Great news from Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon:
July 28, 2005
Breaking News: Orthodox Leave NCC
Dearborn, Michigan. July 28, 2005.This afternoon the General Convention of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America voted overwhelmingly to leave the National Council of Churches of Christ. The General Convention is holding its annual meeting this week in Dearborn, Michigan.
The action was not a temporary "suspension" of membership, but a formal withdrawal from the NCC. The clergy unanimously approved the withdrawal, followed by a unanimous vote of the lay delegates supporting the move. An announcement of the final vote was met with thunderous applause by the Convention.
Reasons given for the withdrawal include the general liberalism of the NCC, whose General Secretary, Bob Edgar, withdrew his signature from a statement defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Metropolitan PHILIP, head of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese, was reportedly outspoken in calling for the church to withdraw from the NCC, stating that the relationship had proven fruitless.
The National Council of the Churches of Christ has listed on its website "36 member communions and denominations." It now has 35.
My reflection:
It's about time!!!Now if the OCA an d the Greek Archdiocese will follow suit, this will only put the nail on the coffins of the NCC and the WCC. It's time now to focus on real ecumenical work-with the Oriental Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, and the Evangelicals. I think the Fellowship of St. James provides an excellent venue for a forum of like-minded Christians who are serious about "mere Christianity" to come together and speak prophetically to a culture that is hell-bent on its own moral destruction.
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Friday, July 29, 2005
Bad policy from a supposed Senate "ally"
Dissapointing news about Bill Frist, from foxnews.com:
Frist Backs More Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Friday, July 29, 2005
WASHINGTON — Breaking with President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (search) on Friday threw his support behind legislation to expand federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research so long as it stays "within ethical bounds."
"It's not just a matter of faith, it's a matter of science," Frist, R-Tenn., said on the floor of the Senate.
Frist's announcement of support for the House-passed legislation immediately dented his support among Christian conservatives but won praise from Democrats, as well as from former first lady Nancy Reagan, whose husband, the late former President Ronald Reagan, had Alzheimer's disease for years before his death.
"Embryonic stem cell research (search) has the potential to alleviate so much suffering," Nancy Reagan said. "Surely, by working together we can harness its life-giving potential."
Click to the video box to the right for a report by FOX News' Major Garrett.
Bush supports only limited federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and has argued that life should not be created for the purpose of being destroyed during research. Private funding on these cells, however, is not restricted by federal law.
Opponents of expanding research on embryos say there is not enough medical proof to show that embryonic cells may yield more medical miracles than adult stem cells. But proponents of expanding embryonic stem cell funding say the more research done on the widest variety of cells, the better the chances of finding potential cures for crippling diseases.
For the rest of this story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164029,00.html
If my readings of classical and medieval philosophy serve me well, these human embryos have a specific teleological end: to become humans. This, at least, is what St. Thomas Aquinas tells us about the issue. The Angelic Doctor did not have the benefit of modern science, since given what we know now (thanks to that great Benedictine Fr. Gregor Mendel and his experiments with genetics, and Watson and Crick's discovery of the double helix a hundred years later) we are certain that those embryos have all that is needed to qualify as fully human. They are not destined to become cows, or rats, or labrador retrievers. When they are implanted into a woman's uterus, they will be born as full human beings, "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." Unless someone can prove to me that there is an essential difference between an emryo that is two weeks old and one that is nine months old, these embryos are to be treated with all the dignity of a full human being. Senator Frist has "followed his conscience," and we must pause to wonder how corrupted that conscience has become by the deceitful language of the culture of death. Nancy Reagan "applauds" Senator Frist. Having myself experienced the death of two close relatives after years of suffering from the effects of cancer and a stroke, I sympathize with her. But given her courageous husband's defense of the sanctity of life in all its stages, we can be fairly sure what his position on fetal stem cell research would be. Would that other lawmakers were as courageous.
Frist Backs More Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Friday, July 29, 2005
WASHINGTON — Breaking with President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (search) on Friday threw his support behind legislation to expand federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research so long as it stays "within ethical bounds."
"It's not just a matter of faith, it's a matter of science," Frist, R-Tenn., said on the floor of the Senate.
Frist's announcement of support for the House-passed legislation immediately dented his support among Christian conservatives but won praise from Democrats, as well as from former first lady Nancy Reagan, whose husband, the late former President Ronald Reagan, had Alzheimer's disease for years before his death.
"Embryonic stem cell research (search) has the potential to alleviate so much suffering," Nancy Reagan said. "Surely, by working together we can harness its life-giving potential."
Click to the video box to the right for a report by FOX News' Major Garrett.
Bush supports only limited federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and has argued that life should not be created for the purpose of being destroyed during research. Private funding on these cells, however, is not restricted by federal law.
Opponents of expanding research on embryos say there is not enough medical proof to show that embryonic cells may yield more medical miracles than adult stem cells. But proponents of expanding embryonic stem cell funding say the more research done on the widest variety of cells, the better the chances of finding potential cures for crippling diseases.
For the rest of this story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164029,00.html
If my readings of classical and medieval philosophy serve me well, these human embryos have a specific teleological end: to become humans. This, at least, is what St. Thomas Aquinas tells us about the issue. The Angelic Doctor did not have the benefit of modern science, since given what we know now (thanks to that great Benedictine Fr. Gregor Mendel and his experiments with genetics, and Watson and Crick's discovery of the double helix a hundred years later) we are certain that those embryos have all that is needed to qualify as fully human. They are not destined to become cows, or rats, or labrador retrievers. When they are implanted into a woman's uterus, they will be born as full human beings, "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." Unless someone can prove to me that there is an essential difference between an emryo that is two weeks old and one that is nine months old, these embryos are to be treated with all the dignity of a full human being. Senator Frist has "followed his conscience," and we must pause to wonder how corrupted that conscience has become by the deceitful language of the culture of death. Nancy Reagan "applauds" Senator Frist. Having myself experienced the death of two close relatives after years of suffering from the effects of cancer and a stroke, I sympathize with her. But given her courageous husband's defense of the sanctity of life in all its stages, we can be fairly sure what his position on fetal stem cell research would be. Would that other lawmakers were as courageous.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Patriarch of Moscow Sees New Possibilities for Orthodox/Catholic Cooperation
This is very encouraging. From AtonementOnline.com:
Friday, May 20, 2005 - 05:45 AM
Metropolitan of Moscow: Pope is pushing for shared mission with the Orthodox
19 May, 2005Msgr Tadeus Kondrusiewicz says that new conditions exist for dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox: the fight against aggressive secularism; respect for human life; the importance of the family; "no" to female priesthood.Rome (AsiaNews) -- Benedict XVI's main objective is to witness the Gospel together with the Orthodox in the fight against contemporary society's "aggressive secularism". This is what the Catholic Metropolitan of Moscow, Monsignor Tadeus Kondrusiewicz, said following a private audience with the Pope at the Vatican today. "The Pontiff takes to heart the situation of Catholics in Russia -- Kondrusiewicz said to various journalists -- and underlined the importance of Catholics and Orthodox witnessing together the Gospel and moral values in the fight against aggressive secularism," which abounds in our societies.During the audience, Kondrusiewicz presented the Pope with the first two volumes of the Catholic Encyclopedia in Russian. "The Pontiff took them in hand and began reading a few words in Russian," a pleased Kondrusiewicz said.Pastor of the Russian capital's Archdiocese of the Mother of God, Kondrusiewicz is in Rome leading the first pilgrimage of Russian Catholics since the death of John Paul II. "Yesterday, the late Pope's birthday, we celebrated Mass near his tomb," he said, "and in my homily, I prayed that Pope Woytjla makes it possible for Benedict XVI to fulfil the dream of visiting Moscow." Msgr Stanislaw Rylko, President of the Pontifical Council for the Laity, was of the same opinion; Kondrusiewicz said that, while meeting the Russian faithful yesterday, Rylko said, "John Paul II's work will assist his successor toward reaching Moscow."In the meantime, the Russian faithful go to the Pope. Yesterday at the general audience in St. Peter's Square, Benedict XVI greeted the pilgrims in attendance in Russian. "Everyone was moved," the Archbishop said, "some wept and were saying, "Pope Benedict, we await you in Russia."Kondrusiewicz confirmed that "new conditions" exist today for closer ties with the Orthodox Patriarchate which is hostile toward the Vatican and Catholics for their alleged proselytism in Russia. "The situation needs time to mature," he stated, "but there is less tension in the air." Kondrusiewicz explained that many Orthodox already see various points of contact with Pope Ratzinger's teaching: "the firm stance on women priests, the importance of the family, the question of respect for human life; these are the groundwork from which to begin." For the Metropolitan, however, more is needed. "We must first work together with the Orthodox from the theological point of view and define what 'proselytism', 'religious freedom' mean, to then procede along a shared path." A mixed commission, set up following the first visit to Moscow in February 2004 of Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, has been working for some time on these questions. The commission has dealt so far with several cases of proselytism.Lastly, the Metropolitan touched on the situation of Catholics in Russia. Among the various problems faced by the Catholic community is, above all, the lack of Russian-born priests, due to decades of atheism under the Soviet regime. Some 90% of priests in Russia are of foreign origin. Another problem is the lack of churches: many religious buildings which once belonged to Catholics were confiscated under the Soviet regime and have not yet been returned.In the evening, Msgr Kondrusiewicz and his pilgrims took part in the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament in Rome's Saint Mary Major Basilica. Several prayers were read in Russian during the Eucharistic adoration.
