Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: vladimir998; roamer_1
vladimir998 to romer_1, post #31: "1) I think you mean Bezier and not Benziers."

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:

  1. "In the end, the Albigensian Crusade is estimated to have killed 1 million people, not only Cathars but a significant portion of the general population of southern France."

  2. A contemporary report: "To his shame, William made no effort to control his fury, punishing the innocent with the guilty.
    He ordered that crops and herds, tools and food be burned to ashes.
    More than 100,000 people perished of hunger."

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.

41 posted on 09/18/2013 1:02:50 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]


To: BroJoeK

“Nobody — not Catholics, their priests or Cathars — was spared.”

Of course that isn’t true. As the Jewish Encyclopedia notes: “On July 22, 1209, Béziers was stormed and the inhabitants massacred. Two hundred Jews lost their lives in this massacre, and a large number were driven into captivity.”

If Jews weer driven into captivity, then they were spared massacre. If Jews, who had no connection whatsoever to the combatants, were spared, then others must have been as well.

As I already noted. The town never stopped functioning. Thus, there was a population that was spared plus new inhabitants.


42 posted on 09/18/2013 1:25:35 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

To: BroJoeK

“In fact, Beziers was utterly destroyed and its population murdered.”

Actually no. The city was not destroyed and some of the population was spared.

“Yes, restorations began just a few years later, but were not completed for another200 years.”

Actually the city never stopped functioning and recovered quite well in a relatively short amount of time. Already by the early 14th century (just 100 years after the massacre) the population was estimated to be 14,000 (see The Sovereign State and Its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Change by Hendrik Spruyt, page 87)

“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.”

Doesn’t matter what you classify it as. It just matters what it was: 1) before the Doomsday Book, 2) a slaughter of people (gee, would someone slaughter his tax paying citizens?).

“And it does not even compare to the Albigensian Crusade”

Actually it does. For one thing, the Albigensian was an actual war with two warring sides. The Harrowing of the North was not. The crusade took a number of years. The Harrowing really took one or two only. Also, the number 1,000,000 generally is not taken seriously by historians. Remember the population in France in 1200 was about 12,000,000. The chance that one out 12 people were killed in Southern France is very unlikely.

“The Brits were not methodically exterminated, but died of hunger.”

Actually not a single Brit was killed. There were no Brits. Plenty of Anglo-Saxons died, however.

“Many thousands more fled the British Isles to avoid a similar fate.”

Actually, no. Very few people left the British isles. Where would they go when it was the Normans attacking them?

“I accept your claim that the Church is spiritually innocent of any crimes committed by its officials, including a Pope.”

It’s not a claim. It’s a fact.

“But legally any church is just as responsible as any other legal entity (i.e., corporations) for official actions of their employees.”

No. That could only be viewed as true in a nation with laws like our own in today’s world. No such understanding of law existed at that time.

“In this particular case, the Pope officially ordered the assault, and appointed its leader, so the Church is legally responsible for the results.”

No. There was no such understanding of law in that way at the time. At that time it was more understood this way: You asked for this by your actions and crime. You got it. And there’s nothing you can do about it. Also, there was simply no framework of law to try the Church since it was not a person, but the Body of Christ and respected as such in law.

“Of course, 800 years later, nobody is going to collect... or will they?”

Nope.

“In fact, as with any other legal entity, the Church is legally responsible for official crimes of its officials.”
Actually, no. There was no “official crime” in the first place since what was done was not ordered by the Church, did not necessarily contravene existing law.

“So I’ll ask again: what is the legal statute of limitations on mass exterminations?”

Your question makes no sense – no matter how often you ask it. Since all involved are dead it wouldn’t matter if there was a statute of limitations in any case.

“I was speaking metaphorically,”

I wasn’t.

“… 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.”

So, because a thread speaks about Albigensians in secular form you speak metaphorically? If it were about humpback whales in the Pacific would you speak anagogically?

“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.”

What would it matter? No Albigensians today could be any more harsh than the communists and jihadists of the last century. We’re not afraid of martyrdom.

“But the point seems lost on you, right?”

I don’t think you made a point at all. Your “points” are pointless.

“Spiritually, perhaps.”

Okay.

“Legally, your distinction between Church and its officials is irrelevant.”

So is applying 21st century understandings of law to something that happened in 1209.

“Were a case to be brought in court, the Church itself, just as with pedophile priests, would pay the price.”

Nope. Not a bit. There are no plaintiffs and can’t be.

“A sincere apology is also a confession and repentance for the Truth.”

For John Paul II maybe. But he never apologized for the Church for he knew no such apology was necessary. The Church did nothing wrong.

“In my humble opinion, that’s all that’s really needed at this point.”

You probably won’t get it. And it will be meaningless if you do.


45 posted on 09/18/2013 3:00:47 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson