View of the Crusades

[Randy_Carson]

The Church is full of Sinners, and we have not always conducted ourselves well either.

However, you have not addressed my point. The actions of Western Europe in Crusades 1-3 were not those of a friend or ally. If anything, the Latin Kingdoms took advantage of the Eastern Empire’s distress to further their own power. The Latin Church saw it as an opportunity to further it’s interests against Constantinople.

How are we supposed to view this in a friendly light?

You might view it as it really was: a tragic error on the part of fallen men.

However, does a wrong or a lot of wrongs committed nearly a thousand years ago by men long dead and largely forgotten justify remaining separated from one another today?

This unforgiving attitude is what kept Northern Ireland in turmoil for decades, it’s what led to genocide in Rwhanda. The Apostle Paul speaks of this unwillingness to forgive in his first letter to the Corinthians:

6 If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!

7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters.

He’s speaking of lawsuits taken before pagan judges but the principle of being unwilling to accept the wrong done to you is the heart of the problem. Jesus spoke of turning the other cheek, and while I think we all ask ourselves where to draw the line at turning the other cheek versus defending ourselves, but the real question is this: would you rather accept the wrong done to you by Latins 1,000 years ago and maintain unity in the body of Christ or would you prefer to go on taking your argument with the crusaders to the pagan court of public opinion where Christ is openly mocked as a result of our internal disputes?

“Why not rather be wronged?”

 

[Misplaced_Book]

You might view it as it really was: a tragic error on the part of fallen men.

However, does a wrong or a lot of wrongs committed nearly a thousand years ago by men long dead and largely forgotten justify remaining separated from one another today?

This unforgiving attitude is what kept Northern Ireland in turmoil for decades, it’s what led to genocide in Rwhanda. The Apostle Paul speaks of this unwillingness to forgive in his first letter to the Corinthians:

6 If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!

7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters.

He’s speaking of lawsuits taken before pagan judges but the principle of being unwilling to accept the wrong done to you is the heart of the problem. Jesus spoke of turning the other cheek, and while I think we all ask ourselves where to draw the line at turning the other cheek versus defending ourselves, but the real question is this: would you rather accept the wrong done to you by Latins 1,000 years ago and maintain unity in the body of Christ or would you prefer to go on taking your argument with the crusaders to the pagan court of public opinion where Christ is openly mocked as a result of our internal disputes?

“Why not rather be wronged?”

The separation between us goes beyond the Crusades, although that was the final blow that destroyed what remained of Our Unity.

This isn’t a question of not forgiving. The Ecumenical Patriarch has been heavily engaged in dialogue with your Pope.

My point is that from Our Point of View, the Crusades can’t be viewed in a favorable light.

Any attempt to justify them or view them as some great thing will meet a reaction similiar (or more vitriolic) than mine. Offenses are forgiven, but the historical record needs to be kept straight.

 

[arnoldoe]

Pope was mad after 4th crusade

We were not a little astonished and disturbed to bear that you and our beloved son the Cardinal Priest of the Title of St. Praxida and Legate of the Apostolic See, in fear of the looming perils of the Holy Land, have left the province of Jerusalem (which, at this point is in such great need) and that you have gone by ship to Constantinople. And now we see that what we dreaded has occurred and what we feared has come to pass… For you, who ought to have looked for help for the Holy Land, you who should have stirred up others, both by word and by example, to assist the Holy Land * on your own initiative you sailed to Greece, bringing in your footsteps riot only the pilgrims, but even the natives of the Holy Land who came to Constantinople, following our venerable brother, the Archbishop of Tyre. When you had deserted it, the Holy Land remained destitute of men, void of strength. Because of you, its last state was worse than the first, for all its friends deserted with you; nor was there any admirer to console it… We ourselves were not a little agitated and, with reason, we acted against you, since you had fallen in with this counsel and because you had deserted the Land which the Lord consecrated by his presence, the land in which our King marvelously performed the mystery of our redemption…

It was your duty to attend to the business of your legation and to give careful consideration, not to the capture of the Empire of Constantinople, but rather to the defense of what is left of the Holy Land and, with the Lord’s leave, the restoration of what has been lost. We made you our representative and we sent you to gain, not temporal, but rather eternal riches. And for this purpose, our brethren provided adequately for your needs.

We have just beard and discovered from your letters that you have absolved from their pilgrimage vows and their crusading obligations all the Crusaders who have remained to defend Constantinople from last March to the present. It is impossible not to be moved against you, for you neither should nor could give any such absolution.

