Our New Albigensian Age

Crisis Magazine ^ | September 17, 2013 | Stephen M. Krason

[NYer]

In an old (1950) monograph entitled The Truth about the Inquisition, Dr. John A. O’Brien, a Notre Dame history professor of the time, provides a brief but interesting exposé of the Albigensian heresy. Few people recall that that almost maniacal rebellion against Catholic teaching and, for that matter, commonsensical and civilized living was the trigger for the much-misunderstood Inquisition. O’Brien’s discussion makes one think of many aspects of our current civilizational crisis, even though the comparison could not have been so evident in 1950.

The Albigensians, or Catharists, were neo-Manicheans, regarding material creation as an evil and viewing all of existence as a conflict between evil matter and good spirit—but O’Brien says it was much more. Like all Gnostics, of which Manicheanism was a branch, they believed themselves to be the only “pure” ones and the only ones to have the truth. They were certainly a forerunner of Protestantism and even more specifically of the most ardent of contemporary fundamentalists, with their complete rejection of the Real Presence, transubstantiation, the Eucharist, and the Mass, and their belief that the pope was the Antichrist. Their teaching and practice, however, had enormous implications for marriage, sexual morality, and social and political life.

The parallels to the present are almost uncanny. While hatred for the Church is nothing new, the visceral character of the Albigensians’ hatred bears a resemblance to the ugliest side of the Reformation and today’s assaults on religion. For example, O’Brien tells us how the Albigensians were known for indiscriminately chopping down crosses and stamping on them. In America today, we see the relentless efforts by rabid, uncompromising church-state separationist groups to remove all religious symbols from public places and the heightened vandalism of crosses and other Christian monuments.

The sexual libertinism, views about marriage, and feminism of our time resemble the Albigensian heresy. While the Albigensians considered sex an “inherent evil,” it seems as if it was not so much sex per se that they rejected but the proper context for it. They utterly rejected marriage, mostly because it meant bringing children into the world. Pregnancy for them was diabolical. Their confusion about sexual matters made them believe that marriage was worse than fornication and adultery. In our time, people don’t quite make this claim, but marriage has become irrelevant as the condition for engaging in sexual activity and no judgment is made about the morality of almost any sexual practices. For many, particularly in lower socioeconomic status groups, marriage almost seems obsolete; children are routinely born out-of-wedlock. Others, particularly among the affluent, enter marriage—or what is called that—but have no intention of bearing children. While people may not proclaim pregnancy as evil, they act is if it is in our contracepting age. As O’Brien says, for the Albigensians even perversion was preferable to marriage. In our time, we witness the celebration of sexual perversion as a good thing—as “LGBT pride.” While the Albigensians wanted to abolish marriage, we have transformed it into something that they would have lauded: an association devoid of procreative intent or even, in the case of same-sex “marriage,” capability. As far as traditional, true marriage is concerned, we increasingly give it no special support or even recognition as uniquely important for society. We say that people are free to choose what “version” of it they prefer—and be officially “affirmed” in their choice.

So the Albigensians, who so rejected sex as part of their disdain for the material world and supposedly in the interest of spiritual purity, actually opened the door to sexual debauchery and the corruption of both body and soul. This was typical of Manicheans historically. Some would become extreme ascetics, and others utter hedonists.

Contemporary feminism has a ring of the Albigensian. Instead of equality in marriage, it effectively placed women in a dominant position. As O’Brien explains, since pregnancy was despised married women who were converted to Albigensianism unilaterally abrogated their husbands’ marital rights and consigned them to “an enforced celibacy.” It was considered “sinful and degrading” to even touch a woman (even if innocently and in a pure way). This almost rings of the extremes to which sexual harassment has gone in our day. It makes one think of the anti-male ethos in the statements of some of today’s feminists. The female dominance was further seen in that a religious punishment of fasting for inter-gender touching could only be imposed on a man, even if the woman did the touching.

Today, abortion seems to have become a positive good for ardent feminists and their fellow-travelers. It’s much like the Albigensians, for whom O’Brien says “abortion was highly to be commended.”

