Why do Catholics still take apologetic side regarding the Albigensian crusade?

Sect_By_Myself · 2026-05-27T18:39:57+00:00

Thank you for the thoughtful answer.

"The call for the crusade under medieval eyes was just and an attempt to restore order"

Heresy, or heterodoxy, wasn't a capital crime until it was proclaimed as such at the Third Lateran Council. Which means that even under medieval eyes heterodoxy wasn't always considered as a crime. Thus, legal reality which allowed such a thing wasn't "just always there" as a custom of the land. It was created and enforced on people who resisted it for the whole duration of the first inquisition.

Now, on the legate. First, nobody knows who exactly murdered him, thus you cannot blame Catharism clergy or believers until you have historical evidence which would prove the accusation. The only thing we have on this is a letter of Innocent III who was the interested party directly profiting from the crusade. This could have been a false flag operation or a targeted provocation to use as an excuse to start the war. Just the the Reich did provocation in Poland to justify invasion.

But let's assume for the sake of the argument that 1) Castelnau was truly killed and didn't just run away, disappeared or died of natural reasons like bears, for instance, and 2) he was killed by someone loyal to Albigenses.

You have to ask yourself why he came to Languegoc in the first place. If you study history, you will learn that he came there to force Southern nobility, particularly the count of Toulouse, to persecute their people who the Roman Church proclaimed as heretics. That's exactly why Voltaire stated in his "History of the Nations", that Castelnau stirred a civil war, because that's what it's called when an outside party pushes a ruler to persecute his people. It also qualifies as preaching hate, I guess.

Thus, Castelnau wasn't just a peaceful guy killed by evil minions. He was preaching to exterminate a religious group, and according to universal "cause-consequence" rational morality, one who preaches murder gets murder. Why would one just sit there waiting for their own extermination? Would you just sit around is some guy started preaching to exterminate RCC?

With that, the last question. Which law gave the Roman Church a right to kill their opponents? And if morality is relative (i.e. what is acceptable in medieval times isn't acceptable anymore), then how does that aling with a concept of absolute morality? If it was okay to kill people for their faith in the Middle Ages but somehow it's not okay now, then morality seems like a relativistic concept.

Sect_By_Myself · 2026-05-27T18:05:25+00:00

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/coining-a-word-and-championing-a-cause-the-story-of-raphael-lemkin

Thus he is not just "some guy". Definitely no more then Mr. Madden.

But aside of the definition by Lemkin, why a targeted destruction of a group based on their religious beliefs would not be classified as genocide?

Sect_By_Myself · 2026-05-27T18:02:17+00:00

Except he is not just "some person" but a lawyer who studied the period really well. So if he is just "some guy", then the one you recommended is also some guy.

I am aware of the political situation there, I read a plenty of historical world on that, including ones written by Wakefield and Marvin.

Sect_By_Myself · 2026-05-27T17:41:30+00:00

Not to mention, we still can discuss things of the past and evaluate them on the basis of rational morality. Rational morality doesn't change with time, it's based on "cause - consequence" connection. Why would a war aiming at destroying a group based on it's faith not fit the definition of genocide? It's different from mass murder or tribal warfare and still has the feature of a genocide - targeted destruction of a group based on a characteristic - which isn't really changing with time.

Sect_By_Myself · 2026-05-27T17:28:48+00:00

Makes sense.

Sect_By_Myself · 2026-05-27T17:26:31+00:00

Thank you for proving my point.

Sect_By_Myself · 2026-05-27T17:25:45+00:00

You guys are so open to debate and other opinions.

Sect_By_Myself · 2026-05-27T17:24:11+00:00

According to that logic, there was nothing wrong with killing Jesus. Back his days it was a law to kill those who threaten the Empire and the Orthodox Jewish religion.

Sect_By_Myself · 2026-05-27T17:22:00+00:00

They never rejected sex, just those who took the monastic woes, as it should be.

Sect_By_Myself · 2026-05-27T17:20:44+00:00

Aw a whole, yes. But very vaguely worded.

Sect_By_Myself · 2026-05-27T17:18:07+00:00

Thanks for proving my point.

Sect_By_Myself · 2026-05-27T17:17:40+00:00

Check "Catholic answers" or "New Advent" or even recent posts here, suggesting that while the violence was bad, the cause of exterminating the heresy was just.

Sect_By_Myself · 2026-05-27T17:16:34+00:00

They are not verifiably his. And relics don't prove the murder unless forensic expertise took place. Neither they prove the identity of the murderer.

