Pope Innocent III: "The Crusade must not attack Christians" ; He Condemned the Crusaders.

HEADER FOR Expressions

(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome

Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."

God bless you...

Pope Innocent III: "The Crusade must not attack Christians" ; He Condemned the Crusaders.

Forum: Theological Expressions
Re:

Reconciliation, Towards Unity: JOINT STATEMENT BY POPE, ORTHODOX PRELATE (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Re:

PAPAL APOLOGY TO GREEK ORTHODOX (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Re:

"Enemy" Churches Praying Together: Pope and Orthodox Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Re:

Read What Christodoulos Says to John Paul II (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Reflections on the Sack of Constantinople in 1204 and Lesser-Known Byzantine Atrocities (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Re:

Greek Atrocities Against the Latins (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Re:

Tit for tat eh? (Christopher Yip)
Re:

Pope Innocent III - The Crusades and His "AGENDA" ??? (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Date: 2001, Jun 06
From: Matthew Tan Yew Hock MatthewTan

Dave Armstrong Answers the Orthodox Christians:
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ291.HTM
So the first thing to be noted is that this horrific event [i.e. the Sack of Constantinople] is morally indefensible, and that Catholics know and accept this. Secondly, and most importantly, the pope at the time, Pope Innocent III, neither knew about nor sanctioned in the least this massacre and sacrilegious pillage. In fact, he had forbidden the Crusaders, on pain of excommunication, to attack Byzantium, instructing the leader, Boniface of Montferrat, that: "The crusade must not attack Christians, but should proceed as quickly as possible to the Holy Land." He only found out the full horror of what had happened more than eight months later, and wrote to Cardinal Peter Capuano, denouncing the sack in no uncertain terms:
These "soldiers of Christ" who should have turned their swords against the infidel have steeped them in Christian blood, sparing neither religion, nor age, nor sex . . . They stripped the altars of silver, violated the sanctuaries, robbed icons and crosses and relics . . . The Latins have given example only of perversity and works of darkness. No wonder the Greeks call them dogs!"
{cited in Carroll, ibid., p. 158; from Mann, Popes of the Middle Ages, vol. 12, pp. 266-267}
...
It is noteworthy in this regard that the massacres of Venetians in 1171 were perpetrated, according to Carroll, "on the orders or at least with the tacit approval of the Byzantine government." The treachery of 1188 against Frederick Barbarossa and the Crusaders, by Eastern Emperor Isaac II, was obviously (by definition) from a position of high authority also (as the Byzantine Emperor was by nature also a leader in the Orthodox Church). Frederick asked the pope for approval for a crusade against Isaac but was turned down by the pope and soon thought better of it. Likewise, Patriarch Dositheus of Constantinople offered unconditional absolution to any Greek killing a westerner.
...
But when all is said and done, I see no point in adding up bodies for both sides. The point is that there is enough sin to go around, and the whole thing should be dropped, in my opinion, for the sake of unity. Both sides have acknowledged wrongs and it is time to move ahead. We can't change the past.
I refuse to view the horrible event of 1204 in isolation, because that is the truly biased and unbalanced (even bordering on infantile) method of reading history, and mitigates against learning from its lessons. It is a fundamentally liberal mindset which never looks back at history to learn (and speculate) why things happened the way they did - why we are in the boat we are in now. The fact remains that 1204 was not sanctioned from the top, whereas Eastern massacres and treachery in 1171, 1182, and 1188 were.To me, that is the cogent point in all this trading of horror stories, because it illustrates the difference in the integrity and principle of authority between the two camps at the highest levels.
I wonder why this incident is always brought up amongst Orthodox? What is the purpose of that? To prove the Catholic Church is evil? I think that's ludicrous. If it does not prove the evil nature of the Western Church, then of what use is it to constantly talk about this, when no one in their right mind (knowing the facts) defends it? I would never have written about either Orthodox or Protestant atrocities and unsavory incidents (as I prefer the proactive, positive approach) if my separated brethren had not bandied Catholic "historical sins" about with great disdain (and too often, glee). Once that is done, then I must "balance the historical record," just as (to use an analogy from politics) Rush Limbaugh gives the antidote to pervasive leftist bias in the media. It's always an uphill battle for us Catholics, because we labor under this avalanche of misinformation and emotional hostility.
The sad fact is, that the sack of 1204 is brought up far too often, and I don't think that is conducive to the desired goals of unity and ecumenism (especially once all the facts about it and its precipitating causes are understood). If we can hold a 795-year-old grudge, why not go further back? Let's hold a grudge against the Egyptians for enslaving Moses and the Hebrews back in 1400 BC or so. Let's begrudge Italy because the Romans sacked Jerusalem in 70 AD. Let's get mad at Greece (Macedonia?) for Alexander the Great's many conquests. If time has no bearing on sin, then why not do that? The Serbians remember their battle of 1389 like yesterday, we are told, so why not 1204, too? Even secular society does better at forgetting than that. Look at our friendly attitude towards the Germans and Japanese, for example - a mere 50 years after they were both our mortal enemies in the greatest war of world history. Can't the Church do a little better than that?
-- more, for those interested: read on --- http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ291.HTM