The Albigensians anticipated today’s assault on human life in other areas, as well. Believing that the seriously ill would gain eternal bliss if they did not recover their health, they encouraged them to commit suicide. In fact, they practiced assisted suicide. The assisted suicide advocates of today are different only in that their methods are (usually) more technologically sophisticated. The Albigensians either suffocated or starved the person. Today’s practice in medical facilities of hastening death by withholding nutrition and hydration was what they did—except it took place in the person’s home. Like today, the person was supposedly given a choice: they gave him a choice of these two methods of death, today people sign living wills. Either way, the supposed choice is no real choice. In both eras, there is a coercive backstop. The Albigensian leaders forbade the sick person’s family from feeding him, or would forcibly remove him from his home if they weren’t “reliable.” In our day, family members may make a choice for death even if the patient didn’t want it or, increasingly, the medical authorities do it even when it’s against the patient’s or the family’s wishes.

The present era, prodded along by the likes of Peter Singer, pushes more and more toward post-partum infanticide. Even on this, the Albigensians were a precursor. They insisted upon—even enforced—among their followers the starvation of very sick children. To make sure their parents didn’t lose their nerve, the sect leaders frequently visited their homes to monitor them. So, the Albigensians also anticipated our era’s undermining of parental rights.

While human life was in the crosshairs, animal life was sacrosanct. The Albigensians would never take an animal’s life. This was because they believed in something like reincarnation, so a dead person’s soul might be within an animal. They were a harbinger of today’s animal rights thinking. Indeed, their view had its roots in Eastern thought, whose influence in the turbulent 1960s may also have helped fuel our animal rights movement.

The Albigensians unconditionally rejected capital punishment; like current liberalism, it seemed to be the only life issue that troubled them. In fact, they held that the state had no authority to administer justice or punish crime at all. Thus, they undercut one of the most basic rationales for political life, and made unthinkable anything like a rule of law. While this does not seem to conform to our current reality of big, increasingly overbearing government, it does reflect the underlying notion about politics since Thomas Hobbes that the state is not natural to man. That government is an artificial construct to be twisted, used, or expanded in whichever way has underlain most modern political ideologies and its consequence is strikingly evident today as constitutional principles are left behind and executive fiat is substituted for duly enacted law. The Albigensians, in effect, didn’t think that government was completely necessary or at least legitimate. That sounds like Rousseau and Marx later on—two thinkers whose views, in one form or another, resound through the contemporary world. I recall Catholic political scientist Peter V. Sampo once saying that governments inspired by a neo-Gnostic idea—like Communist regimes and increasingly today’s Western arch-secular states—tend to be formless, less prone to limitation and open to unlimited expansion.

The Albigensians even condoned stealing, so long as it was done to the “right” person (that is, not one of their own sect). This makes me think of eminent social scientist Kenneth Clark’s justifying interracial muggings by minorities a few decades ago as an act of “social protest,” and how some today do not want to hold members of certain “favored” groups to the same moral standards as others.

Today’s secularist elite—so dominant in Western politics, culture, and opinion-making—are dualists, like the Albigensians. Even though the Albigensians rejected the material and they reject the spiritual, the consequences are strikingly similar. Also, like the Albigensians, they think they are all-knowing—and the implications for Western culture, as any serious observer realizes, are similarly grave.

[BroJoeK]

vladimir998 to romer_1, post #31: "1) I think you mean Bezier and not Benziers."

No, the correct spelling is "Beziers".

vladimir998 to BJK: "Then no massacre happened in Bezier since the population contained a number of Christians as well as heretics.
You’re not helping yourself."

In fact, according to the Crusaders' Pope-appointed commander & Papal legate, the Abbot of Citeaux Arnaud Amalric, in his after-action report to Pope notso-Innocent III:

"Our men spared no one, irrespective of rank, sex or age, and put to the sword almost 20,000 people.
After this great slaughter the whole city was despoiled and burnt...[4]"

Nobody -- not Catholics, their priests or Cathars -- was spared.

vladimir998: "Massacring a city would not destroy a “duchy”.
It didn’t even destroy Bezier.
The city was up and running in no time."

In fact, Beziers was utterly destroyed and its population murdered.
Yes, restorations began just a few years later, but were not completed for another 200 years.

vladimir998: "The first thing he did of any note was launch the series of vicious campaigns called “The Harrowing of the North” from 1069 to 1070.
The contemporary death toll was given as 100,000.
William essentially depopulated the North with a scorched earth policy."

