the crusades

[Valke2]

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?

again with metaphors.

 

[Valke2]

It takes a concerted effort to ignore the Church’s position regarding Jews from 300 CE to the crusades in order to convince one’s self that the Church was not responsible for what was done to the Jews during the Crusades.

By the 11th century, the Church had pretty much converted all of Europe, except for the Jews. Up until this moment, the existence of Jews, which itself was problematic to Christianity (after all, if the people who wrote the book that Jesus’ divinity was based on, rejected his claim of Divinity…). At the time of the first crusade, we had 700 years of Church rhetoric telling the world that the Jews murdered God. Then the first crusade, calling for the taking of Jerusalem from the Muslims. But as historian Leon Poliakov pointed out, the crusaders were “God’s avengers, appointed to punish all infidels, whoever they might be. What could be more natural than to take revenge along the way upon the various infidels living in Christian territories.

Gilbert de Nogent, chronicled the first crusades. Quoting the crusaders of Rouen: “We desire to go and fight God’s enemies in the East; but we have before our eyes certain Jews; a race more inimical to God than any other.”

Wherever crusaders found jews, they gave them the choice of conversion or death. This was not just a few bad apples, as has been suggested on this board. What follows is typical, not atypical of what resulted when crusaders came upon Jews:
(cont.)

 

[Valke2]

In May 1096 the Jews of Worms learned that the Jewish community in nearby Speyer had been murdered by crusaders. Some Jews went to the estate of Bishop Adalbert for help. Other Jews stayed home, having been promised help by local burghers. The one’s who stayed home were immediately murdered. Bishop Adalbert offered sanctuary to the other Jews, but only if they converted. Those that refused were murdered. 800 Jews murdered in two days. A few escaped death by accepting baptism “much more out of the fear of death than from love of the Christian faith.” (Albert of Aix, christian chronicler).

As for the Jews who converted under pain of death, I would think that the Church would have stated that such conversions were wrong and that those Jews could continue to practice Judaism. Then maybe it could at least make a colorable claim that it bore little responsibility for the actions of the Crusaders. But instead, Pope Innocent III issued the following bull:

“He who is led to Christianity by violence, by fear and by torture, and who received the sacrament of baptism to avoid harm (even as he who comes falsely to baptism) receives indeed the stamp of Christanity…They [the forced converts] themselves having been anointed with the holy oil and having participated in the body of the Lord, must be duty constrained to abide by the faith they had accepted by force.”

According to the pope the only option was to object expressly to the baptism. Since this inevitably resulted in execution on the spot, it wasn’t such a great option. The Church effectively ratified the actions of the Crusades.

During the Second Crusade, some clerics took it upon themselves to stir the Christian masses into a frenzy. Abbe Pierre of Cluny challenged his parishoners: “What is the good of going to the end of the world, at great loss of men and money, to fight the Saracens, when we permit among us other infidels a thousand times more guilty towards Christ than the Mohammedans?

Given this history, I hope you can understand why the Jews and (hopefully) many Christians and others, have a hard time swallowing the story that the Church bears no blame and is not responsible for the actions of the crusades, which decimated European Jewry.

See, “Why the Jews” by Prager and Telushkin pp,79-81 (paraphrased here).

 

[Chancellare]

In May 1096 the Jews of Worms learned that the Jewish community in nearby Speyer had been murdered by crusaders. Some Jews went to the estate of Bishop Adalbert for help. Other Jews stayed home, having been promised help by local burghers. The one’s who stayed home were immediately murdered. Bishop Adalbert offered sanctuary to the other Jews, but only if they converted. Those that refused were murdered. 800 Jews murdered in two days. A few escaped death by accepting baptism “much more out of the fear of death than from love of the Christian faith.” (Albert of Aix, christian chronicler).

