Last week President Obama at the National
Prayer Breakfast issued a sobering reminder to us Christians not to paper over
our own history of violence done in the name of religion.
“Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some
other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people
committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ, And in our home country,
slavery, and Jim Crow, all too often was justified in the name of Christ."
I can’t believe the outcry over this perfectly
obvious statement. In fact, the
situation is much worse than the President described. The Crusades and Inquisitions (there were
more than one, though the President was probably, like most who are
inadequately schooled in history, referring to the Spanish Inquisition of
1478-1834 which is the most notorious) are only the tip of the iceberg in
Christian violence.
As I just remarked, President Obama often
displays a lack of precise historical knowledge—but then he is not a historian
and for a non-historian he is far more knowledgeable in the field than the
majority of his critics and certainly those who fault his remarks about
Christians doing violence in the name of Christ.
One idiot, someone by the name of Tom Hoopes,
cited Cambridge historian Jonathan Riley Smith that the Crusades “were a
defensive war.” Now Professor Smith is a
leading authority on the Crusades but either Mr. Hoopes quoted him out of
context—something he has been known to do before with other sources (Mr. Hoopes
is a journalist and a professor of
Journalism at a small Catholic College in Kansas) or Professor Riley-Smith is
slipping into his dotage. A defensive
war means that you are fighting to defend your own homeland. The Crusaders, drawn from what is today
France, England, Germany and other European lands were attempting—initially
with success—to seize lands in 11th, 12th, and 13th
century Syria-Palestine. That is in no
way defensive. And of course there were
the Albigensian Crusades—which were a series of wars fought by Catholic knights
(and the occasional prelate) with the blessing of the Papacy against those
cities in what is today the South of France to root out the Albigensian heresy
to which many of the citizens of those cities and towns subscribed. Not only were the battles bloody but when
victorious, the Crusaders put those heretics who would not return to the Church
to death in cruel and inhuman ways. And
there were the Crusades in the Baltic where the Teutonic Knights came into what
is today Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania to impose—by force and often with
death—Christianity on the local population to up to that point subscribed to
their worship of various ancestral gods.
And don’t forget the Inquisitions—often linked
to those Albigensian Crusades but not limited to them. The most notorious, of course, is the Spanish
Inquisition of 1478-1834 in which historians estimate about 5000 people were
executed (out of about 175,000 who were brought to trial in one form or
another) for a variety of “crimes” ranging from abandoning the Christian faith,
Unitarianism, secret practice of Judaism or Islam, Witchcraft, Bigamy, Sodomy,
Protestantism, and Blasphemy. Of course
the Spanish Inquisition was only one of several inquisitions in Catholic
Europe. The Pope had the Roman
Inquisition (which was one of the more mild inquisitions though it too on occasion
executed people for religious reasons.
Giordano Bruno is the most famous of those so executed but his
theological aberrations were possibly a cover for his allegedly being a spy for
Elizabeth’s England.) The Portuguese had
their own Inquisition. France had it Chambre Ardente for the trial and
execution of heretics. And ol’ Henry
VIII executed his share of Protestants—some with the help of his Chancellor,
Sir Thomas More—both before and after his break with the papacy.
I recently did a series of postings on the
history of Christian anti-Semitism in France that can be traced back at least
to the Merovingian period of the seventh century, though admittedly we don’t—as
far as I have been able to find—have any record of Jews being put to death at that
period. By the time of the Crusades
however the slaughter of European Jews by hysteric Christian mobs was somewhat
commonplace in Europe. There are several
episodes of Rhineland Jews being massacred by knights and their accompanying
mobs in the wake of Pope Urban’s call for the First Crusade. At the same period there were episodes in
England of Jews being killed and their homes burned. In 1279 approximately 300 Jews were executed
for suspected “coin clipping”—the practice of shaving the gold along the edges
of a coin. The expulsion of Jews from
many European countries (England 1290, France 1306, Spain 1492) undoubtedly
saved many Jewish lives as periodic violence against them in many areas of
northern Europe where they remained, particularly in what is today Germany and
the Slavic lands of Eastern Europe was responsible for the deaths of tens of
thousands from the 12th through the 18th centuries. (Such
violence did not end in the 18th century and the worst episode of
course is the Holocaust of the 20th century, but the direct
influence of the Church (or Churches as Lutherans and Calvinists also played a
part) in encouraging such violence waned under the Enlightenment secularism of
the Prussian and Austrian Crowns.
