the crusades

[The_Confused_1]

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.

 

[Della]

Here is an article from This Rock: Crusading for the Truth.

 

[Anim8]

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.

 

[Brendan]

Prior to their invasion of Greek Asia Minor, the Turks were an asiatic nomadic tribe.

They invaded what was part of Greece (Asia Minor) and the lawful ruler of that land ( The Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I) asked for Western assistance in repelling the invader. This was no more immoral that France asking for help in repelling the Nazi invaders.

In addition, all of North Africa was Christian, Egypt was populated by Christian Copts. Arabs from the Arabian pennisula invaded and the Western armies assisted the Copts with repelling the invaders.

And then, of course, there was the Reconquista in Spain, repelling Moorish invaders. The only reason that isn’t included in the Crusades is that Spain won.

 

[Godfollower]

One thing you should be aware of: one of the Crusades (the Fourth, I believe) is a leading cause of the continuing schism between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches even today. The Fourth Crusade ended up at Constantinople and sacked it. The so-called Christian knights did everything possible to horrify and offend the locals – rape, pillaging, wanton destruction, and murder – saying all the while that they were acting in God’s name (even though they were directing their actions at fellow Christians). As I understand it, members of the Eastern Church are upset about that event to this day. The pope at the time condemned the sacking of Constantinople once he found out about it, and I believe that he excommunicated everyone who took part, but that obviously doesn’t erase the harm done.

You will probably find during your research that there were similar events in each Crusade. Many of the atrocities were directed at Muslims; some were directed at Jews; and some were directed at fellow Christians. There were many opportunity-seekers in the various Crusades, and many evil things happened during them. This is not to say that every member of every Crusade was acting from evil intentions, but the bad past acts tend to outweigh the good in people’s memories. This is one reason the President’s use of the word “crusade” against terrorism made so many people cringe.

So, yes, the Crusades were a mixed bag. And they contained enough fodder for anyone planning to criticize the Church to do so.

 

[Jayda]

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.

hola The Confused 1,

I explained the crusades once before, there is a lot of misinformation about the crusades and spanish inquisition that are meant to make the Church sound bad…

this is what I wrote:

the middle ages were a very complicated time, warlords ruled europe and the muslims went through a very brief time 1-200 years of extreme religious intolerance greatly encouraged by a ruling lunatic.

the Pope authorized the Crusades to happen in response to the destruction and desecration of all the Churches in Jerusalem by the muslim ruler “Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah,” and the ensuring decades of extreme persecution. this request was relaid to him by the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Emperor of the East.

even the Holy Sepulchre was not spared… pilgrims and Christians were mercilessly killed… the delicate balance of paying extortive taxes for the protection of Christians which was instituted after the arabs conquered Jerusalem 400 years prior was completely swept away… Christians could no longer trust the muslims to protect the Christians living in the Holy Land. these are the events HH Pope Urban II spoke of at Clermont.

but what happened was completely unexpected, instead of a handful of noblemen going to the aid of the Eastern empire in liberating the Holy Land from the muslims, there was a mass exodus of people attempting to escape the poverty and bad conditions of Europe which was a third world place. as with any collection of such people there were innocent but ignorant people mixed with horrible criminals…

these people used the Pope’s words as a call to do as they pleased, and they committed horrible crimes in the name of God and the Church, crimes which the late Holy Father John Paul II, the Blessed, apologized for in 2000… not that the Pope was directly responsible for these excesses, but that it was done in his name.

one more thing i forgot to say,

when the Holy Father at Clermont said “Dieu le veut” (he spoke in french, not latin) he was not instituting a warcry… he was quoting the Bible, it is something Christians are supposed to say according to James 4:15 “say if the Lord wills it”

i do not know if you noticed but sometimes i say “ojala” in parenthesis when i express a wish or hope or something i am going to do later in the day… this is a short spanish word for “if God wants it”

but like many other things the worst among Crusaders themselves took the Popes words and turned them into their own desires…

