The guys over at Little Green Footballs and the folks at the Times are making a bit too much out of this, but the following story is encouraging as an example of the rappraisal of the Crusades as something other than naked western aggression:
EXCERPTS:
THE Vatican has begun moves to rehabilitate the Crusaders by sponsoring a conference at the weekend that portrays the Crusades as wars fought with the “noble aim” of regaining the Holy Land for Christianity.
The late Pope John Paul II sought to achieve Muslim-Christian reconciliation by asking “pardon” for the Crusades during the 2000 Millennium celebrations. But John Paul’s apologies for the past “errors of the Church” — including the Inquisition and anti-Semitism — irritated some Vatican conservatives. According to Vatican insiders, the dissenters included Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.
At the conference, held at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University, Roberto De Mattei, an Italian historian, recalled that the Crusades were “a response to the Muslim invasion of Christian lands and the Muslim devastation of the Holy Places”.
“The debate has been reopened,” La Stampa said. Professor De Mattei noted that the desecration of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem by Muslim forces in 1009 had helped to provoke the First Crusade at the end of the 11th century, called by Pope Urban II.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE.
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed.)
One can’t attribute papal support to every church conference in Rome or what gets said at it, but it’s still nice seeing an approach being taken towards the Crusades that regards them from a perspective other than western self-flagellation.
The debate is a healthy one.
Let’s party like it’s 1099!
always be careful about what’s going on at the regina apostolorum and how it relates to what’s going on in the Church.
Many theologians, canonists, and historians, even very orthodox ones, would be retiscent to say that the Legionaries of Christ represent the mainstream current of thought, even the orthodox mainstream current of thought.
I’m not up to snuff on this issue at all, but I do know that we always need to be careful about the source, and particularly, sometimes, this source.
Did JPII ask “pardon” for the crusades per se – or for the excesses that took place during the crusades?
The Crusades were an awesome idea with less than awesome execution, getting worse as they went on. The validity of “crusading” shouldn’t, in my opinion, be in question; of course it’s valid. However, the validity of individual crusades is very open to discussion, especially the false crusades some problematic popes declared on good, practicing catholics.
And no, I don’t mean the Albigensian Crusade; that one was certainly necessary, if not always well-conducted.
I would recommend as a source two volumes of Dr. Warren Carroll’s amazing “History of Christendom”, namely the 2nd and 3rd, “The Building of Christendom” and “The Glory of Christendom”.
Which good, practising Christians had Crusades declared on them?
PVO
From a recent Zenit Artical “Finally, it is a misconception that Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades. He did not.” Code: ZE06031103
The Pope I did not apologise for this or some of the other things alleged– he asked pardon for the offenses of some catholics at various points of history–not per se the crusades etc….
May I suggest the “Fire and Sword; Crusade, inquisition, Reformation” CD set by Matthew Arnold from St Joseph radio. It put the crusades in a VERY different light from all the pop history I’ve come across.
You would think that the Vatican has more important issues than to support a rehash of the Crusades. Christianity is not based on ancient geography or history revisted.
Sir Realist,
Christianity is not based on ancient geography or history revisted.
I think you meant “Crossanity” in not based on ancient geography or history.
May this be a very fruitful Lent for you.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Mulopwepaul,
Boniface VIII declared the actions against the Colonna family of Rome a crusade. His reasoning is uncertain, although he had excommunicated them because of statements made by several members, including 2 cardinals, I believe, that he was not the legitimate Pope because the pope prior to him, St. Peter Celestine V, had resigned and was believed by some to be still alive and in prison (Boniface had, in fact, imprisoned him for trying to leave Rome. Boniface wasn’t particularly subtle).
Also, before that there was a row over who was king of Sicily. The famous “Sicilian Vespers”, in which the occupying (or legitimate, depending on one’s point of view) French soldiers, who had been acting very abusively, were slaughtered, along with many other French people in Sicily, caused pope Martin IV to designate the war over Sicily a crusade.
While there were cerainly people being “crusaded” against in both cases who weren’t stellar Catholics, they weren’t invading muslims either, nor were they rejecting elements of the faith or even challenging papal authority in any realm but the temporal, and then not in his own realm.
The very idea of crusading stands against declaring one against practicing Catholics faithful to the church, especially when there were plenty of other people to crusade against.
As it was, very few people had any stomach for crusading anymore by then, due to previous disasters in Egypt.
Mulowepaul,
That last post was by me, I just forgot to sign my name to it.
Crusade is a loaded word over at LGF.Whenever it’s brought up it usually starts a s**tstorm between the catholics and jewish people there who, otherwise, are in agreement about most other things.
Inocencio,
Actually, JD Crossan did not come to mind in my my observation about “Christianity is not based on ancient geography or history revisted.” It is based on commentary by my good Franciscan teachers.
The campaign against the Colonnas, you say, was rooted in the denial of the Pope’s legitimacy. I would have a hard time say that was a temporal matter.
The campaign against the Sicilians was a campaign to attempt to restore the tottering papal strategy of uniting Christendom around the Mediterranean under the Angevins to strengthen the Crusades against the Turks.
The Sicilian conspiracy against the Angevins, regardless of the legitimacy of their grievances, was understood to be a blow against the Crusades themselves (and it also seems to have been the genesis of that most anti-Catholic secret society, the Mafia).
PVO
Sifu–Regarding Dr. Carroll’s History of Christendom, any news on if Volume 5 has been released yet? It was slated for March 7th last I heard.
(I found Vols. 3 and 4 on clearance at the local Christian book store this past summer. One of the best finds I’ve ever stumbled across.)
May I suggest the “Fire and Sword; Crusade, inquisition, Reformation” CD set by Matthew Arnold from St Joseph radio. It put the crusades in a VERY different light from all the pop history I’ve come across.
I think you mean St Joseph Communications. The CD is here: Fire and Sword: Crusade, Inquisition, Reformation.
MP,
I agree with your perspective in both cases, but disagree that warring against fellow catholics just because they don’t like the current pope is a crusade-worthy moment. Perhaps “faithful” isn’t the right word to use for those people, but I stand by the idea that it was entirely inappropriate for those military actions to be called “crusades”.
Reading about those two popes, it also seems likely that they threw out the word “crusade” in order to garner support for their cause, not because either action was necessary for the preservation of the faith. Even if either pope had been murdered (which Boniface almost was), there would have been another pope elected after. Not a good situation by any means, but still not technically “crusade-able”. Then again, there is not, to my knowledge, any official definition of what exactly a crusade is.
MM, “Revolution Against Christendom” is out, just hard to get right now. You might try contacting Christendom College, which Dr. Carroll founded and which still prints his books, I believe.