The Crusades: Now and Then

Wednesday, January 11, AD 2017

 

 

Our knowledge of the Crusades has been expanding rapidly in the past few decades.  A good starting point is to read some of the numerous works of Dr. Riley-Smith.

http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/jonathanrileysmith.html

Here is a link to a First Things Article in which Riley-Smith explains what the Crusades were:

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/rethinking-the-crusades-35

A good examination of myths about the crusades, linked below, by Thomas F. Madden, one of the foremost historians of the Fourth Crusade.

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/print2005/tmadden_crusades_print.html

His “A Concise History of the Crusades” is a must read for anyone interested in this period in history:

http://www.amazon.com/Concise-History-Crusades-Critical-Issues/dp/0847694291

 

The Crusades were a tardy, and defensive, response to militant Islam by the Catholic states of the West.  By bringing Western military power against Islam the fall of Constantinople to the Turks was delayed until 1453. The Byzantine Empire had suffered a severe defeat at the battle of Manzikert at the hands of the Turks in 1071. They were no longer able to hold the line in the East against Islam and were desperate for military aid from the West. Absent the Crusades I doubt if Constantinople would have survived much beyond 1150. This would have led to Islam taking over the Balkans three centuries before it did historically. These three centuries were crucial in that by the time the Turks marched against Vienna in 1529 the West was already beginning to surpass Islam technologically. Vienna besieged in 1229 might have been the beginning of a process that would have seen the conquest of Europe by Islam.

It is important that we understand this history, because the West today is under siege again by Islam and too many people in the West, blinded by Leftism and a fashionable scorn, if not outright hatred for, Christianity, paint a false picture of the past and the present in which Islam is a religion of peace and Christians are the evil agressors.  Such madness will kill us all if are not constantly reminding people of the truth.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to The Crusades: Now and Then

  • I appreciate these posts with solid information. I would like to think that Brexit, Trump, Le Pen’s current lead, Hungary’s and Poland’s actions vis-a-vis Islam are some indication that the West is not completely dead yet (Billy Crystal’s character from Princess Bride pops into my head). There is an incredibly high hurdle to clear yet, and saddest of all, that hurdle was built and is being sustained by our fellow “Westerners”.

  • Thank you Donald for posting such needed information. ’tis a feather in your cap. I recall reading a foot note in a Bible about a prophecy that could be applied to Islam. That particular book is no longer in my possession so I can’t be specific. Nonetheless, Islam is sufficiently significant as to merit at least a prophetical allusion to its coming about. Due to the chronology of my walking about this vale of tears, I was the beneficiary of a politically uncorrected teaching of history which told the true history of Islam and its war against Western Civilization. Today, Western Civilization faces a conflict on two fronts. Islam from without, and apostasy from within. And, as best as this humble observer can articulate, this seems to sum up our situation.

  • Mr. Walsh-
    have you considered that Islam is, arguably, a Christian heresy in the style of those old cut-and-paste religions that were really popular when the Church was founded? Took some aspects of Christian teaching, melded them with the existing culture and philosophy, and boom.

    Right along with socialism– which when you look at it right sure seems to be a bunch of Christian chunks put together with some funky philosophy and an odd view of human nature– looks like the folks who want to accuse Christianity of causing a lot of trouble have an unexpected bit of truth in their claims, just not where they think it is….

  • Foxfier-
    You are probably right, supposing that Mohammad did not make Islam up out of whole cloth but stitched together swatches of Christianity, Judaism, and Arabian paganism into a Coat of Many Errors.

  • Pingback: FRIDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • With the rise of militant Islam, Americans are in a much better position to understand concretely what kind of Islam gave rise to the crusades. Islam spread from Saudi Arabia to Spain in about 100 years. It was by military conquest, not by street preaching. This is well known to Muslims, and they are not ashamed of it — they see it as a sign of divine favor just as the ISIS saw its initial success in the same light. Students find books boring so watching the evening news is much more informative about what kind of Islam was behind its lightening expansion.

The Truth About the Crusades

Wednesday, October 19, AD 2016

 

A staple in the libels against the Catholic Church by anti-Catholic bigots are the Crusades, perhaps the most lied about period of European history.  Protestant pastor Jeff Sanders writes about what he found out about the Crusades:

1. The Crusaders were not “imperialists.”

The motivation of the European armies in the Holy Land was not colonization. Only the First Crusade was actually successful. They achieved their goal: capturing Jerusalem. When they did that, most of the knights went home, without riches or lands in Israel. They left only a skeleton force to guard what they had conquered.

They were not interested in staying there — which would have involved constantly fighting off Islamic armies — or in governing an area that was so unlike their own homelands.

2. The Crusaders were rescuers.

The main motivation for the First Crusade was that the Byzantine Emperor Alexius I Comnenus (the Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire) had asked for help from his fellow Christians in Western Europe. Christian churches were being desecrated by the latest invaders (Seljuk Turks) and Christian pilgrims were being murdered and otherwise persecuted.

When the Pope heard about this, he figured it would be a noble thing for the people under his authority to go and help their brethren in the East. For many people in Western Europe, the First Crusade was considered a rescue operation to help defenseless people. It was an act of highest piety. That is how they saw it.

3. The Crusaders were sacrificial.

The European knights and their followers, by and large, did not see themselves as likely to become fabulously rich off this enterprise. They sacrificed time, safety, and treasure. It is indeed expensive to maintain a knight and his horse with their weaponry, armor, and accoutrements. It would be a very dangerous trek across Asia Minor to get to Israel.

Many barons either borrowed money from relatives or sold lands to raise the cash. Many simply went broke and even deeply into debt.

 

4. The Crusaders were (somewhat) tolerant.

Once the Crusaders conquered Israel and renamed it “The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem,” they did not force anyone to become Christians. Yep, you read that right. These Catholics did not compel Muslims or Jews or Orthodox Christians to bow down to their theology. They allowed all to freely practice their faith. Likewise, there were instances in which the Muslims allowed Christians and Jews to practice their faiths, within the confines of their places of worship and homes.

5. The Crusades were a defensive war.

The Crusaders also saw their actions as a defensive war. “Christendom” had been attacked by Islamic armies for over 400 years with hardly a response from the Europeans. North Africa had been a bastion of Christianity. Same for Israel, Syria, and what is now Turkey.

Muslim armies conquered almost all of Spain, invaded France (stopped by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours) and even raided the outskirts of the city of Rome in the year 846! Finally, in 1095, Pope Urban II preached the sermon that launched the First Crusade. Over the next two hundred years, the Europeans would send thousands of soldiers in usually badly coordinated, piecemeal attacks to push back Muslim armies in Israel, Syria, and Egypt. They did not have the desire, plans, or military might to roll up the vast swath of Islamic territory outside those areas.

 

6. The Crusaders were protecting Europe.

The Crusades did slow down the advance of Islam into Europe.  And I think that is a VERY good thing!  The armies of Islam (under the leadership of the Turks) did “pick up steam” after the Crusades petered out in the 13th century, invaded what was left of the Byzantine Empire, and finally conquered it in 1453.

However, the memory of the Crusades in Europe lingered; the Europeans knew that they could definitely overcome many of their nationalistic hurdles and put together a united military to stop the Muslim invasion.  They slowed down the Turks at the Battle of Lepanto with a decisive naval victory in 1571.  But it was not until 1683 that a combined European army finally crushed the Turks at the Battle of Vienna and ended the threat of an Islamic invasion of Europe (until recently).

Continue reading...

6 Responses to The Truth About the Crusades

  • I have tried explaining to liberals what this post points out about the Crusades and Islam. They won’t countenance even considering it. They said that this is all ancient history and not relevant. Intelligent dialogue with a liberal is impossible. While I speak somewhat metaphorically, nevertheless liberals must be defeated so they do not win, muzzled so they cannot spread their propaganda, and emasculated so they cannot reproduce their filth. They will not listen to reason.

  • LQC,

    Hear, hear.

    We have tolerated their intolerance for far too long.

  • Thank you Donald McClarey, This is the first time our common history has coalesced into our Founding Principles and the founding of The United States. Without The Crusades, America would and could never be possible. Makes sense, at least to me, for once. God bless…”And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Live, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” from THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, signed and ratified by every state. It is time for American citizens, all constituents of the office of president, to coalesce into one nation under God.

  • They took the polite route at my school– they didn’t mention anything between “cavemen” and “world war II.”

    I wish I was exaggerating… there was some bit of WWI, but only in the context of “it was screwy and made WWII happen.”