As for the Jews who converted under pain of death, I would think that the Church would have stated that such conversions were wrong and that those Jews could continue to practice Judaism. Then maybe it could at least make a colorable claim that it bore little responsibility for the actions of the Crusaders. But instead, Pope Innocent III issued the following bull:

“He who is led to Christianity by violence, by fear and by torture, and who received the sacrament of baptism to avoid harm (even as he who comes falsely to baptism) receives indeed the stamp of Christanity…They [the forced converts] themselves having been anointed with the holy oil and having participated in the body of the Lord, must be duty constrained to abide by the faith they had accepted by force.”

According to the pope the only option was to object expressly to the baptism. Since this inevitably resulted in execution on the spot, it wasn’t such a great option. The Church effectively ratified the actions of the Crusades.

During the Second Crusade, some clerics took it upon themselves to stir the Christian masses into a frenzy. Abbe Pierre of Cluny challenged his parishoners: “What is the good of going to the end of the world, at great loss of men and money, to fight the Saracens, when we permit among us other infidels a thousand times more guilty towards Christ than the Mohammedans?

Given this history, I hope you can understand why the Jews and (hopefully) many Christians and others, have a hard time swallowing the story that the Church bears no blame and is not responsible for the actions of the crusades, which decimated European Jewry.

See, “Why the Jews” by Prager and Telushkin pp,79-81 (paraphrased here).

Your point is…

 

[Al_Masetti]

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?

And it all happened 1000 years ago!

 

[chosen_people]

And it all happened 1000 years ago!

Which led to the blood libels which led to more murders which led to more expulsions which led to more forced conversions which led to the inquisition which led to more murders which led to more passion plays which led to more murders which led to more forced conversions which led to more murders which led to more ghettoes which led to more expulsions which led to more forced convversions which led to more …

You have to see the crusades in context. They were whipped up against the Jews before the Crusades by their local priests in their villages and they continued afterwards after the crusades. No one ever stopped to say “look what we’ve done”. That only happened after another Catholic, a lot less than a thousand years ago wiped out almost all the Jews of europe.

 

[Chancellare]

Which led to the blood libels which led to more murders which led to more expulsions which led to more forced conversions which led to the inquisition which led to more murders which led to more passion plays which led to more murders which led to more forced conversions which led to more murders which led to more ghettoes which led to more expulsions which led to more forced convversions which led to more …

You have to see the crusades in context. They were whipped up against the Jews before the Crusades by their local priests in their villages and they continued afterwards after the crusades. No one ever stopped to say “look what we’ve done”. That only happened after another Catholic, a lot less than a thousand years ago wiped out almost all the Jews of europe.

No decent Catholic denies the guilt of those who were proven to have committed these crimes. And we’re all sorry as formalized by Pope JPII. What more do you want?

Raise Hitler and all Crusaders from the grave?

 

[Sarabande]

And it all happened 1000 years ago!

Exactly… Catholicism and almost any other religion no longer promote the slaughter of the Jewish people or the Muslim people. The debate that has developed on here regarding the Church’s culpability of it’s people’s actions against the Jews is an interesting one and one that should be discussed. But the fact is, we no longer do this. It is no longer taught in Catholic schools or churches to hate people of ANY religion or beliefs.

I understand Catholics and non-Catholics being disgusted with what occurred during the Middle Ages. It was abhorrant, but it is always important to look at history not from our 21st century eyes, but through the eyes of someone from those centuries when the atrocities took place. The Christians weren’t the only people doing it (doesn’t condone their actions, though). Any group or faith who had power took advantage of their power - Muslims included.

To me, it is a weak reason for someone to reject Christianity or Catholicism all together because of atrocities that took place over a 1000 years ago. Yes, we can be appalled and disgusted. There would be something wrong with a person if he/she wasn’t. But to use that as an excuse to condemn Christianity today, is basically saying that Christianity is still like that and that we haven’t grown and developed over the centuries. Remember that Medieval Europe was just coming out of barbarism. They still had barbaric tendencies. I wouldn’t consider most actions of the Church today as barbaric. The reasons behind someone rejecting the Church would be a lot more acceptable and logical if that person used events or actions of the Church from this century or the 20th century as their reasons for rejecting. The use of the Crusades is just too illogical and weak for me.

