Vatican conference defends Crusades.

[Yorkshireman]

The Vatican has moved towards rehabilitating the Crusaders by sponsering a conference that portrays the Crusades as wars fought with the noble aim of regaining the Holy Land for Christianity and as a reaction to Muslim invasion.

This view of history, as put forward by scholars who attended the symposium at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University at the weekend, was of a variance with that expressed by the late Pope John Paul II. He famously apologised to Muslims for the series of invasions of their lands.

Pope Benedict XVI was apparently one of the conservatives who disagreed with John Paul at the time.

CLICK HERE FOR STORY

[Markas]

I dunno there might be something to this Catholic stance for once. There has been alot of European apologism about the Crusades. The Seljuk Turks where invaders themselves and did just as horrible things as the Crusaders did. I don't see Mongolia apologising for killing countless millions in their campaigns- Eastern Europe, Russia and parts of the Middle East (the reason fundamentalism prevailed was the Mongols NOT the Crusades) took centuries to recover.

[Fiachdubh]

They werent their lands, the Muslims invaded the Holy Lands in the 7th Century and have been trying to invade Europe ever since. The Crusades were only declared after the Seljuk Turks took over control and decided to reverse the policy of free access and worship to Jeruselum for all religions and started burning Christian centres and killing people. Pope John Paul II had no right to apologise on the behalf of people who saw their quest as being rightous. No one has the right to apologise on behalf of others unasked for. Despite modern cinicism the Crusades where not all about money and power, at least not all of them. The Hospitallars (today called the Order of Malta) set up hospitals and hostels for traveling pilgrims and only later became a military order to protect the pilgrames. No reason you cant do do something just or pure and still make lots of cash.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

John Paul II actually never apologised for the Crusades. He did make a more general statement on misguided actions in the name of the Catholic faith, but he never apologised for the Crusades.

I can't see anything in what The Times has reported about this conference which is remarkable in any way.

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”.

This is a fact.

Professor Riley-Smith has attacked Sir Ridley Scott’s recent film Kingdom of Heaven, starring Orlando Bloom, as “utter nonsense”.

As history, it definitely was. It was ridiculous.

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.

This is a fact.

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

I'd be interested to see if Prof De Mattei said he personally considered them 'martyrs' or if he was actually saying they were considered martyrs at the time. If the former, that's his personal religious opinion. If the latter, then that's just a historical fact.

Not palatable to us, certainly, but they weren't Twenty-First Century people. Neither were their (to us) equally alien and equally savage opponents.

[Radier]

The crusades where 'defence operations'. The muslims should have let the harmless christians get to Jerusalem and there hadn't been any crusades.
But no they choosed to attack and kill the christian pilgrims and the crusades then where justified.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

The crusades where 'defence operations'.

They were counter-attacks, both strategically and religiously. In a strategic/territorial sense, they were making up lost ground. In a religious sense (one we find difficult to understand today), they were regaining sacred places. The second motivation was actually more powerful than the first.

The muslims should have let the harmless christians get to Jerusalem and there hadn't been any crusades.

Active disruption of Christian access to holy sites had actually ended long before the Crusades began. That wasn't the perception in Europe, however, for a variety of reasons.

But no they choosed to attack and kill the christian pilgrims and the crusades then where justified.

This is a gross oversimplification.

[Caesar Germanico]

They werent their lands, the Muslims invaded the Holy Lands in the 7th Century and have been trying to invade Europe ever since. The Crusades were only declared after the Seljuk Turks took over control and decided to reverse the policy of free access and worship to Jeruselum for all religions and started burning Christian centres and killing people. Pope John Paul II had no right to apologise on the behalf of people who saw their quest as being rightous. No one has the right to apologise on behalf of others unasked for. Despite modern cinicism the Crusades where not all about money and power, at least not all of them. The Hospitallars (today called the Order of Malta) set up hospitals and hostels for traveling pilgrims and only later became a military order to protect the pilgrames. No reason you cant do do something just or pure and still make lots of cash.

