Revolution, Heretics, and Crusade

Or:

Why it's Good that I Want to Storm Constantinople, but a Bad Idea nonetheless...

A recent post made me think of a few other posts, and a horde of comments I've heard over the year. As a highschool teacher in a Catholic school (up here in Canada they're publically funded- which is both good and bad) I've had the fortune of teaching Church history. And the interesting thing is that the majority of my classes, which are optional, are young men.

More interesting is how these normal young men react to words like "heretic" and "Crusade." I would hear the word "heretic" in the hallway (generally as a joke) but the question kept coming up in class as well. Is this person a heretic? This historical figure? This pop culture icon? The question as also come up in the com boxes.

This is something that these fellows gave me a lot of when we were studying the Crusades,a s well. I could see that surge in the blood, as if some of them wanted to come with me to storm the gates of Constantinople (and I'll admit that my blood surges at the image too.) They weren't simply interested in the notion that the Crusades were a necessary act of self-defence on behalf of the West, they were excited about it. And they wanted, on some level, to do something about it.

But where was all of that coming from? Admittedly some of it comes from being men, particularly young men, and relishing the notion of adventure. This isn't a bad thing. Some of it doubtless comes some disgust with how the world is and the fact that it was not always so. Some of it is probably a kind of vindication, that the West isn't necessarily the root of all sins as some of our own brethren would have us believe, leading us like lemmings to some kind of cultural suicide. But another part of it must be that yearning that we have for something beyond us which sometimes leads young men to join gangs but is really a yearning for God.

So, since several of those young gentlemen still read this board, let me remind you of a few things. Heresy still exist, and those who adhere to heresies are indeed heretics. But you need to somehow follow the Christian message before you can try to warp the Christian message, so only those people can be heretics. And it's a tragic diagnosis, not a warcry. (Though you all have the cuteness of puppies at play when you say it.)

Nor can we retake Constantinople, or at least it seems very unlikely at this point. And if Islam ever does fall it will not be to swords, but to Truth. So your war, if you wish to take up the banners of the ancient Crusaders, must be one of Truth and not bloodshed.

This would be the same for any Chestertonian revolution. But the good news is that Chesterton would have been happy to bandy words with you over a good beer at a small pub that felt like home. A Chestertonian revolution would be so very fun. We would roar and wave our walking sticks about, grinning and fighting the world because we love it and hate it at once.

Nietzsche, Jesus, and Hitler walk into a bar...

Or: Dawkins, Christianity, and the Nazis. Who belongs to whom?

So, in his efforts to show how religion is really a nasty business (particularly Christianity) Dawkins points out that Hitler was born Roman Catholic, and claims that Nazism is really just a natural offshoot of Christianity. He isn't alone in doing this; uber-atheist Christopher Hitchens does the same.

Why?

Christians get unhappy with being accused of atrocities and having all the world's ills blamed on the their religion (though it isn't the first time they've been accused of being enemies of humanity, the irony of which is hopefully not lost on my readers.) Some Christians point out that we get to see two fairly important atheist regimes at work in the twentieth century, the Nazis and Soviets. Between the two millions were killed, and while this hardly goes to prove that atheists are nasty monsters (the opposite is usually true) it does show that atheists are capable of terrible things.

And that does not satisfy the militant atheist. He is not satisfied with an arguable human equality; he wants his system to be morally superor to his religious counterpart. So, it becomes important to make the counter-claim, palying hot-potato with those nasty Nazis and asserted that they are (keep a straight face) Christian.

The accusation would be laughable if it weren't so terrible. Here these atheists are claiming that Christianity is responsible for the Nazis and the Holocaust when the historical record is that Christians were suffering alongside the Jews, albeit in fewer numbers. No historian in any serious, accredited University, is ever going to claim this. Yet Dawkins and Hitchens do.

So, let's take a look. And bear in mind, it's getting close to final exams so I'm going to lean on other sources a bit. But some of them are pretty fascinating:

Here are pdf reproductions of Nuremburg documents covering the Nazi attack on Christianity and the attempt to replace it with a nationalist, Aryan religion.

Here is an interview with a Vatican official (a Jesuit priest) working on the committee for the canonization of Pope Pius XII. It represents historically demonstrable truth. Of particular interest was the very unusual decision to write an encyclical in German and smuggle it into Germany to be read in Catholic churches across the country.

In the New York Times' editorial of December 25, 1941 we read:

"The voice of Plus Xll is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas... he is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all... the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism... he left no doubt that the Nazi aims are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christian peace."

And, because too many think the Church just went along with Hitler, and that the Pope was in his pocket, consider this.

I find it frustrating in the extreme (and by that I mean I get over run by rage) when I think of what history shows, and how history is then hijacked by people with their own philosophical agendas, all the while ignoring the immense pain that people in Europe were suffering back then. No one blamed the Church then, the Jews themselves declared Pope Pius XII a righteous man in his day. Who the hell are these people who think they can blame these monstrous acts on those who in some measure shared in a victimhood that is appalling? Certainly no one suffered as the Jews did, but Hitler was ruthless to anyone who opposed him.

So, whatever Nazism was, it didn't come from Christianity. So, where did it come from? That comes tomorrow, with the punchline...

Why Study History?

The past two posts have been a bit of a reminder for me of how much I enjoy the study of history. It is, I think, undervalued - maybe because there aren't enough "concrete" benefits to for a utilitarian culture. But I think it's essential, and here's why:

History doesn't just help give you perspective on why the world is the way it is (though it can do that.) History is about freedom and identity, freedom from the slavery of imagining only one worldview and the ability to develop an identity which spans the centuries rather than relying on name brand logos.

Study history; pick your period. Read it, study it, imagine it and you'll find, in time, that the people in those hazy times start to come into focus. They become more human, motivated like humans, sharing in our basic blend of dreams and hopes, fear and suffering, bravery and weakness. You'll be delighted with some of the ways they responded to challenge, uplifted by the fact that it isn't simply the 21st century version of Homo sapiens that has the capacity for creativity. In short, you will find yourself sympathizing with these people. In time you may come to love them.

And: If you can bring yourself to to love another age for its people, its dress, and its customs you are finally free. You can at last turn your eyes back on your own time and judge it with some clarity. You'll still be in your time - nothing can turn the clock back- but you will be a little less beholden to it, its claws won't be so deep in you.

That leaves you free to keep the good and reject the bad, since every age will have both. It is also, ladies and gentlemen, a way to achieve a real non-conformism that so many youth seem to yearn for.

And as for identity, just imagine your own memory for a moment. Your memory is so integral to your being that your very self-identity would collapse without it. How can I have a sense of myself if I've forgotten everything? Imagine it for a moment, looking out on the world and recognizing nothing. Imagine having lived a life but not recalling any single choice you've ever made. How do you know anything at all?

Ignorance of history is like amnesia on a vast scale. How are we in the West supposed to have a good sense of what the "West" even means if we've forgotten everything? There have been attempts at inventing a history, but these are coloured by a desire to justify the present. So, most of our stereotypes of the past, of the middle ages for example, are negative. All we see are brutes mucking about in a dark age that was only illuminated by the light of science and secularism.

What that means though, in some ways, is that you're being asked to assume the worst of your ancestors. Studying history is a reconnection with those ancestors, like renewing a relationship with your beloved grandparents. Because the history of our civilization is not just necessary to the broader culture, but as an act of renewal and self-discovery for the individual.

Which brings me back to the Church. If you are of European ancestry your history is Catholic. Your ancestors celebrated the sacraments in stone churches under starry skies. Your blood is full of the assumptions bred into you by a hundred generations of Catholic thought: the sanctity of life, the equality of man, free will, the beauty of the individual. A rigorous and imaginative study of history will bear this out.

Another Horror in History

Ok, a very brief post this time. The other big rock that gets thrown at Catholics in particular is the Inquisition (and yes, I restrain myself, since you should have all expected - this time at least - the Spanish Inquisition.) The mythology that has emerged around this thing is amazing, including the happy neo-pagans and their claims that millions of women were killed during the "Burning Times." Well, the Burning Times never happened, and the Spanish Inquisition didn't kill tens of thousands of innocents. The truth is much more complex, much more human, and far less sinister than the Church's critics would like to believe. Forunately, the Spanish Inquisition was made up of trained legal minds who left reams and reams of archival evidence of their machinations. And it ends up looking less than conpiratorial.

Here are two good articles on the subject. Yes, people died in this time. Yes, that is terrible. But the scale of the thing leaves one feeling that perhaps the source of so much outcry should feel more evil.

Read here and here for a pretty good idea of how current historians view the whole thing. It's too bad that contemporary academic work tends to take so long to filter down to the masses, or we might be able to hope for a break from the pseudo-history.