 

[Valke2]

Exactly… Catholicism and almost any other religion no longer promote the slaughter of the Jewish people or the Muslim people. The debate that has developed on here regarding the Church’s culpability of it’s people’s actions against the Jews is an interesting one and one that should be discussed. But the fact is, we no longer do this. It is no longer taught in Catholic schools or churches to hate people of ANY religion or beliefs.

Of course not. I don’t think anyone is suggesting otherwise.

The Christians weren’t the only people doing it (doesn’t condone their actions, though). Any group or faith who had power took advantage of their power - Muslims included.

I’d agree.

 

[WestonGrant]

I picked up the book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades. I thought it was great. You might find some helpful things there.

 

[chosen_people]

You have been reading a lot of nonsense somewhere. The killings of Jews that took place, largely in the European Rhineland, were

A: Of a few thousands at most - not “35- 50% of European jewry” as you ridiculously try to claim.

B: Were not the responsibility of “the Crusaders”, They took place before the 1st crusade had even set off. They were mob risings organised by local agitators, many of whom owed money to the jews.

C> The jews were protected as much as they could by the Catholic Bishops, but in many places the mob still took them in the end, since the bishops had no armies.

D: The killings were condemned at the time by the Church. Many of the perpetrators were later killed when they moved on with their rioting.

So let’s have the truth, not anti-christian legend.

Here is one eyewitness account of an attack on the Jewry of Mainz in May of 1096. This comes from The First Crusade by August Krey, and it is a letter written by a Jew who survived:

"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…”

This is how about 30%-50% of the Jewish community of Europe met its end. Some 10,000 Jews of an estimated population of about 20,000-30,000 were slaughtered by Crusaders mobs

The first crusade began in 1095. Therefore the massacres of unarmed Jews by Catholics in May 1096 was hardly before the first crusade. Of course we cannot forget the burning to death of the Jews of Jerusalem after the crusaders had captured the city.

Having been bribed the bishop did infact take steps to protect the Jews which proved ineffectual.

Whether or not you believe that a “mere” 10,000 european Jews is of little consequence " a few thousands at most" as you put it is a comment beyond my moral comprehension as a Jew and as a human being.

There are two relevant points vis a vis Catholics and the Crusades. All societies and all religions teach us that murder is inexcusable. Nonetheless, over the centuries, Catholics have been repeatedly involved, often in the name of their religion, in the killing of Jews as Jews. The question is why? Did the Catholic crusader believe that the murder of Jews is not murder? If so it follows that this belief is rooted in his religion. The question is what in the Catholic religion or teachings led these adherents to believe that the mass murder of Jews was not only not mass murder but justified.

The other point is that Catholic scriptures and adherents have over the centuries attributed various degrees of responsibility to
" the Jews" as Jews for certain acts allegedly with Jewish involvement committed by the Romans against a Jew by the name of Yehoshua bar Yosef. Now in all fairness, having established that principle it is only right that we apply it an evenhanded and democratic matter.

 

[Crusader4Jesus]

Here is one eyewitness account of an attack on the Jewry of Mainz in May of 1096. This comes from The First Crusade by August Krey, and it is a letter written by a Jew who survived:

"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…”

This is how about 30%-50% of the Jewish community of Europe met its end. Some 10,000 Jews of an estimated population of about 20,000-30,000 were slaughtered by Crusaders mobs

The first crusade began in 1095. Therefore the massacres of unarmed Jews by Catholics in May 1096 was hardly before the first crusade. Of course we cannot forget the burning to death of the Jews of Jerusalem after the crusaders had captured the city.

Having been bribed the bishop did infact take steps to protect the Jews which proved ineffectual.

Whether or not you believe that a “mere” 10,000 european Jews is of little consequence " a few thousands at most" as you put it is a comment beyond my moral comprehension as a Jew and as a human being.

