You wrote:
“Arguably, these exterminations only happened when different religions fought each other”
Then no massacre happened in Bezier since the population contained a number of Christians as well as heretics. You’re not helping yourself.
“In “normal” warfare, when say, rivals for the throne of a certain duchy fought battles, they typically did not destroy the very duchy they were fighting for.”
Massacring a city would not destroy a “duchy”. It didn’t even destroy Bezier. The city was up and running in no time.
“When William the B*stard conquered England in 1066, his next major act was not to exterminate the Brits, but rather to count them, so he could tax them — the Doomsday book.”
No. The first thing he did of any note was launch the series of vicious campaigns called “The Harrowing of the North” from 1069 to 1070. The contemporary death toll was given as 100,000. William essentially depopulated the North with a scorched earth policy. The Doomsday Book was compiled two decades later and clearly shows the North had still not recovered. William’s policy was to wipe out the population, genocide. He so reduced people to starvation that the survivors started eating each other.
You knew nothing about that, right?
“Your church doesn’t get off the hook that easy, not any more.”
The Church isn’t getting off “easy” because it was never on the hook in the first place. The bishop is entirely responsible for his own actions just like you are.
“When your church commits crimes, it must pay the price.”
The Church didn’t commit any crime and will never pay any price for Bezier.
“In the case of pedophile priests, sure, they go to jail, and the Church also pays millions (or is it billions?) of dollars in restitutions.”
None of which has anything to do with Bezier. In Bezier it was the Albigensians who were committing sodomy.
“Today, justice will be done, and the Church will pay for its crimes.”
The Church committed no crimes.
“So, how long is the international statute of limitations on mass exterminations — a century? a millennium?”
Irrelevant. The Church wouldn’t be charged because the Church didn’t kill anyone.
“A day of reckoning is coming, and you must fervently pray that your church’s past victims will be kinder to you than it was to them, FRiend.”
Nope. The Day of Judgment is coming and the Church has nothing to fear at all. Some men on the other hand do.
“And recent Popes have also made numerous apologies, of which this is a partial list.”
I know the list and knew of the apologies most likely long before you did. I also know they are essentially meaningless. 1) The people harmed get no apology - they are centuries long dead, 2) all the apologies make it clear that people were responsible, not the Church in any culpable sense.
“Personally, I think that’s a great beginning, and one reason John Paul II deserves beatification and canonization.
So there’s no need your you, vladimir998, to defend what a Pope has already apologized for.”
Actually I’m doing what he did. He never apologized for the Church - and neither am I - for the Church did nothing wrong. John Paul II apologized for the actions of men. The liberal press - and stupid anti-Catholics on the internet of course - always say John Paul II apologized for the Church as if he was saying the Church did something wrong. But he always made it clear that it was men who were at fault, not the Church. Pope Benedict did the same thing: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, when discussing the Inquisition wrote: “Even men of the church, in the name of faith and morals, have sometimes used methods not in keeping with the Gospel,”. Notice, he said “men of the church”, not the Church.
It helps to actually know what you’re talking about.
“Of course, whether some Pope ever apologized to the Cathar-Albigensians, I couldn’t say.
But as I read the historical record, one is due, and it’s never too late to confess, repent and seek forgiveness.”
An apology for the actions of those men on that day would be just fine, but no confession or repentance is needed or valid - since no living man was involved - and no forgiveness can be sought or is needed today since no living man today was involved or culpable.
“You could even start right here, right now vlad...”
Nope. I see no reason to apologize for something I didn’t do, that no one I have ever met was involved with, and that happened 800 years ago.
No, the correct spelling is "Beziers".
vladimir998 to BJK: "Then no massacre happened in Bezier since the population contained a number of Christians as well as heretics.
You’re not helping yourself."
In fact, according to the Crusaders' Pope-appointed commander & Papal legate, the Abbot of Citeaux Arnaud Amalric, in his after-action report to Pope notso-Innocent III:
Nobody -- not Catholics, their priests or Cathars -- was spared.
vladimir998: "Massacring a city would not destroy a “duchy”.
It didn’t even destroy Bezier.
The city was up and running in no time."
In fact, Beziers was utterly destroyed and its population murdered.
Yes, restorations began just a few years later, but were not completed for another 200 years.
vladimir998: "The first thing he did of any note was launch the series of vicious campaigns called “The Harrowing of the North” from 1069 to 1070.
The contemporary death toll was given as 100,000.
William essentially depopulated the North with a scorched earth policy."
In fact, The Harrowing of the North is left out of most history books, however, I classify it as part of William's conquest of Britain.
And it does not even compare to the Albigensian Crusade:
The Brits were not methodically exterminated, but died of hunger.
Many thousands more fled the British Isles to avoid a similar fate.
vladimir998: "The Church didn’t commit any crime and will never pay any price for Bezier."
I accept your claim that the Church is spiritually innocent of any crimes committed by its officials, including a Pope.
But legally any church is just as responsible as any other legal entity (i.e., corporations) for official actions of their employees.
In this particular case, the Pope officially ordered the assault, and appointed its leader, so the Church is legally responsible for the results.
Of course, 800 years later, nobody is going to collect... or will they?
vladimir998: "The Church wouldn’t be charged because the Church didn’t kill anyone."
In fact, as with any other legal entity, the Church is legally responsible for official crimes of its officials.
So I'll ask again: what is the legal statute of limitations on mass exterminations?
vladimir998: "The Day of Judgment is coming and the Church has nothing to fear at all.
Some men on the other hand do."
I was speaking metaphorically, of course, since the purpose of this particular thread is to warn us about the return of the Albigensian Heresy, this time in secular form.
I was simply warning people that the Church better hope a restored Albigensian Sect is not as brutal to the Church as it was to them.
But the point seems lost on you, right?
vladimir998: "all the apologies make it clear that people were responsible, not the Church in any culpable sense."
Spiritually, perhaps.
Legally, your distinction between Church and its officials is irrelevant.
Were a case to be brought in court, the Church itself, just as with pedophile priests, would pay the price.
vladimir998: "An apology for the actions of those men on that day would be just fine, but no confession or repentance is needed or valid..."
A sincere apology is also a confession and repentance for the Truth.
In my humble opinion, that's all that's really needed at this point.