Whoever suggested such a thing to you and how did they ever lead your mind astray?. . .

How, indeed, is the Greek church to be brought back into ecclesiastical union and to a devotion for the Apostolic See when she has been beset with so many afflictions and persecutions that she sees in the Latins only an example of perdition and the works of darkness, so that she now, and with reason, detests the Latins more than dogs? As for those who were supposed to be seeking the ends of Jesus Christ, not their own ends, whose swords, which they were supposed to use against the pagans, are now dripping with Christian blood * they have spared neither age nor sex. They have committed incest, adultery, and fornication before the eyes of men. They have exposed both matrons and virgins, even those dedicated to God, to the sordid lusts of boys. Not satisfied with breaking open the imperial treasury and plundering the goods of princes and lesser men, they also laid their hands on the treasures of the churches and, what is more serious, on their very possessions. They have even ripped silver plates from the altars and have hacked them to pieces among themselves. They violated the holy places and have carried off crosses and relics. .

Furthermore, under what guise can we call upon the other Western peoples for aid to the Holy Land and assistance to the Empire of Constantinople? When the Crusaders, having given up the proposed pilgrimage, return absolved to their homes; when those who plundered the aforesaid Empire turn back and come home with their spoils, free of guilt; will not people then suspect that these things have happened, not because of the crime involved, but because of your deed? Let the Lord’s word not be stifled in your mouth. Be not like a dumb dog, unable to bark. Rather, let them speak these things publicly, let them protest before everyone, so that the more they rebuke you before God and on God’s account, the more they will find you simply negligent. As for the absolution of the Venetian people being falsely accepted, against ecclesiastical rules, we will not at present argue with you…

fordham.edu/halsall/source/1204innocent.asp

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Perhaps it wasn’t officially sanctioned. That didn’t stop the Latin Church from taking the spoils, in particular the religious relics and artifacts.

The Shroud of Turin and the relics of several saints, St. John Chrysostom being a prominent example.

The Latin Church to it’s credit in the 20th Century has been very conciliatory, and has returned some of these items…many more, however remain in Latin hands. It continues to be an unfortunate reminder of this period.

Things have come a long way.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The separation between us goes beyond the Crusades, although that was the final blow that destroyed what remained of Our Unity.

This isn’t a question of not forgiving. The Ecumenical Patriarch has been heavily engaged in dialogue with your Pope.

My point is that from Our Point of View, the Crusades can’t be viewed in a favorable light.

Any attempt to justify them or view them as some great thing will meet a reaction similiar (or more vitriolic) than mine. Offenses are forgiven, but the historical record needs to be kept straight.

No argument from me.

I think Catholics DEFEND the Crusades simply because they are used so often to bludgeon the Church by those who have soaked up a lot of anti-Catholic propaganda. Consequently, we think that keeping the historical record straight is to our advantage, also.

 

[tafan]

The separation between us goes beyond the Crusades, although that was the final blow that destroyed what remained of Our Unity.

This isn’t a question of not forgiving. The Ecumenical Patriarch has been heavily engaged in dialogue with your Pope.

My point is that from Our Point of View, the Crusades can’t be viewed in a favorable light.

Any attempt to justify them or view them as some great thing will meet a reaction similiar (or more vitriolic) than mine. Offenses are forgiven, but the historical record needs to be kept straight.

I do not think one can say the crusades were the final blow that destroyed our unity.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

I do not think one can say the crusades were the final blow that destroyed our unity.

What would you say was the final blow?

 

[Skadi]

As to the motivation, gaining wealth, land, and power was also part of it (isn’t it always). But the primary justification used by the various Islamic armies attacking Europe was always the same: the spread of the Muslim faith.

No, the Crusades were never about uniting Europe under a Papal banner. The Popes never sought political control over all of Europe: never.

The claim of Jihad to “spread the faith” was used as a ceremonious Casus Beli, reason for war. In fact Muslims were far more tolerant of Christians and Jews in their land than Christians were of Jews and Muslims.The Balkans spent nearly 400 years under Ottoman rule and are still predominantly Orthodox, while in Europe the start of the first crusade spawned a wave of anti-Semitic riots that killed Jews across Europe. Not to mention what the Reconquesta did to the Moors, or what happened to Muslims and Ethnic Turks in the Balkans during the 19th and 20th century.

