Other recent articles under: History as of Apr 21, 2009
Topic: History
Black Spot of the Crusades Actually Very Bright
The wrong ideas taught about the Crusades are numerous. Many refuse to believe the slowing of the Islamic onslaught that occured because of the Crusades. by Kevin Roeten
(conservative)
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Black Spot of the Crusades Actually Very Bright
Catholics especially are continuously castigated for conducting the Crusades in the middle ages. Most non-Catholics seem to remember the Crusades as stories of barbarian savagery and brutality. Even today, most Muslims consider the Crusades a symbol of western hostility towards Muslims, with Western invasions motivated by their greed and hatred for Muslims. But for some reason, actual history is not recounted.
The traditional Crusades numbered nine during the 11th through 13th centuries. In reality, the crusades continued until the 17th century. But the Pope only "blessed" the first five. Therefore Catholicism, as a religion, was only responsible for those first five.
In Christ the King (Lord of History), Anne Carroll describes how Muslims were the aggressors of the Christians starting in the 7th century. Those attacks by Muslims were still going on through the 11th century. Finally, in 1071, after a major defeat of the Catholic Byzantine Empire, the Emperor (Alexius Commenus) appealed to the Pope for aid against the Muslims (the First Crusade).
The Crusaders were justified in defending themselves against Muslim attacks, and also had to go on the offensive to prevent future attacks. The cause made the war a just one. Pope Urban II knew it was appropriate to defend the innocent and helpless against attacks, and to regain only those originally Christian territories like the conquered Holy Land and the Holy Sepulcher (a structure in Jerusalem containing deposits of many sacred relics). At no point did the Crusaders attack the Muslim homeland of Arabia.
But abuses seem foremost on peoples' minds when thinking about the Crusades. The Sack of Jerusalem and the Sack of Constantinople were the two atrocities that seem to revolve in everyone's mind. In the final onslaught as some of the Crusaders entered Jerusalem all their pent-up frustration erupted. They killed many innocent people. The behavior was totally against the promises these men had made upon knighthood, and stained what would otherwise been a remarkable victory.
Leaders like Godfrey de Boullion, Raymond of Toulouse, and knights of Southern France did not participate, nor in any way approve of the Sack of Jerusalem. But soon after the conquest of Jerusalem, the Knights of St. John was organized as a new religious community. They took vows to dedicate their lives to God as did the monks in Europe. They were also entrusted with the protection of the Holy Sepulcher.
By the Fourth Crusade, great wealth had accumulated in Constantinople. But with no money from the new emperor, Crusaders broke into the city and for three days looted, burned and killed. This sack produced such justifiable resentment in the minds of the Byzantines that any hope for reunion of the Greek Orthodox Church with Rome was destroyed.
A Christian Knight who refused to take part in the Sack of Constantinople was Simon de Montfort. Even after the sack, Pope Innocent III excommunicated those responsible for the outrage.
For the most part, the Crusades were generally unsuccessful. But with the threat of Christian extinction in the East, Catholics unified under the banner of the cross. In the time of the Crusades, Catholics were the only Christians that existed. Pope John Paul II has repeatedly asked for forgiveness for those atrocities committed during the Crusades.
Without a doubt, if the West had done nothing, eastern Christianity would have been eliminated by radical Muslims. In Matthew [13:24-30], Jesus did indicate that there would be sinners standing next to saints in the Faith. God will separate them at Judgment Day, so we shouldn't be surprised when we see people who claim to be Catholic performing terrible acts. And even today many Catholics, in name only, voted for Obama signaling the death of millions by abortion.
Some other positive aspects of the Crusades were the opening of trade routes between the east and west, and dramatic advances in several scientific disciplines. With the Crusades we must couple the origin of the geographical exploration made by Marco Polo, and even later the spirit of the true Crusader in Christopher Columbus when he undertook his perilous voyage to unknown America.
In fact, we could credit the Crusades for stopping the onslaught of Islam in America in general, the subjugation of women to second class citizens, and changing of world history as a whole. But most of us were under the impression the Crusades were an unnecessary bloodbath.
The new administration's stance to radical Islam must be questioned however, for Islamic terrorists' persistent advances. Likely, the entire educational system needs to rethink about the correct portrayal of Catholics and the Crusades.
