(1) Traditional Catholic: Albigensians were evil and vicious.
(2) Traditional Protestant: The Albigensians disobeyed the Pope, so they must have been some kind of proto-Protestants and therefore really good guys.
(3) Postmodern revisionist: The Albigensians rejected the hegemonic power structures of their day, so they must have been really good guys.
The primary sources are spotty - they left little behind in the way of testimony on their own behalf - partially because they were doomsdayers who didn't see the point in scribbling while the world was ending, partially because the Church burned their recruiting materials and partially because the Provencal language they spoke died out and any remaining documents that were left behind were probably unintelligible within a couple of generations and were thrown away or overwritten.
There are sources from Churchmen which divide roughly into two groups: clergymen who worked for the King of France, who had a vested interest in putting the Albigensians in as bad a light as possible - such as accusing them of human sacrifice, cannibalism and sorcery; and clergymen who were engaged in debating them and trying to convert them - these are the ones who delved more deeply into their theology and beliefs.
There are a few scholarly articles that examine the later sources - clergymen who tried to familiarize themselves with Albigensian doctrine and practice - and try to read in b etween the lines to get a clearer picture.
I'll try and find the articles' titles and authors.
Basically their theology was an interesting mix of two older heresies which seem to have been imported from the Near East: Manichaeanism and Marcionism.
From Manichaeanism they got the concept of having a ruling class of mystics who were kind of like what we call gurus. They also adopted the idea that physical matter was evil and that eating and sex, even marital intercourse, was sinful.
From Marcionism they got the idea that the God of the Old Testament was the Devil and that he created the physical universe. They adopted Marcion's practice of removing large parts of the Bible, including the Old Testament and many Gospel passages as demonic additions to the Scriptures.
They had one sacrament called the consolamentum - it was given to those who were perfecti, those who had successfully starved themselves. They believed that property ownership was carnal and therefore evil. They rejected social distinctions and were genrally very collectivistic.
Frankly, I would not mind if someone were to provide openly subjective accounts but then were at least comprehensive. Thank you very much for an integrative introduction into the subject.
P.S. Most people, although not always a majority, realize that individuals are fallible and sinful --- worse, capable of inflicting onto others great amounts of undeserved pain, such as the case of the poor Catholic woman you described. Early social psychologists have demonstrated that experimentally (in the 50s, a famous experiment, but the names of the authors escape me at the moment). Consequently, the behavior of individuals from the perspective of their religions is not much of a puzzle.
What is harder to assess is the structure and behavior of institutions. Since the structure determines, to a great extent, the spectrum of actions, one may therefore entertain the question as to the viability of the current structure of that institution. This is what one does when comparing the constitutions. One could argue also that Marxism, to which you alluded earlier, was incapable of the progress achieved in temporal matters by the Christian world, precisely because it is bound to deteriorate into a nightmare; its very structure leads to the perpetual violence against the citizens.
Similarly, when one looks today at Inquisition, for instance, it is hardly surprising to see the ability of people to be so nasty to each other. Regrettable, but not surprising: not after the atrocities of the XX century that dwarfed whatever the Inquisition ever did in scale and degree. The question that is more interesting is whether an institution has checks and balances that prevent it from abuse of the purpose for which it is created. Could the Inquisition have been avoided? Can there be Marxism with the human face?
These are valid lines of inquiry. Unfortunately, it is also convenient for the bigots to be used as a cover. I understand that, as a result, it may not be easy for a Catholic to hear such question. The inquirer's perspective matters: it differentiates the search for truth from venting of prejudice. This is a favorite vehicle of the educated bigots: "See, I am not against Catholics (Jews, Roma, etc.), I am merely discussing an issue." Yet, when you examine the standards of inquiry, they show a different picture. We witness today much the same thing from anti-Semites with respect to Jews ("I am not against them, I just disagree with Israel") and anti-capitalists and Marxists with respect to our country ("I am a real American, I just disagree with Bush"). I think it is precisely because of the admixture of the two that it is hard to come by a decent analysis of social institutions.
Regards, TQ.