  • Pingback: MONDAY EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • An interesting footnote to all of this is the faithfulness of God in defending the Roman Catholic heartland till the very end; in spite of temporary reversals now and then, in the final analysis, Roman Catholic lands were spared from submission. Indeed, the “gates of hell” did not prevail over Peter’s flock.

Quotes Suitable For Framing: Thomas Madden

Monday, February 9, AD 2015

4 Responses to Quotes Suitable For Framing: Thomas Madden

  • Deus Vult.

    Certainly, the divine assistance gave the “barbarians” the victory over the saracens.

    This day, Our Lord carried me in His wounded (for my sins) hands over 300 miles of ice- and snow-bound roads.

    I do not lift a finger without God’s (And Our Lady, my mother’s) prayers, intercessions, blessings and graces. It is impossible.

    “Jesus loves you more than you will know . . . ” Simon and Garfunkle, “Mrs. Robinson.”

  • “…for contemporaries living in the medieval age one thing alone explained the spectacular triumph of the First Crusade ‘God’s omnipotent will.'”
    .
    Even in today’s post-modern neo-paganism with militant Islam at the city gates will God’s omnipotent sovereign will accomplish what He has set out to do from the foundation of the universe.

  • While it is true that about 200 years later the Crusader states were gone and the Levant was firmly under Muslim control again, I often wonder how things might have progressed had there never been a First Crusade.

    The Crusades may not have saved the Holy Land for Christians; but did they save Europe?

  • “I often wonder how things might have progressed had there never been a First Crusade.”

    I think the Crusades bought Europe three centuries. A siege of Vienna by a muslim army in 1229 might have had a very different outcome than the siege of Vienna in 1529.

Quotes Suitable For Framing: Bobby Jindal

Saturday, February 7, AD 2015

8 Responses to Quotes Suitable For Framing: Bobby Jindal

  • What’s the matter with the blonde bimbo? Obviously she is breathless over every utterance that proceeds from the mouth of O’Bumbler.

  • She has her mouth puckered like she drank lemonade,not koolaid

  • The “blonde bimbo” is Mika Brzezinski, daughter of Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. She’s a Democrat raised in an Ivy League (Columbia) academic family, which is probably sufficient to explain the puckering, not to mention the repeated attempts to hush up Joe Scarborough’s justified and accurate rant against the Faculty-lounge-lizard-in-Chief.

  • I have mixed feelings about that quote. I like Jindal a lot – he’d be my #1 choice among the likely Republican primary candidates. (I live in Maryland, so my vote doesn’t matter, but it’d be for him.) I’m a big fan of experience in a candidate, and I love his resume. I even agree with what I’ve heard him saying on the issue of radical Islam. But it feels forced. It’s like a political consultant told him that he needs to be able to check off the foreign policy box, and the easiest way for a governor to do that is to bluster. The worst thing about it is that Bobby Jindal is a small guy. He can pull off “crisis manager” or “smartest guy in the room” or “American dream”, but he can’t swagger. If he tries to, he’s going to look like a fool.

  • “Please deal with the Radical Islamic Threat today.”

    He IS! He is dealing with it. Open borders! Don’t ever mention the truth, just say “workplace violence,” when a gunman opens fire on others while screaming praises to Allah.
    He is keeping his word about transparency…he just doesn’t know what transparency is. BO and Mongo are just pawns in the game of life.

  • I like Governor Jindal. I would like to hear more about his conversion from Hindu to Protestant and then Catholicism. When I hear him speak I listen because I think he is authentic.

  • Joe Scarborough wants to know where the President could get such ideas, “where does he go to church.” The President’s two main assaults on Christian history, the crusades and the Inquisition, are the two most popular attacks on the Catholic Church in the post reformation Protestant world. These attacks, full of error and exaggeration, were not the invention of modern secular leftists, they are centuries old anti-Catholic protestant propaganda.

  • I agree with you, Anzlyne. Gov. Jindal’s comment was short and on point. Finally someone in elected office called the president on his stupid remarks.

The Crusades and Historical Ignorance

Friday, February 6, AD 2015

 

One of the tenets of our faith is to instruct the ignorant.  Thus, for the benefit of President Obama who is obviously bone ignorant of the Crusades, I am reposting this post from 2012:

The above video is a salute to Rick Santorum, former candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, for understanding the essential nature of the Crusades as a defensive reaction to Islamic aggression.  In the video below we have a rather mindless reaction to the same quote from a talking head from the liberal group Young Turks, who, judging from his comments, gained his knowledge of the Crusades from the laughably ahistorical crusader bashing flick Kingdom of Heaven (2005).

 

Ignorance of the depth displayed in the video above is always to be lamented, and is not unusual, as noted by Dr. Thomas Madden, one of the foremost of the scholars of the Crusades, who, over the past 40 years, have revolutionized our knowledge and understanding of that epoch:

 

The crusades are quite possibly the most misunderstood event in European history. Ask a random American about them and you are likely to see a face wrinkle in disgust, or just the blank stare that is usually evoked by events older than six weeks. After all, weren’t the crusaders just a bunch of religious nuts carrying fire and sword to the land of the Prince of Peace? Weren’t they cynical imperialists seeking to carve out colonies for themselves in faraway lands with the blessings of the Catholic Church? A couch potato watching the BBC/A&E documentary on the crusades (hosted by Terry Jones of Monty Python fame no less) would learn in roughly four hours of frivolous tsk-tsk-ing that the peaceful Muslim world actually learned to be warlike from the barbaric western crusaders. No wonder, then, that Pope John Paul II was excoriated for his refusal to apologize for the crusades in 1999. No wonder that a year ago Wheaton College in Illinois dropped their Crusader mascot of 70 years. No wonder that hundreds of Americans and Europeans recently marched across Europe and the Middle East begging forgiveness for the crusades from any Muslim or Jew who would listen. No wonder.

Jonah Goldberg, in his just released book Tyranny of Cliches, demonstrates that he is aware of the current scholarship on the Crusades:

The great irony is that the zealot-reformers who want to return to a “pure” Islam have been irredeemably corrupted by Western ideas. Osama bin Laden had the idea that he was fighting the “new crusaders.” When George W. Bush once, inadvertently, used the word “crusade,” jihadists and liberal intellectuals alike erupted with rage. It was either a damning slip of the tongue whereby Bush accidentally admitted his real crusader agenda, or it was a sign of his stunning ignorance about the Crusades. Doesn’t he know what a sensitive issue the Crusades are? Doesn’t he know that the Crusades belong alongside the slaughter of the Indians, slavery, and disco in the long line of Western sins?

After all, it’s been in the papers for a while. In 1999, Muslim leaders demanded that Pope John Paul II apologize for the Crusades. “He has asked forgiveness from the Jews [for the Church’s passivity in the face of the Holocaust], so he should ask forgiveness from the Muslims,” Sheikh Ikrima Sabri, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, told the New York Times.3   Across the country sports teams have been dropping their crusader mas­cots because they’re offensive to . . . someone. Wheaton College changed their seventy-year-old team name from the Crusaders to the Thunder (no word from Thor worshippers yet as to whether they are off ended). Even Campus Crusade for Christ opted to change its name to Cru partly be­cause the word crusade has become too radioactive. “It’s become a flash word for a lot of people. It harkens back to other periods of time and has a negative connotation for lots of people across the world, especially in the Middle East,” Steve Sellers, the organization’s vice president told Christianity Today. “In the ’50s, crusade was the evangelistic term in the United States. Over time, different words take on different meanings to different groups.”

I’ll say. Until fairly recently, historically speaking, Muslims used to brag about being the winners of the Crusades, not the victims of it. That is if they talked about them at all. “The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineffectual re­sponse to the jihad—a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war,” writes Bernard Lewis, the greatest living historian of Islam in the English language (and perhaps any language).5 Historian Thomas Madden puts it more directly, “Now put this down in your notebook, because it will be on the test: The cru­sades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West’s belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world.”

Continue reading...

30 Responses to The Crusades and Historical Ignorance

  • These people are as ignorant about history as they are about science. I see it often as I discuss subjects related to nuclear energy with the average person. The hallmark of liberalism is the indoctrination of ignorance. By that means can liberals keep keeper shackled to the plantation of nanny government.

  • Messenger’s of God are known as angels. Pure spirit. Once in a great while ordinary people are mistaken as being angels. This brilliant message from Mr. McClarey could easily place him in that category. Thank you for your efforts to pass along this timely message. March forward Christian in righteousness and humility. Humble to the fact that we are not God. Righteous in the eyes of Him who gives us his Spirit to proclaim His Truth and boldly without shame, profess His Gospels. Day in and day out.
    Glory be to God!

