How can we prove that the crusades weren't wrong?


I will never feel remorse over it.
Only two countries converted to Islam peacefully. Indonesia and Bangladesh. The rest were by the sword. Convert, pay a tax and be a second rate citizen, or die.
So why exactly am I supposed to apologize for Christians doing exactly the same thing and honestly rescuing many Christian’s being oppressed?
Were there bad men with bad motives? Of course. But it gave Europe a sense of hope. The middle ages saw 2/3 of land that was Christian taken by force. Jeez Syria and Egypt were Christian strongholds. To apologize over something most Muslims didn’t even know about until the 19th century. Yes. Muslims never took it as a big deal until western colonizers came in and spewed this narrative that they were the new crusaders and going to save them.


You got me. Regardless it was a defensive operation, not offensive like most make it out to be falsely. And only the first crusade was a success. Most went just to see the holy land and believed it was theres. And it was stolen from them four centuries before just the same way many of them approached it. Do two wrongs make a right? No. But to act like Muslims are peaceful when they primarily spread by violence is so naive.


Most of the people in the lands conquered by Muslims didn’t convert by the sword. It took several centuries before most of the people there had converted and some of them never did convert. That’s why there are Coptic Christians in Egypt and Maronite Christians in Lebanon and at least until recently when many of them have fled, there were Christian remnants in Syria and Iraq.


I don’t mean to sidetrack the thread, but Hitler was a baptized and confirmed Catholic. Whether he was practicing or not, that doesn’t detract from the fact that he was a Catholic, the same as every other baptized Catholic.

I understand that once baptized a Catholic, the Church considers you one for the whole of your life. Yes?


If Christians were defeated then Europe would have been invaded by the Moors and Ottomans which they were not, it is true Christians lost the middle east but kept Europe free


I don’t think the Church suggested to any of the combatant nations in world war two that they were fighting an unjust war.


Great question, I hope it does not get shoved under the carpet.


According to documents we still have, in the 5th century, there were over 300 bishops across Northern Africa. In the 700s, after the Moslems came through, only 3 were left.

Not the source of the info above, but definitely relevent:


Yes, Hitler was Catholic. However, he completely left the practice of the Faith and took up other ideas instead. In no way did he act as a Catholic; in fact, he sent Catholic priests to the concentration camps along with others he wanted to get rid of.


As I said earlier, it doesn’t matter if you act as a good Catholic or not. Once baptized (and even more so if you are confirmed), nothing can change the fact that you are a member of the Catholic Church.


Hitler actually respected the Church only on the basis of its hierarchy. He was quoted saying Christianity is a religion for slaves. He actually respected Islam for its conquest and forcible attitude and laws. However he never said that but to close aides. He never renounced Christianity publicly; another political move. The final end game of his plans and especially for Himmler set to outlaw all Christianity as well and bring back German pagan religion which Himmler was actually obsessed with.


Yes, I agree with you. I said was because he is now dead.


All of that is true according to the Catholic Church.

For someone who no longer believes Catholic teaching and/or acts contrary to it, it’s not true and therefore inconsequential.


Recommend this book to understand what we are yet defending against: Islam at the Gates (How Christendom Defeated the Ottoman Turks) by Dianne Moczar, 2008 Sophia Institute Press.


I meant that he wasn’t practicing and Christianity can’t be blamed for what someone who didn’t practice did.


Well, thankfully now the Catholic church believes in freedom of religion, rather than waging more crusades on the excuse that the non-Catholics were leading souls to damnation and disrupting social cohesion.


I find the “official” explanation for what happened with the 4th Crusade laughable frankly. I think the Church really does itself a disservice by trying to explain away why the Crusaders stomped Christian cities for fun and plunder (well, to pay debts). Heck, they gutting St. Sophia’s in Byzantium. Tell me that it isn’t morally reprehensible to do that…


Funny how people always forget about the massacre of the latins in Constantinople before the crusaders sacked it.


Morality isn’t based on numeric values. By this standard, Islamic terrorism is justified because fewer people were killed. Or the enslavement of the Yazidis wasn’t that bad because only the men were killed and the women were made sex slaves. Or the War in Yemen. Or that Washington Post journalist who was killed in Turkey. Although such views and standards among the self-declared intellectuals don’t surprise me anymore. For them, Christianity is always wrong, Islam is always good simply by virtue of it not being Christianity.

But the statistics are murky because the number of people killed during the crusades spanned nearly two hundred years and medicine back then wasn’t good. ICUs didn’t exist back then. Today, casualties are masked by significant advances in medicine, with better techniques like surgeries, support systems and the manufacturing of antibiotics.


Didn’t the Pope of that time condemn those acts when he learned about them?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit