1 of 2

Did people speak out against the Crusades? Yes, but as historians Louise and Jonathan Riley-Smith explain,"Criticism of crusading…was much less widespread…than is often believed." And when objections did arise, they could be forcefully answered, as shown in the following treatise. Humbert of Romans, a former leader of the Dominican Order, wrote this "closely argued tour de force" in about 1272. Here are brief excerpts, translated by the Riley-Smiths:

There are some men given over to leisure who avoid all labor for Christ and are in the habit of condemning the measures the church has undertaken against the Saracens, like people, to use Jerome's words, who always pass judgments on everything and can think of nothing to do themselves. These people are like those spies who disparaged the task of gaining the Promised Land,and frightened the people, and therefore were destroyed in the desert.

Objection: Some of these critics say it is not in accordance with the Christian religion to shed blood in this way, even that of wicked infidels. For Christ did not act thus; rather, "When he suffered, he threatened not, but delivered himself to him that judged him unjustly,"as Peter says. The saints of old did not teach this either. One should conclude, therefore, that the Christian religion, which ought to adhere to the example and teaching of Christ and the saints, ought not to initiate wars of any kind whatsoever.

Answer: Who is so stupid as to dare to say that, were infidels or evil men to desire to kill every Christian and to wipe out the worship of Christ from the world, one ought not to resist them? It is clear in the teaching of Christ himself, who says, "He that hath no sword, let him sell his coat and buy a sword." What the Lord said to Peter,"Put up again thy sword," etc., applied to Peter on that particular occasion. It must be held without doubt that it is not inconsistent with the Christian religion to wage war according to circumstances against Saracens, extremely wicked men and particular enemies of Christendom.

There are those who say that, although we have a duty to defend ourselves against the Saracens when they attack us, it does not seem that we ought to attack their lands or their persons when they leave us in peace. I would reply that the Saracens are so hostile to Christians that they do not spare them whenever they have a chance of defeating them. This is why the Christians attack them on their own territory to weaken their power. If the Christians had not done this, the Saracens would already have overwhelmed almost the whole of Christendom.

It is not against God and apostolic teaching for Saracens to be killed by Christians, because they have a law which forbids them ever to hear Christ spoken of. They are the fig-tree from which there is no hope of bearing fruit. And so, if such a fig-tree ought to be cut down, according to the saying, it is obvious that those people ought to be removed from the world.

But it must be said in addition that the lands the Saracens now hold were in the hands of Christians before the time of Muhammad; they seized the opportunity of taking them away from the Christians, and they never had a just cause to occupy them. So when Christians invade the lands in which they live, they are not invading other people's territory but rather intending to regain their own.

Others say that if we ought to rid the world of the Saracens, why do we not do the same to the Jews, and why do we not treat the Saracens who are our subjects in the same way? Why do we not proceed with the same zeal against any other idolaters who still exist in the world?

next page... |  1 of 2

share this page

RSS Feed   RSS Help