  • Here are two proposals for future posts: “ISIS Is a Contemporary Footnote in The History of Islam 632 AD to Present: A Lengthy Narrative of Invasions, Massacres, and Rapine”, and “Islam, Obama and Infallible Ignorance.”

    In fact, the Crusades were defensive in nature, i.e. Christendom’s reactions to multiple Muslim conquests and rapines in Jerusalem.

    In conclusion, that was then. This is now. More babies are murdered in USA abortions in a typical week than heretics were burned in 100 years of the Spanish Inquisition.

  • In one of his better insights, Hegel summed up the results of the Crusades : “At this sepulchre the Christian world received a second time the response given to the disciples when they sought the body of the Lord there: “Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen.” You must not look for the principle of your religion in the Sensuous, in the grave among the dead, but in the living Spirit in yourselves… This then was the absolute result of the Crusades, and from them we may date the commencement of self-reliance and spontaneous activity. The West bade an eternal farewell to the East at the Holy Sepulchre, and gained a comprehension of its own principle of subjective infinite Freedom.”

  • “In conclusion, that was then. This is now. More babies are murdered in USA abortions in a typical week than heretics were burned in 100 years of the Spanish Inquisition.”

    That goes in my little black book of stolen quotes T. Shaw!

  • “Infallible Ignorance”

    Kind of an interesting term. Or did you mean invincible ignorance?

  • I would love to see a similar explanation of the Inquisition, particularly the Spanish Inquisition. From what I understand, it is not as big a “club” to beat Christianity with as people like Obama think it is.

  • The Crusades were a series of long, bloody wars. Like all other wars, the Crusades included some immoral acts. It’s theoretically possible to have a war without what we’d call “war crimes”, but I doubt it’s ever even come close to happening. We’re wise to avoid war when possible.

    I think it’s fairer to call the Crusades counter-offensive wars, rather than defensive wars, in the inter-civilizational war that Islam declared on Christianity. The war isn’t unique: Islam has declared war on Judaism, Hinduism, and everyone else. They won against Zoroastrianism. They’ve won against nearly every religion practiced within large parts of the world. They’ve also declared war against secularism.

    The current war definitely isn’t a crusade. The West has taken up everything but the Cross in response. We’ve taken up drones, helicopters, and satellite dish networks filled with dirty movies. The last item on the list may prove to be the most crippling. But even if the war is won, it won’t be Christianity’s victory.

  • “and satellite dish networks filled with dirty movies. The last item on the list may prove to be the most crippling.”

    Doubtful. Islamic cultures have had some of the most degrading porn imaginable for centuries.

  • Donald – Forgive me for going off-topic, but I just read this review:
    http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/jupiter-rising-seventh-son-review/

    and kept thinking, this sounds like the spiritual successor to Don’s favorite New Years’ movie.

  • It’s a sad commentary on the pitiful state of our Catholic institutions of
    higher learning that this president’s ignorant, cliched ideas on the nature
    of the crusades are so widespread and largely unchallenged. There are
    around 240 Catholic colleges in this nation, turning out tens of thousands
    of graduates each year for many decades– how is it that all of those millions
    of Catholic college graduates have been so miseducated? Shouldn’t those
    graduates be familiar with the historical truths about Christendom? Would we
    ever see members of Catholic university history departments pointing out to
    the press the errors of this president’s “history” regarding the crusades?

  • Clinton- AMEN!

    So many of the staff of Catholic colleges believe propaganda against the Church, have no understanding of the Church and science, and not much about what the Church actually teaches concerning society. I have heard a priest say in his homily that “if you have money, that means someone else doesn’t have it”.
    Even Franciscan schools and convents have only a warm fuzzy knowledge of St Francis. We’ve got Dominicans praying in ashrams and Jesuits who are so protestant they answer only to their own authority. Kids come out of Catholic high schools here thinking Israel should not have the land they are currently “occupying” and that Columbus Day should not be a national day of celebration.

  • “Donald – Forgive me for going off-topic, but I just read this review:
    http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/jupiter-rising-seventh-son-review/

    and kept thinking, this sounds like the spiritual successor to Don’s favorite New Years’ movie.”

    I have my eye on it Pinky. It definitely gives off a cult bad masterpiece vibe. The viewing will tell the tale.

  • Would you believe that, a couple of years ago, the Glasgow Herald published a letter from someone objecting to Scottish judges wearing “Crusader symbols” on their robes?

    http://tinyurl.com/lt9u4cd

  • I have realized the Democrats’ president is not ignorant. He certainly is not as intelligent as his handlers, controllers and puppetmasters, but he is smarter than a box of rocks. That being said, every word off his teleprompters, including words spoken at something called a “prayer” breakfast, is coldly calculated and premeditated. Divide, divide, divide is how you demonically destroy America. This is his only marching order. I note that he does not refer to the atrocities, torture, inhumanity and terror of Islamists as done “in the name of Mohammed” as they behead innocents shouting Allahu Akbar. Guy McClung, San Antonio

  • From an informed perspective, neither the medieval or modern Islamic situation justifies Obama’s equivocation. Either he lacks instruction or seeks to obfuscate the reality that confronts us. Either case in a person entrusted with the office he currently holds is unacceptable. There are people who acquire even advanced degrees who, while thoroughly indoctrinated, lack instruction. It is inane to characterize the Crusades by the concomitant crimes of the ignorant and malign who are a portion of humanity always and everywhere. We are presently confronted with militant Islamists bent on conquest and conducting brutal genocidal terror to achieve their goal. Our peculiar President seems to have other priorities, such as a one-party socialist state at home, to which he probably considers foreign affairs a distraction. His attitude is typical on the left, while a narrow view of national interest can be found on both sides of the political spectrum. Nonetheless, confronting genocide is clearly a matter of national interest. It is indeed a matter of every nation’s interest. Those nations having the capacity to do so have a serious moral obligation to save the victims of genocide. If the America that went to war with Hitler averts her gaze from the current horror, we should weep in shame.

  • I might add that Obama’s references to the inquisition and to slavery are also quite wrong. I doubt I need to inform anyone on this site about the inquisition but Muslims and slavery are historically intertwined. I understand that mangoes were not native to Africa but were planted all up and down the eastern coast by the Arabs to facilitate the feeding of the slaves they marched north.

  • Goldberg wrote some more on it, here:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/398115/obama-show-jonah-goldberg/page/0/1
    The ignorance gets a pass because it sounds smart– or, rather, makes them sound smart.

  • It’s not only ignorance. It’s their truth: that which advances the devolution.

  • For those of you that want to learn more about the Crusades, Fr. Z has ask his readership to suggest some good articles and books. Well worth your while. http://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/02/action-item-good-books-info-about-crusades-inquisition/

  • Steve Brown

    Steven Runciman’s three volume “History of the Crusades,” published between 1951 and 1954 provides the most comprehensive narrative.
    Of his method, he wrote, “The historian must attempt to add to his subjective study the qualities of intuitive sympathy and imaginative perception, without which he cannot hope to comprehend the fears and aspirations and convictions that have moved past generations,” a task in which he, in great measure, succeeded.

  • Runciman’s trilogy is vastly overrated and his judgment was often bizarre. For example, he called the taking of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade the greatest crime in human history, this being written when the ovens of the extermination camps of the Third Reich were barely a decade cold. His three volumes are colorful, and in many ways much of his scholarship was pioneering, but his work has definitely been superceded by more historically accurate recent studies. A good starting point for those interested in the new scholarship on the Crusades is Thomas Madden’s Illustrated History of the Crusades:

    http://www.amazon.com/Crusades-Illustrated-Thomas-F-Madden/dp/0472031279/ref=la_B001ILM9UE_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1423488056&sr=1-5

    Thomas Madden on Runciman:

    “It was in the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century that the current view of the Crusades was born. Most of the philosophes, like Voltaire, believed that medieval Christianity was a vile superstition. For them the Crusades were a migration of barbarians led by fanaticism, greed, and lust. Since then, the Enlightenment take on the Crusades has gone in and out of fashion. The Crusades received good press as wars of nobility (although not religion) during the Romantic period and the early twentieth century. After the Second World War, however, opinion again turned decisively against the Crusades. In the wake of Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin, historians found war of ideology–any ideology –distasteful. This sentiment was summed up by Sir Steven Runciman in his three-volume work, A History of the Crusades (1951-54). For Runciman, the Crusades were morally repugnant acts of intolerance in the name of God. The medieval men who took the cross and marched to the Middle East were either cynically evil, rapaciously greedy, or naively gullible. This beautifully written history soon became the standard. Almost single-handedly Runciman managed to define the modern popular view of the Crusades.