Dawkins and the Horrors or Religion

One of the things that Dawkins and the new atheists like to do is point out the terrible things that religion has done over the ages. They pull together enough examples to leave their audience stupefied and conclude, rather wildly, that religion must be therefore evil. Or, at least, the world would be better off without it. All of it.

There are a lot of problems with this, both historical and logical. The logical problem is this: do religious communities perform atrocities because they are religious, or because they're made up of humans. Again I wonder if Dawkins has used that handy old scientific method to isolate his variables. For example, do we see less aggression, greed, etc from atheists than we do from normal people? I'd certainly never argue that atheists can't be good people; I think they can be. But are we suddenly going to take the dizzying leap into saying that atheists tend to be better people, more generous, forgiving, etc? Shouldn't we have a problem with atheists even using the word "better" and thereby imposing their morals on us? That's what they accuse me of doing. Isn't that at least a little bit ironic?

Historically, the case is even better. The trouble here is that neither Dawkins nor his ilk seems to have read any recent, peer-reviewed literature on some of the pop-history they're parading around. (And yes, for the record, I have - history is my background. No pun intended.) Here are two big examples, since Christianity is often picked on in these debates, being the dominant faith in the West.

We'll deal with one thing at a time, since they're worth talking about in their own right. Others will get their own posts. First up:

1) The Crusades! Look at that, shout the new atheists, "Holy wars! Holy wars!!!" Much is made of this one, but it's a canard. And, honestly, the objective version is much more interesting. So:

The Pop-History Version: Those nasty Europeans, goaded by that nasty pope, launched a war against those poor people in the Holy Land. I hardly have to go into it; all the stereotypes speak for themselves. And, admittedly, atrocities occurred on both sides in this war as in any war. The attacks on Jews, for example, or the sack of Constantinople. But consider-

The Historical History: Europe at the time of the Crusades was hardly a super power. In fact, Islam was far more powerful and culturally advanced than Europe. Europe was the underdog and, more importantly, Christianity was the underdog that had been beaten back by the conquering Muslims for the first 400 years after Mohammed. In the first hundred years of Islam's life a full half of Christian lands fell to their armies. After the dominance of the Romans, this was an impressive feat.

But they also continued from their, pushing across North Africa into Spain and Sicily, taking much of Asia Minor (Turkey.) The Byzantine emperors fought as well as they could, with some success, but then the nomadic Seljuks arrived from the steppes, converted to Islam, and layed waste to the Bysantine Empire. In desperation the Emperor called on the Western Pope for aid and he was answered.

The old idea was that knights went for the purpose of gaining land, but current scholarship has knocked that theory on the head. Many who went were already wealthy and funded both themselves and their retinues. It was an extremelt costly endeavour and a knight would have to provide his own supplies, requiring as much as a year worth of income. Modern historians are discovering that crusaders generally believed in what they were doing, which was pushing back an oppressor that had been hounding them for centuries.

In that sense, the Crusades were a series of defensive wars fought to stem the attacks on Constantinople and to take back some of what had been lost, especially Jerusalem. In the end they were a failed defense, though they were able to accomplish wonders with the small number of men who actually made it, and considering how rarely they were given reinforcements. But it was a wash, and the world of Islam remained undiminished.

For a Christian Europe that wanted to remain Christian this was unfortunate. Islam continued pressing on its borders, taking lands in Eastern Europe and holding Spain until almost 1500. In 1453 the Muslims took Constantinople (renaming it Istanbul of all things, which was just a bastardization/mispronunciation of the Greek word for "The City") and continued pressing in on Europe. As late as 1683 the Ottoman Turks threatened Vienna itself, though they failed in that at least.

In the end it was only the discovery of the New World and the wealth that came with it that allowed Europe to build the ships and the armies it would take to defeat Islam. Much later it was the Europeans who were colonizing. But that was much later. If we examine the Crusades we see a very different picture than mere imperialism. Europe was too weak and divided to be imperial in its ambitions, and imposing an 18th Century vision of Europe onto the 11th Century hardly seems fair. Colonialism hadn't even been invented yet!

Now, every culture has a right to exist. European culture also has that right. The Crusades were a matter of a civilization struggling and failing to defend itself from an outside threat. Christianity was certainly involved, since the words Europe and Christian were (at the time) more or less synonymous.

Summation? Here's one historical nugget that often gets cited as a proof of how brutal religion is at its core. And yet these wars were justifiable, far more so than some of the recent conflicts we've seen in the name of democracy.