There are two relevant points vis a vis Catholics and the Crusades. All societies and all religions teach us that murder is inexcusable. Nonetheless, over the centuries, Catholics have been repeatedly involved, often in the name of their religion, in the killing of Jews as Jews. The question is why? Did the Catholic crusader believe that the murder of Jews is not murder? If so it follows that this belief is rooted in his religion. The question is what in the Catholic religion or teachings led these adherents to believe that the mass murder of Jews was not only not mass murder but justified.

The other point is that Catholic scriptures and adherents have over the centuries attributed various degrees of responsibility to
" the Jews" as Jews for certain acts allegedly with Jewish involvement committed by the Romans against a Jew by the name of Yehoshua bar Yosef. Now in all fairness, having established that principle it is only right that we apply it an evenhanded and democratic matter.

Catholics happen to uphold the values of Jews above all, with every other people for that matter, our Lord and Saviour happened to be born of Mary, the Blessed Virgin, who was Jewish and was therefore Jewish Himself. St Paul writes in his letters of the New Testament that all people are equal because of Jesus “There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you be Christ’s, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:28-29) There is nothing different between any people because of God. The Crusade was a good cause, is that to say that everyone who participated in it was good too? no, this is commonsense there will always be weeds with the wheat, those who commited those atrocities were disobeying the Church and its teachings, read the Papal encyclicals and the Catechism, the official teaching so you will no whether those members of the Crusades were being Catholic in their actions. There are bad Catholics but that does not mean that the Church is bad, its guidance is infallible, as we are guided by the Holy Spirit. Please continue your research and pray so you will be led to the truth. God bless you.

Also I would like to thank those who defended the faith very well on this thread and I would ask you to consider joining a Catholic Crusade ( in cyberspace) to defend the truth and share it among others, you’ll find that the details are linked to in my signature or pm me. Pray about it and for our mission in evangelizing.
God bless you all

 

[Valke2]

Catholics happen to uphold the values of Jews above all, with every other people for that matter, our Lord and Saviour happened to be born of Mary, the Blessed Virgin, who was Jewish and was therefore Jewish Himself. St Paul writes in his letters of the New Testament that all people are equal because of Jesus “There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you be Christ’s, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:28-29) There is nothing different between any people because of God. The Crusade was a good cause, is that to say that everyone who participated in it was good too? no, this is commonsense there will always be weeds with the wheat, those who commited those atrocities were disobeying the Church and its teachings, read the Papal encyclicals and the Catechism, the official teaching so you will no whether those members of the Crusades were being Catholic in their actions.

In May 1096 the Jews of Worms learned that the Jewish community in nearby Speyer had been murdered by crusaders. Some Jews went to the estate of Bishop Adalbert for help. Other Jews stayed home, having been promised help by local burghers. The one’s who stayed home were immediately murdered. Bishop Adalbert offered sanctuary to the other Jews, but only if they converted. Those that refused were murdered. 800 Jews murdered in two days. A few escaped death by accepting baptism “much more out of the fear of death than from love of the Christian faith.” (Albert of Aix, christian chronicler).

As for the Jews who converted under pain of death, I would think that the Church would have stated that such conversions were wrong and that those Jews could continue to practice Judaism. Then maybe it could at least make a colorable claim that it bore little responsibility for the actions of the Crusaders. But instead, Pope Innocent III issued the following bull:

“He who is led to Christianity by violence, by fear and by torture, and who received the sacrament of baptism to avoid harm (even as he who comes falsely to baptism) receives indeed the stamp of Christanity…They [the forced converts] themselves having been anointed with the holy oil and having participated in the body of the Lord, must be duty constrained to abide by the faith they had accepted by force.”

According to the pope the only option was to object expressly to the baptism. Since this inevitably resulted in execution on the spot, it wasn’t such a great option. The Church effectively ratified the actions of the Crusades.

During the Second Crusade, some clerics took it upon themselves to stir the Christian masses into a frenzy. Abbe Pierre of Cluny challenged his parishoners: “What is the good of going to the end of the world, at great loss of men and money, to fight the Saracens, when we permit among us other infidels a thousand times more guilty towards Christ than the Mohammedans?