Dios te bendiga

so in general it was a call for defending the Holy Land against islamic oppression… but the warlords who answered the call disobeyed the Holy Father and so there were the crimes committed…

Dios te bendiga

 

[Jayda]

if you need more information i answered some of her questions and i provided more information… she asked if i was sure about muslims destroying all the Christian churchs and i answered the following:

yes all Churches were destroyed… this man was not following islam, he was a lunatic, and the environment he created against christians that lasted for the following decades was not islam but lunacy, but the Pope had no way of knowing whether and he had to protect the pilgrims.

please look this person up Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah.

i think it is very important for me to clarify what my intention of saying this was… the Pope authorized a war in the Holy Land because of the oppression Christians faced beginning a few decades earlier with the intolerable destruction of all Churches including the most holy Sepulchre… the purpose was to aid the eastern empire in retaking the Holy Land so that it could be safe for Christians again since clearly the Muslims could not be trusted to do this anymore…

if you read the speech at clermont he talks about the destruction of the temple and abuses of the Muslim leader, he also calls nobles to aid the east… but instead what happened, something the Pope did not ask for and could not control, was that there was a mass exodus of tens of thousands of barbarian frankish warlords, a complete flood of third world ignorance, into the east… they destroyed and sacked constantinople, the killed everybody in the Holy Land muslims jews and christians and set up for themselves their own kingdom (it was meant to be ruled directly by the Pope, and the eastern empire)… these are not things the Pope wanted, they are unjustifiable crimes and disobedience against the Holy Church…

but communication was very bad in these days, the Pope nor anyone in the Church did not know that this muslim ruler was a lunatic (his advisor created a religion around him called druze), they thought all muslims were doing this and that they had finally decided to kill off all the Christians. and the Pope was not able to control the barbarians in Europe, so he was even less able to control the barbarians when they went to the Holy Land.

these crusaders were disobedient and criminal, nothing justifies their crime, but in the Popes good judgement limited and merciful military intervention was absolutely justified to protect the Christians from the muslims who we had just learned had destroyed the Sepulchre and all the Churchs and were killing all the pilgrims…

i am not defending the Crusades, i am trying to explain what the Churchs true role in the Crusades were, and that the real crimes of the crusades are the result of evil warlords who were doing the same things in Europe beforehand, that did not listen to the Pope then, and did not listen to the Pope when they went to the Holy Land…

Dios te bendiga

 

[Jayda]

i also provided more background information about how the Crusaders specifically disobeyed the Church (and how the Pope responded to their disobedience)

it occurred to me that in talking about the crusades i neglected to show in what capacity the crusaders disobeyed the Church (other than by not doing the mission they were given, not protecting the eastern empire, establishing their own kingdom of Jerusalem rather than giving it to the pope and emperor, and not communicating with Rome that the official legate chosen by the Pope had died of disease)

specifically with regards to the worst things the crusaders did they violated the Church’s doctrines and commandments. our war doctrine is called “Just War doctrine” and like all doctrine we must obey. it was first articulated by St. Augustine in the fourth century and is found in modern catechisms in section 2302 onward… the modern Just War doctrine has been adapted to include specific 20th century words like “genocide” or modern weapons like nuclear weapons or biological weapons.

the doctrine that Crusaders would have had to follow was the Augustinian doctrine that St. Aquinas commented on in at the specified link i provided…

the four essential elements for a just war are:

The war is just in intent. There must be a high-minded reason to start the war.
The war is just in disposition. Hatred of the enemy is not an ingredient.
The war is just in auspices. A lawful authority has declared the war.
The war is just in its conduct. The means used are just and non-combatants are spared.

