church edicts against the Jews [see for instance Pope (soon to be “St”?) Pius ix and the Jews of Rome). The roots of Catholic antisemitism lie in their scriptures and teachings over the centuries that the Jews are murderers guilty of deicide, eternally cursed and invariably damned for their rejection of the Catholic faith. Your reference to “early persecution of Christians by Jews” is clearly significant. Does this come to justify the mass murder of Jews by Catholic crusaders a millenium later? Did the Jews bring it on themselves? Is it okay to murder if its a Jew?

Modern Catholic antisemitism is alive and well. “The Jew” is the force undermining all good things Catholic. According to this way of thinking the Jews are responsible for abortions (Nathanson) Sex and sexual promiscuity (Freud), Liberalism, Communism (Marx), Free Masonry, Conflicts and Wars and are even out to destroy Christmas. A Catholic priest even wrote about the Jews undermining Catholic values through architechture ( I’m limiting the list since you already know we control all the money and all the world media).

Don’t take my word for it. This website forum is one of the best for researching modern Catholic antisemitic attitudes. Just type in the word “jew”.

sigh
There is a blogger’s theorem that goes this way:
When a post starts to mention Hitler as part of an argument, that thread has reached a logical dead-end.
Having studied intelligent people in my profession, it surprises me to meet logical dead-end next to somebody arguing for Jewish cause.
If you want to discuss Anti Semitism in Catholicism, please open a thread and we will meet you there. This is in fairness to the rules of CAF.
[/quote]

 

[chosen_people]

sigh
There is a blogger’s theorem that goes this way:
When a post starts to mention Hitler as part of an argument, that thread has reached a logical dead-end.
Having studied intelligent people in my profession, it surprises me to meet logical dead-end next to somebody arguing for Jewish cause.
If you want to discuss Anti Semitism in Catholicism, please open a thread and we will meet you there. This is in fairness to the rules of CAF.

This thread is about the Crusades. The Crusades became one of the most horrible acts of Catholic persecution of Jews leading to mass murder. The Crusaders who committed these acts no doubt not only did not believe that they were committing acts of murder but were in fact defending and glorifying the Catholic Church against the perfidous Jews. Any discussion of the Crusades must investigate the underlying causes that caused Catholics to leave their families in the service of the Church and than to see that service as the massacre of Jews. It naturally follows to investigate what were the underlying causes to such extreme antisemitism, whether this was an isolated incident and whether such occurences reoccured against the Jews, and why?

If in fact I have strayed from the subject matter at hand I will leave that up to an official forum administrator.

 

[Al_Masetti]

This thread is about the Crusades. The Crusades became one of the most horrible acts of Catholic persecution of Jews leading to mass murder. The Crusaders who committed these acts no doubt not only did not believe that they were committing acts of murder but were in fact defending and glorifying the Catholic Church against the perfidous Jews. Any discussion of the Crusades must investigate the underlying causes that caused Catholics to leave their families in the service of the Church and than to see that service as the massacre of Jews. It naturally follows to investigate what were the underlying causes to such extreme antisemitism, whether this was an isolated incident and whether such occurences reoccured against the Jews, and why?
.

Are these assertions really true?

Were there ANY other ISSUES that existed at the same time that were going on to which were “tangential” or which might have been of primary importance?

The statement seems to be so global and so generalized, and so overlooks the primary purpose of the Crusades, which took place over a time span of 200 years or so.

 

[rtconstant]

Originally Posted by Valke2
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.

This stood out to me so I thought I’d make a comment. While I know it doesn’t lessen the violence and savagery of the act I thought I might try to put some context on this.

In the middle ages almost everything worked differently than it does today. War is and example of this. In the European system of engagement an enemy had until the siege was laid to either surrender, make deals, pay ransoms or even run away if needs be. Once the army dug in, built its engjnes and laid the siege those within the city should not expect any quarter.

So yes many were slain in Jerusalem that day. Orthodox, Jew and Muslim alike would have met with totaly brutality when the gates fell. That was the rules of war then. There were some amongst the Crusaders who bemoaned the slaughter but in the end they were a minority.

In the end while we should always look to these situations and learn from them we also have to acknowledge that our ancestors (your and mine) lived by rules that we today would consider savage yet were the norm for them.

As to the slaughters in Europe I’d expect those are likely true (I’ve not studied those specifically) our ancestors were ignorant and people who struck out at what was different. If the crops were bad who’s fault was it (because in that day it must absolutely be someone’s fault)? The strang widow woman who talks to herself, The person with the strange birthmark or yes the one who follows a strange religion with strange rituals.

Or how about “I’m a local lord and I owe money to a Jewish merchant I can’t pay but I do have fighting men and I’m the law around these parts how do I handle this situation?”

Our ancestors dispite their discoveries, willpower and courage were brutal people by our standards (and thank God we have those standards now). In the end the villain you’re looking for is ignorance and in the middle ages there was plenty of that to be had.

 

[chosen_people]

Are these assertions really true?

Were there ANY other ISSUES that existed at the same time that were going on to which were “tangential” or which might have been of primary importance?

