Were the crusades moral?

[Brendan]

I know the first crusades were mostly defensive actions against muslims but later crusades were all about conquering the Holy land.

Would you claim that D-Day was immoral because it was not defensive, but in reality, it was an attempt to conquer France?

The Holy Land was subjected to an invasion by Arabs from the Saudi peninsula, and from the east by Asiatic Turks.

The Crusades were an attempt to regain was had been lost to invaders. Byzantium was the rightful government, and they (like the French government in exile) had asked for assistance in reclaiming territory lost to invaders

Nothing immoral about that at all

 

[oldcatholicguy]

The fact that many of those Christians in the Holy land were considered Monophysite/Nestorian heretics, and actually hailed the initial Muslim conquerors as liberators from persecution does not seem to have come up yet.

Shhh…historical facts have no place in this discussion.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The fact that many of those Christians in the Holy land were considered Monophysite/Nestorian heretics, and actually hailed the initial Muslim conquerors as liberators from persecution does not seem to have come up yet.

Some did, for sure. But what the Byzantines did to their subjects to alienate them was in no way due to the Latin crusaders who came much later. And, in any event, those dissenting Christians lost the game in the end, didn’t they? The relatively tolerant rule of the Arab conquerers changed when the far more oppresive Muslim Turkic groups conquered Arab Muslims, Christians and all, and destroyed the half-Muslim, half-Christian remnant of the formerly Byzantine East.

It’s interesting too, to note that Arab leaders, wishing to rid themselves of the rule of the Seljuk Turks, sometimes allied themselves with the Crusaders. At the very end, the remnant Crusaders actually offered alliance with the Turkic Mamlukes to resist the Mongols. But the Mamlukes turned them down and drove them out. Ultimately, of course, the Mamlukes were overcome by the Turkic Ottomans.

Also interesting that today, Israel (western but not Christian) is the unacknowledged but clear “nuclear umbrella” for the Sunni Arabs against the Persians, and is the only safe place for Christians in the Middle East. How does that saying go “History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes”?

 

[chero23]

The Crusades were not about converting people. They were about protecting Christian pilgrims that were getting robbed and killed. Plus, we needed to push back the Muslims, so they didn’t get into Western Europe. The Crusaders that killed Muslims, Jews, and Eastern Christians weren’t blessed. They just did that on their own. The stealing was never blessed either. If it weren’t for the Crusades, we’d all be speaking Arabic right now.

Vatican II never said that all faiths are equal. Catholicism is the Truth, and always will be. The council just said we should be more friendly towards people of other faiths. The Church has never taught that you can go to heaven no matter what faith you are. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church is the One, True Church.

We conquered the Iberian Peninsula to drive out the Muslims. There were Christians getting harassed by Muslims, and we were afraid that the Muslims were going to push even further into Europe, so we drove them out. Not driving Muslims out=end of Christendom.

People don’t get what you just said, people often think that the Catholic Church wanted to start a war so in their opinions the CC did that. But what they forget was the Muslims were provoking problems. The CC did what they had to defend Christianity.

 

[Brownginger]

I am reading the novel “The Last Crusader.” I recommend it to everyone, especially to Catholics. Today we are experiencing the same push by the Muslim leaders to conquer the world and rid it of “non-believers,” and the emphasis here also is Catholics. Christians in the way of this Muslim force will be eliminated; and as we “speak,” this is being done.

The Catholic Church should be speaking out more effectively on this subject. We need Cardinals and Bishops who with one voice and constantly condemn the horrors being committed throughout the world in the name of Allah. In my opinion, the poor will always be with us, but if the Holy Father does not become a stanchion in the face of the fanatic Muslim leaders and their factions, soon there will be no more “us” to nourish and shelter those poor.

Fanatic Muslims are multipying in all nations. The task of defending Christianity, Catholic Christianity, against this offensive should not be undertaken lightly. It is all well and good for the Holy Father to shun the materiality that has become the papacy; but symbolic gestures of poverty seem almost idiotic when viewed in the lght of the threat of global religious terror. In fifty years, will historians look back on this serene Pope and the serene clergy he is creating as having been blinded to the task they should have undertaken? What is needed at this moment is someone with the courage and understanding of Pius XII, not a man who feels he must turn the Church into a flower garden.

Of course we must love and serve the poor; but the Holy Father must defend the Body of Christ. If his first priority – and thus the first priority of the clergy – is to tend to the poor, we will lose massively to the enemy at our gate!

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I am reading the novel “The Last Crusader.” I recommend it to everyone, especially to Catholics. Today we are experiencing the same push by the Muslim leaders to conquer the world and rid it of “non-believers,” and the emphasis here also is Catholics. Christians in the way of this Muslim force will be eliminated; and as we “speak,” this is being done.

The Catholic Church should be speaking out more effectively on this subject. We need Cardinals and Bishops who with one voice and constantly condemn the horrors being committed throughout the world in the name of Allah. In my opinion, the poor will always be with us, but if the Holy Father does not become a stanchion in the face of the fanatic Muslim leaders and their factions, soon there will be no more “us” to nourish and shelter those poor.

Fanatic Muslims are multipying in all nations. The task of defending Christianity, Catholic Christianity, against this offensive should not be undertaken lightly. It is all well and good for the Holy Father to shun the materiality that has become the papacy; but symbolic gestures of poverty seem almost idiotic when viewed in the lght of the threat of global religious terror. In fifty years, will historians look back on this serene Pope and the serene clergy he is creating as having been blinded to the task they should have undertaken? What is needed at this moment is someone with the courage and understanding of Pius XII, not a man who feels he must turn the Church into a flower garden.

Of course we must love and serve the poor; but the Holy Father must defend the Body of Christ. If his first priority – and thus the first priority of the clergy – is to tend to the poor, we will lose massively to the enemy at our gate!

-Fifty years ago the global terror was political terrorism. Fifty years from now it’ll be something other than religious terrorism (I’d wager eco-terrorism).

-Funny thing about the Holy Land is that the military orders and the Christian kingdoms all failed; yet the guys who “love and serve the poor” (the Franciscans) are still there.

 

[Inisfallen]

Was the Albigensian Crusade moral?

You know, the one where the papal legate commanding the crusading forces attacking Beziers, Arnaud Amalric, said “Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His.”

While the words may be a later attribution, the action was not. Amalric’s own writings confirm that everyone in Beziers, heretic or no, was killed.

I think it’s difficult to give a simple “yes” answer to this question.

 

[Darryl1958]

Methods of warfare and understanding of humanitarian concerns have evolved since the time of the Albigensian Crusades. As well, the civilization that has developed out of the wars of religion that devastated Europe after the Reformation have taught us the hard way the utility of tolerating other worldviews that we are fundamentally opposed to.

One must also remember that Catholic Europe at the time was a theocracy, and that what the Albigensians were doing was tantamount to treason in such a society. A state within a state was being set up, much like if the Aryan nations might arbitrarily decide that Idaho would make a nice homeland. That is not to say that the Albigensians were not moral and well meaning people; indeed most accounts have them to have been of a higher moral leadership that what was common in the Catholic ecclesiastical orders at the time, and that was one reason for their success in turning the population over to their side.
In terms of morality, the popes of the time considered that what they were doing as godly. I can’t imagine the popes of our time considering them similarly, if they were to happen on their watch. Then again, the crusading times were a time when Christianity was on the ascendancy in the world, and today Christianity is on the retreat, and Christians are filled with uncertainty on how to proceed.
So, is creating an environment in which Christianity grows and prospers a moral proposition? Do the ends just the means?
Or, is it more moral to abstain from creating such an environment and watch as Christianity recedes from peoples lives? Do those means justify that kind of an end?

The one thing that can be said, since we have already accepted the principle of tolerance and religious pluralism as better than killing for God, is that what is now immoral is for us to allow for Christians to be opposed and driven out of their homes, as happens in so much of the world now. We have a right to exist too. It is not immoral to come to the aid of our brothers and sisters in Christ when they are being persecuted.
And that was the original reason for the rise of the Crusading Spirit in the first place.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Methods of warfare and understanding of humanitarian concerns have evolved since the time of the Albigensian Crusades. As well, the civilization that has developed out of the wars of religion that devastated Europe after the Reformation have taught us the hard way the utility of tolerating other worldviews that we are fundamentally opposed to.

One must also remember that Catholic Europe at the time was a theocracy, and that what the Albigensians were doing was tantamount to treason in such a society. A state within a state was being set up, much like if the Aryan nations might arbitrarily decide that Idaho would make a nice homeland. That is not to say that the Albigensians were not moral and well meaning people; indeed most accounts have them to have been of a higher moral leadership that what was common in the Catholic ecclesiastical orders at the time, and that was one reason for their success in turning the population over to their side.
In terms of morality, the popes of the time considered that what they were doing as godly. I can’t imagine the popes of our time considering them similarly, if they were to happen on their watch. Then again, the crusading times were a time when Christianity was on the ascendancy in the world, and today Christianity is on the retreat, and Christians are filled with uncertainty on how to proceed.
So, is creating an environment in which Christianity grows and prospers a moral proposition? Do the ends just the means?
Or, is it more moral to abstain from creating such an environment and watch as Christianity recedes from peoples lives? Do those means justify that kind of an end?

The one thing that can be said, since we have already accepted the principle of tolerance and religious pluralism as better than killing for God, is that what is now immoral is for us to allow for Christians to be opposed and driven out of their homes, as happens in so much of the world now. We have a right to exist too. It is not immoral to come to the aid of our brothers and sisters in Christ when they are being persecuted.
And that was the original reason for the rise of the Crusading Spirit in the first place.

Catholic Europe was never a theocracy or a united state.

 

[Darryl1958]

Catholic Europe was never a theocracy or a united state.

It was both theocratic and united enough at the time of the First Crusade that a pope could call for defense of the Christians pilgrims to the Levant and people would heed the call.
It likewise was both theocratic and united enough that Pope Innocent III could call for the Albigensian Crusade and the French Crown would deem that reason enough to fight it.

We can go into all the intricacies and nitpicking details, but the terms chosen are closed enough to the reality of the situation in order to suffice for better understanding, in three paragraphs or less.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

It was both theocratic and united enough at the time of the First Crusade that a pope could call for defense of the Christians pilgrims to the Levant and people would heed the call.
It likewise was both theocratic and united enough that Pope Innocent III could call for the Albigensian Crusade and the French Crown would deem that reason enough to fight it.

We can go into all the intricacies and nitpicking details, but the terms chosen are closed enough to the reality of the situation in order to suffice for better understanding, in three paragraphs or less.

Pointing out the reality that Europe was never one united state (the closest it came to this was under Rome, put that was only portions of Europe) nor a theocracy (the Pope didn’t rule over the various kingdoms, principalities, and other independent realms) isn’t “nitpicking details.” Your claim that Europe during this time period was a theocracy is pretty much like claiming the Allies during WW2 were really just one giant state.

 

[Darryl1958]

Pointing out the reality that Europe was never one united state (the closest it came to this was under Rome, put that was only portions of Europe) nor a theocracy (the Pope didn’t rule over the various kingdoms, principalities, and other independent realms) isn’t “nitpicking details.” Your claim that Europe during this time period was a theocracy is pretty much like claiming the Allies during WW2 were really just one giant state.

No it isn’t. The whole argument was one of Europe emerging from the state of religious intolerance that exploded into the wars of religion.

Other than that, you have yet to respond to the substance of my post, which was a very nuanced answer to the OP question. It was about an appreciation for what the Crusades accomplished, from a Catholic perspective, without a wholehearted jingoistic endorsement of the whole enterprise as a godly one. Conversely, it refrained from the tendency of modern Catholics to judge the Crusades as immoral, without first looking at the failings of modern Christians to stand up for Christians in the world who are being persecuted NOW.

MY post therefore was not so much about falling into the trap of judging the people from our past, but attempting to learn from them, both their successes and their mistakes.
And to learn from them is not just an intellectual exercise of memorizing dry history, but seeing how what the Crusaders had to face is not unsimilar to what we also face now.

What I find more morally unacceptable is how the only Christian political leader standing up for the Christians of Syria, for example, is the thug in charge of Russia.

The morality of the Crusaders is in the end an academic question. It is not our position to judge them. But as we judge, so shall we be judged. The Christians of the Levant are being persecuted. The way that we are going to respond is the only pertinent moral question there is.

It had nothing at all to do with WWII and the allies. If that is the perspective through which you read my post, it is no wonder we have so far failed to connect.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

No it isn’t. The whole argument was one of Europe emerging from the state of religious intolerance that exploded into the wars of religion.

Other than that, you have yet to respond to the substance of my post, which was a very nuanced answer to the OP question. It was about an appreciation for what the Crusades accomplished, from a Catholic perspective, without a wholehearted jingoistic endorsement of the whole enterprise as a godly one. Conversely, it refrained from the tendency of modern Catholics to judge the Crusades as immoral, without first looking at the failings of modern Christians to stand up for Christians in the world who are being persecuted NOW.

MY post therefore was not so much about falling into the trap of judging the people from our past, but attempting to learn from them, both their successes and their mistakes.
And to learn from them is not just an intellectual exercise of memorizing dry history, but seeing how what the Crusaders had to face is not unsimilar to what we also face now.

What I find more morally unacceptable is how the only Christian political leader standing up for the Christians of Syria, for example, is the thug in charge of Russia.

The morality of the Crusaders is in the end an academic question. It is not our position to judge them. But as we judge, so shall we be judged. The Christians of the Levant are being persecuted. The way that we are going to respond is the only pertinent moral question there is.

It had nothing at all to do with WWII and the allies. If that is the perspective through which you read my post, it is no wonder we have so far failed to connect.

Why bother responding to the substance of your post when you get such a basic detail as Europe not being a theocracy and not being one state wrong?

 

[Darryl1958]

Why bother responding to the substance of your post when you get such a basic detail as Europe not being a theocracy and not being one state wrong?

Why bother responding at all?

Theocracy is a fair enough term, as far as I am concerned.
And nowhere did I say that Europe was One State. That is a convenient fabrication for your argument, but nowhere was such a thing stated in my post.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_and_state_in_medieval_Europe
After the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century, there emerged no single powerful secular government in the West, but there was a central ecclesiastical power in Rome, the Catholic Church. In this power vacuum, the Church rose to become the dominant power in the West. As the Church expanded beginning in the 10th century, and as secular kingdoms gained power at the same time, there naturally arose the conditions for a power struggle between Church and Kingdom over ultimate authority.

In essence, the earliest vision of Christendom was a vision of a Christian theocracy, a government founded upon and upholding Christian values, whose institutions are spread through and over with Christian doctrine. In this period, members of the Christian clergy wield political authority. The specific relationship between the political leaders and the clergy varied but, in theory, the national and political divisions were at times subsumed under the leadership of the Catholic Church as an institution. This model of church-state relations was accepted by various Church leaders and political leaders in European history.[3]

Wiki agrees with me.
For those who disagree, perhaps re-writing the wiki page would be the best place to start.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Theocracy is a fair enough term, as far as I am concerned.
And nowhere did I say that Europe was One State. That is a convenient fabrication for your argument, but nowhere was such a thing stated in my post.
“One must also remember that Catholic Europe at the time was a theocracy…” I guess you actually meant to say “One must also remember that Catholic Europe at the time was a collection of theocracies…” Let’s try your wording for 20th Century Europe and democracy- “One must also remember that 20th Century Europe at the time was a democracy”

Wiki agrees with me.
For those who disagree, perhaps re-writing the wiki page would be the best place to start.
“In essence, the earliest vision of Christendom was a vision of a Christian theocracy” Notice “vision” not “actually was.” The history of Papal relations with the HRE and France should give you some kind of clue as to the actual nature of politics and political power in Christendom. The only theocracies in Europe during this time period would be the Church, independent Bishoprics, and those Bishoprics which held secular power found under the various non-theocratic kingdoms.

But hey, keep claiming Europe at this time was a theocracy. I’m sure those who wish to blame the Church for the atrocities and other bad behavior conducted by the various states during this time will gladly support your incorrect view.

 

[Darryl1958]

I am no longer interested enough to respond to nitpicking and the irrelevant semantics.
We have by now arrived at the point to where there is no longer a serious issue to what that point would be.

So, unless anyone is willing to respond to the actual argument that I made, rather than nitpicking around the parameters of what was I said, I can only assume that the main body of my argument has gone unchallenged.

so, without any disagreement of substance, my assumption is that argument stands unopposed.

Thanks for playing.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...goW6GBjxKRKmhfmgE56w1Ei7LYgcPLX4zjhmAYDB8Bxcu