the Holy Father Urban II, the blessed, gave the authority to begin war in the Holy Land, because he was the lawful authority (item 2 in augustines doctrine), and he established the reasons as protecting the pilgrims, restoring the Churches and helping the eastern Christians (items 1, 2) and he established a legate (a messenger from the Pope, representing him abroad) to command the crusader forces. the legate a latere (which is the highest kind of messenger, a cardinal), was Adhemar of Le Puy, who was bishop of Puy en Velay and general of all crusader forces. he was ordered to begin the Crusades on the feast of the Assumption of Mary and would have been responsible for all military decisions and making sure everything was in line with Catholic doctrine, before he could begin a lunatic named Peter the Hermit took 100,000 peasants women and children on the Crusade six months before it was meant to be taken… almost all died of starvation, they never reached Jerusalem and those that were not killed, enslaved or forced to convert were sent back to Constantinople where they were not recieved.

when the crusades began it was still lead by Bishop Adhemar, who because of his title and authority was both spiritual and military leader of the Crusade. he was the leader during the time that the crusaders took back Antioch, the muslim governor who was aware they were coming, was a terrible man who imprisoned the Patriarch (Pope) of Antioch (one of the five most important men in Christianity) and exiled all of the Greeks and Armenian Christians…

there was a very large seige laid against antioch for a long time and the crusaders almost starved, during that time the Fatimids came (antioch was under the Turks) and were treated very well given gifts and not abused, like the crusaders did later in the crusades after adhemar died. nothing was worked out but the fatimids left in peace.

they finally took the city in a very large battle, the turkish garrison was killed by the crusaders and the citizens because the turks were so cruel, the crusaders entered the city and muslim citizens were spared, and their property left alone. acting for the Pope bishop Adhemar reinstated the Patriarch and they awaited a retaliatory strike from the larger army of muslim turks coming back to take the city.

they attacked, and lost and the crusaders kept Antioch but disease began and Adhemar died as a consequence… this is very important because the crusaders did not inform the Pope immediately that his legate had died, instead they kept control of the crusader armies and made Peter the Hermit (who was still alive from his failed crusade) their new leader… as i said before Peter was insane, he had visions of gradure and promised things he could not give, he even claimed that the crusade was his idea…

 

[Jayda]

under his spritual guidance (a mere friar) and the military guidance of the warlords muslims immediately began to be killed by the crusaders, and they openly stole food from them to begin their assault on Jerusalem… by the time they reached Jerusalem they had no papal leadership to make sure they followed the doctrine of war and they attacked and massacred every muslim christian and jew living in the city, committed many atrocities and then elected for themselves a new Patriarch of Jerusalem (Arnulf) who would be their puppet bishop supporting their secular kingdom of Jerusalem rather than the planned theocracy.

when the Pope learned of these things he was incensed and sent a Papal appointed Patriarch Dagobert of Pisa, who came to instill a theocracy… upon coming to Jerusalem he quickly learned the knights were loyal to their king and no longer the Pope so he was mistreated and ignored, he was able to work out a deal with the king that they would turn the Holy Land back to the Pope after they conquered Egypt (where they could have their kingdom, except alexandria), but that never happened, Dagobert refused to crown a new king because the old died, and went back to Rome to report the mutiny but in his absense the crusaders established a new Patriarch who would be their puppet… the Pope and Patriarch Dagobert were furious and he was sent back, when he returned he reestablished his claim to his office but that was all… from then on out the Papal appointed Patriarchs and legates were ignored by the Crusaders, and the Crusaders did as they pleased…

the Just war doctrine and any other doctrine that did not please these warlords were ignored, and the messages from Rome were ignored… when the Pope called for more crusades to control the previous crusaders and try to reestablish byzantine control the situation became worse, the crusaders sacked Constantinople, destroyed the Holy Land and began banking in interest (which was illegal). it became so bad the Popes ended the crusades, disbanded the Templars and put the Hospitallers directly under vatican control, the French Knights were all sent back to France and commanded to remain there.

partly because of the french knights and crusaders disloyalty St. Thomas Aquinas revised St. Augustines just war doctrine to the following

The war is authorized by legitimate authority. That is, on the authority of the sovereign.
The cause must be just and the belligerents must have rightful intentions.
The war is declared as a last resort, after other means have failed.
The means used in the war are just.
There is a reasonable chance of success.
The good achieved in victory will outweigh the evil produced during the conflict.

adding that it must be a last resort and have a reasonable chance of success, so that in the future should a sacrum belli be called for there would not be such problems.