The statement seems to be so global and so generalized, and so overlooks the primary purpose of the Crusades, which took place over a time span of 200 years or so.

I’m sorry you feel that the mass murder of tens of thousands of Jews by Catholics on a holy Christian mission is of no real importance.

I don’t know whether to be shocked or disappointed when you ask “are these assertions really true?”. I wonder in how many more years someone like yourself will ask that question about the holocaust.

The other issues? Christian invaders of my land fought muslim invaders of my land.

 

[chosen_people]

This stood out to me so I thought I’d make a comment. While I know it doesn’t lessen the violence and savagery of the act I thought I might try to put some context on this.

In the middle ages almost everything worked differently than it does today. War is and example of this. In the European system of engagement an enemy had until the siege was laid to either surrender, make deals, pay ransoms or even run away if needs be. Once the army dug in, built its engjnes and laid the siege those within the city should not expect any quarter.

So yes many were slain in Jerusalem that day. Orthodox, Jew and Muslim alike would have met with totaly brutality when the gates fell. That was the rules of war then. There were some amongst the Crusaders who bemoaned the slaughter but in the end they were a minority.

In the end while we should always look to these situations and learn from them we also have to acknowledge that our ancestors (your and mine) lived by rules that we today would consider savage yet were the norm for them.

As to the slaughters in Europe I’d expect those are likely true (I’ve not studied those specifically) our ancestors were ignorant and people who struck out at what was different. If the crops were bad who’s fault was it (because in that day it must absolutely be someone’s fault)? The strang widow woman who talks to herself, The person with the strange birthmark or yes the one who follows a strange religion with strange rituals.

Or how about “I’m a local lord and I owe money to a Jewish merchant I can’t pay but I do have fighting men and I’m the law around these parts how do I handle this situation?”

Our ancestors dispite their discoveries, willpower and courage were brutal people by our standards (and thank God we have those standards now). In the end the villain you’re looking for is ignorance and in the middle ages there was plenty of that to be had.

We are talking about Catholics on a holy mission. Doesn’t bode well for Catholic morality when mass murder of Jews became part of that “holy mission”.

 

[Valke2]

THere are two crusades threads currently active (meaning posts keep being added to both.) Can we combine them somehow?

 

[Al_Masetti]

I’m sorry you feel that the mass murder of tens of thousands of Jews by Catholics on a holy Christian mission is of no real importance.

I don’t know whether to be shocked or disappointed when you ask “are these assertions really true?”. I wonder in how many more years someone like yourself will ask that question about the holocaust.

The other issues? Christian invaders of my land fought muslim invaders of my land.

What year was this?

 

[Feanor]

Still referring to the Crusades as the “Holy” Crusades- that’s rich!

 

[frail]

We are talking about Catholics on a holy mission. Doesn’t bode well for Catholic morality when mass murder of Jews became part of that “holy mission”.

ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/tmadden_crusademyths_feb05.asp

• Myth 5: The Crusades were also waged against the Jews.

No pope ever called a Crusade against Jews. During the First Crusade a large band of riffraff, not associated with the main army, descended on the towns of the Rhineland and decided to rob and kill the Jews they found there. In part this was pure greed. **In part it also stemmed from the incorrect belief that the Jews, as the crucifiers of Christ, were legitimate targets of the war. *Pope Urban II and subsequent popes strongly condemned these attacks on Jews. Local bishops and other clergy and laity attempted to defend the Jews, although with limited success. Similarly, during the opening phase of the Second Crusade a group of renegades killed many Jews in Germany before St. Bernard was able to catch up to them and put a stop to it. These misfires of the movement were an unfortunate byproduct of Crusade enthusiasm. But they were not the purpose of the Crusades. To use a modern analogy, during the Second World War some American soldiers committed crimes while overseas. They were arrested and punished for those crimes. But the purpose of the Second World War was not to commit crimes.

 

[chosen_people]

What year was this?

The massacres of european Jewry by Catholics in the first crusade 1096. The massacre of the thousands of Jews in Jerusalem,1099 with the fall of the city to the crusaders.

 

[Feanor]

Chosen People,

I hope you know that the VAST majority of Catholics don’t share the, really quite strange views, expressed by some posters here. I know our fine and astute President used the term “Crusade” a number of years ago but most Catholics don’t think of war as holy.

 

[chosen_people]

ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/tmadden_crusademyths_feb05.asp

• Myth 5: The Crusades were also waged against the Jews.

No pope ever called a Crusade against Jews. During the First Crusade a large band of riffraff, not associated with the main army, descended on the towns of the Rhineland and decided to rob and kill the Jews they found there. In part this was pure greed. In part it also stemmed from the incorrect belief that the Jews, as the crucifiers of Christ, were legitimate targets of the war*. Pope Urban II and subsequent popes strongly condemned these attacks on Jews. Local bishops and other clergy and laity attempted to defend the Jews, although with limited success. Similarly, during the opening phase of the Second Crusade a group of renegades killed many Jews in Germany before St. Bernard was able to catch up to them and put a stop to it. These misfires of the movement were an unfortunate byproduct of Crusade enthusiasm. But they were not the purpose of the Crusades. To use a modern analogy, during the Second World War some American soldiers committed crimes while overseas. They were arrested and punished for those crimes. But the purpose of the Second World War was not to commit crimes.