    Since the 1970s the Crusades have attracted many hundreds of scholars who have meticulously poked, prodded, and examined them. As a result, much more is known about Christianity’s holy wars than ever before. Yet the fruits of decades of scholarship have been slow to enter the popular mind. In part this is the fault of professional historians, who tend to publish studies that, by necessity, are technical and therefore not easily accessible outside of the academy. But it is also due to a clear reluctance among modern elites to let go of Runciman’s vision of the Crusades. And so modern popular books on the Crusades–desiring, after all, to be popular–tend to parrot Runciman. The same is true for other media, like the multi-part television documentary, The Crusades (1995), produced by BBC/A&E and starring Terry Jones of Monty Python fame. To give the latter an air of authority the producers spliced in a number of distinguished Crusade historians who gave their views on events. The problem was that the historians would not go along with Runciman’s ideas. No matter. The producers simply edited the taped interviews cleverly enough that the historians seemed to be agreeing with Runciman. As Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith quite vehemently told me, “They made me appear to say things that I do not believe!””

    http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/tmadden_crusademyths_feb05.asp

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “he called the taking of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade the greatest crime in human history…”
    One should bear in mind that Runciman more or less inaugurated Byzantine studies in England. His work earned him a Fellowship at Trinity College, Cambridge in 1927 and from 1942 to 1945 he was Professor of Byzantine Art and History at Istanbul University. His Byzantine Civilization (1933) long remained the standard text.
    Small wonder that he should have regarded the fall of Constantinople to the Franks as equivalent to the Sack of Rome by the Goths. Speaking of it in 2004, St John Paul II asked the Ecumenical Patriarch, “How can we not share, at a distance of eight centuries, the pain and disgust?”
    It surely ranks with the burning of the Library of Alexandria or with Justinian’s closure of Plato’s Academy.

  • Don, thank you for this post. I’ve been viewing the short videos on Stephen Robert’s http://www.realhistorycrusades.com. Easy learning. Great artwork. Never would have found the site without this post.
    I am appalled at the current political correctness by Catholic and Christian organizations regarding the use of Crusade, Crusaders and crusade.
    Belated Happy Birthday.

  • Guy McClung, you are spot on. “Divide est impera.” J. Caesar, Latin I. If only the president were ignorant. It is chilling to believe that most of his remarks are premeditated. I do believe it; there is a script that is as you said “coldly calulated”. Wake up America!
    As for Europe and fanatical Muslims,”Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” -Santyana

  • As an observer of the Obama phenomenon, I’ve tried to be reasonably charitable. I have told myself, “Oh pay him no mind, it’s just the relativism talking”. All the while, a darker suspicion lurks in my mind, and I begin to think we have a serious obligation to sleuth it out.

  • “One should bear in mind that Runciman more or less inaugurated Byzantine studies in England.”

    No excuse for his morally deranged statement.

    “the fall of Constantinople to the Franks as equivalent to the Sack of Rome by the Goths.”

    A fair analogy that they both happened to declining powers whose best years were far behind them and lacked the military strength to uphold their imperial pretensions.

    “How can we not share, at a distance of eight centuries, the pain and disgust?”

    Popes are not going to get unity with the Orthodox no matter how much they abase themselves and make silly statements. (After eight centuries anyone who is still feeling pain over the fall of Constantinople to the Fourth Crusade really needs to get a life.)

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “Popes are not going to get unity with the Orthodox no matter how much they abase themselves and make silly statements”

    2004 was the eighth centenary of the sack of the city and, in a meeting with the Patriarch, the Pope could hardly pass over it in silence.

  • Has your pastor had a quiet one-on-one talk with everyone in your parish who shows up for Mass driving a car sporting an Obama bumper sticker?

    Mine hasn’t either.

  • “2004 was the eighth centenary of the sack of the city and, in a meeting with the Patriarch, the Pope could hardly pass over it in silence.”

    Why meet with the Patriarch at all? The orthodox have made it plain they are not interested in unity. This type of rubbish is a waste of time and merely makes the Popes look weak.

The Truth About the Crusades

Sunday, October 5, AD 2014

 

Breitbart tells us about a new series on EWTN:

 

But in the Middle Ages, kings and knights of Christendom set forth to push back against the inroads of Islamic forces into majority Christian areas in the Holy Land and beyond. Once considered a noble, if ultimately failed, campaign to make sacred sites safe for Christian pilgrims, over the last century or so, the Crusades have gradually become recast as an imperialist surge against peaceful people.

Like many notions currently promulgated by academia and the media, it’s a near-reversal of what actually happened over the course of centuries. As with any great human endeavor, the Crusades had their share of stupidity, brutality, greed, and misadventure, but that is only a piece of the whole story.

And of all the people asked to comment on the Crusades–from scholars to reporters to filmmakers to novelists to activists–one group seldom allowed to have its say is the Catholic Church, whose history is inextricably linked with that of the Crusades.

From October 8-11, at 10 p.m. (ET) each night, EWTN presents The Crusades, a four-part series shot on location in seven countries (Turkey, Israel, France, Austria, England, Spain, and Slovakia). Described at the EWTN blog as “a well-rounded understanding of an important historical event,” each episode features original dramatizations, original music recorded in Europe, and commentary from historians specializing in the period.

These historians are Professor Jonathan Phillips, professor of Crusading History at Royal Holloway, University of London; Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith of Cambridge University, one of Britain’s leading experts on the Crusades; and Professor Thomas F. Madden, chair of the Department of History at St. Louis University, who not only focuses on the Crusades but on the larger issue of the Christian-Muslim conflict.

Preceding the premiere on Wednesday, October 8, airing at 8 p.m. ET is a special episode of EWTN Live, with EWTN staffer and Middle Eastern scholar Father Mitch Pacwa interviewing Stefano Mazzeo, writer, producer, and host of The Crusades, and Madden, author of A Concise History of the Crusades.

In advance of this, on Sunday, October 5, at 10 p.m. ET, EWTN airs Franciscan University Presents Myths About the Crusades, with commentary from Dr. Paul Crawford, professor of medieval history at California University of Pennsylvania (located in the Pennsylvania town of California, near Pittsburgh), along with host Michael Hernon and panelists Dr. Regis Martin, professor of theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville (Ohio), and Catholic convert and theologian Dr. Scott Hahn.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to The Truth About the Crusades

  • Pingback: Islamist Kidnap Young Girls for Sex Slavery - BigPulpit.com
  • Good post

  • Hopefully this will correct some of the disinformation contained in the Terry Jones series and the later, equally awful in its own way, series on the History Channel.

  • Only problem obama-worshipping morons don’t watch ETWN.

  • It is a start and then if we could get Henri Pirenne, a Belgian historian’s thesis into the public square it would help the discussion and put the era into context.

  • The split in Christianity between East and West allowed Islam to conquer Constantinople. Interestingly enough, it was Western Christianity – specifically the Catholic Church – who stood up to Islam, fought Islam, and drove it almost entirely from the European continent. Eastern Orthodoxy was influenced by Islam, much as Orthodoxy has been influenced by whoever was running Russia.

    The Crusades have been misconstrued by those with an ax to grind against the Catholic Church. I am tired of anti-Catholics. this series looks interesting, coming as it is right after the great Feast of Our Lady of Victory.

  • The academy, the media, and the government are deliberating lying.
    .

    The Crusades phase ended when Acre fell in 1291. This total war has been flagrant, and desultory, for nearly 14 centuries.
    .

The Crusades and Historical Ignorance

Saturday, May 5, AD 2012

The above video is a salute to Rick Santorum, former candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, for understanding the essential nature of the Crusades as a defensive reaction to Islamic aggression.  In the video below we have a rather mindless reaction to the same quote from a talking head from the liberal group Young Turks, who, judging from his comments, gained his knowledge of the Crusades from the laughably ahistorical crusader bashing flick Kingdom of Heaven (2005).

