Pope Francis calls for ARMED RESPONSE to defend Christians from Genocide

One last thing:

You just about prove that there can be no rational public conversation on the internet. I pipe in with a reminder why Catholics have rightly become very hesitant to embrace popes calling for armed responses, by bringing up the horrors of the Albigensian Crusade, and you have to immediately launch to a diatribe about how I’m “covering up” for the very abuses I brought up.

Do you know why I emphasized what the Albigensians were up to? It wasn’t to whitewash the Church; it wasn’t to justify the Church’s response. Just the opposite: it was to make the point how bad things can get when the Church grabs for the sword. (In the case of ISIL, the horrors are so bad, I am glad the Pope responded as he did, but I am explaining why he is slow in general.)

LOL, do you hear yourself? Or is it that you believe I don't hear you? Comparing ISIL with the Cathars IS whitewashing the Church. ISIL is moving through the countryside committing mass murder in the most hideous fashion in the name of their religion. The Cathars moved through southern France in total peace. They killed no one. Pope Francis is calling for military intervention against ISIL in order to STOP them from committing genocide. In direct contrast, the Pope called for military intervention against the Cathars in order to COMMIT genocide against them.

Yet you relate the two as similar, while claiming to not whitewash the church?

Please, just take it somewhere else.

I repeat, that was only a slice of a much bigger dialogue, I know. But the pattern was, somebody objects to the anti-sex, or antinomian, or anarchist doctrines of the Albis, and you intepret this as support for genocide.

Actually, "the pattern" was that the "much bigger dialogue" was the defense of the mass murders through the invocation of "heresy." And the defense of the charge of heresy was through the invocation of what were claimed to be "anti-sex, or antinomian, or anarchist doctrines," but which could only be made by throwing context and deeper Cathar teachings to the wind.

Which always bemuses me, because the Catholics of the day wanted it both ways against the Cathars - they denied they were Christians, and at the same time accused them of heresy, a charge which can only be made against Christians. Because, of course, the Cathars never claimed to be Christians but acknowledged Jesus Christ and had a different interpretation of His teachings.

So if you want to invoke modern times to that situation, it is a direct match: what ISIL is doing in Iraq is exactly what the Church did to the Cathars in southern France. And for the same reasons - a different take on the same religious founder. Because you'll note that while ISIL kills whatever Christians come their way, they are overwhelmingly and mainly and openly targeting Muslims, with the goal of creating one world Islamic caliphate. Which is, of course, the real reason the Pope wiped out the Cathars - so there would be one world-spanning Christianity overseen by the Catholic Church - and no one and nothing else would be left alive to invoke Jesus. And that is EXACTLY the goal of ISIL concerning Mohammed.

So that's your real comparison to the Cathars. And in helping stop it today, Pope Francis is directly mitigating some of the terrible sin the Church committed so long ago, and I applaud him for it.

That he obviously intends it to support justification for a UN military, I'm not so pleased about. But then, roses always come with thorns.

I’m NOT relating them as similar. I’m describing one military action (against the Cathars) as a horrible injustice, while I’m applauding the call for another one! If I thought the action against the Cathars was so horrible, and I believed ISIL to be like the Cathars, how could I possibly applaud a call for action against ISIL?

But, for the record, the initial Catholic response to the Cathars was merely to send preachers. In fact, one of the three greatest Catholic orders of priests, (and the most orthodox among them) was founded in response to the Cathars.

The Pope turned to warfare only after his preachers were brutally slaughtered. Does this justify the slaughter of 20,000 people? No, that would be a grossly disproportionate response. In fact, the preachers weren’t killed by the Cathar perfecti, but their allies to whom I referred. But, then, this is an ugly matter of war: it is necessarily political.

The Catholic legates were not slaughtered by the Cathars, but by independent-minded barons who ruled independent of Paris. The papal authorization of war meant that a political leader would make the war. And that political leader sought the conquest of Langued’oc more than the redemption of souls. In fact, the horrible political mistake of the Pope was that he ordered that the crusaders from the north of France were allowed to keep whatever property they won in the crusade. Thus, greed became a motivation for ruthlessness: the warlords became not primarily concerned with being able to rule a restive land as most kings would have been, but rather he who conquered the fastest would become the wealthiest. Naively, the Pope had instigated a race for carnage.

But allow me to repeat my main point: Catholics on this forum have not defended mass murder, though you have said repeatedly that they do.

Talisker, I am intensely interested in this because I understand that the prohibition of the intended killing of an innocent human being is one of the exceptionless norms of Moral Law. It is often violated in both medical and military contexts, but every such violation is a mortal sin.

Do you know anybody here who thinks that what was done at Beziers or Carcassone was justified? Do you know anbody who names Arnaud Amalric or Pope Innicent III as saints or heroes?