Dios te bendiga

 

[Jayda]

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!

 

[Sarabande]

I don’t know much about the Crusades, but my husband is really into the history of it and has done a lot of reading of it.

Here is his brief understanding of it (at least how the First Crusade began.):

“I would remind your friend of the fact surrounding the crusades. The first crusade was launched after envoys from the Byzantine Emperor Alexius I pleaded with Pope Urban II for military support against the conquering muslim armies invading his territories. The pope feeling that the western nations were also threatened by Islamic invasion felt
that the he was obliged to support his Byzantine allies. Hence he campaigned throughout Europe to gain support from the western governments in the form of military aid. Islam has historically been a proponent of violence against outsiders. Violence against people of other faiths is not only acceptable, it is encouraged.”

I don’t condone what Christians and Muslims did to each other during that time. There were obviously horrific atrocities incurred, but on both sides. Some people went in with idealistic views, others sinfully took advantage of the opportunity and gave a bad name to Christians. It also should be remembered that the Middle Ages were filled with barbaric acts that no one today would/should condone even if it was the name of his/her God. These actions were not just limited to Christians, but to people of all faiths. The other thing that should be remembered is that when the First Crusades occurred, it wasn’t that long after Islam took over the Middle East and forced conversions onto Christians and non-Christians. The last thing any Christian of that time would want were forced conversions of Christians in Europe.

My husband and I have tried to view it in terms of the times and not how we view the world today. I think secularists and people who have a thing against the Catholic Church like to choose this period in our history as a reason to despise the faith. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” seems to be their idea. But no Christian faith is like that today. When is the last time an actual Christian or Jewish leader called a Crusade? I just find the Crusade argument by secularists or others as a weak one for reasons why they are against Christianity. It’s not relevant as to how most Christians today conduct themselves and teach the faith. I’m not saying that any Church today is without scandal or sin, but for people to go back hundreds of years and site a culture, practice and societal system which does not even exist today and use it as an example of how today’s Christian faiths (mainly Catholicism) is bad, is wrong. I’d rather them site disagreements with today’s beliefs or doctrine or even sinful events that have occurred recently in any faith to garner any respect from me as a plausible argument or reason.

 

[Sarabande]

Thanks for the information Jayda. I’ll pass it along to my husband.

 

[Sarabande]

This is another comment my husband asked me to cut and paste:

"That is all basically true. The Fourth Crusade wasn’t really a
crusade. It started out as one and degenerated into a murderous looting festival. Some Christians throughout all of the crusades performed excessive violence in the name of God much like the Jihadists of today (and back then). However, as mentioned in the blog the church openly
repudiated these actions. The Church was also disgusted with the behavior in the first Crusade, especially the non-church-ordained People’s Crusade.

When antiabolitionists fundamentalistsd used the bible to promote their views on slavery, other Christians repudiated these verses and decided that we have become more polished with our spirituality then 2,000 BC people who wrote those texts. I defy you to find me from any major Imam in the middle east, one apology or one repudiation or one inkling of
regret at the action of Islamic atrocities from its inception up to the modern world. The Islamic sack of Edessa left every Westerner, Armenian, and Jew murdered ebven as they surrenderred. The fact of the matter is that they fully endorse violence against other faiths while the church has undertood its fault, apologized for it, and grew up above it. Catholics are no longer called to Crusade.

Also you must compare the warfare of the crusades to all other froms of warfare for their time. These people were only two or three centuries away from barbarianism. Teenagers were prince generals and the population was largely superstitious and uneducated. The modern Christian world no longer holds to these crusading values. To use a 1,000 year old example of how the church failed is like saying the U.S.A. shouldn’t be allied with Britain because of the American
Revolution."

 

[Valke2]

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.

Is the Catholic church responsible for those who have done great works/acts in its name?