Friday, May 20, 2005 - 05:45 AM
Metropolitan of Moscow: Pope is pushing for shared mission with the Orthodox
19 May, 2005Msgr Tadeus Kondrusiewicz says that new conditions exist for dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox: the fight against aggressive secularism; respect for human life; the importance of the family; "no" to female priesthood.Rome (AsiaNews) -- Benedict XVI's main objective is to witness the Gospel together with the Orthodox in the fight against contemporary society's "aggressive secularism". This is what the Catholic Metropolitan of Moscow, Monsignor Tadeus Kondrusiewicz, said following a private audience with the Pope at the Vatican today. "The Pontiff takes to heart the situation of Catholics in Russia -- Kondrusiewicz said to various journalists -- and underlined the importance of Catholics and Orthodox witnessing together the Gospel and moral values in the fight against aggressive secularism," which abounds in our societies.During the audience, Kondrusiewicz presented the Pope with the first two volumes of the Catholic Encyclopedia in Russian. "The Pontiff took them in hand and began reading a few words in Russian," a pleased Kondrusiewicz said.Pastor of the Russian capital's Archdiocese of the Mother of God, Kondrusiewicz is in Rome leading the first pilgrimage of Russian Catholics since the death of John Paul II. "Yesterday, the late Pope's birthday, we celebrated Mass near his tomb," he said, "and in my homily, I prayed that Pope Woytjla makes it possible for Benedict XVI to fulfil the dream of visiting Moscow." Msgr Stanislaw Rylko, President of the Pontifical Council for the Laity, was of the same opinion; Kondrusiewicz said that, while meeting the Russian faithful yesterday, Rylko said, "John Paul II's work will assist his successor toward reaching Moscow."In the meantime, the Russian faithful go to the Pope. Yesterday at the general audience in St. Peter's Square, Benedict XVI greeted the pilgrims in attendance in Russian. "Everyone was moved," the Archbishop said, "some wept and were saying, "Pope Benedict, we await you in Russia."Kondrusiewicz confirmed that "new conditions" exist today for closer ties with the Orthodox Patriarchate which is hostile toward the Vatican and Catholics for their alleged proselytism in Russia. "The situation needs time to mature," he stated, "but there is less tension in the air." Kondrusiewicz explained that many Orthodox already see various points of contact with Pope Ratzinger's teaching: "the firm stance on women priests, the importance of the family, the question of respect for human life; these are the groundwork from which to begin." For the Metropolitan, however, more is needed. "We must first work together with the Orthodox from the theological point of view and define what 'proselytism', 'religious freedom' mean, to then procede along a shared path." A mixed commission, set up following the first visit to Moscow in February 2004 of Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, has been working for some time on these questions. The commission has dealt so far with several cases of proselytism.Lastly, the Metropolitan touched on the situation of Catholics in Russia. Among the various problems faced by the Catholic community is, above all, the lack of Russian-born priests, due to decades of atheism under the Soviet regime. Some 90% of priests in Russia are of foreign origin. Another problem is the lack of churches: many religious buildings which once belonged to Catholics were confiscated under the Soviet regime and have not yet been returned.In the evening, Msgr Kondrusiewicz and his pilgrims took part in the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament in Rome's Saint Mary Major Basilica. Several prayers were read in Russian during the Eucharistic adoration.
Monday, July 11, 2005
Kingdom of Heaven: A Review by Dr. Paul Crawford
Courtesy of WesternOrthodox.com:
Kingdom of Heaven: A Review
Dr. Paul Crawford, Ph.D.
The scene
Jerusalem, October 1187.
The problem
Muslim forces, led by Saladin, are about to take the city from its Christian owners for the second time in 550 years, and the people inside are in terror of their lives, relying on Balian of Ibelin, the commander of the city, to defend them.
The solution, offered by the Patriarch of Jerusalem?
According to the recent film Kingdom of Heaven, it was to advise Balian to Convert to Islam!
Why would one of Christendom’s most prestigious clerics, heir to hundreds of thousands of Christian martyrs, standing almost on the very soil where his Lord suffered and died, offer such startlingly craven advice?
Well…because we can always repent later.
Kyrie eleison!
Kingdom of Heaven, which claims to be about the fall of Jerusalem to the Muslims in 1187, is a heartbreaking work of art. Beautifully shot, inspired by world-changing, emotionally wrenching, dramatic events, it fails in almost every way to convey the historical truth about those events.
The heartbreak comes from the lost opportunity. Ridley Scott, the director, could have made a brilliant historical film while simultaneously conveying the truth about twelfth-century medieval life. He managed this for the Roman world with Gladiator. But with Kingdom of Heaven, he did not.
The film offers falsehoods, even slander, at almost every turn. For example, there is no evidence that any Patriarch of Jerusalem ever counselled conversion to Islam, and it is incredible to imagine one doing so.
Let’s take a look at some other examples—what the film claims first, answered by the reality.
The twelfth century was a time of repression and poverty.
Medieval historians recognize the period’s cultural rebirth and economic growth by calling it the Renaissance of the Twelfth Century.
The Church required the beheading of suicides.
It didn’t.
The Church taught that crusading was an activity that could release other people’s souls from Hell.
It didn’t. It did teach that crusading was one of many penitential activities that might obtain the release of one’s own soul from Purgatory—rather a different matter.
The Church taught that one should kill infidels by crusading in order to find the pathway to Heaven.
It didn’t. It did teach that fighting and dying in defence of Christendom was an act of charity and hence virtuous, but churchmen were generally careful to note that it would be better not to have to kill the infidel, and that it was only permissible if there was no other way to protect the free practice of the Christian faith and the lives of Christians. This is a point which has considerable relevance even today.
Medieval Christians commonly expressed scepticism and disbelief in Christianity (Your soul is in your keeping alone; God doesn’t know me; &c.).
On the contrary, such expressions would have been viewed with shock and horror. When Emperor Frederick II did venture sceptical remarks about Christianity while on the Sixth Crusade early in the next century, he was shunned and reviled by Muslims and Christians alike. Worldly scepticism is commonplace in the modern world, but it was practically non-existent in the medieval.
The Templars were fanatical troublemakers who were out of control and who represented a threat to the Kingdom.
Although the Templars could sometimes be difficult for local authorities to control because of the nature of their organisation, and one king of Jerusalem did in fact hang some Templars for interfering with his foreign policy, the Templars were highly-regarded defenders of Jerusalem and Christian interests generally. Some forty years earlier, Templar discipline and dedication had saved the Second Crusade from annihilation, and from that time forward they comprised a major element of the defence of the crusader states such as Jerusalem. Saladin paid them the ultimate compliment of slaughtering them ruthlessly whenever they came within his power, because he feared their dedication, clear-thinking, and competence.
The Christian King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem cooperated with the Muslim Sultan Saladin in order to try to build a Kingdom of Heaven of peace and tolerance in the Near East.
There is not a shred of evidence to support this fantasy, and a great deal to contradict it. To mention just one problem (aside from the ample historical record of these men’s deeds): tolerance is a modern concept and would not have been considered a virtue by medieval Muslims or Christians. There is no record of either faith ever attempting to set up a regime of calculated tolerance based on principle, anywhere (not even in Spain, contrary to popular belief). Both sides participated in truces for practical reasons, but these had nothing to do with tolerance.
Raymond of Tripoli (called Tiberias in the film) was a tolerant, humane man who supported King Baldwin with all his heart.
Raymond of Tripoli was a traitor to the kingdom, a man who plotted against the throne, consistently placed his own interests above those of kingdom or faith, and who was viewed with suspicion and hostility by the King.
Reynald of Châtillon was a drunken, warmongering boor who defied King Baldwin’s commands, embarrassed his own compatriots, and brought death and destruction onto the Kingdom of Jerusalem by his behavior.
Reynald of Châtillon was a skilled and dedicated defender of Christendom, so capable that Saladin viewed him as the primary obstacle to Muslim domination of the Near East, and murdered him at the first available opportunity. Reynald was Baldwin’s trusted advisor, acted as his regent at times when the King was disabled, and was widely viewed as a martyr by his contemporaries.
Balian of Ibelin was a bastard blacksmith in France, found, knighted, and brought to the Holy Land by his father Godfrey. He was a dedicated supporter of King Baldwin’s, and organized the defence of Jerusalem when it lay helpless before Saladin.
Balian did lead the heroic but doomed defence of Jerusalem in fall 1187. Otherwise, he wasn’t a bastard, his father wasn’t named Godfrey, he lived his entire life in the Holy Land, and he belonged to Raymond of Tripoli’s faction, although he apparently did not participate in Raymond’s most treacherous behavior.
Princess Sibylla committed adultery with Balian of Ibelin and despised her husband Guy of Lusignan.
Sibylla loved Guy passionately and remained singularly devoted to him all her life. There is no evidence that she committed adultery with Balian of Ibelin (who was married to Sibylla’s stepmother Maria), or anyone else for that matter.
Guy of Lusignan was a bloodthirsty warmonger who yearned for combat.
Actually, Guy seems to have taken the offensive at Hattin because he had been sharply criticized for excessive caution and avoidance of combat previously. During his short term as king, he did everything he could to avoid direct confrontation with Saladin, not because he wished to tolerate Islam, but rather because he was intelligent enough to know that such confrontations were all too likely to end in the destruction of the Kingdom.
Saladin was a worldly-wise cynic who did not take his own religion seriously, and a ruler who has been viewed as a model by Muslims ever since.
On the contrary, the available evidence indicates that Saladin was at least conventionally pious, a man who took his responsibility to wage jihad against non-Muslims seriously. But it is Christians who lionized Saladin; amongst Muslims he had a relatively poor reputation until recently, when they learnt admiration for Saladin from the West. Most medieval Muslims saved their admiration for more successful, because more vicious, rulers such as Zengi in the twelfth century and Baibars in the thirteenth.
Christians had no particular attachment to the holy sites in Palestine.
One of the primary reasons for the crusades is the powerful attachment Christians felt to the places where the story of Salvation had been played out. Tens of thousands of Christian warriors willingly laid down their lives in defence of these places, and the loss of them was bitterly mourned across Christendom.
Raymond of Tripoli (Tiberias) and Balian of Ibelin refused to accompany King Guy to Hattin.
They did not. They were both present, and both fought beside him, although they did cut their way out of Muslim lines to escape. Guy could not have fielded a functional army without them.
The Church taught that bodies which were burned were thereby prevented from Resurrection.
It didn’t.
The First Crusaders in 1099 slaughtered everyone in Jerusalem.
They didn’t (although some of their own propaganda claimed that they did).
The Christians of the First Crusade stole Jerusalem from the Muslims, unprovoked.
Jerusalem was a Christian city when the Muslims captured it in 638…unprovoked.
Saladin voluntarily and generously allowed the Christians to walk away from Jerusalem in October 1187.
He did not. Saladin allowed the Christians to negotiate their own ransom, because Balian of Ibelin threatened to fight house to house and destroy the entire city if he did not offer surrender terms in accordance with usual military custom.
When Saladin entered Jerusalem, he was considerate enough of Christian sensibilities to pick up and gently restore a fallen cross.
One of Saladin’s first acts was to have the cross on the Dome of the Rock torn off, dragged through sewers, and reviled.
It is the fault of the crusades that the Muslim and Christian worlds have been at each others’ throats (to be fair, this is implied, not stated explicitly—but the implication is clear).
Muslims attacked Christians first, and continued attacking them from the seventh century to the eleventh, and then beyond. Islam teaches that the whole world must submit to Islamic law, and if it will not do so willingly, it must be forced to submit. Islam has always had, in Samuel Huntington’s words, bloody borders. The crusades had nothing to do with this phenomenon, but were a defensive response to centuries of Muslim aggression—and were unsuccessful, at that.
There’s more—much more. But you get the point.
It might be argued that filmmakers take liberties with the historical record all the time, that it is in the nature of the medium to require such liberties, and that anyway, this is entertainment and ought not to be taken so seriously.
