“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.