You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Europe
Vatican changing heart on Crusades?
2006-03-20
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 Crusades are seen by many Muslims as acts of violence that have underpinned Western aggression towards the Arab world ever since. Followers of Osama bin Laden claim to be taking part in a latter-day “jihad against the Jews and Crusaders”.

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.

CONFLICT OVER THE HOLY LAND
# Historians count eight Crusades, although dates are disputed: 1095-1101, called by Pope Urban II; 1145-47, led by Louis VII; 1188-92, led by Richard I; 1204, which included the sack of Constantinople; 1217, which included the conquest of Damietta; 1228-29 led by Frederick II; 1249-52, led by King Louis IX of France; and 1270, also under Louis IX.

# Until the early 11th century, Christians, Jews and Muslims coexisted under Muslim rule in the Holy Land. After growing friction, the first Crusade was sparked by ambushes of Christian pilgrims going to Jerusalem. The Byzantine Emperor Alexius appealed to Pope Urban II, who in 1095 called on Christendom to take up arms to free the Holy Land from the “Muslim infidel.”
Pope Benedict reached out to Muslims and Jews after his election and called for dialogue. However, the Pope, who is due to visit Turkey in November, has in the past suggested that TurkeyÂ’s Muslim culture is at variance with EuropeÂ’s Christian roots.

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. He said that the Crusaders were “martyrs” who had “sacrificed their lives for the faith”. He was backed by Jonathan Riley-Smith, Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Cambridge University, who said that those who sought forgiveness for the Crusades “do not know their history”.

Professor Riley-Smith has attacked Sir Ridley Scott’s recent film Kingdom of Heaven, starring Orlando Bloom, as “utter nonsense”. Professor Riley-Smith said that the script, like much writing on the Crusades, was “historically inaccurate. It depicts the Muslims as civilised and the Crusaders as barbarians. It has nothing to do with reality.” It fuels Islamic fundamentalism by propagating “Osama bin Laden’s version of history”. He said that the Crusaders were sometimes undisciplined and capable of acts of great cruelty. But the same was true of Muslims and of troops in “all ideological wars”. Some of the Crusaders’ worst excesses were against Orthodox Christians or heretics — as in the sack of Constantinople in 1204.

The American writer Robert Spencer, author of A Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, told the conference that the mistaken view had taken hold in the West as well as the Arab world that the Crusades were “an unprovoked attack by Europe on the Islamic world”. In reality, however, Christians had been persecuted after the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem.
Posted by:Dan Darling

#18  Rome had been the subject of sackings since the 5th century -- that's why the Roman emperors moved to Ravenna before finally settling in Byzantium. There was nothing new in Islam's sack of Rome as well. It was the rest of their behaviour that triggered a response.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-03-20 19:03  

#17  Well, there was the small matter of the Invasion of Spain and France in the 8th century and the attack on Rome in the 9th. That it took 300 years for the west to decide, after repeated invasions, to hit back, is about par for the course.
Posted by: Ptah   2006-03-20 18:51  

#16  Much to my own surprise, all Crusades aside, I applaud Pope Benedict's demand for reciprocity by Islam when it comes to freedom of religion. This one single issue may well lead to a significant tipping point in the perception of Islam by the outside world.

Islam must be read the riot act when it comes to cultural dominance. If it cannot abide the presence of other religions, then there is no reason for other countries that have freedom of religion to be obliged to allow the practice of Islam. The Muslim quest for dominance must eventually be reinterpreted as representing a form of political ideology.

Once this critical change in perception has occurred, only then will this world go about securing itself from the threat that is Islam. I hope the Pope maintains an increasingly vocal position with respect to this. His bully pulpit is one of the few that carries sufficient weight whereby the attention of world leaders can be gotten and held.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-03-20 18:47  

#15  Much of the goal of crusades from the knights point of view was to get land.

Much of the goal of the crusades from the various kings point of view, was to get the able-bodied an unlanded soldiers busy fighting elsewhere.

Doesn't change the fact that it was a counter-attack. And the 4th Crusade didn't intend to go after Constantinople, blame Venice for that.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2006-03-20 17:52  

#14  jihad can be either offensive or defensive. Crusades in Israel could be perceived as defenseive,as the muslims had taken the land - however they had taken it from the (Greek) Roman empire and the crusaders did NOT hand it back to them. In fact in the 4 crusade they took Constantinople itself.

Some crusaders did quite well in establishing feudal kingdoms in the levant. Many lost money, but that was hardly the goal. And of course the Venetians and Genoans often did quite well.

And the crusades were also accompanied by many atrocities. I will mention again the Jerusalem massacre. Some will say that was simply stand op proc in that era - which just shows that the crusaders treated Holy Jerusalem as just any other city. And, I think, that ANY army from that era is questionable for honoring today.

And of course there were plenty of atrocities committed against Jews and Orthodox Christians on the way TO the Levant.