Ignorance of the depth displayed in the video above is always to be lamented, and is not unusual, as noted by Dr. Thomas Madden, one of the foremost of the scholars of the Crusades, who, over the past 40 years, have revolutionized our knowledge and understanding of that epoch:

 

The crusades are quite possibly the most misunderstood event in European history. Ask a random American about them and you are likely to see a face wrinkle in disgust, or just the blank stare that is usually evoked by events older than six weeks. After all, weren’t the crusaders just a bunch of religious nuts carrying fire and sword to the land of the Prince of Peace? Weren’t they cynical imperialists seeking to carve out colonies for themselves in faraway lands with the blessings of the Catholic Church? A couch potato watching the BBC/A&E documentary on the crusades (hosted by Terry Jones of Monty Python fame no less) would learn in roughly four hours of frivolous tsk-tsk-ing that the peaceful Muslim world actually learned to be warlike from the barbaric western crusaders. No wonder, then, that Pope John Paul II was excoriated for his refusal to apologize for the crusades in 1999. No wonder that a year ago Wheaton College in Illinois dropped their Crusader mascot of 70 years. No wonder that hundreds of Americans and Europeans recently marched across Europe and the Middle East begging forgiveness for the crusades from any Muslim or Jew who would listen. No wonder.

Jonah Goldberg, in his just released book Tyranny of Cliches, demonstrates that he is aware of the current scholarship on the Crusades:

The great irony is that the zealot-reformers who want to return to a “pure” Islam have been irredeemably corrupted by Western ideas. Osama bin Laden had the idea that he was fighting the “new crusaders.” When George W. Bush once, inadvertently, used the word “crusade,” jihadists and liberal intellectuals alike erupted with rage. It was either a damning slip of the tongue whereby Bush accidentally admitted his real crusader agenda, or it was a sign of his stunning ignorance about the Crusades. Doesn’t he know what a sensitive issue the Crusades are? Doesn’t he know that the Crusades belong alongside the slaughter of the Indians, slavery, and disco in the long line of Western sins?

After all, it’s been in the papers for a while. In 1999, Muslim leaders demanded that Pope John Paul II apologize for the Crusades. “He has asked forgiveness from the Jews [for the Church’s passivity in the face of the Holocaust], so he should ask forgiveness from the Muslims,” Sheikh Ikrima Sabri, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, told the New York Times.3   Across the country sports teams have been dropping their crusader mas­cots because they’re offensive to . . . someone. Wheaton College changed their seventy-year-old team name from the Crusaders to the Thunder (no word from Thor worshippers yet as to whether they are off ended). Even Campus Crusade for Christ opted to change its name to Cru partly be­cause the word crusade has become too radioactive. “It’s become a flash word for a lot of people. It harkens back to other periods of time and has a negative connotation for lots of people across the world, especially in the Middle East,” Steve Sellers, the organization’s vice president told Christianity Today. “In the ’50s, crusade was the evangelistic term in the United States. Over time, different words take on different meanings to different groups.”4

I’ll say. Until fairly recently, historically speaking, Muslims used to brag about being the winners of the Crusades, not the victims of it. That is if they talked about them at all. “The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineffectual re­sponse to the jihad—a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war,” writes Bernard Lewis, the greatest living historian of Islam in the English language (and perhaps any language).5 Historian Thomas Madden puts it more directly, “Now put this down in your notebook, because it will be on the test: The cru­sades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West’s belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world.”6

Continue reading...

37 Responses to The Crusades and Historical Ignorance

  • I just finished Goldberg’s book. Not quite as good as Liberal Fascism, but still very enlightening as he takes hammer to a bunch of trite cliches that rule our political discourse. The Crusades extract taken above is part of a larger chapter about the Catholic Church and the bone dry ignorance that persists in certain quarters about it.

  • All lies. All the time.

    You can detect when a liberal is lying: his lips are moving.

  • i, as may be noticed, tend to be naive– thinking if those other guys just really UNDERSTOOD, were really educated on the subject, they would change their behavior… like on the issue of Georgetown and Sebelius (isn’t there a great composer with that same name?)
    … if the Young Turks, and Shepard Smith (who has also made remarks about the Crusades on air) and those priests at Georgetown just really UNDERSTOOD I can’t imagine they would do what they do.
    but sadly I am forced to see that they do understand, and this is just what they choose. God gives us an Intellect and a Will and puts the choice before us. Those of the Other Side do have their Intellect engaged– and are making their choice.
    yes, the war of ideas precedes other wars on this plane… the efforts to discredit Santorum, to occupy wall street etc., all use useful idiots…. and it is important to educate them about the truth of history.. but our concern about the truth of the Crusades goes beyond judging them fair or foul– but joining them. The devil is NOT an idiot..

  • For them the truth is that which serves the cause.

    It is easy to exaggerate, distort, fabricate, omit aspects of major events that occurred 1,000 years ago.

    Lying about history serves the narrative and the agenda.

    Students are indoctrinated not educated. Taught what to think, not how to think.

    The narrative: Western European institutions, economics, men are essentially evil, in fact, the source of all evil. The agenda: it must be destroyed. America is the primary target.

  • Ah, the Crusades. Along with their slightly taller cousin the ‘Dark Ages,’ both seem to be the favorite historical trump card to be played, well, whenever.

    Fortunately, in some ways both have undergone a sort of rehabilitation within the academic world. Many of the more recent books I have read on the Crusades take a far more moderate approach- at the very least the chronological snobbery is held to a minimum.

    I thought The First Crusade: The Roots of Conflict between Christianity and Islam by Thomas Asbridge was a decent read- unlike many historical works, he is a good writer and crafts a stirring account. The Battle of Antioch chapter could actually be considered a page turner. Granted, the subtitle kind of gives away where it ultimately ends up, but his concluding thesis is more nuanced than the title (no doubt foisted upon it by the publisher) might lead one to believe.

    As far as the ‘Dark Ages,’ Barbarians to Angels by Peter Wells is a good read, dealing more with the archaeological evidence. I’ve also written briefly about it on my blog.

    One of things I appreciate about this blog is the attention given to history and the care and sobriety with which it is handled. I’m not Catholic, (yet) but I am thankful for voices such as these, since so many authors are far more tempted to be lazy with the material and parrot the more popularized narratives, especially when it comes to Christian history.

    Thanks.

  • “One of things I appreciate about this blog is the attention given to history and the care and sobriety with which it is handled. ”

    A high compliment indeed Jason, and we thank you for it!

  • I am always happy to see history put in the correct context. Cultural Marxism has corrupted our view. So many subscribe to the materialist fallacy of the long march of history, as if history is sentient and fatalistic. Removes responsibility of the individual I guess-somehow that must be ‘comforting’ to some.

    Ah, for the sake of accuracy, Rick Santorum is not technically a FORMER candidate, he is a current candidate with a suspended campaign. Same applies to Speaker Gingrich. Until delegates vote at convention, there is no nominee and Mitt is incapable of securing 1144 prior, less so to defeat Obama. If we get another four of him thanks to a weak liberal GOP candidate like Romney, then we may need to launch a Crusade because Catholics (at least if you are ‘one of THOSE Catholics) will face pogroms (perhaps not violent, but legal and psychological pogroms can be just as bad.)

  • American Knight,

    “Cultural Marxism” is excellent short-hand for it, but it really goes back long before Marx…and, in fact, a case might be made that Marx could only have written his theories because for a long time intellectual adherence to truth had been fading. Not to try and start a fight with anyone, but when our Protestant brothers and sisters set about justifying their break with Rome its not like they could rigidly adhere to truth, now could they? It became a necessity, as it were, to re-cast the past in a manner which justified the desires of the present. Do that for a few centuries and it becomes rather easy to do what has been done to the Crusades – simply make up a fairy tale about them and call it “history”.

    It is quite daunting when one thinks about it – how the heck can we get the truth to be widely accepted when a gigantic series of inter-locking lies have been deeply ingrained in our society? I don’t know how to do it – but I suspect that only a revival of Catholic militancy will ever do it.

  • Pingback: The Crusades and Historical Ignorance | The American Catholic | Catholic Canada
  • Right on Mark. I was attempting to cast it in light of an ‘acceptable’ villain (Marx, despite the current occupant of the WH), but Protestantism, although not today’s adherents, certainly is a significant contributor. We can lay blame at Machiavelli and Wesihupt, et al. as well. Of course the father of lies is the ultimate culprit. But I think you identified the most blameworthy human culprit: You and me. Yes, brothers & sisters, it is our fault for as Mark pointed out we are not behaving as the Church Militant. This, I suspect is the reason God is allowing the present and intensifying persecution of the Church and Obama’s attempt at setting up an anti-Church.

    On this ‘Mexican holiday’ perhaps we should recall the bitter history of our southern neighbor with the Church and get busy. Viva Cristo Rey!

  • The Enlightenment cast religion as the villain, didn’t it?

