Hargrave mentions a few Inconvenient Facts.
...a long “train of abuses”, to borrow Jefferson’s phrase, preceded the launching of the First Crusade in 1096. Since its very inception, Islam had waged an unremitting war against Christianity. It conquered and subjugated centuries-old Christian societies in the Middle East and North Africa. After sweeping through France, the Muslim advance was finally checked by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours in 732. Following this, Muslim aggression against Christians continued in southern Italy, with the conquest of Sicily in 827. Resistance to these repeated acts of aggression was not characterized as a “crusade”, but simply necessary self-defense.
By the way, Islam never stopped its wars. Look at what's going on in sub-Saharan Africa. That's not "tribal" warfare, folks.
Over the next centuries, the Seljuq Turks, who converted to Islam, waged war against the Eastern Christian Byzantine Empire.
In 1095, the First Crusade was launched.
What was at stake was nothing less than the preservation of Christianity, and the civilization which had, even if imperfectly, sought to embody its teachings in the world. This was also evidenced by the increasingly hostility to Christians still living in the Levant
The article goes on to correct a number of misapprehensions AND to show that when the Crusaders did bad things (yes, they did), it was NOT condoned by Rome.
All in all, the reality is far different than the myth, whether perpetrated by the Muslims or by the Usual MSM Suspects.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
But that's not what my public school history book says! ;)
Suggestion--DON'T rely on Dad29 for history lessons, although at least he used a more reputable source, rather than a Catholic mom of 4 from Kentucky.
The Roman Catholic church had taught that going to war against the "infidels" was an act of Christian penance. If a believer was killed during a Crusade, he would bypass purgatory, and be taken directly to heaven. By eliminating what might be many millennia of torture in Purgatory, many Christians were strongly motivated to volunteer for the crusades. After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a soldier of the Church. Both Christians and Muslims believed that they were fighting on God's side; they believed that if they died on the battlefield they would be given preferential treatment in the Christian Heaven or the Muslim Paradise.
The RCC engaged in its own holy war, its own jihad, at times in an offensive display and on ocassion in self-defense.
The Roman Catholic church had taught that going to war against the "infidels" was an act of Christian penance.
So many errors, so little time....
The Church does not "Teach" indulgences, which is what you are yapping about. The Church GRANTS indulgences, but there are conditions which you do NOT mention; typically including 'being in a state of grace,' (i.e. having confessed/been forgiven of all grave sins.)
And, of course, you miss the big point: the Crusade was defensive, not offensive. The Muslims supplied plenty of offenses (just as they do now.)
Maybe the terms "defense" and "offense" are confusing to you, but they are clear to most people with common sense and who are not blindly prejudiced by a hatred of the Church.
IOW, who are not Obama-like, except his disgust is reserved to America.
You embarrassing yourself, Dad29. Somehow I'm demonstrating "hatred of the Church" by merely offering refutations. That's rich.
The granting of indulgences was an action that eventually TAUGHT a number of Catholics, from kings and princes to popes and bishops, to bypass
the formal process of contrition. These offers of redemption via a call to arms against Muslims in the Holy Land led to a CONDITIONED RESPONSE...join a Crusade in the name of God and glory.
Bear in mind, however, that the Crusades were an immensely complex phenomenon, spread across many lands and centuries, with varying motivations and outcomes...including the slaughtering of innocent people in the name of God.
The LARGER point is not whether the Crusades were "offensive" or "defensive" in nature, but by using Augustine's just war language, SOME Popes and Crusaders saw themselves as warriors for Christ in name only. Both Muslims and Christians committed considerable carnage and internal warfare, and political struggles often divided both sides.
So to maintain that Crusades as "nothing less than the preservation of Christianity", in light of, for example, the ransacking of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade (despite a strong "rebuke" from Innocent III), or the rampant corruption within the RCC, is willful ignorance. Thankfully, by the 1500's, a number of men of the cloth took measures to address those concerns.
"By the way, Islam never stopped its wars. Look at what's going on in sub-Saharan Africa. That's not "tribal" warfare, folks."
Military coups, political violence, ethnically fragmented societies, economic resource competition, etc, ALL have played a role in the instability and wars of those countries. Radical Islam? If you are referring to Ethiopia and the Sudan, yes.
You're telling me that some people were bad people and some people were good people.
And that the last Crusade was, umnnnhhh....less than ideal?
And that medieval war tactics, including sacking conquered cities (the No Quarter gambit) were immoral?
Good thing there's a combox, eh?
And just so you have your definition straight, this from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
To facilitate explanation, it may be well to state what an indulgence is not. It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power. It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin. Least of all is an indulgence the purchase of a pardon which secures the buyer's salvation or releases the soul of another from Purgatory. The absurdity of such notions must be obvious to any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic Church really teaches on this subject.
Further, you have elided a critical component of the granting of indulgence: the requirement to confess grave sin. Notice the quote of Bernard at the end of the following cite:
At the Council of Clermont (1095) the First Crusade was organized, and it was decreed (can. ii): "Whoever, out of pure devotion and not for the purpose of gaining honor or money, shall go to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God, let that journey be counted in lieu of all penance". Similar indulgences were granted throughout the five centuries following (Amort, op. cit., 46 sq.), the object being to encourage these expeditions which involved so much hardship and yet were of such great importance for Christendom and civilization. The spirit in which these grants were made is expressed by St. Bernard, the preacher of the Second Crusade (1146): "Receive the sign of the Cross, and thou shalt likewise obtain the indulgence of all thou hast confessed with a contrite heart (ep. cccxxii; al., ccclxii).
So Indulgences are NOT a 'get out of jail free' card regardless of the sins of the individual. They only remit temporal punishment for FORGIVEN sins--i.e., those which were confessed.
So what, again, did the Church "teach"?
You can cite all you want about the IDEALS of indulgences and the noble intentions of the Crusades, but the REALITY that you conveniently downplay is that papal and RCC call to arms have led to Christian atrocities, no better and no worse than modern radical Islam.
"So Indulgences are NOT a 'get out of jail free' card regardless of the sins of the individual. They only remit temporal punishment for FORGIVEN sins--i.e., those which were confessed."
No kidding, Sherlock. But I'm sure those who committed those acts of atrocities were appropriately reprimanded by the RCC for their "misdeeds". As if the Christian kings and princes were concerned about mortal sin and the reprimands of popes.
As if the Christian kings and princes were concerned about mortal sin and the reprimands of popes.
Just as much as Barrett, or Pelosi (inter alia) are concerned about facilitating partial-birth abortion.
Perhaps you've heard the saying that "One cannot legislate morality."
You've discovered the real meaning of the saying.
Post a Comment