In fact, The Harrowing of the North is left out of most history books, however, I classify it as part of William's conquest of Britain.
And it does not even compare to the Albigensian Crusade:

1. "In the end, the Albigensian Crusade is estimated to have killed 1 million people, not only Cathars but a significant portion of the general population of southern France."

2. A contemporary report: "To his shame, William made no effort to control his fury, punishing the innocent with the guilty.
   He ordered that crops and herds, tools and food be burned to ashes.
   More than 100,000 people perished of hunger."

The Brits were not methodically exterminated, but died of hunger.
Many thousands more fled the British Isles to avoid a similar fate.

vladimir998: "The Church didn’t commit any crime and will never pay any price for Bezier."

I accept your claim that the Church is spiritually innocent of any crimes committed by its officials, including a Pope.
But legally any church is just as responsible as any other legal entity (i.e., corporations) for official actions of their employees.

In this particular case, the Pope officially ordered the assault, and appointed its leader, so the Church is legally responsible for the results.
Of course, 800 years later, nobody is going to collect... or will they?

vladimir998: "The Church wouldn’t be charged because the Church didn’t kill anyone."

In fact, as with any other legal entity, the Church is legally responsible for official crimes of its officials.
So I'll ask again: what is the legal statute of limitations on mass exterminations?

vladimir998: "The Day of Judgment is coming and the Church has nothing to fear at all.
Some men on the other hand do."

I was speaking metaphorically, of course, since the purpose of this particular thread is to warn us about the return of the Albigensian Heresy, this time in secular form.
I was simply warning people that the Church better hope a restored Albigensian Sect is not as brutal to the Church as it was to them.
But the point seems lost on you, right?

vladimir998: "all the apologies make it clear that people were responsible, not the Church in any culpable sense."

Spiritually, perhaps.
Legally, your distinction between Church and its officials is irrelevant.
Were a case to be brought in court, the Church itself, just as with pedophile priests, would pay the price.

vladimir998: "An apology for the actions of those men on that day would be just fine, but no confession or repentance is needed or valid..."

A sincere apology is also a confession and repentance for the Truth.
In my humble opinion, that's all that's really needed at this point.

[vladimir998]

“Nobody — not Catholics, their priests or Cathars — was spared.”

Of course that isn’t true. As the Jewish Encyclopedia notes: “On July 22, 1209, Béziers was stormed and the inhabitants massacred. Two hundred Jews lost their lives in this massacre, and a large number were driven into captivity.”

If Jews weer driven into captivity, then they were spared massacre. If Jews, who had no connection whatsoever to the combatants, were spared, then others must have been as well.

As I already noted. The town never stopped functioning. Thus, there was a population that was spared plus new inhabitants.

[BroJoeK]

vladimir998: "I should remind you that there were no “Brits” in England in 1066.
The people were Anglo-Saxons.
There were the Welsh - but in Wales.
There were the Breton - but in Brittany"

I'm certain, since you are an expert on all things historical, that you already know: the name "British Isles" dates back to Ancient Greece, circa 500 BC, was used by the Roman conquers, and western civilization in general throughout history.

Yes, the word "Britons" referred to original inhabitants, who later got pushed aside by Anglo-Saxons and others.
But even by 1066, the original British still lived in Wales, Cornwall & Scotland.

In summary: since 300 BC the name is "British Isles", and the people there called "Britons" by outsiders, regardless of what they may have called themselves.

[BroJoeK]

vladimir998: "If Jews weer driven into captivity, then they were spared massacre.
If Jews, who had no connection whatsoever to the combatants, were spared, then others must have been as well."

First, remember: the normal population of Beziers at that time was circa 5,000 so we have to imagine that 15,000 people escaped from the countryside to the Beziers fortress for protection.

And remember: the official report from the Pope's appointed combatant commander, Abbot of Citeaux, Arnaud Amalric says:

"Our men spared no one, irrespective of rank, sex or age, and put to the sword almost 20,000 people.
After this great slaughter the whole city was despoiled and burnt...[4]"

So, FRiend, now you have to ask yourself: if a few escaped, then why would the good Abbot lie and exaggerate the numbers murdered to his Pope notso Innocent III?

vladimir998: "As I already noted. The town never stopped functioning.
Thus, there was a population that was spared plus new inhabitants."

Remember, the 20,000 reported to the Pope as exterminated by Abbot Arnaud Amalric were a mere drop in a sea of blood from the estimated one million total killed in that Albigensian Crusade.
Whether those populations recovered quickly, or over many years is irrelevant to the fact that colossal crimes were committed by officials of, and in the name of, the Church of Jesus Christ in Rome.

[vladimir998]

“In fact, Beziers was utterly destroyed and its population murdered.”

Actually no. The city was not destroyed and some of the population was spared.

“Yes, restorations began just a few years later, but were not completed for another200 years.”

Actually the city never stopped functioning and recovered quite well in a relatively short amount of time. Already by the early 14th century (just 100 years after the massacre) the population was estimated to be 14,000 (see The Sovereign State and Its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Change by Hendrik Spruyt, page 87)

“In fact, The Harrowing of the North is left out of most history books, however, I classify it as part of William’s conquest of Britain.”

Doesn’t matter what you classify it as. It just matters what it was: 1) before the Doomsday Book, 2) a slaughter of people (gee, would someone slaughter his tax paying citizens?).

“And it does not even compare to the Albigensian Crusade”

Actually it does. For one thing, the Albigensian was an actual war with two warring sides. The Harrowing of the North was not. The crusade took a number of years. The Harrowing really took one or two only. Also, the number 1,000,000 generally is not taken seriously by historians. Remember the population in France in 1200 was about 12,000,000. The chance that one out 12 people were killed in Southern France is very unlikely.

“The Brits were not methodically exterminated, but died of hunger.”

Actually not a single Brit was killed. There were no Brits. Plenty of Anglo-Saxons died, however.

“Many thousands more fled the British Isles to avoid a similar fate.”

Actually, no. Very few people left the British isles. Where would they go when it was the Normans attacking them?

“I accept your claim that the Church is spiritually innocent of any crimes committed by its officials, including a Pope.”

It’s not a claim. It’s a fact.

“But legally any church is just as responsible as any other legal entity (i.e., corporations) for official actions of their employees.”

No. That could only be viewed as true in a nation with laws like our own in today’s world. No such understanding of law existed at that time.

“In this particular case, the Pope officially ordered the assault, and appointed its leader, so the Church is legally responsible for the results.”

No. There was no such understanding of law in that way at the time. At that time it was more understood this way: You asked for this by your actions and crime. You got it. And there’s nothing you can do about it. Also, there was simply no framework of law to try the Church since it was not a person, but the Body of Christ and respected as such in law.

“Of course, 800 years later, nobody is going to collect... or will they?”

Nope.

“In fact, as with any other legal entity, the Church is legally responsible for official crimes of its officials.”
Actually, no. There was no “official crime” in the first place since what was done was not ordered by the Church, did not necessarily contravene existing law.

“So I’ll ask again: what is the legal statute of limitations on mass exterminations?”

Your question makes no sense – no matter how often you ask it. Since all involved are dead it wouldn’t matter if there was a statute of limitations in any case.

“I was speaking metaphorically,”

I wasn’t.

“… of course, since the purpose of this particular thread is to warn us about the return of the Albigensian Heresy, this time in secular form.”

So, because a thread speaks about Albigensians in secular form you speak metaphorically? If it were about humpback whales in the Pacific would you speak anagogically?

“I was simply warning people that the Church better hope a restored Albigensian Sect is not as brutal to the Church as it was to them.”

What would it matter? No Albigensians today could be any more harsh than the communists and jihadists of the last century. We’re not afraid of martyrdom.

“But the point seems lost on you, right?”

I don’t think you made a point at all. Your “points” are pointless.

“Spiritually, perhaps.”

Okay.

“Legally, your distinction between Church and its officials is irrelevant.”

So is applying 21st century understandings of law to something that happened in 1209.

“Were a case to be brought in court, the Church itself, just as with pedophile priests, would pay the price.”

Nope. Not a bit. There are no plaintiffs and can’t be.

“A sincere apology is also a confession and repentance for the Truth.”

For John Paul II maybe. But he never apologized for the Church for he knew no such apology was necessary. The Church did nothing wrong.

“In my humble opinion, that’s all that’s really needed at this point.”

