It is interesting that when this is brought up, a Calvinist never mentions the Religous Wars when this event occurred or the atrocities on either side. You never hear mention of Briquemont, who wore a string of priests' ears as a necklace.
The slaughter was such a success, the pope issued a commemorative coin.
The commemoration was not of the massacre. The inscription on the coin commemorates the overthrow of the Hugenots. In fact, Gregory XIII did not approve of the massacre. He detested the cruel act and shed tears when he was apprised of it.
Never count on a Calvinist giving the full story when they are trying to score points.
Didn’t the religious wars of the Renaissance and early Baroque happen over a number of decades?
You wrote:
“You never hear mention of Briquemont, who wore a string of priests’ ears as a necklace.”
You never hear about Protestant atrocities. You never hear about the murder of the priests of Gorcum by Calvinists, for instance.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06651c.htm
http://www.bartleby.com/210/7/093.html
“The commemoration was not of the massacre.”
Right! It was more of a commemoration of the saving of the king. The pope had been told that the Calvinists were plotting to assassinate him and he was saved by vigilant Catholics.
And Protestants struck medals about their victories as well: http://www.kunstpedia.com/articles/373/3/Medallic-History-of-Religious-and-Racial-Intolerance—Medals-as-instruments-for-promoting-bigotry/Page3.html
The pope was outraged that he had been lied to about the massacre:
“...on 8 September, 1572, three weeks after the massacre, Cardinal Come, Secretary of State to Gregory XIII, wrote to Salviati: “Your letters show that you were aware of the preparations for the blow against the Huguenots long before it was dealt. You would have done well to inform His Holiness in time.” “
The pope, however, was only told that the monarchy had was threatened:
“Wrote the Cardinal de Bourbon, “Said Admiral was so wicked as to have conspired to kill said King, his mother, the Queen and his brothers . . . . He (the Admiral) and all the ringleaders of his sect were slain . . . . And what I most commend is the resolution taken by His Majesty to exterminate this vermin.”
So, when Church officials heard of the massacre they naturally believed it was actually the putting down of a revolt against the monarchy:
“In his letter describing the massacre Salviati said: “I rejoice that it has pleased the Divine Majesty to take under His protection the King and the Queen-mother.””
And the pope responded accordingly:
“It is not surprising, therefore, that, on 22 September, Gregory XIII should have written to Charles IX: “Sire, I thank God that He was pleased to preserve and defend Your Majesty, Her Majesty, the Queen-mother and Your Majesty’s royal bothers from the horrible conspiracy. I do not think that in all history there is mention of such cruel malevolence.” “
And the simple fact is that the massacre was supposed to be of the leading Calvinists who were threatening the French crown. It was not supposed to be of simple people. How do we know this? The king said so:
“In all probability we come closest to the real truth about Charles IX and what he had done in his confession to his doctor, the famous Ambroise Paré, about a week after the massacre in Paris:
“Ambroise, I do not know what has been happening to me for the last two or three days, but I find my mind and body greatly disturbed, as if I were fevered. It seems to me at every moment, whether waking or sleeping, that those massacred bodies are presenting themselves before me, with their faces hideous and covered with blood. I wish they had not included the simple and the innocent.36”
http://defendingthebride.com/hs/bartholomew.html
The pope, when he knew what really happened, said this: “I am weeping for the conduct of the king [Charles IX], which is unlawful and forbidden by God.”
The “Spanish ambassador Zuniga described him as “struck with horror” at the details of the massacre. Later the Pope said he wept for the many innocent dead, and refused to receive the assassin Maurevert in audience. The ambassador of Savoy wrote from Rome that what had happened in Paris “has been extolled insofar as it affects the good of the king and of his kingdom and of religion, but it would have been far more highly extolled if His Majesty had been able to act with clean hands.” On September 11 the Pope celebrated the event in a special bull, though it was worded to praise only the execution of the leaders, not the slaughter of the two thousand.”
http://defendingthebride.com/hs/bartholomew.html
But why let FACTS get in the way of Protestant lies and distortions?