The views expressed
in this article are those of Kevin Roeten only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Kevin Roeten is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Well as long as the Pope apologized then I guess all is water under the bridge. By that rationale then one could committ any act one wishes and follow it with a request for forgiveness to stay "in the clear" of any wrongdoing. I think this kind of thinking has caused more problems in human history than it has solved.
I'm not claiming that the Islam aggression was justified. However, there exist many contradictions in the actions of both sides of the Crusades and neither can claim moral superiority. I not convinced that the West is able to stand up and claim innocence because apologies were made.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-04-21 08:14:01
"In fact, we could credit the Crusades for stopping the onslaught of Islam in America in general, the subjugation of women to second class citizens...."
This takes interpolative speculation to incredible heights. Why not just claim that the Crusades can be credited with modern computer technology, the ending of slavery, the industrial revolution, putting a man on the moon, etc. while you're at it?
It's time to understand what really happened, Lac.
Good things happened, and bad things. Even though the bad things were far fewer, they were still bad. Asking forgiveness put nobody 'in the clear' for any atrocity that was committed. Any bad act was still bad, and never should have been done.
However, Islam was still greatly slowed from taking over Europe. Byzantine emporer's request still had the effect of stopping the Muslims from taking over Byzantium, as well as the immediate conquer of other nations in Europe.
I'd say just by your tone you're claiming that the Muslim intentions and aggressions were justified. It sounmds as if you read the column, and picked out the points you liked, and threw out the rest.
Nobody said that the West was able to stand up and claim 'innocence' but they were able to claim the direct slowing of Islamic aggression, the continuance of Catholicism as the major religion of Europe during the Middle Ages, and the saving of multiple countries from Islamic domination.
No speculation was needed, Walt. Without the overriding forces of Islam, Columbus never would have made his voyage and discovered America. When America was discovered, its major religion would have been Islam, not Christianity. There would have been no American revolution, because 52 of the 57 Founding Fathers wouldn't have been Christian.
And if you want, you can speculate that there wouldn't have been modern computer technology, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, the Emancipation Proclamation(freeing the slaves), the Constitution, etc.,etc.,etc...
You can probably removce putting a man on the moon as a moot point as well.
I guess it does pay off to study a little history after all.
And the pope only "blessed" the first five crusades! apparently after that he must have rediscovered that commandment "Thou shalt not kill"!
Oh, and it is important to bring up the abortion issue, certainly murdering unborn children is wrong even if massacre of borne muslims and christians can somehow be justified by one side or the other.
I do not condone or support preemptive strikes or aggression whether it is "blessed" by a human being in a white hat or done at the behest of corrupt neocons interested in protecting oil interests.
I clearly stated that I do not claim the aggression was justified regardless of the religion. Innocent lives being taken are innocent lives being taken. Doing such violence under the "blessing" or purported authority of any governing body or state is immoral and violates the "just war" Christian belief.
I agree that it seems the Pope changed his tune late in the game...similar to the Catholic church's reaction to the holocaust(many Nazis were helped to escape to South America and other destinations by members of the clergy as your study of history has no doubt informed you) and also to the charges of widespread molestation of little boys and girls.
I do not envy your role as Catholic church apologist, but I do admire your feeble efforts.
It's very interesting how 'Gene' likes to twist facts to make his side acceptable. Maybe he forgets the commandment 'thou shall not kill' does not apply to people who plan on killing you, your relatives, or anybody for no reason and there's no other way to stop them. You have heard about the reasons for a "just war", haven't you?
I'm not eactly sure how the murder of the unborn relates to the massacre of borne Muslims or Christians. The unborn are people who are innocent. The borne Muslims and Christians are usually not innocent, but must be stopped by some means if their intentions are to kill others. You understand that, Right?
And I'm sure Lac would not make so many false assumptions if he was a true student of history. You don't need a white hat to know if someone is being killed unless you do something. And most know that the war in Iraq was not over oil--especially since America won the war and there was not a drop of oil taken.
You clearly stated the aggression was not justified. You made no mention of what the results would be, and how many would be killed if some action was not taken. Religion was not a part of the equation until the Byzantine emperor asked the pope to step in and stop the Muslims.
You specifically mention the "just war" theory. Do you even know what conditions must be met for a "just war" to be acceptable? Have you even read the books and available info about the Crusades?
I'm sure you realize that the pope is not God. He is infallible on issues of faith and morals, however. On those subjects he has never changed his 'tune'. Of course, if you were truly up on sexual molestation of boys, you would understand that the Catholic church actually has a slightly lower % of priests involved with such heinous acts as other religions. And all religius have a lower % of such acts as family members themselves.