Has any Catholic on his forum defended the targeted or indiscriminate killing of noncombatants?

That's what "supporting genocide" would be, but I haven't seen anybody doing that.

I'm perfectly serious. I want to know who takes a "Kill all the Cathars" position.

"But I must say I think you’re overdoing the astonishment thing."

No, I don't think so. The approval of indiscriminate killing of the innocent --- on this board --- is, I'm happy to say, rather rare. It emanates most frequently from FReepers participating in the annual ritual of praising the human flesh fricasee at Hiroshjima-Nagasaki around August 6-9. This disgusts me. But it has no particularly religious context. And as for burning heretics or putting them to the sword, I've never seen anyone here defend that: not once. Ever.

That's why I'm guessing that you're conflating "disapproval of heresy" with "supporting genocide." Two different things.

I realize that the word "heretic" can be used as an all-purpose method of rhetorical dehumanization --- and for that reason I don't musch like to use it --- but it needn't be so. It really just means a person who is in error. It doesn't necessarily imply a character fault or a perfidious act. No more than a person incorrectly adding a column of numbers could be called morally objectionable or personally corrupt.

Sigh.

A five second Google on "Talisker Cathar" brought this example in the second hit from six years ago. More than this I will not do, except to state - once again - that it is an ongoing issue that has been picked up and affirmed by various Catholics on FR for years, and no one, including me (thanks so much) have been confused about the exact points we were making. Though maintaining the position that I don't understand my own words, while denying the existence of unseen evidence and minimizing and dismissing what you've found, has not endeared you to me. Among other things its tedious, manipulative and insulting.

"The Cathars were treacherous subversives and Europe needed to be saved from them. Thank God it was!"

17 posted on 06/17/2009 4:24:43 AM PDT by vladimir998
(Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)

"The Albigensians were dangerous murderers, oathbreakers, and terrorists... If killing them is the only way to stop them, then that's the path they chose to take."

19 posted on 06/17/2009 4:47:46 AM PDT by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))

There's much, much more of this, as the SPECIFIC subject of heresy versus genocide was the actual TOPIC of these discussions. But I won't ask you to take my word for it - after all, what's the point?

I realize that the word "heretic" can be used as an all-purpose method of rhetorical dehumanization --- and for that reason I don't musch like to use it --- but it needn't be so. It really just means a person who is in error. It doesn't necessarily imply a character fault or a perfidious act. No more than a person incorrectly adding a column of numbers could be called morally objectionable or personally corrupt.

If ever there was a loaded word, if ever there was a word that has been used to justify mass murder, surely it is the word "heresy." So I think you treat it a tad to casually, given the historical horror it has been repeatedly used to justify. Not to mention that you left out that it is only properly used by Christians, or in this case Catholics, who have turned against the heterodox teachings. Not, for example, Cathars who were never Catholics to begin with.

Not that that helped them much. Funny how nuanced definitions matter sometimes, yet other times they are irrelevant. I guess what really matters is not what the definitions are, but who gets to decide the applicable nuance level. That's how Cathars who taught and lived peace but who were mercilessly persecuted became terroristic, murdering heretics who had to be wiped out for the defense of Western Civilization when they started defending themselves.

They didn't control the nuance.

...he approval of indiscriminate killing of the innocent --- on this board --- is, I'm happy to say, rather rare. ...it has no particularly religious context. And as for burning heretics or putting them to the sword, I've never seen anyone here defend that: not once. Ever.

It doesn't seem that the Church agrees with your position in this matter. For reference and orientation purposes, this is from "Christianity and its persecutions of the Cathars," (http://www.heretication.info/_cathars.html):

"...it is not difficult to find Roman Catholic authorities who seek to justify the Church's genocide and make out that it acted for the best. A Handbook of Heresies (1959), approved by a Roman Catholic Censor and bearing the Imprimatur of the Vicar General at Westminster, refers to Guzmán's (St. Dominic's) "heroic exercise of fraternal charity" . His failure as a preacher is not mentioned, nor the fact that even using trickery and torture almost no Cathars parfaits (if any at all) could be induced to abandon their faith. The thousands of Cathar deaths are not referred to - except in the most oblique terms: "The long and arduous task was at length successful, and by the end of the fourteenth century Albigensianism, with all other forms of Catharism, was practically extinct." ...There is not a hint of remorse or regret for the holocaust, and one can only assume that, if it could, the Church would act in the same way again if similar circumstances arose in the future."