Given this history, I hope you can understand why the Jews and (hopefully) many Christians and others, have a hard time swallowing the story that the Church bears no blame and is not responsible for the actions of the crusades, which decimated European Jewry.

 

[Arbitro360]

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.

There is no doubt that whoever planted the idea that the Crusades should be a factor in this person’s spiritual education about Catholicism is obviously a cynical attempt to prejudice him against the Church.

a) The Medieval period in Europe was called the Dark Ages for a reason. Almost all secular authority in those times was held by petty nobles who spent as much time killing and conquering each other as they did “crusading.” This is equally true of most other Medieval societies.

b) The morality of Medieval warlords and the chaos of medieval society, as bad as it was, still cannot be compared to the utter evil inherent in Islam. The atrocities committed by the Crusaders cannot be excused, but neither can they be laid at the feet of the Catholic Church. (Edited)

c) To judge modern Catholicism by the standards of the Medieval period is illogical and to do so will lead to the wrong conclusion. The Catholic Church in AD 2008 has been stripped of all but a modicum of temporal power, and has become an institution of spiritual influence.

MATTHEW 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them

 

[chosen_people]

Catholics happen to uphold the values of Jews above all, with every other people for that matter, our Lord and Saviour happened to be born of Mary, the Blessed Virgin, who was Jewish and was therefore Jewish Himself. St Paul writes in his letters of the New Testament that all people are equal because of Jesus “There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you be Christ’s, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:28-29) There is nothing different between any people because of God. The Crusade was a good cause, is that to say that everyone who participated in it was good too? no, this is commonsense there will always be weeds with the wheat, those who commited those atrocities were disobeying the Church and its teachings, read the Papal encyclicals and the Catechism, the official teaching so you will no whether those members of the Crusades were being Catholic in their actions. There are bad Catholics but that does not mean that the Church is bad, its guidance is infallible, as we are guided by the Holy Spirit. Please continue your research and pray so you will be led to the truth. God bless you.

Also I would like to thank those who defended the faith very well on this thread and I would ask you to consider joining a Catholic Crusade ( in cyberspace) to defend the truth and share it among others, you’ll find that the details are linked to in my signature or pm me. Pray about it and for our mission in evangelizing.
God bless you all

Church leaders taught that Jews were guilty of deicide, eternally cursed, any contact with them led to the undermining of Christians and that they were as animals fit for slaughter. Those Church leaders advocating such ideas were not only not condemned by the Church but made into saints of the Chuch. Your claim that those Catholics who comitted atrocoities against undefended innocent Jews on their way to their “holy mission” in the Holy land were somehow acting diviorced from this anti Jewish incitement is specious at best.

 

[chosen_people]

There is no doubt that whoever planted the idea that the Crusades should be a factor in this person’s spiritual education about Catholicism is obviously a cynical attempt to prejudice him against the Church.

a) The Medieval period in Europe was called the Dark Ages for a reason. Almost all secular authority in those times was held by petty nobles who spent as much time killing and conquering each other as they did “crusading.” This is equally true of most other Medieval societies.

b) The morality of Medieval warlords and the chaos of medieval society, as bad as it was, still cannot be compared to the utter evil inherent in Islam. The atrocities committed by the Crusaders cannot be excused, but neither can they be laid at the feet of the Catholic Church. (Edited)

c) To judge modern Catholicism by the standards of the Medieval period is illogical and to do so will lead to the wrong conclusion. The Catholic Church in AD 2008 has been stripped of all but a modicum of temporal power, and has become an institution of spiritual influence.

MATTHEW 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them

In light of your argument one wonders at what point you believe that the Catholic Church was immoral and at what point it became moral. We need not go back to the middle ages. We can examine Papal law and actions towards the Jews during the time of Pius IX including the Mortara affair. Indeed Catholic apologists on this forum have stated that “perhaps” such actions would be unacceptable today, which is at least a quasi admission as to lack of morality of Papal law and actions.