sorry but u are an ignorant..and a big big one
that area was byzantine and after the arabs with mohamed comed and conquested..after that people lived in peace for ceuntries chrstians muslims and jews..that area was the most advanced area of all the world..and when it was conquested civilians didnt get killed..u know what happened when crusaders "liberated" that area??everyone was killed christians muslims and jews..they sacked the citys like the wrost barbarians..and what happened when the arabs fought against the israel kingdom??they won and didnt killed any civilians..not even for revenge!!and u know why the arabs started to reconquest THEIR land??because christians knights were killing thousands of innocent civilians arabs and jews..read a ****in book before u speak..the crussades were one of the most imperialist wars of history

edit:and the holy land its holy for the muslims too!!

the church should just say they don't consider the crusades a protiy right now. the firist crusade was one of the only good reason crusades, by that I mean the turks had restricted pligirmiges to jersuleme and as people in eroupe were sopposed to make a pillgermage once in their life. they declared war on the turks. then a chain reaction the muslims after the lost to the muslims again, the eroupeans and the muslims thought that they were fighting to reclaim and hold the holy city.

the turks are turks the arabs are arabs!!and the frist crussade was against arabs!!say anything u can say but the crussades were just an imperialist war for money and power..we all know that..

Edit Button is your friend - Menander

[Kino]

Deleted by user.

[Zenith Darksea]

I'm surprised that in all these debates people only ever consider the Catholics and the Muslims. What about the Orthodox, who accidentally sparked the crusades off after a simple appeal for military support? I'd point out that the crusaders had no business whatsoever to be guarding the Christians in the East (who weren't so badly threatened as is often made out), as that was the traditional role of the Roman Empire (Byzantium). If they were so desperate to help Christianity, they'd have sent money and soldiers to the Romans. Instead, driven by desires to increase their own personal influence and the power of the Pope (in accordance with his megalomaniacal desire for autocracy within the Church that had by this time become customary), they went themselves to conquer for themselves, not even sparing fellow Christians at times (even the First Crusade clashed with the Romans, who were forced to use their pagan horse archers to keep the crusaders in check).

Once the crusaders conquered the Holy Land, what did they do? They committed mass murder, killing Muslims, Jews and Christians alike. Then they consolidated the lands into personal empires.

That was the First Crusade. The Second Crusade also attacked the Christian Roman Empire, which was forced to cut supplies to the crusaders (because all the time that they were marching, the Romans had to feed and pay the crusading armies as well as protect them) and betray them to the Turks in order to preserve itself. The Third Crusade was rather more reasonable (except for the massacre at Acre where Richard of England personally presided over the execution of ten thousand people in a single day), as it decided that it was best to leave Jerusalem alone and just go home.

But then we have the Fourth Crusade. [sarcasm]Oh, this was a really holy one alright.[/sarcasm] Beginning with an attack on a Catholic town belonging to a King who had promised to go on the Crusade himself, it went on to attack Constantinople and hasten the demise of Christianity in the Near East. As usual there were the massacres, rapes and pillages associated with the Crusades. This was also the time when the Catholic clergy came up with the interesting phrase: "The Greeks are even worse than the Jews." Speaking of the Jews of course, they weren't exactly treated in a particularly nice way either.

So there you have the wonderful military efforts to protect Christianity in the East. I would argue that if anything, the Crusades only helped to hasten its demise through the dismantling of the Roman Empire. And let me ask you, do you really think that all this was pleasing to God?

[Sidus Preclarum]

I'm surprised that in all these debates people only ever consider the Catholics and the Muslims.

I agree: eastern balkanic europeans and byzantines suffered much from them too ...

Once the crusaders conquered the Holy Land, what did they do? They committed mass murder, killing Muslims, Jews and Christians alike. Then they consolidated the lands into personal empires.

Oddly enough, the ONLY leader of the first crusade who had not sworn to Alexius I fealty to him and promised to return to the Byzantine Empire any land recovered from the Turks, comte Raymond de Toulouse, was the ONLY one to actually respect the Emperor's rights... How can a *blatant* perjurer such as Bohemond of Tarent be described as a " “martyr” who had “sacrificed their [his] for the faith”?!

[Bwaho]

Wow, a pope with some balls... apologizing for the crusades was the lamest thing the catholic church ever did. Especially when their muslim counterparts still had pride in their expansions.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

I don't think there's a need for an 'explanation' for the Crusades from the Church. The fact is that people conquer - that's what they've been doing since ages and that's what they're still doing. However, at the same time, the massacre of the populance (Muslim and eastern sects of Christians) can never be justified.

[Ahlerich]

..the vatican cinferenc on how to hold jerusalem didnt work out well either..

they dont have to defend crusades and they cant. they just have to admit that the church of today does not consider it as a holy war/holy challenge anymore

[Last Roman]

The Vatican has moved towards rehabilitating the Crusaders by sponsering a conference that portrays the Crusades as wars fought with the noble aim of regaining the Holy Land for Christianity and as a reaction to Muslim invasion.

well, that's kind of true. The crusades were in response to a call of help by the Byzantine Emperor, but if it wasen't for that call, I don't the Catholics would have given two hoots about what was happening in Anatolia

Please don't avoid the censor - imb39

[Ahlerich]

i think the dark shadow over the crusades is not that a war has been fought but how it was fought. and that this how has nothing in common with chritian values.
btw crusaders sacked byzantine also on the way to the holy land, as well as other minor chritian villages on their way

[Darth Wong]

"Wonderful things were to be seen. Numbers of the Saracens were beheaded ... others were shot with arrows, or forced to jump from the towers; others were tortured for several days, then burned with fIames. In the streets were seen piles of heads and hands and feet. One rode about everywhere amid the corpses of men and horses. In the temple of Solomon, the horses waded in the blood up to their knees, nay, up to the bridle. It was a just and marvelous judgment of God, that this place should be filled with the blood of unbelievers."- Raymond of Aguilers, on the massacre of Muslim and Jewish prisoners of war following the capture of Jerusalem on July 15, 1099.

That's the sort of thing the previous Pope apologized for. It's ridiculous to say that it's "lame" to apologize for such behaviour.

[Zenith Darksea]

Absolutely. If you think it's something to be proud of to stand up for mass murder, then you might like to reconsider the issue. The other thing that amazes me is how quickly people forget the fundamentally pacificist nature of the religion that Christ taught. Whether you believe in Christianity or not though, trying to defend the crusades is, in my opinion, impossible.

[Perikles]

IMO the crusades were a fight to regain lands that were taken by the muslims. The muslims took thse lands by force and it was the right of the Christians to try to reclaim them. You can't say that the Christians had no right to go to the ME and try to reclaim these lands...

Whether I agree with the crusades is a different story, but saying that something is all bad because something bad happened is IMO incorrect. Unless you are talking about pointless slaughter etc.

[AngryTitusPullo]

IMO the crusades were a fight to regain lands that were taken by the muslims. The muslims took thse lands by force and it was the right of the Christians to try to reclaim them. You can't say that the Christians had no right to go to the ME and try to reclaim these lands...

Whether I agree with the crusades is a different story, but saying that something is all bad because something bad happened is IMO incorrect. Unless you are talking about pointless slaughter etc.

If you changed the words which i bold into Arab and Byzantines then I agree.

Didn't Jesus said that his kingdom is not of this earth but in heaven ? If that word do come from the bible then what rights do any chritians claim that Jeruselam or middle east is a christian kingdom ?

[Legiondude]

If you changed the words which i bold into Arab and Byzantines then I agree.

Didn't Jesus said that his kingdom is not of this earth but in heaven ? If that word do come from the bible then what rights do any chritians claim that Jeruselam or middle east is a christian kingdom ?

Well byzant took it by force from some middle easteners so, the arabs cind of had more right to them...

BUt the middle east is of stratigic importance, so everyone wants it...

But Byzant trying to take back territory is legit, but what started out as a normal war, became a pilliging spree...

Crusaders did not do what they wer sent to do....

Staped byzant in the back they did