Tonight at rcia, it was mentioned that the crusades were unjustly pursued. I’m not aware about the history of that period, whether or not the crusades were all unjust or whether or not they should have be carried out. Any insight would be appreciated
There were something like ten crusades fought in different places for different reasons by different people over the course of centuries. Some were justified (such as the first one). Some were not.
Catholic Education Resource Center has some good articles on the Crusades. I would do a search there for some further background info. There’s a lot of misinformation out there.
Depends on the Crusade in question
Was the first crusade in response to the constant attacks upon Christian pilgrims to the holy land justified? Probably yes.
Was the fourth crusade that was hijacked by Venice to attack Constantinople justified? Clearly not.
In many ways yes they were justified. Due to the fact that it was to allow Catholics to go to the Holy Land. This was the main purpose. It was started for all the right reasons. Now later we see corruption again in the Vatican that leads to unnecessary crusades, the corruption came from Italian merchants that resemble today’s Rothschild billionaire. Which was later taken care of. Nonetheless the Crusades were in a way a Holy War. Now our atheist brother Richard Dawkins says that we acted out of," Hate and inhumane actions due to the idea of another religion," This is not true. St.Francis of Assisi himself did some diplomatic talks with some Sheiks during the Crusades. As well as other Barons and monks who dared to venture unto enemy camps to negotiate peace. Now the Coptics in Egypt helped a lot since they lived in that area all their lives and they knew the Islamic culture. This gave the Christian Forces a big plus.
Now we see today that our brothers and sisters in Syria are being persecuted. They are getting raped,shot,and tortured and they still carry the Banner of the Living Lamb. Now imagine this when the ideals of Islam were burning like an uncontrolled fire. In less then a century Islam spread from Mecca to the Southern half of Spain ( One of the strongest Catholic Countries). Imagine when they actually killed “infidels” like no tomorrow. They were Jihadist to the max. Was it not right to defend those in the Middle East? Was it not right to act as Universal Church? I think it right due to that the Holy Land became accessible to all. Zion became accessible to the Catholics and the western wall to the Jews.
I think the First Crusade was certainly justified, considering:
(1) The history of violence, persecution and subjugation of Christians by Muslim forces throughout the Middle East and North Africa;
(2) The deliberate call by the Byzantine Emperor for assistance; and
(3) The fact that traditional access to the Holy Land had been denied for no good reason.
Oh, and lastly the fact that the Crusaders clearly had an aim they wanted to pursue and did so in a very narrow sense - they did not attempt to annihilate Muslims, etc. or re-take their lost land or empire, but simply took Jerusalem and stopped.
I agree with the post above mine, plus people don’t recall, or ignore on purpose.but the Muslims were fighting just as hard. They instigated and provoked enough things for the people in the Church to stand up and defend Christianity.
Thank you for posting this site. I, too have heard a lot of undeserved criticism of the Catholic Church from Catholics who really don’t know their history. Very enlightened by the two articles I’ve read so far. I liked T.S. Eliot’s approach best. History IS, it’s important to learn it in the proper context and put into perspective.
As are members of the Muslim majority. The government there is terrible, religion not withstanding.