You probably won’t get it. And it will be meaningless if you do.

[roamer_1]

1) I think you mean Bezier and not Benziers.

To be correct, 'Beziers'.

2) The Bishop of Beziers, Renaud II de Montpeyroux, tried to stop the siege. He negotiated with the crusaders. He then prepared a list of a couple of hundred known heretics. Most of the townspeople refused to hand them over to the crusaders.

IOW, they got what they deserved? Most of the town stayed and fought the pope's army along with their so called 'heretic' neighbors... and my point was that they (Cathars) were counted as friends by their neighbors, who at the point of their lives refused to give them up. So much for the 'maniacal heretics' envisioned by the author of the OP. One might wonder who the townspeople would consider the 'maniacal heretics'... But then we will never know, as they all chose to die alongside the Cathars.

Renaud II left with a handful of faithful Catholics - who clearly knew what awaited them if they stayed in the city. They and Renaud made the wise choice. They neither sided with heretics nor stayed to die with them in a siege they were all-but-guaranteed to lose.

Faithful romanists, and supposedly wise, but men of God died within the walls.

After the siege and massacre (which probably wasn’t as extensive as some think)[...]

Riiiight... I hear y'all got the Spanish Inquisition pared down to the deaths of a drunk, a prostitute, and a small burro - Ain't historical revisionism great ?

they moved back into the city and resumed their lives with the new residents who quickly moved into the city and set up shop.

No they didn't, the town was all but razed.

[roamer_1]

Also, there is no actual contemporary evidence that anyone said: “Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own.”

Caesarius of Heisterbach (ca. 1180 – ca. 1240) attributed the quote "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" (roughly. 'Kill them, God knows His own') to Arnaud.

That is exactly contemporary.

[vladimir998]

“IOW, they got what they deserved?”

In the view of the people at the time, yes.

“Most of the town stayed and fought the pope’s army along with their so called ‘heretic’ neighbors...”

There was no pope’s army. All the troops were French, raised by Frenchman, and led by Frenchman. And none of that changes the fact that the view of the day was that those in Beziers got what they had coming.

“and my point was that they (Cathars) were counted as friends by their neighbors, who at the point of their lives refused to give them up.”

Which is still irrelevant.

“So much for the ‘maniacal heretics’ envisioned by the author of the OP.”

No, the two are not mutually exclusive. The people of Beziers simply had no reason to agree to anything put forward to them by northern Frenchmen. The Cathars were destructive in their activities, but that doesn’t mean the people of Beziers would hand them over to outsiders.

“One might wonder who the townspeople would consider the ‘maniacal heretics’... But then we will never know, as they all chose to die alongside the Cathars.”

None of them chose to die. They chose to fight. What happened to them in the end was not their choice.

“Faithful romanists, and supposedly wise, but men of God died within the walls.”

Those who left were faithful and wise. Those who stayed inside were faithful to their friends and town, and died for their choice.

“Riiiight... I hear y’all got the Spanish Inquisition pared down to the deaths of a drunk, a prostitute, and a small burro - Ain’t historical revisionism great ?”

The records of the inquisition - which are accurate while the ravings of anti-Catholics are not - tell us that the number of people condemned after an inquisition trial was relatively small over quite a few years. That’s just a fact. If facts bother you, then history is not going to be enjoyable to you.

“No they didn’t, the town was all but razed.”

No, a portion of the town - the towns symbols really - were burned. Much of the town was still standing and serviceable. That’s one of the reasons why the city’s population so quickly rebounded.

[vladimir998]

“That is exactly contemporary.”

No. Caesarius wrote the Dialogus Miraculorum years later. The earliest dating is that he wrote it from 1219-1223. He was not on the scene and could not have any first hand knowledge of anything said at Beziers. I am not sure if anyone actually knows when he completed the book. You might want to read William Purkis’ very recent article, ‘Crusading and Crusade Memory in Caesarius of Heisterbach’s Dialogus miraculorum’, Journal of Medieval History, Volume 39, Issue 1, 2013, pp 100-127.

Also, there’s an old article - which I do not have access to - which showed the reasons why article’s author believed the bishop could never have said it. See Tamizey de Larroque, “Rev. des quest. hist.” 1866, 1, 168-91.