    Given three big cultural revolution type examples like that, I think we can put it down to the human love for obvious villains.

  • @ Jason: “One of things I appreciate about this blog is the attention given to history and the care and sobriety with which it is handled. ”

    Here! Here!

  • One thing that is frequently left out of the placing of the Crusades in it’s fitting historical context is the important fact that… these battles were fairly insignificant affairs. The numbers involved and the cities at issue were both small. The population density of that region was negligible, conditions were inhospitable, and resources for extended campaigning in short supply and difficult to impossible to replace. That the Crusades have any significance at all is entirely as a result of the cultural residue of the real estate it took place on. The Byzantines had been campaigning, often very successfully, against various iterations of Islamic challengers for hundreds of years. Christian vs. Muslim, but w/o the cultural cache.

    The Crusades happened not even 1000 years ago, and yet it is separated from our understanding by a gulf so deep and wide as to be impassable. I hold that historical research has done the best it can, given what is available, in attempting to make sense of near antiquity. Far off or deep antiquity might as well be another planet altogether. The reality is that there is so precious little available that a frank admission of almost total ignorance is the order of the day. Unfortunately, the Crusades can be just about anything you want it to be.

  • Lepanto is in the Holy Land?

  • “The reality is that there is so precious little available that a frank admission of almost total ignorance is the order of the day. Unfortunately, the Crusades can be just about anything you want it to be.”

    Actually our knowledge of the Crusades has been expanding rapidly in the past few decades. A good starting point is to read some of the numerous works of Dr. Riley-Smith.

    http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/jonathanrileysmith.html

    Here is a link to a First Things Article in which Riley-Smith explains what the Crusades were:

    http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/rethinking-the-crusades-35

    The Crusades are not something that “can be just about anything you want it to be”, but rather historical events that we can know much about if we have the determination to make our way through the mountains of good scholarship available.

  • I’ve been told by folks who actually study the “dark ages” that anyone who talks about the “dark ages” and doesn’t qualify it should be looked at with a bit of suspicion…. they’re “dark” because of the lack of data, not because of some inherent characteristic.

    Which I am thankful for, since it gave me a big flashing WARNING sign when a friend from high school that’s into anthropology started going on about how horrible the middle ages were.

    Want something really funny? Watch Terry Jones’ series on “Medieval Lives.” The conflict between offending modern assumptions and being pissed at the Catholic Church is hilarious! (If you’ve got Netflix, I suggest a drinking game for “The Hidden History of Rome.” Every time you recognize a phrase from modern political arguments, take a half-shot of beer. I can’t suggest anything stronger because being drunk is sinful….

  • Pingback: Crusades SSPX Pornography Dan Savage Pope Benedict XVI | The Pulpit
  • Foxfier- excellent points.

    The perception of the ‘dark ages’ comes both from a lack of data and a residue of cultural snobbery (for lack of a better term) left over from the Renaissance. (which, in many respects, was not really much of a renaissance at all.)

    The interesting thing is that many of the writers/thinkers/whatever of the renaissance period shared similar perceptions towards the culture of the early Middle Ages as those whose writings from that era are still extant- namely, if the cultural or societal artifact under consideration didn’t have a decidedly ‘golden age of Rome’ quality, then it was somehow inferior. (I’m making broad strokes here, of course.)

    Never mind that none of the writers/thinkers/whatever from either period had ever experienced such a thing or that such a thing probably never existed. (sorry Gibbon…) Never mind that technological innovation (such as advances in agriculture that brought about the (probably) first time in human history where physical development wasn’t hampered by malnutrition) and cultural production and creativity flourished. If you’re not writing Ciceronian Latin or sculpting Phidian Amazons it’s simply barbaric, damn it! Your exquisitely ornamental fibulae just don’t have that Roman seriousness!

    As far as the lack of data- one of the problems of earlier studies of the ‘dark ages’ that led to its equivalence with ignorance, lawlessness and the like was that archaeological knowledge was scarcer than today, combined with a tendency to harbor a favorable prejudice towards literary evidence. Even in this respect there are different categories of literary evidence- those of a more narrative nature (like Gregory of Tours, Bede, etc.) are more scarce than evidence from land purchases and disbursements, legal proceedings, etc.

    Additionally, as with the Crusades, computers have been instrumental in recasting the way in which these events and periods are perceived, as they can correlate data more easily and systematically. For example, one common misconception about the Crusades is that many of the Crusaders went off to the Holy Land in hopes of striking it rich. No doubt some did, but on the whole the opposite is actually the case, as crusading was horribly expensive. Even the wealthy often had to sell off land or take loans against them to fund themselves and their entourage.

    Sigh. Now look what you’ve made me do. Apologies for the verbosity. 🙂

  • Apologies for the verbosity.

    In the words of my generation– dude! That ain’t verbose for the amount of actual information conveyed!

    Watch what I say for a notion of verbose minus data conveyed!

  • Thank you for the links.
    I am glad to see that you feel that after some 900 years we are finally getting some proper perspective on the matter! “Make haste slowly” if ever I saw. Please, don’t get me wrong. The prospect of making my way through a mountain of good scholarship wets my whistle. It is just a question for me of pay off. In weighing my time commitments (active practice of the Catholic faith already generates a lot of reading commitments) I’d much rather explore Cluny as an expression of the Catholic theoarchy, aka Christendom, than the relatively small potatoes of the Crusades, except in so far as it relates to the former. Acknowledgment: it is a significant relationship.

    Seeing as you take exception to my “can be whatever you what it to be” stance, what are the Crusades to you? A forgotten-at-best or abused-at-worst historical period that is only now getting the valiant defense it needs or a relishing at the prospect of smacking the anti-historical socialist/leftist/anarchists on the snout? If you don’t like my proffering, feel free to complete this sentence: “The Crusades, to me, represent _____________.”

    Eh? What’s that? You know I’m right? Yes you do.

  • If you don’t like my proffering, feel free to complete this sentence: “The Crusades, to me, represent _____________.”

    I wish I could put this better, but….

    Grow up.

    History isn’t about you, or anyone else.

    History is about what was.

    If you can’t accept that, it says something about YOU, not about then.

    We may not know this-and-that about some other time, but that doesn’t mean that it’s about us. “Then” is ALWAYS about then.

  • The bees fly in swarms, and do not begrudge each other the flowers. It is not so with us. We are not at unity. More eager about his own wrath than his own salvation, each aims his sting against his neighbor.

    St Basil the Great.

  • Good men and women must confront it or evil prevails.

    The issue is that jihadis, liberals, progressives, and other assorted evil persons distort history to support their vile agendae.

    In the case of the Crusades: OBL, et al use the lies to recruit mass murderers. Liberals use the lies support the memes that we deserve to be massacred and that all things Western Civilization must be destroyed.

    I studied the Crusades, particularly the military orders, for edification: try to understand the men and women, and the world views, of the age; and to understand how we got here.

    That was years before Lockerbie and the Beirut bombing. In the 1950’s, NYC Catholic parish schools taught fifth graders that the Crusades also served as an opening of exchanges on various levels of the West to the East . . .

  • Disco is a western sin in a class by itself. Maybe joined by polyester leisure suits.

  • We can never repent too much for those sins cmatt! 🙂

  • All this erudition makes my head hurt. However, I do wish people would check the spelling of their comments. Saying “wets” instead of “whets” completely changes the meaning of the sentence. By the way, the Battle of Lepanto was fought in a strait between the Bay of Corinth and the Ionian Sea. I apologize, but as my old aunt used to say “It’s the little things in life that make it beautiful.”

  • Are we talking all Crusades? What about the Fourth Crusade? (1201-1204). This group of Crusaders were supposed to go directly to Cairo, leaving Europe in June of 1202. They changed course from the Holy Land and took Constantinople on April 12, 1204. Pope Innocent III had issued a solemn ban on attacks on Christian states. The Crusaders were asked for help by members of the feuding Angelos Dynasty. In exchange the Crusaders were to receive land and money. After defeating Alexius V Angelos (who had usurped the throne from his predecessor Alexius IV Angelos, put in power by the Crusaders) they sacked the city desecrating the Most Holy Eucharist, profaning Hagia Sophia, pillaging churches and monasteries, violating nuns, killing priests, raping women and children, stealing countless ikons, relics and manuscripts.
    Bishops and priests were among the Crusaders, none were documented as trying to stop the destruction of the city.
    In mercy and Christian charity, please, please no one say that these sins were brought on by a Byzantine leader or because Latins considered the Byzantines schismatics and therefore somehow justified in this sacrilege. I have heard these pathetic excuses before.
    The Crusaders could recognize the image of our Lord or His all pure Mother in the ikons. The churches of the city were familiar enough to Western eyes to be recognized as churches. What else could be in the golden artophorions on the altars other than the Holy Gifts of the Eucharist? Could the Crusaders not recognize the image of the Lord in those they killed, raped or used as slaves? The defeat of Byzantium, already in great decline, was accelerated so that the Byzantines eventually became an easy prey of the Muslims. The Fourth Crusade resulted, in the end, in the victory of Islam, which was of course the exact opposite of its original intention of the Crusades.

