Forums | MacLife

so i guess the crusades were an anomoly?

more or less wrote:

so i guess the crusades were an anomoly?

That (and the Inquisition and witch hunts, etc.) led me to insert the word "modern."
By which I mean since Vatican II. (Pope Pius didn't do enough to prevent the Holocaust.)

jax wrote:

debbiedowner wrote:

more or less wrote:

so i guess the crusades were an anomoly?

That (and the Inquisition and witch hunts, etc.) led me to insert the word "modern."
By which I mean since Vatican II. (Pope Pius didn't do enough to prevent the Holocaust.)

I don't think you can hold the modern Catholic church accountable for the church of the Crusades. At the time of the middle ages, Europe was still rediscovering itself. With the fall fo Rome the Dark Ages represented a near total reset of Western Civilization. The irony of it all is that a great deal of Europes classical history was 'returned' by the Arabs. Muslim scholars became the only archive for a great deal of western culture.

The church of the crusades era was constantly in conflict with the varying European Kingdoms. As has been mentioned about all of the wars between France and England, this too fits into that scheme. The 'map' of W. Europe was constantly being redrawn. Some scholars even argue that the crusades may have been in someways a means of redirecting the aggressions of the 'Latin Kingdoms'. Better to fight than 'heathen' than ones own 'brothers', I suppose.

Modern situations may hold ironic paralells, history does seem to repeat itself. However, it is not a guarantee that the same nations will eternally hold the same positions in the global community.  A few centuries ago, England was Americas sworn enemy now we find ourselves as 'brothers in arms'. The roles will always change. However, the events seem to repeat themselves. As I said before, humankind doesn't need much motivation to kill. Religion is too often the victim of motivator. It's a shame really. It seems we always need to have a 'bad guy' as much as we always need an ally. Someone to 'love', someone to 'hate'.

I would venture that any institution, especially, in light of discussion, a religious one, who casts a sense of embededness within warring nations by blessing weapons of war and trops etc, also is complicent with those nations political and military goals, and guilty of any crime the state could be accused of because of those actions.