There are several problems (at least) with that view.
1) Taking artistic liberties is one thing. Direct, deliberate, consistent misrepresentation of the truth, and the slander of one’s fellow humans, is quite another.
2) The real story is amply dramatic. It doesn’t need to be inverted.
3) The filmmakers have claimed forcefully that what they were presenting was not just entertainment, but was a historically accurate and fascinating history lesson.
In addition, the film makes a couple of points very powerfully, points which Christians (not to mention Muslims) cannot allow to stand without challenge.
Most important, the film consistently depicts those who take religion seriously, and allow it to influence their actions, as crazed fools whose actions threaten the peace, stability and prosperity of society. It doesn’t matter, in the film, whether the devout are Christian or Muslim. The problem is religious conviction.
The film also shows its heroes as world-weary cynics who believe in nothing except, perhaps, relativism, tolerance…and sexual liberty. Adultery is depicted as a positive good, and marital fidelity is contemptible.
The film is not mere entertainment. It is a powerful and artistically compelling presentation of the morally disordered views of our own age, and an equally powerful assault on traditional morality, especially on the teachings and historical record of Christianity. As such, it is poisonous as well as slanderous.
The director, Ridley Scott, was sharply criticized for the movie in early 2004, well before it came out, by some of the foremost crusade historians in the world (including Jonathan Riley-Smith of Cambridge University, who characterised the film as rubbish). Rumor has it that Scott made a few changes to the script in response to the criticizm…but not nearly enough.
Kingdom of Heaven does great violence to the history it purports to portray, is an insult to Christian and Muslim believers alike, and is a disservice to anyone who seeks to understand the meaning and consequences of the past.
Suggestions for Further Reading
Bernard Hamilton, The Leper King and His Heirs: Baldwin IV and the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. A scholarly but highly readable and reliable book; if footnotes scare you, just don’t look at them.
Malcolm Lyons & D. E. P. Jackson, Saladin: The Politics of the Holy War, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. The standard study of Saladin and a clear-eyed look at the great Muslim leader.
Thomas Madden, A New Concise History of the Crusades, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. An excellent, readable, up-to-date survey of the crusades to the Holy Land.
Jonathan Riley-Smith, What Were the Crusades?, 3rd ed., San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002. The benchmark introduction to the concept of crusading, by a practicing Catholic who is the foremost historian of the crusades today.
Kingdom of Heaven: A Review
Dr. Paul Crawford, Ph.D.
The scene
Jerusalem, October 1187.
The problem
Muslim forces, led by Saladin, are about to take the city from its Christian owners for the second time in 550 years, and the people inside are in terror of their lives, relying on Balian of Ibelin, the commander of the city, to defend them.
The solution, offered by the Patriarch of Jerusalem?
According to the recent film Kingdom of Heaven, it was to advise Balian to Convert to Islam!
Why would one of Christendom’s most prestigious clerics, heir to hundreds of thousands of Christian martyrs, standing almost on the very soil where his Lord suffered and died, offer such startlingly craven advice?
Well…because we can always repent later.
Kyrie eleison!
Kingdom of Heaven, which claims to be about the fall of Jerusalem to the Muslims in 1187, is a heartbreaking work of art. Beautifully shot, inspired by world-changing, emotionally wrenching, dramatic events, it fails in almost every way to convey the historical truth about those events.
The heartbreak comes from the lost opportunity. Ridley Scott, the director, could have made a brilliant historical film while simultaneously conveying the truth about twelfth-century medieval life. He managed this for the Roman world with Gladiator. But with Kingdom of Heaven, he did not.
The film offers falsehoods, even slander, at almost every turn. For example, there is no evidence that any Patriarch of Jerusalem ever counselled conversion to Islam, and it is incredible to imagine one doing so.
Let’s take a look at some other examples—what the film claims first, answered by the reality.
The twelfth century was a time of repression and poverty.
Medieval historians recognize the period’s cultural rebirth and economic growth by calling it the Renaissance of the Twelfth Century.
The Church required the beheading of suicides.
It didn’t.
The Church taught that crusading was an activity that could release other people’s souls from Hell.
It didn’t. It did teach that crusading was one of many penitential activities that might obtain the release of one’s own soul from Purgatory—rather a different matter.
The Church taught that one should kill infidels by crusading in order to find the pathway to Heaven.
