[Torie]

It would be odd and counterproductive if the Catholic Church chose to refight the merits of the crusades. It simply does not translate well into the modern age, and it's irrelevant.

[prairiebreeze]

Not sure the intent is to "refight the merits".

I'd be satisfied to just have the record set straight.

[LenS]

This is more about getting ready for the next Crusade against Islam. Islam is slaughtering Christians throughout the world. If America's attempts to moderate Islam with democracy doesn't work, then we will eventually see a Christian counter-Crusade. The Church will soon be run by the Asian and African prelates, and they're not going to lie down and die quietly. They'll fight Jihad with Crusade.

[Bahbah]

It would be odd and counterproductive if the Catholic Church chose to refight the merits of the crusades.

It would not be either odd nor counterproductive, however, to look at history with as much accuracy as is possible.

[Sweetjustusnow]

"It would be odd and counterproductive if the Catholic Church chose to refight the merits of the crusades. It simply does not translate well into the modern age, and it's irrelevant."

It would be odd and counter productive it the western world chose to fight the invading Islamists and their merits. It simply isn't to be accepted by Infidels and you are all irrelevant.

Is that what you said? ....... I thought so.

[Publius6961]

It would be odd and counterproductive if the Catholic Church chose to refight the merits of the crusades. It simply does not translate well into the modern age, and it's irrelevant.

To some, who don't have the grasp of history.
Fortunately, a view embraced by fewer and fewer civilized humans, as they educate themselves.

[SaltyJoe]

"It would be odd and counterproductive if the Catholic Church chose to refight the merits of the crusades. It simply does not translate well into the modern age, and it's irrelevant."

There is nothing in history "odd and counterproductive" rendering it unworthy of discussion. To translate the logic "odd and counterproductive" for any one part of history is similar to asking modern man to forget 9/11, whether a group was for the attack or against the attack. The details will be put under the microscope and events will be examined and reexamined whether the understanding is found or not.

I couldn't image an opinion to say, "let's not examine the circumstances of why Jesus was Crucified." It sounds as if the devil is trying to hide his crime when things like this are said.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

It would be odd and counterproductive if the Catholic Church chose to refight the merits of the crusades. It simply does not translate well into the modern age, and it's irrelevant.

If we are going to be accused of being Crusaders no matter what we do, we might as well have a Crusade. We'd then at least gain some benefits from the accusation, rather than just taking an insult on the chin.

Here's to many more Andalusia's!

[subterfuge]

It would be odd and counterproductive if the Catholic Church chose to refight the merits of the crusades. It simply does not translate well into the modern age, and it's irrelevant.

The truth should be told and let the chips fall where they may, imo.

[RobbyS]

The refighting is over the facts of history. The Crusades were provoked by Turkish agression. Not many years before the first crusade, the Turks had invaded and defeated the Greek emperor and had taken over huge swtachs of the Byzantine empire. One reason for the emperor's call for help was the threat of the Turks to Constantinople.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You wrote: "It would be odd and counterproductive if the Catholic Church chose to refight the merits of the crusades. It simply does not translate well into the modern age, and it's irrelevant."

It is always a good thing for the Church to define, strictly, carefully, and publicly, the criteria for a Just War (as contrasted to "just a war"); and an honest discussion of the Crusades is one way to do it.

Besides, as John Steinbeck said, "The past isn't dead--- it isn't even past. Vocal Islamic academic activists are taking the initiative to push a version of history that demonizes Christians and valorizes Muslims, with the intent of solidifying and justifying the fruits of Islamic jihad.

It's not just a matter of thousands of madrassas arming millions of Muslim students with a militant irredentist view of history (and geography!); it extends to the rewriting of American textbooks to show Christianity as shameful in every one of its historic efforts and achievements.

This islamization of the struggles of the past is an example of the political and psychological use of history: partial, partisan, polemical and propagandistic; or, as the feminist historical revisionists put it, "History in the service of our destiny."

I wouldn't want the Catholic Church to invest itself in this sort of self-serving propagandistic effort. But we live in a world where the European Union contemptuously suppresses its historic-cultural Christian roots, and in which Islamic activists destroy Christian monuments and documents so as to leave no trace of the "infidel." (Bat Ye'or's writings on the lost history of the dhimmi was a real eye-opener to me.) Re-balancing the historical perspective is a kind of intellectual Work of Mercy in defense of truth, and I daresay in defense of peace.