The Culture of Life
From fertilization to natural death, it's the same human being that develops and dies. Topics on the Culture of Life and our culture in general will appear.
About maryann


Gender:
female
Member Since:
October 02, 2007
Last Signed In:
September 27, 2008
Profile Views:
728
Blog Views:
647
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
Vacation to EWTN and Mother Angelica's Shrine of the Blessed Sacrament (Part 1)
Is Evil Relative? Can we know objective truth about evil?
Last Abortion Clinic in So. Dakota Closes after New Law Requires Recognition of the Humanity of the Child
The Crusades: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
The Problem and Nature of Evil: What is evil, and why does evil happen? To the question of why bad things happen to good people, Socrates replied that they never do! Historical Christianity disagrees.
Tolerance of facts: Can Obama supporters deal with his record?
Militant Islam and Atheistic Communism- What do they have in common? One embraces faith without reason, and the other, reason without faith.
Viva el Papa! The John Paul II Generation Welcomes Pope Benedict XVI to America
New Generation of Pro-life Activists on College Campuses
Recently Published Study: the Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer
Archives
November 07
December 07
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
August 08
September 08
October 08
Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL
maryann - > The Culture of Life -> The Crusades: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
The Crusades: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Many a discussion on Christian history centers around the Crusades, which began in 1095.

It has been customary to describe the Crusades as eight in number:

This division is arbitrary and excludes many important expeditions, among them those of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. In reality the Crusades continued until the end of the seventeenth century, the crusade of Lepanto occurring in 1571, that of Hungary in 1664, and the crusade of the Duke of Burgundy to Candia, in 1669. (New Advent.org [see Crusades]).

 

 

 Why did the Christian armies feel a need to pack up and fight the Muslims a continent away?  Some would say that it all had to do with the greed of the popes and gaining land for an empire, while others proffer that keeping the Holy Land open for Christian pilgrims and defending the Christian lives in Jerusalem was the original idea. From my point of view, the Crusades started out defensive in nature, but some over time, horrendous deeds were committed along the way. All of this gives a portrayal of the good, the bad, and the ugly of the Crusades.

(Information for this blog is taken primarily from Patrick Madrid’s book, Pope Fiction, 1999, from the chapter “The popes and the Crusades.”)

 

Since the beginning of the 4th century, pilgrims made their way from Europe to the Holy Land.  I think it’s clear that some Christians do feel a need to keep a certain contact with their religious roots and the places where God made Man walked.

 

All went relatively well between Christians and Moslems until the beginning of the 11th century with the Caliph of Egypt, Al Hakem, who ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulcher (where Jesus was buried) and the removal of the Christian presence from Jerusalem in 1009 a.d.  (The Crusades  London: Secker & Warburg, 1960  by Regine Pernoud, p. 15 as quoted by Madrid.) 

 

From that point on, persecution of Christians (both residents and pilgrims) was almost constant. In 1071 the Seldjuk Turks overran and captured Jerusalem. (Pernoud, pp. 16-17.)

 

“After being heroically patient in the face of this Muslim onslaught and hoping for a peaceful solution, Pope Urban II could finally take no more of this unacceptable mistreatment of Christians in Palestine. In 1095 he ordered the first Crusade, for the protection of all Christians in the Holy Land.” p. 192

 

From all over Europe the armies of Christian crusaders marched upon Jerusalem.  After a number of battles, the Crusaders conquered the Muslim defenders of Jerusalem on July 15, 1099. However, upon entering the city, the Christian invaders killed every inhabitant they could find. This was a horrible atrocity, and is unexcusable. Author Patrick Madrid states of these horrendous acts: “This kind of atrocity, committed by Catholics in the name of Christ and the Catholic Church, is a sin that the Church deeply regrets and apologizes for.  Pope John Paul II has repeatedly asked forgiveness in the name of the Catholic Church for crimes, like this one, committed by Catholics in the name of the Faith.”  p. 192

 

Although after this Crusade pilgrims were free to travel to Jerusalem and the Christian residents of the area were safe from Islamic oppression.  Sadly, though the Crusades had begun with a noble idea, over time the Crusaders forgot why they had started the mission in the first place. The sack of Constantinople in 1204 by Catholic armies, with the money being split between the armies of the Venetians is another ugly chapter.  Again, the author, Madrid states: “Catholics should never attempt to deny or sweep under the rug the fact that this and similar sins have been committed by Catholics in the name of the Church.  Rather, as a genuine step toward reunion with our Orthodox brethren, we should recognize and grieve with them over these wicked acts, and then seek forgiveness to heal these old wounds in a spirit of fraternal repentance and forgiveness.” p. 193

 

Patrick Madrid states that a few points about the Crusades need to be made. First, the original intent of the Crusades was the protection of pilgrims and the Christians in the Holy Land.  The Muslims were the initiators of the violence back with the Caliph Al Hakem.  In this way, the Crusades were defensive in nature. Also, one can see that the warfare in the East weakened the Muslim armies significantly, preventing them from an inevitable invasion of the West, that did come at Lepanto, Otranto, and the siege of Vienna. Had these invasions been successful and long-lasting, Western culture would have been exterminated and most of the freedoms we have now we would not know. I as a woman would certainly not enjoy the freedoms I do. I see this as the good.

