The Church was indeed part of the government. They punished whole contries to keep other parts of the government in line.
“Interdict” was one of their tools of government.
“Crusade” was another.
“Excommunication” was a third.
The Crusades were actually an outgrowth of a peace movement (SEE The Peace of God; also The Truce of God) in which the Church brought to a halt fighting and violence all over Europe. And despite modern revisionism, the Crusades actually have a noble history. (SEE the article by the leading historian of the Crusades, Jonathan Riley-Smith, entitled “Crusading As An Act of Love.”)
“The Church was indeed part of the government.”
No, it wasn’t.
“They punished whole contries to keep other parts of the government in line.”
No. Whole countries were - rarely - punished in order to cause the population to demand correction on the part of their monarchs. That showed the Church ran exactly zero of those governments. If the Church did run those governments no interdict would ever be needed.
““Interdict” was one of their tools of government.”
No. Interdict was one of their tools of ecclesiastical authority in regard to the sacraments. In itself it didn’t effect government in the least. It effected sacramental practice.
““Crusade” was another.”
Again, false. If a crusade was needed, then clearly the Church did not control whoever was crusaded against. Also, how many state governments were crusaded against? Seriously, how many? The Albigensians were not a state government, for instance.
““Excommunication” was a third.”
Again, false. Excommunication was an ecclesiastical penalty. It was not a governmental policy or civil punishment. It was against and individual or a series of individual. It was not a tool against states for being states and even if it were that would only prove the Church did not run the state.
You don’t seem to understand that you’re undermining your own claims.