As well trained 21st Century Catholics, we are supposed to put our tail between our legs and bow whenever we are confronted with such topics as ‘Galileo’ or ‘the Spanish Inquisition,’ or ‘the Crusades.’ After all, we have been fully instructed by secularists, within a ‘revisionist history,’ hell bent on destroying the legitimacy of Catholicism, that the Christians have at least equal, if not preferably greater, responsibility for all of the worlds problems leading up to today’s progressive ‘Renaissance Enlightenment.’
But anyone literate, and willing to burn some midnight oil, will find the secularists ‘facts’ misleading. Now, I am certainly not a historian–more of a theologian, and a curmudgeon–yet, without going into a detailed historical recounting of the Crusades, and the accompanying yawns, common sense and easily obtainable knowledge will suffice in defense of the Catholic faith.
Secularists, even good ones like Walid Phares, recount the history of struggle between Christendom and Islam with tainted lenses. They see an equal evil in the Islamic Fatwah’s and the Christian Crusades. But anyone with the ability to read, and the ability to reason, will see their prejudiced error. First of all, in every case, the Islamic horde invaded the Christian land first. Historians, especially secularized ones, fail to see the necessary delay in a devastated, and non-industrialized land, only to equate in the delay an equally initiated attack. A tit-for-tat. But in reality, Christendom had every right to fight back for their land, life, and integrity lost through Islamic savagery. And a successful counterattack would certainly take a couple of hundred years to organize if a civilization was truly devastated from the invasion it suffered, compounded by their historical periods lack of industry. It’s not like Christendom could go to the factory and churn out B-52 bombers.
So its a fallacy to say that Christendom can’t claim self defense, and justifiable reclamation, since its reaction was a couple of hundred years later. That’s secularists projection of prejudicial bunk.
Secondly, the motivation for each side must be considered.
For Islam, as it was then, it is now. ‘Dar el Islam’ is the Moslem fatwah against moderate Moslems. Jihadists, then and now, always conquer themselves first. Then they attack under the ideological-theological battle cry of ‘Dar el harb.’ Attacking to conquer the world. Christendom on the other hand cannot claim to bone burning acidity in their hearts with a Messiah who willingly carries His Cross for His sheep. Any fire in Christendom’s eyes had two absolutely differing sources. Either ‘no greater love than to lay ones life down for a friend’ led many to defend friend and family, or, good old fashioned greed. In Christendom there was no ‘Dar el harb,’ unless you spoke of a Catholic evangelization.
Yes, kings, lords, and barron’s practiced avarice.
Yes, war is an ugly affair.
But the lesser of two evils is self-preservation.
And Christendom Crusaded against the Islamic Fatwah for the lesser evil in survival against a demon horde.