I seriously hope you haven't fallen into such a predicament yourself. It's time to get educated, Lac. Any questions?
So according to the author we "won" the war in Iraq, no oil or any other resources has been taken from Iraq(1), the Catholic church has not been guilty of any wrongdoings throughout its existence and let me guess...George W. Bush was the best president in US history?
You are on your own with these theories.
1-"There are people in the White House who take the position that it's all the spoils of war," said the source, who asked not to be further identified. "We [the United States] take all the oil money until there is a new democratic government [in Iraq]."
Another source who has worked closely with the office of Vice President Dick Cheney said that a number of officials there too are urging that Iraq's oil funds be used to defray the cost of occupation.
Published on Friday, January 10, 2003 by the Long Island, NY Newsday
Lac, You are truly quite amusing! Your lack of historical knowledge is only surpassed by your lack of knowledge about the Catholic faith.
The war in Iraq was won because of several reasons: 1) Hussein was removed from power after having maimed or killed one out of every six Iraqis, 2) Iraq is almost up to speed in taking care of any terrorist action against them, 3) Al-Qaeda has been beaten in every act of terrorism committed, and is now almost a non-item in Iraq, 4) no oil whatsoever has been taken from the Iraqi people, and 5) most Iraqi people no longer have to live in fear. It sounds like all objectives were accomplished.
Members of the Catholic church have been involved with many wrongdoings over history. Unfortunately, God has let men do as they will--remember free will? But the Catholic church has been the one church to always have the correct faith and morals--whether you decided you wanted to do them or not.
When did anybody say that Bush was the best president we ever had? Are you assuming things again? To guess, he was probably one of the best though.
Where did you get this info about 'spoils' of war? If that truly was the case, they would have jumped on that info like rats on rotten food.
There's probably a lot of people that are urging that Iraq's oil funds be used to defray the cost of the war. But guess what. No funds from Iraq have ever been used.
Please get some good info next time you want to talk about this subject. But you have a good day!
No sorry, I have never heard of a valid reason for a "just" war and I didn't realized the commandments had an addendum explaining that we are allowed to kill people "planning" on killing us.
I also didn't realize we are allowed to kill "guilty" people but not "innocent" people.
To state "Thou shalt not kill" is not a "twisting" of any facts, it is simply a recitation of a commandment that Catholics believe in.
Your response has been quite entertaining! How can you comment on a "just war" when you don't even know what the reasons are? Why do you 'assume' a Commandment has an addendum? Do you even know what Commandment (#) "thou shalt not kill" is?
Are you aware that the original language of the Commandments was Aramaic, and the translation actually read "Thou shalt not murder"?
Why did you ever 'assume' that guilty people can be killed but innocent people can't?
How you 'interpret' "Thou shalt not kill" can be a twisting of the facts. How do you know you have the correct 'interpretation'? Who told you it was correct?
"Thou shalt not kill" is something all Christians believe in. Are you not Christian? If you need any assistance on 'interpretation' please don't hesitate to let me know.
I'd be more than happy to pass on the correct info...
As one who is equally critical of Catholicism and Islam, I flatly reject and scorn your extremist interpretation of history, including that of the Crusades. I wonder if you would also write essays in praise of Nazism, proclaiming Hitler (who was raised Catholic) as a martyr who died honorably for his cause against the Jews. That would be every bit as disgusting to me as what you wrote above about the Crusades. Many Jews and Muslims were innocent victims of Crusader aggression, period. Your saying otherwise is condoning genocide.
"But the Catholic church has been the one church to always have the correct faith and morals--whether you decided you wanted to do them or not."
If I were a Protestant, I would assert just as loudly that I follow the true Christian faith, because of my belief in the BIBLE AS THE WORD OF GOD, WHICH IS SUPERIOR TO ANY CHURCH DOCTRINE, INCLUDING THAT OF CATHOLICISM.
Fortunately, I am not so narrow minded. Your dogmatic assertions and claims about others being ignorant because they do not see things your way just makes me laugh.
You seem to be getting very touchy about your inability to understand history. What was mentioned was mt my 'interpretation' but from several authors that did their homework in a very unbiased fashion. You did read the links, didn't you?