 

Yet, there is plenty of the bad and the ugly.  Personal vendettas by the Catholic commanders and individuals were pursued, and greed often held sway.  Also, according to Madrid, the rage and insanity of warfare gave way to some truly grotesque acts of brutality- which are absolutely inexcusable for Christians.

History is incredibly important, and we learn lessons from past mistakes or we will repeat those errors. 

Tags: Crusades, catholic, Christianity
posted by maryann on Saturday, July 12, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Report a Violation
Viewed 81 times
21 comments from 7 users

1 2

posted by maryann on Jul 20, 2008 at 09:36 AM

Hello FT,

Well we agree on your final point, which makes it even less likely to call the Iraqi War a "Crusade."

posted by maryann on Jul 20, 2008 at 09:34 AM

Hello Rusty,

Yep, there's a lot of bad and ugly, and too little good. But I do believe that you and I could be wearing turbans right now if it weren't for those battles. The Siege of Vienna was one key fight that kept the Muslims from storming the center of Europe.

Anyway, have a great weekend.

posted by OLDRUSTYBUCKET1 on Jul 20, 2008 at 12:37 AM
MARYANN:  As much as we used to lock horns, I really admire the way your post showed both sides of the crusades. There may have been a little GOOD in the crusades and way too much of the BAD & UGLY.  FREETHINKER has a few points I agree with. I just hope he or she finds real peace. I might like to have him/her on my side in a fracas, there doesn't seem to be  any backing down without a fight.
posted by freethinker on Jul 18, 2008 at 08:20 AM
I am sure he didn't tell Bush anything!!!!
posted by maryann on Jul 17, 2008 at 12:51 PM

I believe you that he said it was a Crusade, and as far as "God" telling GW to invade Iraq, I'l take your word for it. Still doesn't make it a Crusade.  That doesn't mean that He did tell GW anything about invading.

 

How can you have a Crusade with a secular armed forces? 

posted by freethinker on Jul 17, 2008 at 09:47 AM
He said it. I didn't say I agreed with him. And I don't. And he did say God told him to invade Iraq.
posted by maryann on Jul 16, 2008 at 04:47 PM

Hello FT,

Actually, I'm saying there ARE Muslims in the U.S. military, and they would be shocked, shocked, I say, to hear you claim that they are going on a Crusade against a Muslim country.

Since when do you hang on George Bush's every word? :-}

posted by freethinker on Jul 15, 2008 at 08:04 AM
maryann, are you saying that there are no muslims in the united states military? And really saying it is a crusade means nothing compared to George W. saying God told him to invade Iraq!!!
posted by maryann on Jul 14, 2008 at 04:11 PM

Can you demonstrate where Muslims and athiests have banded together with Christians before to defeat other Muslims to install a Christian presence?

Sure people with different beliefs can band together- but it don't make it a CRUSADE. 

Maybe some atheists, if they were given a good deal- but Muslims joining Christians to defeat fellow Muslims.....

That's a stretch even George Bush couldn't pull off.

posted by PurpleKush on Jul 14, 2008 at 12:44 PM

Well for one thing saying that it's not a crusade because other people besides christians volunteer to go into the army is not quite true in my opinion. People of different beliefs can join together to fight what they percieve as a greater evil.  Here is an interesting video on the Crusades.   http://youtube.com/watch?=l...   If that link only takes you to youtube just type in A Clear View of the Crusades.

posted by maryann on Jul 13, 2008 at 06:01 PM

Hello Sandwichh, great post full of common sense with history added to fill it out.  And it doesn't hurt that you agree with me!  haha! Finally someone who sees the way I do on this!

However, I do enjoy seeing the opposing points of view. Makes me think and exercise the brain a bit.

 

posted by maryann on Jul 13, 2008 at 04:51 PM

FT, please demonstrate how George Bush rallied all the Christian leaders to send their young men and women to go and fight in the name of Christianity and defend the Christians in.... Bagdad.