And secondly, you are totally wrong on both of your later statements. The first one because you refuse to look at the church impartially, and cannot see the obvious implications and connectedness of Europe’s political landscape at the time (if you know anything about it at all). The second statement however is absolutely blatantly false. The Investiture Controversy was a hundreds of years long power struggle over whether the Pope or the Holy Roman Emperor had absolute power within the Holy Roman Empire. Dur ring this period the Papacy had direct political control over large portions of Italy and fought numerous wars, with its army’s sometimes commanded by the Holy Sea himself.

I am in no way saying the church still caries these desires for political power, but at one time The pope was just as much a Italian King as he was a religious head. I suggest you brush up on your history before you make bold, sweeping denials.

 

[arnoldoe]

I do not think one can say the crusades were the final blow that destroyed our unity.

They easily could have been the thing which united them.

 

[tafan]

They easily could have been the thing which united them.

Which was pretty much Pope Innocent III’s initial reaction.

“How, indeed, will the church of the Greeks, no matter how severely she is beset with afflictions and persecutions, return into ecclesiastical union and to a devotion for the Apostolic See, when she has seen in the Latins only an example of perdition and the works of darkness, so that she now, and with reason, detests the Latins more than dogs? As for those who were supposed to be seeking the ends of Jesus Christ, not their own ends, who made their swords, which they were supposed to use against the pagans, drip with Christian blood, they have spared neither religion, nor age, nor sex. They have committed incest, adultery, and fornication before the eyes of men. They have exposed both matrons and virgins, even those dedicated to God, to the sordid lusts of boys. Not satisfied with breaking open the imperial treasury and plundering the goods of princes and lesser men, they also laid their hands on the treasures of the churches and, what is more serious, on their very possessions. They have even ripped silver plates from the altars and have hacked them to pieces among themselves. They violated the holy places and have carried off crosses and relics.”

 

[tafan]

The claim of Jihad to “spread the faith” was used as a ceremonious Casus Beli, reason for war. In fact Muslims were far more tolerant of Christians and Jews in their land than Christians were of Jews and Muslims.The Balkans spent nearly 400 years under Ottoman rule and are still predominantly Orthodox, while in Europe the start of the first crusade spawned a wave of anti-Semitic riots that killed Jews across Europe. Not to mention what the Reconquesta did to the Moors, or what happened to Muslims and Ethnic Turks in the Balkans during the 19th and 20th century.

And secondly, you are totally wrong on both of your later statements. The first one because you refuse to look at the church impartially, and cannot see the obvious implications and connectedness of Europe’s political landscape at the time (if you know anything about it at all). The second statement however is absolutely blatantly false. The Investiture Controversy was a hundreds of years long power struggle over whether the Pope or the Holy Roman Emperor had absolute power within the Holy Roman Empire. Dur ring this period the Papacy had direct political control over large portions of Italy and fought numerous wars, with its army’s sometimes commanded by the Holy Sea himself.

I am in no way saying the church still caries these desires for political power, but at one time The pope was just as much a Italian King as he was a religious head. I suggest you brush up on your history before you make bold, sweeping denials.

Skadi, I do not know why you are so hung up on the motivation of the Islamic forces attacking Europe. You seem to think if their motivation to attack Europe was not religious, they were OK. I don’t understand. I have granted you that they had various motivations. It seems like a side-issue to me.

As to “hundress years long power stuggle” between the Pop and the Holy Roman Emperor. I stated that the Popes never tried sought political control over Europe (as you claimed in post 47). I stick by that statement. The Popes had temporal power over the Papal States that were relatively fixed geographically almost the whole time they existed. No pope ever sought to expand them significantly. Where there poltical disputes between the Pope (as the temporal rule of a European country) and various European monarchs and the Holy Roman Emperor at times? Yes. That makes little difference to the argument.

As to my lack of knowledge of history: you could certainly find others on this thread to chide more than myself. I am not the one who claimed Islam never attacked into Europe. I am not the one who claimed the Ottomans continued attacking Europe in the 18th and 19th century. etc,etc,etc

 

[tafan]

Here is a quote for Hliaire Belloc’s book “The Crusades” which gives a military history of the first crusade:

"An effort was made after centuries of peril and invasion, during which civilization had lost half its area, to react and impose upon the Mohammedan world the domination of the Christian; "

So, perhaps there have been serious historians who have taken my view that the crusades were largely a response of a long term war waged against Christendom by the Islamic world.

BTW, Belloc does not even credit the 4th Crusade with the term crusade. It was a war against the Eastern Empire, plain and simple. It deserves no defense since it was completely diverted from its original intention.