Historians reconsider the Crusades

The Confessing Reader ^ | 9/05/2005 | Confessing Reader

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

If you want a Protestant version of Catholicism, Moynihan is fine. It's a typical self-loathing Liberal Catholic take on the Catholic Church. If it presented itself as a liberal Catholic (= Protestant) take, there'd be no problem. But anyone who thinks that because the author is a practicing Catholic he gives a Catholic view of the history of the Church will be sadly disappointed. If one wants careful history combined with a Catholic viewpoint, there aren't a lot of options: Warren Carroll is one; Philip Hughes (now out of print) is another. Crocker is not always careful with his history but certainly gives a solid Catholic viewpoint. And even where he pushes the envelope he's worth reading because he's challenging deeply embedded Enlightenment/Protestant myths.

And one of the most pernicious of the Enlightenment myths is the myth of "noble Islam" and "vicious cruel Crusaders"--which even secular historians, finally, now that the Enlightenment has died a well-deserved death (though its replacement, post-enlightenment post-modernism is a cure worse than the disease--actually its the dying gasp of the Enlightenment packaged as post-Enlightenment), even secular historians recognize that Madden's and Jonathan Riley-Smith's presentation of the history of the Crusades is far more accurate than Runciman's or any of the Christian-hating, Muslim-loving Enlightenment historians.

Before someone dismisses a clear Catholic viewpoint in writing as useless because it's a viewpoint, consider: every historian has a viewpoint, no historian writes from complete objectivity. Identifying the viewpoint of the historian is not done to discredit the historian but in the name of truth in advertising. The problem with Moynihan is that he claims a Catholic viewpoint when he writes from an Englightenment-Protestant viewpoint which is the standard, deeply embedded in Anglo-American popular culture viewpoint. The difference was that in the "old days" Catholics sought out and read Catholic-viewpoint history--Philip Hughes--which is good historical research from a clear Catholic viewpoint. Hughes is not afraid to point out where popes and Catholic kings and emperors sinned and sinned badly. But he does write from a faithful Catholic viewpoint.

Today, much of what passes as Catholic is actually simply the old Anglo-American anti-Catholic Enlightenment viewpoint repackaged as Catholic. That's the dissembling that does everyone a disservice. Carroll does not; Crocker does not--with both of them what they claim to offer they offer. That's not true with Johnson--his viewpoint is enlightenement/protestant/liberal Catholic. If one reads him with that in mind, one can learn valuable stuff from him, but what one won't learn is a solid Catholic understanding of the Catholic Church's history.

Don't get me wrong, Moynihan is an engaging writer and I'm sure you enjoyed reading him. Just don't assume that he's always accurate or Catholic.

[Conservative til I die]

we Catholics consider it our duty to constantly challenge Protestantism and its innumerable errors. What a hateful statement! Do you, upon reflection, care to clarify or retract it?

No. Not in a million years.

[annalex]

I basically agree that his is the anglosphere's view of history, but I indeed enjoyed it and did not detect a serious anti-Catholic bias. Consider, for example, his sympathetic treatment of the Jesuits. Even the chapters on the Holy Inquisition allow for the truth to emerge from the requisite handwringing. The chapter of Hus was, indeed, written by a self-loathing pseudo Catholic but it was offset by a pretty damning description of the Taborites. I did not expect the impossible, which is a view of history written from a historical mindset, and so was pleased not to be insulted on every page.

[annalex]

Why is mentioning a duty to correct errors hateful? Is Protestantism not, in your view, a correction of the pre-Trent errors?

[Conservative til I die]

Why is mentioning a duty to correct errors hateful? Is Protestantism not, in your view, a correction of the pre-Trent errors?

My honest opinion is that many Protestants are not used to Catholics pushing back on them. I think they've been convinced for a long time that Protestantism is the foundation of Christianity (based on a very Amero-centric view of the world) and are surprised to find Catholics that don't agree.

[Hebrews 11:6]

Why is mentioning a duty to correct errors hateful?

I'm not going to respond (and not merely because your question is a straw man) because I'm through with the misplaced contentiousness and unfounded arrogance on this thread. If you reconsider his post, the reason for my objection might occur to you.

Meanwhile, you have my very best wishes for God's abundant blessings.

[Hebrews 11:6]

No. Not in a million years.

You'll have substantially longer than that to reconsider. Meanwhile, I wish you all of God's abundant blessings.

[conservonator]

1. I didn't offer it to you, so what's it to ya?

It's a public forum.

2. If it is any of your business, consider this: suggesting another source (among many, as you point out) is simply a way to say that there may be more to the story than the poster thinks. It is up to him whether to consult that source, or others, and how to evaluate it. My assessment of its accuracy thus becomes irrelevant; that is, I am only the courier, bringing it to his attention. Upon demand, I went to the trouble of typing out several paragraphs so he could evaluate it preliminarily, with the result that you give me grief for my efforts.

I wouldn't offer something as an alternative unless I thought the alternative provided a superior solution. But that's just me.