Which bishops, cardinals, and dioceses sacrificed to send their youths?

Also, explain why so many atheists, agnostics, and Muslims went to fight there IF, as you say, this was a Crusade.

Finally, please show where Catholic rule is being established in Bagdad and Afghanitstan- at least with the building of Catholic Churches by what appears to be the American Army, Crusaders that they are.

Unless you can do this, it's ludicrous to keep insisting the Iraqi War is a Crusade.

I know what an atheist is.

Communism is officially atheistic, and under Stalin, anyone entering a Catholic Church was to be sent to a labor camp or shot dead. I have contacts in Vladivostock who say that in the 1930s villagers were shot dead  in their front yards in front of their families for just saying a rosary.  They still remember the last priest they had who was executed by Stalin's men.

Now the state has given them back their Church, Most Holy Mother of God Catholic Church in Vladivostock. They have been rebuilding the culture there, after 60 years of godless atheism left a 90% divorce rate and a 75% alcoholism rate.

I've heard you're "good" Catholic story of Hitler before.  Sorry, good Catholics don't imprison priests or kill them for teaching Church doctrine, even if it goes against their personal lifestyle and philosophy.

Hitler once said, "Providence called me, a Catholic, to have done with Catholicism.  Only a Catholic can destroy Catholicism." Questions and Answers, by Pope Benedict XVI , p. 7.

Yea, a 'good' Catholic.

posted by sandwichh on Jul 13, 2008 at 03:22 PM

Wait a minute.   People keep saying HItler was saying he was a good Catholic.

 

When Hitler went on his nut job way he DID NOT say he was a Catholic. He did  go to Catholic school but when he grew up he went away from that position and said so in his book. He moved in the way of Darwinism and proved it by wanting the great Aryian breed. Karl Marx calling himself a Capitiaist does not make him a Capitalist.

 

Hitler WAS always facisnated by the great things of power in the biblical teachings and  tried to pursue them JUST IN CASE but it really is amazing how people say Hitler was a Christian as he did his devil ways. Many people were raised and taught as younger people in the Christian faith but turned away later. It goes without saying that Hitler did turn away from Christian teachings. That makes you NOT A CHRISTIAN.  Saying that Hitler was a Christian is a bad arguement and it really is amazing the type of things people use to go against Christianity to justify their own doings.

The Crusades were put under way because of the request from the Christians being set upon by the Muslims and they needed rescuing.

No, I am a Baptist, Southern that is. Not the best Christian I will admit, but I can tell the difference between Hitler and Mother Terresa saying they are Christians. Like daddy said, listen to what they say but pay close attention to what they actually do.

About like Obama saying he is a Conservative, or even a  Centrist.

 

posted by freethinker on Jul 13, 2008 at 02:36 PM
 MaryAnn, Bush said God told him to invade Iraq!!!! And he called it a crusade. I totally realize that everyone fighting in our military are not Christians. And by the way, Atheism is not a political postion like communism. Atheist can be capitalists,libertarians,socialists,communist, Republicans,Democrats,liberals and conservatives. Atheist is not a belief. It is the "lack of belief" in god(s). Lack of faith requires no faith. And Hitler considered himself a "good Catholic". And how many people did he put to death!!! I can't shake my fist towards something that does not exist!
posted by maryann on Jul 13, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Hello Freethinker,

Interesting comments.

As far as George Bush saying it's a crusade, my neighbor says he has a crusade against lazy people collecting welfare, but that doesn't make it a religious call to arms.

If you read my post??? I discussed Constantinople, and I also said twice, I believe, that what was done was inexcusable, which would come close to your comments that it's not justified. The Crusades could have been conducted without the killing of innocents and pillaging.

True repentance and forgivness bring healing. Christians could still be moaning about the sack of Rome in the 5th century, or the attacks by the Vikings in the 9-11th centuries. Worse, we could still be trying to get revenge for the raping, the murdering, and the theivery. Some cultures out there are still exacting revenge for deed done centuries ago.

You state: "The only reason people could feel justified in doing something so horrible is that they were brainwashed into believing they were doing it for  a higher good-their God! "

And what God did Stalin or the athiest leaders of today's Communist China believe in to commit the horrendous crimes against humanity?  More than 43,000,000 million dead by Stalin alone doesn't sound like an atheist paradise.

Or does it?

1 2

Leave a Comment
Ground Rules for posting comments:
  • No profanity or personal attacks.
  • Please comment on the subject of the blog post itself.
If you do not follow these rules we will remove your comment. Please keep it civil.

To protect users from spam, we need you to prove that you're a human being.
Please enter the text from the image at left.