  • The best work I have read on the Fourth Crusade is Donald Queller and Thomas Madden’s The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople:

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Fourth-Crusade-Conquest-Constantinople/dp/0812217136

    Pope Innocent III of course condemned this misuse of the Crusade. Byzantium was already well on its way to being a military nonfactor before the Latin Empire, created by the conquest of Constantinople, occupied Constantinople until 1261. The recreated Byzantine Empire then endured until 1453, courtesy largely of Turkish internecine conflict and support from the West, most notably the sea power of Venice and the other Italian city states with merchant empires in the east. The popes of course continually called for assistance to the Greeks and other Christians in the East throughout this period, calls which were increasingly ignored as the centuries rolled by.

    The sacking of Constantinople is considered a cause celebre to this day by the Greek Orthodox. I would have more sympathy for this attitude of perpetual high dudgeon if Byzantine armies hadn’t been besieging and sacking cities in the West, including Rome, for many centuries. Internecine strife among Christian polities was never a one way street, and the sack of Constantinpole is usually considered some sort of unique crime and that is simply not the case.

  • (Guest comment by Don’s wife Cathy:) It happened back in the 6th century, Fr. Philip, when Justinian was trying to reconquer Italy back from the Ostrogoths (through generals such as Belisarius and Narses). It’s the backdrop against which L. Sprague de Camp’s alternate history novel Lest Darkness Fall is set (and SF author Harry Turtledove has credited that book with getting him interested enough in Byzantine history to get a Ph.D. in it).

  • Hi Cathy! I have found nothing that states that Justinian or Belisarios sacked Rome. While the war against the Ostrogoths brought suffering to the people of Italy, I cannot find any historical information stating the Imperial forces during battles desecrated churches or violated monastics. I can’t find any reference regarding forces of the Empire of stealing ikons, manuscripts and sacred vessels. I do know that the Ostrogoths were Arians and that Justinian was concerned not only about his control of Italy but also the spread of heresy. War and slaughter are always counter to the mercy of God so Justinian’s way was not good, no question there. But war unfortunately seems to be part of human sinfulness. Still, I find no reference to the type of sinfulness shown by the forces of the Fourth Crusade to people, places and things consecrated to the Lord.
    Regarding alternative history novels, I have read many the works of L. Sprague de Camp, Harry Turtledove and S.M. Stirling. They are, as you said, “alternative history.” When Darkness Falls offers de Camp’s sympathetic view of the benevolence of the Ostrogoths, while that is fine it is not reality. Here is another alternate history option; if Justinian had not fought against the Ostrogoths would Western Christianity be Arian?

  • “if Justinian had not fought against the Ostrogoths would Western Christianity be Arian?”

    Probably not because the war with the Ostrogoths opened the door for the conquest of most of Italy by the Lombards who were also Arian. They were peacefully converted by the Church in the seventh century. Addditionally the Franks had already been converted to the True Faith under Clovis and were quickly becoming a secular mainstay of the Church in the West.

    Rome surrendered during the siege because the Byzantine army brutally sacked Naples in November 536 and the Romans rightfully feared similar treatment. Justinian of course fell into heresy during his reign and had absymal relations with the popes of his time.

  • I was responding to the mention of “alternative history” regarding the Ostrogothic Arianism and the Orthodoxy that Justinian promoted. Cathy mentioned alternative history in response to my earlier post. In the realm of alternative history the Lombards might have never gotten an ascendency. So much for alternative history!

    Objective history (see the only exception I can find below) seems to show that Justinian was a firm proponent of Orthodoxy; he condemned and worked to stamp out heresy during his rule. He made belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation part of the law of the Empire and he stated that the heterodox were to be deprived of due process of law. The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was made the only creedal symbol of the Church in his reign and he gave legal force to the canons of the first four Ecumenical Councils. He called the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553, condemning the teachings of Origen and affirming the definitions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon. Justinian also took a very firm stance in his support of Orthodoxy; he fought different heresies throughout his rule. He built churches, including Hagia Sophia and showed a tender devotion for the Mother of God. He lived a moral and pious life.
    The only primary source I can find regarding an accusation of heresy against Justinian is in The Life of St. Eutychios of Constantinople. The hagiographical document accuses Justinian of subscribing to the asartodoketai/aphthartodocetist heresy which taught that the Incarnate Word could not suffer in the flesh. Evagrios the Historian states that Justinian issued a decree imposing this heresy on the Empire. No copy of this decree has been found, nor did any hierarch or Council other than St. Eutychios denounce Justinian for holding this heresy. That St. Eutychios and Justinian were at odds was obvious through other events. Justinian ordered St. Eutychios deposed; there is no mention in primary documents as to why this was done. An accusation of heresy by a hierarch was a good way to denounce an Imperial opponent. Deposition from an episcopal throne by a ruler was a good way to remove an annoying hierarch.
    Justinian and the bishops of Rome did have many serious disputes, though none of the popes ever accused him of heresy.

  • Justinian towards the end of his reign adopted a policy of conciliation towards the Monophysites. Towards the end of his life he adopted aphthartodocetism which is simply Monphysitism under another name. Many Greek Orthodox writers, to whom Justinian is a great champion of Orthodoxy, dispute this but as this passage from J.B. Bury’s History of the Later Roman Empire indicates, I believe the historical record is clear on this point:

    “The Three Chapters was not the last theological enterprise of Justinian. In the last years of his life he adopted the dogma of aphthartodocetism, which had been propagated, as we have seen, by Julian of Halicarnassus, and had sown strife among the Monophysites of Egypt. This change of opinion is generally considered an aberration due to senility; but when we find a learned modern theologian asserting that the aphthartodocetic dogma is a logical development of the Greek doctrine of salvation,we may hesitate to take Justinian’s conversion to it as a sign that his intellectual power had been enfeebled by old age. The Imperial edict in which he dictated the dogma has not been preserved. The Patriarch Eutychius firmly refused to accept it, and the Emperor, not forgetting his success in breaking the will of Vigilius, caused him to be arrested (January 22, A.D. 565). He was first sent to the Island of the Prince and then banished to a monastery at Amasea. The other Patriarchs were unanimous in rejecting the Imperial dogma. Anastasius of Antioch and his bishops addressed to the Emperor a reasoned protest against the edict. Their bold remonstrances enraged Justinian, and he was preparing to deal with them, as he had dealt with Eutychius, when his death relieved the Church from the prospect of a new persecution.”

  • Donald, I know of the recent scholarship that states that Justinian was a heretic. However, there is no statement by the Church that he was. Analysis of writings and documents of Church documents contemporary to the subject do not support the premise that Justinian fell into heresy. The supposed decree ordering the Empire to accept Monophytism either did not exist or cannot be found.

    You state that the Orthodox dispute that Justinian was a heretic and this is true. Does the fact that many Orthodox writers believe Justinian was Orthodox make it untrue? Is this debate about Latin claims versus Orthodox claims?

    You states that many, “Orthodox writers, to whom Justinian is a great champion of Orthodoxy, dispute this but a passage from J.B. Bury’s History of the Later Roman Empire…” proves your point.

    Here is the “other side.”

    Father Asterios Gerostergios (yes, he is one of those Orthodox folks) in his book Justinian the Great, refutes the assertion that Justinian succumbed in his last years to the heresy of aphthartodocetism. The depositions of both Eutychius and Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch cannot be proven to be related to their opposition to the supposed edict.