Oh well if it was all just a misunderstanding because the Jews were guilty of deicide than I guess it had nothing to do with Catholics or Catholicism.

 

[chosen_people]

Chosen People,

I hope you know that the VAST majority of Catholics don’t share the, really quite strange views, expressed by some posters here. I know our fine and astute President used the term “Crusade” a number of years ago but most Catholics don’t think of war as holy.

I have no doubt that the Crusaders answering the Pope’s call to “rid the Holyland of the infidel” did indeed believe they were on a “holy mission” for the Church.

I personally, because of the horrendous acts committed against my people by the Crusaders always flinch when someone declares that they are on a “crusade”.

 

[Feanor]

I have no doubt that the Crusaders answering the Pope’s call to “rid the Holyland of the infidel” did indeed believe they were on a “holy mission” for the Church.

I personally, because of the horrendous acts committed against my people by the Crusaders always flinch when someone declares that they are on a “crusade”.

'm sorry but I don’t understand what you are saying here. I am trying to tell you that the vast majority of Catholics TODAY don’t think of the crusades as a particularly charitable chapter in the Church’s history. Yes, back in the day Catholics thought the Crusades were great but not nowadays, except for the strange group of Catholics who are posting regarding the “holy” Crusades.

 

[rtconstant]

We are talking about Catholics on a holy mission. Doesn’t bode well for Catholic morality when mass murder of Jews became part of that “holy mission”.

Except that it never was part of that mission and that has actually been shown rather clearly. In the case of the killings in in the Rhineland one can reasonably assert that these were a biproduct of the Crusades as the fervor to fight for the Holy Land generated the right amount of chaos that those with the mob mentality are always looking for. Unfortunately Jews became the victims of this.

In the case of Jerusalem again it was a war and a siege during a particularly brutal era in human history. Jews were living in a city that had fallen to a siege that means all lives in that city were in danger and all posessions automatically belonged to the invaders. Was it fair? No. Was it the way things were done back then? Yes. How do you think the Orthodox within the city felt when they were killed by their own bretheren?

Yes terrible and brutal things happened in the Crusades just as they occur in any war. From a religious stand point it serves as a good example of how that religion and war really don’t mix. While the Pope had high ideals for the Crusades (a reunified Church, and a liberated Holy Land) in the end it was just another war. A struggle for power.

In the grand scheme of history were these wars important? Certainly, they forced the Islamic empire bent on global conquest to stop and think defensively. They were forced to see that some people were capable of fighting them, and that those people could win. The Crusades were very important to the future and safety of Europe. They were also put the final nail in the coffin of Byzantium and like every other war the majority of the slain were innocent people just trying to survive.

In the course of history wars have always done some good and have always caused massive destruction. Lets all pray for the day when we can find a better way to settle our differences.

 

[Valke2]

you would view the crusades that followed the first as a success?

 

[rtconstant]

you would view the crusades that followed the first as a success?

If you’re asking me. In terms of actually military victory and accomplishment of the original goal? With the exception of the 3rd (which was somewhat successful) not so much. Nor did I mean to imply that. However, they did seem to do enough damage that the Muslims seemed to become cautious of the West. Which for Western Europe was a good thing. Unfortunately Eastern Europe, Central Asia and India didn’t fare so well…

Of course I’m speaking in a broad sense some Crusades were total disasters from all perspectives. In general they stirred things up and kept the threat of possible invasion ever present.

 

[Valke2]

got it. Thanks.

 

[Chancellare]

This thread is about the Crusades. The Crusades became one of the most horrible acts of Catholic persecution of Jews leading to mass murder. The Crusaders who committed these acts no doubt not only did not believe that they were committing acts of murder but were in fact defending and glorifying the Catholic Church against the perfidous Jews. Any discussion of the Crusades must investigate the underlying causes that caused Catholics to leave their families in the service of the Church and than to see that service as the massacre of Jews. It naturally follows to investigate what were the underlying causes to such extreme antisemitism, whether this was an isolated incident and whether such occurences reoccured against the Jews, and why?

If in fact I have strayed from the subject matter at hand I will leave that up to an official forum administrator.

There’s a thread on “Catholic antisemitism” but since you don’t want to discuss it there and no comment from moderator, I guess we’ll have to continue this subthread here.

Facts:

• Pope JPII has already apologized for the anti-Jew crimes committed in the past.
• Crimes committed by Crusaders were not aimed exclusively at Jews because the Crusades were lauched to recapture Jerusalem from the Muslims.
• Crimes committed by Crusaders(e.g, killing of innocents, etc) during the campaign were not sanctioned by the Church

My question to you now:
If suddenly you found out that one of your father’s ancestors killed a relative of your wifes’s(for which they already apologized and expressed remorse), and now your wife is accusing you of being part of a family of murderers. Is she justified in condemning you for the acts of your ancestors?