 

[ricmat]

Is the Catholic church responsible for those who have done great works/acts in its name?

Yes, if they were following official Catholic teaching.

 

[ricmat]

Is the Catholic church responsible for those who have done great works/acts in its name?

Acts committed by Catholics which are consistent with Catholic teaching could be attributed to the Catholic Church.

So if a Catholic performs horrific acts contrary to Catholic teaching, the Church is not responsible. And one might say that since this person is acting contrary to Catholic teaching, that he’s not really a Catholic.

If a Catholic performs wonderful acts in accordance to Catholic teaching, then you could also credit the Church with this as well.

 

[SPH1]

The so-called Crusades are a source of anti-Catholic propaganda:

1. By Protestants because, well, there were no Protestants around for those wars so the Crusades are an easy target. You won’t hear Protestants speaking much of the later religious wars they were involved in.
2. By Muslims because they were on the receiving end. But you will not hear them speaking much of their constant warfare throughout the entire history of Islam and how it affected the Crusades…and what’s going on today.
3. By the schismatic Eastern Orthodox, who were involved here and there. Like Muslims, they speak of the Crusades as if they happened yesterday: i.e., the sacking of Constantiople. They will not speak of instigating events such as the Byzantine Betrayal of (the prior Crusade?) And come on! They sacked and invaded Latin cities/areas…and even their own areas. Like everyone else.
4. By assorted non-Christians who support all sorts of foul things themselves.

For some years now we have been getting a small taste of the Sword of Islam, which is awakening from a period of dormancy. What Christian Europe went through for centuries. Many Islamic lands were once Christian. IMO, the Church of Rome is pretty much the only N.T. Church still around in any glory, free from the scourge of Islam.

Islam is invading again. In areas such as Africa by the Sword. In the West, largely by the trojan horse of immigration and with the aid of an insane political correctness, a political correctness which is weakening Western Civilization.

Do not make the mistake of believing that Islam is merely a Religion. It is not. It is also a very powerful political and military force. And IMO, they are more united and focused than we are, either here in the US or the West in general. More united than are we around either the Flag or the Cross.

IMO, we should look at Islam like Nazi Germany and Communist Russia or China at their worst. Incompatible with the West, Christianity and Democracy. A dangerous opponent.

IMO, we need another “Crusade”. Stop by force the militant advancement of Islam in Africa and elsewhere. Immediately halt all immigration into the West from Islamic countries. In effect, do a Reconquista. The Muslims will understand, they have pretty much the same policies with regard to their lands!

Either that or lose Western/Christian Civilization to Islam and insane liberal political correctness.

From some of the politically correct comments in this thread, I don’t see much hope for the West.

 

[Valke2]

Acts committed by Catholics which are consistent with Catholic teaching could be attributed to the Catholic Church.

So if a Catholic performs horrific acts contrary to Catholic teaching, the Church is not responsible. And one might say that since this person is acting contrary to Catholic teaching, that he’s not really a Catholic.

If a Catholic performs wonderful acts in accordance to Catholic teaching, then you could also credit the Church with this as well.

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.

 

[Valke2]

The so-called Crusades are a source of anti-Catholic propaganda:

1. By Protestants because, well, there were no Protestants around for those wars so the Crusades are an easy target. You won’t hear Protestants speaking much of the later religious wars they were involved in.
2. By Muslims because they were on the receiving end. But you will not hear them speaking much of their constant warfare throughout the entire history of Islam and how it affected the Crusades…and what’s going on today.
3. By the schismatic Eastern Orthodox, who were involved here and there. Like Muslims, they speak of the Crusades as if they happened yesterday: i.e., the sacking of Constantiople. They will not speak of instigating events such as the Byzantine Betrayal of (the prior Crusade?) And come on! They sacked and invaded Latin cities/areas…and even their own areas. Like everyone else.
4. By assorted non-Christians who support all sorts of foul things themselves.

And what about the issues Jews have with the Crusades?

 

[SPH1]

And what about the issues Jews have with the Crusades?

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