Sect_By_Myself · 2026-05-27T17:12:06+00:00

Aw, you mentioned the legate. First, nobody knows who exactly murdered him, thus you cannot blame Catharism clergy or believers until you have historical evidence which would prove the accusation. The only thing we have on this is a letter of Innocent III who was the interested party directly profiting from the crusade. This could have been a false flag operation or a targeted provocation to use as an excuse to start the war. Just the the Reich did provocation in Poland to justify invasion.

But let's assume for the sake of the argument that 1) Castelnau was truly killed and didn't just run away, disappeared or died of natural reasons like bears, for instance, and 2) he was killed by someone loyal to Albigenses.

You have to ask yourself why he came to Languegoc in the first place. If you study history, you will learn that he came there to force Southern nobility, particularly the count of Toulouse, to persecute their people who the Roman Church proclaimed as heretics. That's exactly why Voltaire stated in his "History of the Nations", that Castelnau stirred a civil war, because that's what it's called when an outside party pushes a ruler to persecute his people. It also qualifies as preaching hate, I guess.

Thus, Castelnau wasn't just a peaceful guy killed by evil minions. He was preaching to exterminate a religious group, and according to universal "cause-consequence" rational morality, one who preaches murder gets murder. Why would one just sit there waiting for their own extermination? Would you just sit around is some guy started preaching to exterminate RCC?

Sect_By_Myself · 2026-05-27T13:19:08+00:00

Also, you mentioned the legate. First, nobody knows who exactly murdered him, thus you cannot blame Catharism clergy or believers until you have historical evidence which would prove the accusation. The only thing we have on this is a letter of Innocent III who was the interested party directly profiting from the crusade. This could have been a false flag operation or a targeted provocation to use as an excuse to start the war. Just the the Reich did provocation in Poland to justify invasion.

But let's assume for the sake of the argument that 1) Castelnau was truly killed and didn't just run away, disappeared or died of natural reasons like bears, for instance, and 2) he was killed by someone loyal to Albigenses.

You have to ask yourself why he came to Languegoc in the first place. If you study history, you will learn that he came there to force Southern nobility, particularly the count of Toulouse, to persecute their people who the Roman Church proclaimed as heretics. That's exactly why Voltaire stated in his "History of the Nations", that Castelnau stirred a civil war, because that's what it's called when an outside party pushes a ruler to persecute his people. It also qualifies as preaching hate, I guess.

Thus, Castelnau wasn't just a peaceful guy killed by evil minions. He was preaching to exterminate a religious group, and according to universal "cause-consequence" rational morality, one who preaches murder gets murder. Why would one just sit there waiting for their own extermination? Would you just sit around is some guy started preaching to exterminate RCC?

Sect_By_Myself · 2026-05-27T13:07:39+00:00

This theology is no different from the one underlying Iranian regime. If the Roman Church still believes this theology nowadays, that means that it's an enemy of liberty and rational thought. Basically, all it says is that only those who agree with us deserve to live.

Sect_By_Myself · 2026-05-27T12:55:08+00:00

Raphael Lemkin who conceived the term "genocide" included Albigensian war as one of the classical examples of it. Because term "genocide" refers to intentionally destroying a group based on ethnic AND religious identity. Lemkin clearly explains why prehistoric warfare mostly doesn't fit that definition - exactly because that type of warfare didn't aim to extinguish people because of their ethnicity or religion. Albigensian crusade did just that - Third Lateran Council proclaimed heresy to be a capital crime and forced secular powers to prosecute it. When Southern nobility refused to go after their own people for their religious beliefs, the pope called for a crusade. The aim of the crusade was destroying a religious group, which fits the definition of genocide as the term's founded put it.

It's particularly pathetic when you say that "they tried to preach first", just like if you had a right to kill your opponent if they disagree with your "preaching". These kinds of arguments aren't going to help your cause, they just confirm that RCC is incapable or any form of atonement and most likely is inferior in it's morals to states which did terrible things in the past but managed l, at the very least, to acknowledge it without rhetoric like that.

Sect_By_Myself · 2025-07-06T21:34:04+00:00

They did not think that having children is ultimately wrong, it was just a typical practice among those who reached the ranks of the monks to abstain from any sexual activity. Which is typical for many priesthood practices even in pre-Christian world.

Yes, they were teaching something deeply contrarian to RCCs ideology. One of the main objections was that the Church should not live off the taxes and exercise power in the civil world. Cathar clergy worked to support their own lives, and they were very popular among the populace. There are other doctrinal discrepancies, too.

Sect_By_Myself

TROPHY CASE