 

[D_M]

I once heard a piece of wisdom that went like this: We look at the medieval knights of those ages and see barbarity or cruelty in the plundering, rapes and killiing of innocents that occurred. Although one may truly wonder what these knights would equally have thought about concepts like saturation bombing, landmines that remain in the ground after the war, or even nuclear weapons.

I think the world is far more barbarous today than it was then.

The church as a teaching authority cannot be faulted, but as a corporate entity it most certainly can. Its members really did, and are doing now, and will for years to come, commit sins that caused harm to their neighbour. The same is also true of non-christians who have not come to the grace to be made perfect from this sinful state.

I think God could have been punishing the jews by ways of these pograms and acts of violence, although that does not necessarily mean the people who perpetrated this themselves are guiltless, or that doing so was not itself a sin on their part (consider the Chaldeans who were used to punish Israel who committed a sin themselves in their plundering and destruction, even if God used this plundering and destruction to chastise His people, Habakkuk 1:13 Thou who art of purer eyes than to behold evil and canst not look on wrong, why dost thou look on faithless men, and art silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he?).

The papacy never supported (openly, or in its official capacity as an institution that is, apart from whatever personal views of the popes) the kind of local violence that often occurred against the Jews all around christendom, although it did support placing jews into ghettos, forcing them to be publicly identified, and subject to a number of restrictions that may fit under the things that the church now gives apology for in regard to wrongs committed against non-believers. The best example of this I know: Pope Paul IV’s bull Cum Nimis Absurdum, which is a set of rules for Jews in the Papal states in the 16th century that includes what I mention above. Here is a link if interested:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_nimis_absurdum

I think we also often forget that the crusades, that had church support, were not meant to be crusades against Islam (even though this was often what they were seen as) but rather as crusades to supposedly secure the holy land and the protection of pilgrims… the fact that it turned into an event whereby things occurred like when the entire population of Jerusalem (Muslim, Jew… and Christian!) was completely slaughtered by European knights who looted everything they could was not what had been idealized in its mission.

But what is an even greater atrocity than this, is not the crusades that occurred in the Holy Land, but rather the crusades by which the western hemisphere was conquered by Spanish and Portuguese armed men. Now that was truly genocide, for the Spanish even denied that their victims were fully human or possessing reason. Even though they had given the land to Spain the papacy condemned it by how it was practiced.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In light of your argument one wonders at what point you believe that the Catholic Church was immoral and at what point it became moral. We need not go back to the middle ages. We can examine Papal law and actions towards the Jews during the time of Pius IX including the Mortara affair. Indeed Catholic apologists on this forum have stated that “perhaps” such actions would be unacceptable today, which is at least a quasi admission as to lack of morality of Papal law and actions.

While you’re at it, I’d like to recommend you read about the actions of Pius XII in Rabbi Dalin’s book if you have not already done so:

ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51H0GS01CML.SL500_AA240.jpg

 

[chosen_people]

While you’re at it, I’d like to recommend you read about the actions of Pius XII in Rabbi Dalin’s book if you have not already done so:

ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51H0GS01CML.SL500_AA240.jpg

Now I realize both Popes have the name Pius but I assure you that Pius IX and Pius XII are in fact two different people.

 

[chosen_people]

I I think God could have been punishing the jews by ways of these pograms and acts of violence, although that does not necessarily mean the people who perpetrated this themselves are guiltless, or that doing so was not itself a sin on their part (consider the Chaldeans who were used to punish Israel who committed a sin themselves in their plundering and destruction, even if God used this plundering and destruction to chastise His people, Habakkuk 1:13 Thou who art of purer eyes than to behold evil and canst not look on wrong, why dost thou look on faithless men, and art silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he?).
.

This type of imoral convolutedf Catholic apologist argument is exactly the point I was making. Catholic antisemitism teaches the Jews are cursed and fit only for slaughter which leads to the murder of Jews during the Crusades by these antisemitic Christians which leads to its morall justification by Catholic apologists that these murderers were only doing God’s will in punishing the Jews who are cursed and fit only for slaughter.