Much of the Christian anti-Semitism that fueled
the murder of Jews in the medieval period was rooted in legends and wild
stories of Jews murdering Christian children to use their blood in Jewish
rituals. This is the so-called Blood
Libel. In some cases, such as that of Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln (Little
Saint Hugh to distinguish him from the great bishop of the same name) the child
victim of a murder attributed to the Jews was venerated as a Saint and a Martyr
to keep the animosity alive. There were
also stories of Jews stealing consecrated hosts for the purpose of
desecration. And there were stories and
legends of Jews poisoning wells to kill off Christian populations.
Then there were the slaughter of Catholics by
Protestants and of Protestants by Catholics during the Reformation. And the Wars of Religion. And the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of
August 1572 in which probably 10,000 Huguenots (French Protestants) were killed
by Catholic mobs. Pope Gregory XIII had
a solemn Te Deum sung in thanksgiving
in the Sistine Chapel and ordered frescoes of the slaughter to be painted in
the Vatican’s Sala Regia, the Pope’s formal audience hall.
I could go on, of course, but the point is
made. When it comes to Christian
violence and Christian violence done with the sanction of the Church, President
Obama was generous in his remarks. It
has been far worse than he ascribed.
History will treat the President more kindly than his critics. He will be remembered for his Health Care
Reform, for the economic recovery from the economic “recession” (read
“depression”) he inherited from the previous administration, the elimination of
Osama bin Laden, and his support for Veterans. He also will be remembered as
the first openly post-Christian president, and that demands a clarification I
need to do in a future post. He won’t be
a great president but he will, in fifty years and once we get over the shock of
having a non-white person in the White House, be remembered as one of our
better presidents. His foes (not those
who disagree with him but those who have made him to be their enemy), for the
greater part, will be remembered for their subtle—and for some,
unconscious—racism that clouded their judgment and remind the rest of us of
just how evil prejudice can be in sowing civil discord.
I can tell that this final assessment will
evoke a certain response and advise readers now that I will be selective in
posting responses.
If I am not mistaken during the reign of Charlemagne there was a mass beheading of tribal chieftains at Verdun who had "relapsed" secretly to their pre-Christian religion. The rivers ran red with their blood. I cite this example of past atrocities because they bear a similarity to the savage brutality of the ISIS tactics in eliminating rival religious adherents. The fact that the incidents are separated by centuries does not, in my opinion, vitiate the president's pointing out how all religions can be, and have been, the motivation behind violence undertaken in their name -- usually when the consolidation of political power is at stake and the "cujus regio, cujus religio" principle in invoked as justification.
ReplyDeleteDear Consolamini, Thank you for your interest in responding to my comments. I have read what you have said and nevertheless I will stick to my position. Their God and their Allah is NOT my God and never will be. I know that Allah is the Arabic word for God but to me it is a different personification of God when used in a Muslim context. To me the word "Islamophobia" is a BS word. The Muslims deserve the reputation they got. And yes, I know that the Roman Catholic Church has justified itself in committing its past violence. But there is more to Christianity than the RC Church as the writer of this blog has written of in his articles. And yes we need to know our history. History is now all over the internet. It is all over the place. Just look at the articles contained in this blog! So let me tell you this, whether you share the viewpoints of this author, or the Katholic Krazies, the high or low church Anglicans, the Ranters, the Shakers or the Quakers or the Holy Rollers, the choice is between you and God. It is NOT between you and me or you and the Author of this blog. It is NOT between you and a gang of religious thugs on the street (ISIS\ISIL). It is between you and the Lord, and that is what counts. Have a good day!
ReplyDeleteWell, soldier on to the beat of whatever drum you hear and what god it is that you find to be your god--in the free world in which we live you have every right to choose your own reality co-ordinates. But as for me I will continue to advocate sticking to facts and the rational/logical analysis thereof and to the worship of God as revealed by Jesus and held by the faith of the Catholic Church for two millennia
ReplyDelete