It didn’t. It did teach that fighting and dying in defence of Christendom was an act of charity and hence virtuous, but churchmen were generally careful to note that it would be better not to have to kill the infidel, and that it was only permissible if there was no other way to protect the free practice of the Christian faith and the lives of Christians. This is a point which has considerable relevance even today.
Medieval Christians commonly expressed scepticism and disbelief in Christianity (Your soul is in your keeping alone; God doesn’t know me; &c.).
On the contrary, such expressions would have been viewed with shock and horror. When Emperor Frederick II did venture sceptical remarks about Christianity while on the Sixth Crusade early in the next century, he was shunned and reviled by Muslims and Christians alike. Worldly scepticism is commonplace in the modern world, but it was practically non-existent in the medieval.
The Templars were fanatical troublemakers who were out of control and who represented a threat to the Kingdom.
Although the Templars could sometimes be difficult for local authorities to control because of the nature of their organisation, and one king of Jerusalem did in fact hang some Templars for interfering with his foreign policy, the Templars were highly-regarded defenders of Jerusalem and Christian interests generally. Some forty years earlier, Templar discipline and dedication had saved the Second Crusade from annihilation, and from that time forward they comprised a major element of the defence of the crusader states such as Jerusalem. Saladin paid them the ultimate compliment of slaughtering them ruthlessly whenever they came within his power, because he feared their dedication, clear-thinking, and competence.
The Christian King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem cooperated with the Muslim Sultan Saladin in order to try to build a Kingdom of Heaven of peace and tolerance in the Near East.
There is not a shred of evidence to support this fantasy, and a great deal to contradict it. To mention just one problem (aside from the ample historical record of these men’s deeds): tolerance is a modern concept and would not have been considered a virtue by medieval Muslims or Christians. There is no record of either faith ever attempting to set up a regime of calculated tolerance based on principle, anywhere (not even in Spain, contrary to popular belief). Both sides participated in truces for practical reasons, but these had nothing to do with tolerance.
Raymond of Tripoli (called Tiberias in the film) was a tolerant, humane man who supported King Baldwin with all his heart.
Raymond of Tripoli was a traitor to the kingdom, a man who plotted against the throne, consistently placed his own interests above those of kingdom or faith, and who was viewed with suspicion and hostility by the King.
Reynald of Châtillon was a drunken, warmongering boor who defied King Baldwin’s commands, embarrassed his own compatriots, and brought death and destruction onto the Kingdom of Jerusalem by his behavior.
Reynald of Châtillon was a skilled and dedicated defender of Christendom, so capable that Saladin viewed him as the primary obstacle to Muslim domination of the Near East, and murdered him at the first available opportunity. Reynald was Baldwin’s trusted advisor, acted as his regent at times when the King was disabled, and was widely viewed as a martyr by his contemporaries.
Balian of Ibelin was a bastard blacksmith in France, found, knighted, and brought to the Holy Land by his father Godfrey. He was a dedicated supporter of King Baldwin’s, and organized the defence of Jerusalem when it lay helpless before Saladin.
Balian did lead the heroic but doomed defence of Jerusalem in fall 1187. Otherwise, he wasn’t a bastard, his father wasn’t named Godfrey, he lived his entire life in the Holy Land, and he belonged to Raymond of Tripoli’s faction, although he apparently did not participate in Raymond’s most treacherous behavior.
Princess Sibylla committed adultery with Balian of Ibelin and despised her husband Guy of Lusignan.
Sibylla loved Guy passionately and remained singularly devoted to him all her life. There is no evidence that she committed adultery with Balian of Ibelin (who was married to Sibylla’s stepmother Maria), or anyone else for that matter.
Guy of Lusignan was a bloodthirsty warmonger who yearned for combat.
Actually, Guy seems to have taken the offensive at Hattin because he had been sharply criticized for excessive caution and avoidance of combat previously. During his short term as king, he did everything he could to avoid direct confrontation with Saladin, not because he wished to tolerate Islam, but rather because he was intelligent enough to know that such confrontations were all too likely to end in the destruction of the Kingdom.
Saladin was a worldly-wise cynic who did not take his own religion seriously, and a ruler who has been viewed as a model by Muslims ever since.
On the contrary, the available evidence indicates that Saladin was at least conventionally pious, a man who took his responsibility to wage jihad against non-Muslims seriously. But it is Christians who lionized Saladin; amongst Muslims he had a relatively poor reputation until recently, when they learnt admiration for Saladin from the West. Most medieval Muslims saved their admiration for more successful, because more vicious, rulers such as Zengi in the twelfth century and Baibars in the thirteenth.