And its true that in the 11th century the Muslim world was more advanced than the west. But of course the same could be said for Greek Byzantium, as well, so thats not such a big deal.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-03-20 16:14  

#13  About the only thing I disagree with Rumsfeld was when he cancelled the Crusader artillery system.

Well I guess I understand his reasons, but it would have been sooo satisfying to see a big honkin' cannon named Crusader rumbling thru the desert on its way to Bagdad.

Would've drove some folks wild...
Posted by: kelly   2006-03-20 15:34  

#12  Jihad and Crusade are the same. What tainted the noble intentioned Crusade 1000 years ago is what taints Jihad today.

Sorry but Jihad and Crusade are NOT the same

1) Crusades are a reaction against centurie"s of continual agressions by Islam. Jihad was and is a war of agresion even if Muslims ever have played the victim. (Remember that picture the day after 9/11 where a womabn brandished a sign "Strop terrorism against Muslims?)

2) Jihad has ever been intended as something finacially rewarding for Muslims. As a proof review the articles in Koran and Haddths who deal with teh sharing of booty and captives.

By contrast the financial incentuive is conspicusously absent from the callsto crusades. Inn fact most crusaders were well established and going to crusades was a sure way to become poorer (liberation of serfs by empoverished lords was one of the consequence of crusades).

3) Islam has at a diabolic mechanism: first it deprives the poors of sex through poligamy. Meaning that if you are poor you are going to die completely (ie wiothout descendency). So Jihad is teh only hope for sex (in afterlife if things go badly, with captives if you were victorious).

Crusaders had not that very special motivation.
Posted by: JFM   2006-03-20 13:04  

#11  All of the Crusades? What about the Fourth, which conquered the (Christian) Byzantine Empire? Thanks to that episode, the Turks were eventually able to prevail in the Balkans.
Posted by: pagan infidel   2006-03-20 12:39  

#10  Why don't we talk about non-Moslems in a Moslem majority country. The kind of s**t they have to put up with. I submitted a thread, not yet up, about an Afghan man who converted to Christianity from Islam and the (I elieve) "aroused" procecutor is seeking the death penalty. "Allah Akhbar, baby. Allah Akhbar"
Posted by: BigEd   2006-03-20 12:22  

#9  The Church should come right out and say it. The Crusades were a counter-attack against Islam after the Islamic horde conquered Spain and started moving into Turkey and the Balkans.

The only regret they should have about the crusades is they didn't plan it out better. Sweeping the Muslims out of Europe first, and then across North Africa and then into the Holy Land last. The effect would have opened up far more trade and given more staying power to the enterprise. Instead they went for the gold and had minimal lasting effect except angering the Muslims.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2006-03-20 12:06  

#8  Also since that's where the Grail is still rumored to be.
Posted by: Seafarious   2006-03-20 11:53  

#7  There are still a lot of good Catholics in Europe, maybe the Church will be the institution that finally brings them to face the enemy.

More likely first battlefront will be in Africa. Fastest growing christian region, and on Islam's Bloody Border.
Posted by: Steve   2006-03-20 11:48  

#6  There are still a lot of good Catholics in Europe, maybe the Church will be the institution that finally brings them to face the enemy.
Posted by: Beau 2006-03-20 09:45


Excellent analysis. Lets hope.

Posted by: Besoeker   2006-03-20 09:52  

#5  I am enjoying watching the Catholic Church slowly square off against Islam, in contrast to the ankle grabbing of the English church and emotionalism of the US Evangelical churches. I can just see someone in the "Strategic Opportunities" office, or whatever, at the Vatican chuckling when Iran proposed revisiting the history of the Holocaust. "Thanks! We have been meaning to revisit a little history ourselves". By choosing the crusades, the church is basically building much more powerful case against Islam than the US. We in the US act like our cultures have been at war since 1979, and the Catholic Church is now saying Islam has been a menace for 1000 years. There are still a lot of good Catholics in Europe, maybe the Church will be the institution that finally brings them to face the enemy.
Posted by: Beau   2006-03-20 09:45  

#4  Because of the Crusades the idea and ideal of Freedom exists in a large part of the world and not a Dark Age. But Europe has a short memory and too many selfish post modern jerks without a clue about what is truly evil.
Posted by: Duh!   2006-03-20 07:45  

#3  It's not the Arabs turn. They have been doing this for the last 1400 years non-stop.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-03-20 07:26  

#2  Jihad and Crusade are the same. What tainted the noble intentioned Crusade 1000 years ago is what taints Jihad today. Basically, it's the criminals that are doing the fighting. 1000 years ago europeon prisons were opened for bodies to fight for the cause. Today, it's the Arabs turn. Many Arabs who have naturally championed Jihad have also been disgusted at the indiscriminant slaughter by Zaquawi and crew.
Posted by: Slolumble Hupert7516   2006-03-20 07:15  

#1  More of the "tipping point" effect, perhaps?
Posted by: Mike   2006-03-20 06:39  

00:00