    “That they were deposed because of their refusal to accept the edict we do not believe to be true because of the following reasons:
    1. The bishop of Northern Africa, Victor, an enemy of the Emperor, mentions the deposition of Eutychius in his Chronicle, but does not give any reasons for the deposition. If he really knew anything about a new edict, and if, further, he knew of Justinian’s acceptance of the aphthartodocetistic heresy, not only would he certainly have mentioned it, but he would also have emphasized the event, in order to defame Justinian’s exiling and imprisoning him.
    2. If Eutychius had been deposed for this reason, his successor, John the Scholastic, would have had to accept such a decree. We have absolutely no information concerning his acceptance of the edict, nor any testimony that he accepted aphthartodocetism. On the contrary, Pope [Saint] Gregory the Great, who was then the papal representative in Constantinople, praises the new patriarch, John, for his holiness and Orthodoxy.
    3. The same Pope Gregory praises Justinian for his Orthodoxy and he makes no mention of the edict. He says that Patriarch Eutychius was an Origenist. For this reason, W. H. Hutton and A. Knecht have stated: this was the cause for Eutychius’ deposition.
    4. When Patriarch Eutychius returned to the throne of Constantinople in 577, he did not mention the reasons for his dethronement.
    5. Bishop John of Ephesus, contrary to Evagrius, makes no mention of what transpired in Antioch concerning the deposition of Anastasius. … For all the above reasons, we can only conclude that Justinian never issued or planned to issue an edict imposing aphthartodocetism. Such an act would have been in antithesis to his whole previous theological work, and it is clear that it would not have helped the overall purpose of unification. Moreover, such a complete change at such an advanced age, we believe to be a totally unnatural thing. With regard to the deposition of the two mentioned Patriarchs, we believe that it was not related to such an edict, because there is no basis for such a conclusion from the contemporary sources. We are of the opinion that their deposition was due to other reasons, probably to their failure to obey the old Emperor.”

    The sad claim that “…aphthartodocetic dogma is a logical development of the Greek doctrine of salvation…” by Bury does not stand up to the reality of the Orthodox view of salvation. Aphthartodocetic heresy is found nowhere in the writings of the Eastern Fathers, later writers, canonical writings, the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy or the lives of the saints. Bury shows his ignorance of Orthodox soteriology and faith. I know of no contemporary Roman Catholic theologian who would hold this view, including the current Pope Benedict. His writings only show admiration for Orthodox soteriology.

As The September 11 Anniversary Nears, A Review Of Al Qaeda's Little Reported-On War Against The Catholic Church

Tuesday, September 7, AD 2010

While most of the world mourns the nearly three thousand who were brutally murdered by Al Qaeda on September 11, 2001, many assume all of Al Qaeda attacks stem from a warped political motive. Most may not be aware that since the day of its inception many of Al Qaeda’s targets have involved the Catholic Church and her holy sites.

Less than one year before the September 11, 2001 attacks Al Qaeda was planning a spectacular Christmas attack at the large and historic Strasbourg Cathedral in France. While this attack was foiled, an attack on the Catholic cathedral in Jakarta, Indonesia was not thwarted, resulting in the deaths of several churchgoers and those on a nearby street.

Yet, five years before this brazen plan, an even more sinister plan was nearly carried out by the chief planner of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Khalid Sheik Muhammad, which he coordinated to coincide with the visit of Pope John Paul II to Manila for World Youth Day in January of 1995. The plan called for the pontiff to be killed along with countless of the faithful who was planning to see him in Manila that day. Incidentally, some speculate that the crowd that came to see the Polish pontiff that day was nearly the same size that came to see his funeral some ten years later. Some speculate it may have been the largest religious gathering at one place in our known history, some five to seven million strong.

Continue reading...

21 Responses to As The September 11 Anniversary Nears, A Review Of Al Qaeda's Little Reported-On War Against The Catholic Church

  • Pingback: As The September 11 Anniversary Nears, A Review Of Al Qaeda’s Little Reported On War Against The Catholic Church
  • Excellent article, Dave!!

    While I was aware of some of what you stated, your post gave me both further and great insight into Al Qaeda’s war against the Catholic Church. I will be passing this along. God Bless.

  • Good paper. Keep up your good work.
    We are, and have always been, in a “moral and
    religious” war. That war is between those that
    believe in (faith in) the God of the Bible that
    gave us individual UNalienable rights of life
    and liberty vrs. those that believe in arbitrary man made collective INalienable privilages.
    Read more on the link below. Begin with the
    article on the “paper” menu and then review the
    references.

    http://www.unalienableproject.com/

  • Thanks for putting this out for everyone to know.

  • I can’t thank you enough for this post. My husband and I will spend Saturday at a seminar on spiritual warfare by Fr. Corapi. You make the case for warfare very real. God Bless you in your work.

  • Thanks for this article. You are very brave to voice out facts that most Catholics could only whisper. God bless.

  • Sorry David, dig deeper in your research please..Al Quaeda was founded by, trained by, and still bankrolled by the CIA…The CIA is in cahoots with the Mossad and the English CIA…they are a tool of the conspirators that are out for total control of the world…at the highest levels they worship satan and are out for the total destruction of Christian Civilization..they may win but only for a short time…lets start telling the truth about world events…thanks…Rob Epperly/Author.Sons of Thunder.

  • Step one: turn off your TV
    Step two: meditate on the Gospel daily.
    Step three: stay out of debt…zero credit cards..
    Step four: simplify, live within your means..give away your possesions to the poor.
    Step five: (should be step one) reconciliation and holy communion.
    Step six: holy reading.
    STep seven: pray that all Christians unite against this juggernaut anti-christ we call illuminati. Unite all Christians against satan..

  • St. Michel the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil, may God rebuke him we humbly pray, and do thou o prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, throw into hell satan and all evil spirits that prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls, amen.

  • David, please submit this to Columbia magazine. I have shared it with my immediate fellow Knights of Columbus. Note: Operation Bojinka was hatched in Manila in 1996, the same year that the training camp at Salman Pak Iraq opened. reporter Jayna Davis recorded Terry Nichols wife saying how he had visited persons in Manila at that time.

  • “Sorry David, dig deeper in your research please..Al Quaeda was founded by, trained by, and still bankrolled by the CIA…The CIA is in cahoots with the Mossad and the English CIA…they are a tool of the conspirators that are out for total control of the world…at the highest levels they worship satan and are out for the total destruction of Christian Civilization..they may win but only for a short time…lets start telling the truth about world events…thanks…Rob Epperly/Author.Sons of Thunder.”

    Your tinfoil hat needs loosening Robert.

  • i might go with trained by and bankrolled by, but not founded by, the CIA isn’t 1600 years old….

  • Pingback: The last Tweets and Trends » As The September 11 Anniversary Nears, A Review Of Al Qaeda’s Little Reported-On War Against The Catholic Church « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Al Qaeda’s Little Reported-On War Against The Catholic Church | CatholicMaine
  • Thanks for the kind words everyone. As for those who spew nutty conspiracy theories; unless we suffer from mental illness, we will be held accountable for the crazy things we say.

  • Pingback: Why Is Paris’ Notre Dame Cathedral In Al Qaeda’s Crosshairs? « The American Catholic
  • The Crusades were small defensive actions fought by amateurish Christian soldiers who truly felt they were answering the call of God. They were hardly in it for the gold and the girls that so many ridiculous movies and research articles have asserted.

    True. Eleventh-century Europeans making war “for the gold and the girls” accompanied William the Conquerer in 1066. He led his armies west, away from the Holy Land.

  • “Your tinfoil hat needs loosening Robert.”

    I’ll say. You know, I always wonder at these people who think the Mossad – an admittedly crack team working for a country the size of a potato chip – run the world. For one thing, the number of the Jews on the entire planet is something like 14 million. That doesn’t even amount to a Chinese statistical rounding error. The Mossad is a teensy tiny fraction of a teensy tiny fraction. When gentiles whisper about “the Jews” or “the Mossad” what they are actually saying is that a miniscule fraction of Jews are so incredibly smart they are able to control all the dumb gentiles in the world. It just shows how contemptuous characters like David are of the goys – he thinks we’re so stupid the brilliant Jews can easily dupe us.

    My boss is Jewish. She’s a nice lady but I wouldn’t call her an Einstein. Nor do I think all us goyim are as dense as David obviously thinks we are.

    David, if you think all Jews, or all Israelis, are so incredibly intelligent that they can run the world with the mass of gentiles remaining dumber than sticks of gum, all I can say is “Speak for yourself, dude.”

  • Also, it seems to me that if the Israelis control PR, someone is obviously sleeping on the job, judging from the barrage of criticism the Israelis are subjected to. These world-class geniuses somehow can’t keep a lid on the Guardian, BCC, CNN or MSNBC and yet we’re supposed to think they control governments – yeah, sure.

  • Pingback: Two Momentous But Little Remembered Dates In Western & Church History « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Two Momentous But Little Remembered Dates In Western & Church History: The American Catholic « Deacon John's Space