You wrote: "Some of these guys were in it for the money, and this was just a convenient vehicle to pursue it."
This is true as far as it goes; but it is not the whole story, nor even the main story. Historian Thomas Madden, examining documents from the time (including birth/baptismal records, transfers of lands and estates, inheritances) has found convincing evidence that most Crusaders did not expect to gain plunder and power, and in fact gave up everything that they owned in order to sacrificially defend their faith and their fellow Christians of the East.
See:
www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
Yes, there were shameful massacres and betrayals carried out by Crusaders. We must, and have, repented this. But the most egregious examples are, upon closer study, seen to be exceptions to the Crusader pattern.
For instance, the Fourth Crusade --- the sack of Constantinople --- was a bizarre episode which can hardly be listed with the Crusades, if you define the Crusades as ecclesiastically-sponsored military expeditions to rescue the beleaguered Christians of the East and secure the Holy Land.
The spurious Fourth "Crusade" was basically a bunch of plunder-seeking Venetians who found it expedient to attack and sack Christian cities along the way. First, Zara, (now Zadar, Croatia) a Catholic city on the coast of the Adriatic, as well as nearby Trieste, were attacked, even though Zara had placed itself under the dual protection of the Papacy and King Emeric of Hungary.
This led to the condemnation, in writing, of the Venetian "Crusaders" by Pope Innocent III. This did not deter them from joining in an intrigue to restore a contender to the throne in Constantinople; and when that didn't pan out as planned, they brutally sacked the city, which was the greatest and most beautiful city of Christendom. As soon as the news of the Venetians' bloody plundering reached Rome, an infuriated Pope Innocent III excommunicated them.
The fact that the Venetians were first condemned, and then excommunicated, shows that their conduct was not considered legitimate "Crusading," even at the time. Then and now, the Fourth "Crusade" is considered a criminal enterprise.
Thanks for the note. I appreciate it. I don't claim to be an authority on any of this. I got my info from the History Channel, which reenacted the First Crusade. It was quite fascinating. What I don't thing would be wise, would be for the Church to whitewash matters. That just feeds the flames, and in this day and age, would backfire, and won't work. The modern method is to try to persuade, and sheath the sword.