The simple fact is that the Church stands behind the slaughter, even to this day. And that's why I haven't found it difficult to find Catholics who defend it with righteousness and pride and vigour. The do not care what the issues are, because those issues have been declared heretical. And once that happens, the issues are no more - only the label of heresy remains for them. They have schooled me quit firmly in that logic sequence, and I no longer believe the subject worth bothering with as far as such Catholics are concerned. They wanted to make that point crystal clear, and they did.

May God have mercy on their souls.

Does this justify the slaughter of 20,000 people? No, that would be a grossly disproportionate response.

Then I'm sure you'll agree that slaughtering 500,000 over the next 20 years and three popes would be even more disproportionate. I looked up that number, it's the most accepted one. I've read higher, but I think it makes the point.

In fact, the horrible political mistake of the Pope was that he ordered that the crusaders from the north of France were allowed to keep whatever property they won in the crusade. ...Naively, the Pope had instigated a race for carnage.

Nice parsing. Political mistake instead of religious or moral mistake. And race for carnage, rather than carnage. Because of course the Pope, and the other two popes across twenty years, intended the carnage, and that was no mistake.

Must suck to believe you have to defend the indefensible for your religion. Sucks worse to not see it as indefensible, though.

I believe in context. Here's something from "Christianity and its persecutions of the Cathars" (http://www.heretication.info/_cathars.html):

The Crusade was intensified under the next pope, Honorius III. Here is a contemporary account of a masacre carried out by Crusaders in 1219 at Marmonde, a town of some 7000 people. It shocked even the crusaders own allies:

"…terror and massacre began. Noblemen, ladies and their ittle children, men and women stripped naked, all were slashed and cut to ribbons by keen edged swords. Flesh, blood, brains, torsos, limbs and faces hacked in two; lungs, livers and guts torn out and thrown away - laying on the open ground as if they had rained down from the heavens. Marshland and firm ground, all was red with blood. Not a man or woman was left alive, neither young nor old, no living creature, except perhaps some well-hidden infant. Marmond was razed and set alight…"

Just so you understand, to me your arguments are identical to someone trying to justify Auschwitz.

Talisker, you are certainly right when you say that any argument justifying the savage butchery and oppression of the people of Languedoc (1208-1235 or thereabouts) could be used to "justify" Auschwitz, Hiroshima/Nagasaki, or what ISIS is now doing to Chaldean Catholics and Yazidis on the plains of Nineveh. To justify one is to justfy the others; to cover up one is to cover up the others.

So here's the indictment: that Catholics (as individuals and as an institution) have been justifying and/or covering up the Cathar genocide from 1208 to present.

What do you say, vladimir998, dangus, and AnAmericanMother?

I, for one, and very interested in hearing you state your case. I am especially interested in what judgments you may make in terms of "Ius ad bellum," "Ius in belli," and "Ius post bellum". With the principle in mind that the prohibition against targeted or indiscriminate killing of the innocent is an exceptionless moral norm.

(It happens I'm writing about this period right now for my RCIA class --- actually, doing a short paper on Francis of Assisi, His Life and Times --- so it will be of immediate use to me and my students.)

Friends, you have the floor.

Let's see if I can give a fair summary:

There's been discussion on FR oer the years about the Albigensian heretics and what happened to them and their numerous non-Cathar neighbors and allies who defended them.
Prescinding entirely from any discussion on the theological level -- I don't care if they were more like Manichees, Marxists, or Methodists -- it's pretty well attested that they were exposed to a 20 year war frequently marked by massacres, followed by a longish bloodyish mop-up operation, by papal instigation.
Which is to say, after the murder of Pierre de Castelnau by a person or persons unknown (but probably not one of the Cathar perfecti), Pope Innocent III incited a crusade in which the northern barons of France were encouraged to extirpate Cathars fom the whole of the South of France, with the exciting perk that the barons could confiscate Cathar lands (something which predictably arouses the devotion of the nobility)
This was followed by a season of seige warfare and "under the ban"-type extermination (Beziers, Carcassone, etc) which resembles other historic atrocities like the extermination of the Amalekites, the War in the Vendee, the ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia, we could throw in Auschwitz and Hiroshma and Rwanda if you like, and many others (history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes) down to the present-day rampage of ISIS across the Nineveh plain.
The provocative cause or motivation for this particular Crusade? The murder of Castelnau? The alleged alliance of the "poor and powerless" Cathars with local and provincial nobility of Languedoc to form a consolidated political front in Occitania? --- And how do we know this was happening, anyhow? --- No such provocations can excuse the massacres, which are forbidden by Moral Law (Ius in bello). I'm speaking of the targeted or indiscriminate homicides against persons of all ages, sexes and conditions, most of them attacked while they were simply sheltering with their families, and killed while disarmed, sometimes via atrocious torture.
Now the odd thing is, all these historic atrocities tend to elicit the proportionate moral disgust. We're decent people. We are disgusted by this. --- with the exception of the Albigensian Crusade. It seems some Catholics, even here at FR, tend to respond in a rather defensive and equivocating way, that
- "The Cathars were treacherous subversives and Europe needed to be saved from them. Thank God it was!"
- "If killing them is the only way to stop them, then that's the path they chose to take"
- "They were virgins! puritans! oops, sodomites!" (lots of confused indictments)