It's amazing you cite Hitler, who never showed and semblence to Catholicism in his life. No Jews wer victims of the Crusades, period? Care to cite any info that says that's true?
Muslims who were not for overthrowing current authority and killing people were left alone. Any Muslims that had come from other provinces to take over and kill were considereed as invaders. I guess you'd better reread and re-study your history.
I would guess that one has to be narrow-minded that the Church Jesus established when He was here is not considered the true church. He actually said that. All you have to do is look it up.
Let me know just what faith you follow and I'll let you know when it was started. Unfortunately, it was started long after Jesus had arisen.
"You seem to be getting very touchy about your inability to understand history. What was mentioned was mt my 'interpretation' but from several authors that did their homework in a very unbiased fashion."
Yeah, sure, it's "unbiased" only because it agrees with you. I know how the propaganda game is played.
"It's amazing you cite Hitler, who never showed and semblence to Catholicism in his life."
I said he was raised Catholic. As a boy, he even wanted to be a priest. He later turned away from Catholicism, but referred to doing the Lord's work in Mein Kemph, his book laying the foundation for Nazi dogmas.
"Muslims who were not for overthrowing current authority and killing people were left alone. Any Muslims that had come from other provinces to take over and kill were considereed as invaders."
That's a lie. I have read from a Christian source that "Conquered Muslims were indiscriminantly put to the Sword. Inhabitants of Jewish ghettos were slaughtered." You do know that many former Christians of north Africa and Asia embraced Islam, right?
"I would guess that one has to be narrow-minded that the Church Jesus established when He was here is not considered the true church. He actually said that. All you have to do is look it up."
There is no evidence that Jesus directly founded the Roman Catholic Church. The book of Acts makes clear that while Peter was the original leader of the apostles, his authority was gradually usurped by Paul. The claim that Peter was the first Pope is only dogma, not historical fact. The Papacy didn't actually form until centuries after Christ's time, as the Roman Empire was declining.
What other outright lies can you tell, Kevin?
How interesting your definition of unbiased is! Maybe you know how the propaganda game is played because you have so much experience with it. I bet you didn't even read my sources that I listed. Correct???
Those sources listed the good and the bad that resulted from the Crusades. Your sources, if you actually had any, did not point out any advantages and disadvantages from the Crusades. Bottom line--a very anti-Catholic viewpoint. Can someone who expresses such an 'anti' viewpoint be unbiased? Not very likely at all.
Anybody can be considered 'raised' Catholic if he had two Catholic parents. Was he even baptized? Did he ever receive any other sacraments? You know what those would be, don't you? Not only that, but you knew Hitler and that he wanted to be a priest? I never heard that before. You have any sources for that info?
There was nothing that even came close to Catholicism in Mein Kemph or any Nazi writings. Oh wait. You're not Catholic, so you would have absolutely no idea if he mentioned anything even close to Catholicism. My bad.
What Christian source ever said Muslims were immediately put to the sword that were not trying to kill Christians in the first place? Any Jewish inhabitants were likely slaughtered by Muslims as well. You were correct on that.
I know that many Christians in Africa and Asia were told to become Muslims or face death. Many did, but that's not what they truly believed. You knew that, right?
There is tons of evidence that says Jesus Christ was the leader of the Roman Catholic Church. He was raised immediately before the RCC was started. He came down to earth and specifically said He was going to start a chuch. He named Peter the head of that Church. Why would he start a church when he ascended, but your church likely started 1500 years later?
By what historical fact did we determine that Paul usurped Peter's authority? That was never in the Bible. Peter being made the first pope and leader of the Church was right there in the Bible. All you have to do is read it. The Papacy formed immediately after Christ left this earth--historical fact.
You've been indoctrinated BIG time, Dale. What religion did this to you? Please let me know if you have any questions. I promise I won't lead you astray again.
I have to say that Kevin is the more lucid and learned participant in the debate here. His opponents appear to be regurgitating leftist anti-Western propaganda with amazing facility.
Kevin is, however, wrong in his assertion that Jesus started the RCC and I suppose the implication that Peter was the first Pope. Couldn't be true. At any rate, I side with him for accuracy here as he attempts to educate the purveyors of half-baked PC revisionism. Four against one: I'd say the odds are even.
