Vatican change of heart over 'barbaric' Crusades

UK Times online ^ | March 20, 2006 | Richard Owen

[pravknight]

The Fourth Crusade was by far the worst because it was waged against fellow Christians, and it doomed any chance of reunification between the two halves of Christianity.

[Cinnamon Girl]

He said that the Crusaders were “martyrs” who had “sacrificed their lives for the faith”.

They also sacrificed the lives of thousands of Jews.

[ChessExpert]

"Historians count eight Crusades, although dates are disputed: 1095-1101"

And for how many centuries did the Muslims wage war against Christians and others prior to the first Crusade? Early Christian history was one of evangelizing (talking) and martyrdom (real victimhood). Early Muslim history was one of conquest and murder.

[Uncle Miltie]

The Crusades were a counterattack. Nothing more.

Had the Muslims not invaded Christian countries, no counterattack would have been necessary. The Crusades were the Muslim's fault.

[LenS]

This is more about getting ready for the next Crusade against Islam. Islam is slaughtering Christians throughout the world. If America's attempts to moderate Islam with democracy doesn't work, then we will eventually see a Christian counter-Crusade. The Church will soon be run by the Asian and African prelates, and they're not going to lie down and die quietly. They'll fight Jihad with Crusade.

[Bahbah]

It would be odd and counterproductive if the Catholic Church chose to refight the merits of the crusades.

It would not be either odd nor counterproductive, however, to look at history with as much accuracy as is possible.

[Bahbah]

Do you understand what the immaculate conception was?

[RightWhale]

Crusades as wars fought with the “noble aim” of regaining the Holy Land for Christianity

Including parts of France. They went up against Christians who happened to not be Roman. They also sacked Constantinople, which was Christian but not Roman.

[Uncle Miltie]

"Turkey’s Muslim culture is at variance with Europe’s Christian roots."

The Turks were Turkomen impressed and mercenary soldiers who were used by the Muslim heirarchy to invade Anatolia and push out the Greek Christians centered in Constantinople.

It worked, and a bunch of Turkomen from thousands of miles East North East conquered and subjugated Anatolia. Perhaps we should kick their a88es out, and let the Greeks have it back, eh?

[Sweetjustusnow]

"It would be odd and counterproductive if the Catholic Church chose to refight the merits of the crusades. It simply does not translate well into the modern age, and it's irrelevant."

It would be odd and counter productive it the western world chose to fight the invading Islamists and their merits. It simply isn't to be accepted by Infidels and you are all irrelevant.

Is that what you said? ....... I thought so.

[Torie]

Fair point, but attempting the record straight is itself a problematic task, and just why should the Catholic Church underwrite the enterprise? Leave to the historians. In any event, it is a mixed bag. In fact, the Crusaders trashed some Christians towns along the way. (I saw that on the History Channel.) A lot of it was motivated by entrepreneurial greed. Some of these guys were in it for the money, and this was just a convenient vehicle to pursue it.

[Torie]

There is more merit to dealing with current issues and challenges, than refighting the wars of 1000 years ago. JMO.

[Uncle Miltie]

"And they see Mohammed the Pedophile as a great man."

The truth in print. No need to whitewash the SOB.

[Sweetjustusnow]

Perhaps you've never heard the old adage "history repeats itself"?

Deal with reality.

[Uncle Miltie]

The Spanish Inquisition and the resulting diaspora of Spain's Jews is still held in great disrepute among Jews.

Them were vile times, and there is not intergenerational guilt. But historical accuracy is proper, and the Spaniards did not acquit themselves well after defeating the Moors.

[tbird5]

"just why should the Catholic Church underwrite the enterprise"

Were not the Crusades formed by the the Roman Catholic Church at that time? Weren't they fighting in the name of the Roman Catholic Church? Did not the Pope proclaimed that anyone who joined the Crusade would be given full dispensation of all his sins and would be relieved of any criminal penance he might owe? It then seems that the Catholic Church should underwrite the enterprise. It is their history.

[Uncle Miltie]

Quite right. I keep reminding my Jewish family and friends:

"Who is killing us now? Let us focus on that, and let history reside in books."

[Sweetjustusnow]

Fair point, but attempting the record straight is itself a problematic task, and just why should the Catholic Church underwrite the enterprise? Leave to the historians. In any event, it is a mixed bag. In fact, the Crusaders trashed some Christians towns along the way. (I saw that on the History Channel.) A lot of it was motivated by entrepreneurial greed. Some of these guys were in it for the money, and this was just a convenient vehicle to pursue it.

And things have changed how?

[Torie]

Cool, so since Christians did it to them, it is their turn to do it to Christians (nominal Christians of course, since Europe is largely post Christian). That will balance the books, and achieve that aesthetically pleasing symmetry, that golden mean.

[Uncle Miltie]

I want to hear an Islamic apology for the invasion of Europe.