This doesn't have to be part of a larger inflamed polemic with "Hagiography of the Popes" on one hand and "The Black Legend" on the other. I tend to think that most Catholics realize that seige warfare isn't the expected sequel when preaching fails. Negotiation with flawed men like Raymond VI is better than cutting off food and water to their cities. Creating real-estate bonuses for crimes against humanity does not lead to a just & lasting peace. Etc. etc. I think Pope John Paul II would agree with this, and he was no dummy about history.

Concur?

And please forgive me for rattling on here. I'm not a dang Catholic-basher, as you well know. I'm just looking to clear away any ambiguity about what us murder, and what is not.

1) Your synopsis of events in the 13th century is so slanted that it doesn’t resemble the actual events much.

2) “It seems some Catholics, even here at FR, tend to respond in a rather defensive and equivocating way, that”

I don’t get defensive or equivocate. I simply stick with reality. Observe:

“The Cathars were treacherous subversives and Europe needed to be saved from them. Thank God it was!”

Well, that’s undeniably true. Since Cathars denied those things that made Europe Europe, to allow them to grow would mean the end of Europe.

“If killing them is the only way to stop them, then that’s the path they chose to take”

No. The proper wording would be: Force is often required to put down the violent. The Cathars started using violence. They were put down by force.

“They were virgins! puritans! oops, sodomites!” (lots of confused indictments)

No confusion here: Some were murderers (endura), some were sodomites, all embraced error, many engaged in violence.

“I tend to think that most Catholics realize that seige warfare isn’t the expected sequel when preaching fails.”

Sieges followed violence and resistance not preaching.

“Negotiation with flawed men like Raymond VI is better than cutting off food and water to their cities.”

It is? Is negotiating with ISIS better than dropping bombs on ISIS? To what degree must someone be “flawed” before you can cut off his food and water? If someone is viewed as complicit in aiding a violent subversive group you wouldn’t think about cutting off his food and water after repeated attempts to “negotiate”? After Raymond organized resistance against the crusade - which he was at least partially responsible for by his own betrayal of his faith - how should he have been treated?

“Creating real-estate bonuses for crimes against humanity does not lead to a just & lasting peace.”

Except that never happened. Land was granted as reward for participation in the crusade through legal confiscations of property. No one was given land for committing a “crime against humanity”.

“Etc. etc. I think Pope John Paul II would agree with this, and he was no dummy about history.”

Actually John Paul II would not agree with your misunderstandings. He apologized for wrong doings done by individuals in the name of the name of the faith. He never once condemned for the Albigensian Crusade itself since he knew it had a valid purpose in itself - just as Pope Francis has called for military action against ISIS. On March 12, 2000, John Paul II, for instance, apologized for “for the violence some have used in the service of the truth”.

“Concur?”

No. Your stand is to murky at this point for me to concur with.

“And please forgive me for rattling on here.”

Not a problem.

“I’m not a dang Catholic-basher, as you well know.”

No, but that doesn’t mean you’re helping the situation here either.

“I’m just looking to clear away any ambiguity about what us murder, and what is not.”

Okay. The Albigensian Crusade was NOT murder. People being massacred after a battle had ended is murder - but that must be understood to have been common practice in the ancient era and in the Middle Ages. It was the Church which insisted such actions were wrong. The Church formed the basis of what we now call International Law which outlawed such things.

>> Then I’m sure you’ll agree that slaughtering 500,000 over the next 20 years and three popes would be even more disproportionate. I looked up that number, it’s the most accepted one. I’ve read higher, but I think it makes the point. <<

It’s comically ridiculous. Your cherished source is the paranoid rantings of an organization committed to prohibiting Christianity, under the guise of the United Nations. Sources still unnamed after 800 years? Seriously?

And if you’re going to cling to that sort of nonsense, I don’t see how anyone here could possibly have a reasonable discussion with you.

>> Nice parsing. Political mistake instead of religious or moral mistake. <<

Nice dirty-tricks gotcha attempt. But, I plainly stated OTHER errors. But I was emphasizing that the outcome was not what the pope intended. So categories of intent (religious, moral) aren’t the topic of THIS part of my response.

>> Sucks worse to not see it as indefensible, though. <<

If you construe my comments as approving of the slaughter of the Cathars, you’re a troll, an idiot, or insane. Your source is all three.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.