That takes us back to the Thirteenth Century and into a feudal order where the Church was only one of the players. Innocent III was one of the few popes who was able to exercise the kind of authority that some think seem normal in papal history, As for the Cathars, are you sure you want to be the champions of a sect that was as different from Christian as the Muslims were? Imagine the Mormons of Joseph Smith but with ten times their numbers? It does, of course, show the futility of suppression. The South of France, where the Cathars were powerful, would be a hotbed of Calvinism and then of revolutionary radicalism. Injustice leaves a stain that lasts generations.
Yes. 1208. Pardon me... the 'c.1100' is my mistake - I was operating from memory, and anything north of Bede is too contemporary for me, and generally out of my ken...
[...] and into a feudal order where the Church was only one of the players.
That is a bit disingenuous (in this case, at least). There is little doubt that the Roman church was THE player in the Albigensian Crusade. I consider this sort of dissembling to be in poor taste generally (throughout the feudal states) - The buck inherently stops at the top (one of the pitfalls of *having* a top, eh?)... But in this particular, there is *no* shifting of responsibility.
As for the Cathars, are you sure you want to be the champions of a sect that was as different from Christian as the Muslims were? Imagine the Mormons of Joseph Smith but with ten times their numbers?
Need I remind you that you are talking to an American? Of course I will champion them in the case of their collective right, inherently granted by God, to believe as they choose. IIRC, the adherents of the Roman church profess to a belief in 'free will', so the concept should not be incomprehensible to you...
And as an aside, I consider the record to be tainted by Romanist propaganda - The victor writes the history, after all. It is of more consequence that even the local Romanists defended the Cathars against the predations of Rome... and quite often defended them to the point of their own deaths. That speaks volumes, and does much to counter that propaganda. These were, by all accounts other than Rome's, a good and moral people regardless of how their beliefs might differ from yours.
It does, of course, show the futility of suppression. The South of France, where the Cathars were powerful, would be a hotbed of Calvinism and then of revolutionary radicalism.
TRUE, but I see the nexus of that coming from the mountains of Northern Italy (and points northward of that through time). Not the people, mind you - The Message (regardless of how that message may have been bent by the Cathari). That linkage seems evident not only in the Cathars, but also among the Poor Men, Vaudois, the Waldenses, and even, I might suppose (albeit with somewhat less robust evidence), proto-Protestantism. That mountain stronghold was impossible for the Roman church to dispose of. And that message seems to hail from Antioch, not Rome or Alexandria.
Injustice leaves a stain that lasts generations.
In that we almost agree - I would consider the stain indelible.