Dale, if I were to stack all the books I've read about Hitler written by contemporaneous authors, I would have at least three piles as tall as you. Hitler was not a Catholic, nor was he raised a Catholic. Hitler became a nominal Catholic as an adult, but never practiced the faith. It was purely a public relations move. It is also silly to assert that Crusaders were ALL sincere Christians; just as silly as if you were to assert that all Constantine's citizens became devout just because he proclaimed it. At any rate, I couldn't care less. The Muslims needed to be stopped, and they were. You'll change your tune when you see a mushroom cloud envelope NYC one day. You won't need to worry about the RCC doing that to Mecca, do you?
Gene, you've never heard of a just war? Well, that's okay. You are only one voice against billions of dissenting opinions.
Walt, when we stopped Islam, we made everything possible, including freeze dried apricots and the moon landing. I'm sure you wouldn't want to live under a worldwide Caliphate, now would you? Of course you wouldn't.
At least we have one semi-reasonable person in this debate.
Of course, one glaring error you made should be corrected. Jesus DID start the RCC. I can even remember when Jesus said, "Peter, you are rock. And upon this rock I will build my church."
There aren't too many ways you can interpret that, no matter how hard you try. I'd love to see some evidence that Peter could not be pope. Please don't disappoint me...
There isn't much to interpret Kevin. Jesus established Christianity. The RCC grew up on its own. The RCC was not the 1st century church, but more like the 3rd or 4th.
I remind you that Peter was an apostle to the Jews. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, specifically invested with that office to evangelize the Gentile world. The scripture you cite has been debated for 1700 years. I doubt that we will come to any agreement on it, if you are not prone to change your mind. But I will say that you have slightly misquoted it here.
Really, its not the true question. The true question is, did the RCC faithfully carry on the true faith once delivered to the saints via the apostles? Or did some dogmas developed over the succeeding centuries stray from the doctrines of the faith, and become more reliant upon tradition and the rules of men?
For instance, Bible reading forbidden to the laity, the selling of indulgences, simony, the doctrines of Mary, priests being forbidden to marry, torturing heretics to death, the baptism of babies, limbo, purgatory... etc.
I will say that the RCC is not the only denomination of Christianity to stray at times. And I am gratified to see the RCC continue to hold the line on pro-life and marriage issues in these latter days. I think the RCC has made many positive steps away from the darkness of the past - it is a force for good in the world. And I still look upon my visit to the Vatican as one of the highlights of my life.
I'm afraid you erred a few times. There was nothing the RCC did on its own. They took on the name Catholic in 167AD ( one, holy, catholic, and apostolic). It's in scripture. Look it up.
Catholic means "universal". Other religions did not come up until after 1517. I remind you that Peter was the rock upon which Christ established His church.
Paul was always associated with conferring with the Apostles. The Gentiles were the people he WAS associated with until he was knocked off his horse, and kept blind for 3 days. You remember that in the Bible, don't you?
Any scripture I cite has been debated by who, exactly? I know of many who didn't debate it for over 2000 years. One would have to be very unrealistic to believe that the devil in 2000 years would not try to topple the religion that Jesus, Himself, started.
The items you state are many of the items the devil started, himself. If you note, there was no Catholic pope that I know that was for the specific things that are wrong.
Mary, celibate priests, baptism of babies, limbo (which doesn't exist, is not in the Bible), and purgatory can all be discussed at length if you would so desire. If you are truly inquisitive about truth, as many have in the past, you will not hesitate.
I applaud your possible visit to the Vatican. Even though I have been a RC for over 50 years, I have never been to Rome. As you said, there have been many dark days in the past. But true Catholic hierarchy have never lost the truth. But the devil has been there for every misstep the Church could make.
That alone should be proof enough that there is only one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church that exists.
Not exactly proof to me. But, I\'m content to leave it at that. I doubt we will say much that hasn\'t been said before, or debated. However, I encourage you to continue standing against the forces of post modernism that all professing Christians battle against today. We wrestle not with flesh and blood, but against spiritual wickedness in high places...
No, it's not exactly proof. But I'm "not" content to leave it at that. It sounds too much like someone saying 'Let's agree to disagree.' That simply means that for two rational people who believe in the preponderance of the evidence, that not enough evidence has been given.
Now I can give more evidence at any time, but I fear you cannot. You must remember, that although something's been debated before, it doesn't mean that one did not have most of the evidence on his side.
However, you are correct about the forces of evil that all true Christians battle against every day, and I wish you the best in that endeavor.
But it'll be difficult to have to die to learn a fellow Christian has learned the total truth...
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