Christians had no particular attachment to the holy sites in Palestine.
One of the primary reasons for the crusades is the powerful attachment Christians felt to the places where the story of Salvation had been played out. Tens of thousands of Christian warriors willingly laid down their lives in defence of these places, and the loss of them was bitterly mourned across Christendom.
Raymond of Tripoli (Tiberias) and Balian of Ibelin refused to accompany King Guy to Hattin.
They did not. They were both present, and both fought beside him, although they did cut their way out of Muslim lines to escape. Guy could not have fielded a functional army without them.
The Church taught that bodies which were burned were thereby prevented from Resurrection.
It didn’t.
The First Crusaders in 1099 slaughtered everyone in Jerusalem.
They didn’t (although some of their own propaganda claimed that they did).
The Christians of the First Crusade stole Jerusalem from the Muslims, unprovoked.
Jerusalem was a Christian city when the Muslims captured it in 638…unprovoked.
Saladin voluntarily and generously allowed the Christians to walk away from Jerusalem in October 1187.
He did not. Saladin allowed the Christians to negotiate their own ransom, because Balian of Ibelin threatened to fight house to house and destroy the entire city if he did not offer surrender terms in accordance with usual military custom.
When Saladin entered Jerusalem, he was considerate enough of Christian sensibilities to pick up and gently restore a fallen cross.
One of Saladin’s first acts was to have the cross on the Dome of the Rock torn off, dragged through sewers, and reviled.
It is the fault of the crusades that the Muslim and Christian worlds have been at each others’ throats (to be fair, this is implied, not stated explicitly—but the implication is clear).
Muslims attacked Christians first, and continued attacking them from the seventh century to the eleventh, and then beyond. Islam teaches that the whole world must submit to Islamic law, and if it will not do so willingly, it must be forced to submit. Islam has always had, in Samuel Huntington’s words, bloody borders. The crusades had nothing to do with this phenomenon, but were a defensive response to centuries of Muslim aggression—and were unsuccessful, at that.
There’s more—much more. But you get the point.
It might be argued that filmmakers take liberties with the historical record all the time, that it is in the nature of the medium to require such liberties, and that anyway, this is entertainment and ought not to be taken so seriously.
There are several problems (at least) with that view.
1) Taking artistic liberties is one thing. Direct, deliberate, consistent misrepresentation of the truth, and the slander of one’s fellow humans, is quite another.
2) The real story is amply dramatic. It doesn’t need to be inverted.
3) The filmmakers have claimed forcefully that what they were presenting was not just entertainment, but was a historically accurate and fascinating history lesson.
In addition, the film makes a couple of points very powerfully, points which Christians (not to mention Muslims) cannot allow to stand without challenge.
Most important, the film consistently depicts those who take religion seriously, and allow it to influence their actions, as crazed fools whose actions threaten the peace, stability and prosperity of society. It doesn’t matter, in the film, whether the devout are Christian or Muslim. The problem is religious conviction.
The film also shows its heroes as world-weary cynics who believe in nothing except, perhaps, relativism, tolerance…and sexual liberty. Adultery is depicted as a positive good, and marital fidelity is contemptible.
The film is not mere entertainment. It is a powerful and artistically compelling presentation of the morally disordered views of our own age, and an equally powerful assault on traditional morality, especially on the teachings and historical record of Christianity. As such, it is poisonous as well as slanderous.
The director, Ridley Scott, was sharply criticized for the movie in early 2004, well before it came out, by some of the foremost crusade historians in the world (including Jonathan Riley-Smith of Cambridge University, who characterised the film as rubbish). Rumor has it that Scott made a few changes to the script in response to the criticizm…but not nearly enough.
Kingdom of Heaven does great violence to the history it purports to portray, is an insult to Christian and Muslim believers alike, and is a disservice to anyone who seeks to understand the meaning and consequences of the past.
Suggestions for Further Reading
Bernard Hamilton, The Leper King and His Heirs: Baldwin IV and the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. A scholarly but highly readable and reliable book; if footnotes scare you, just don’t look at them.
Malcolm Lyons & D. E. P. Jackson, Saladin: The Politics of the Holy War, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. The standard study of Saladin and a clear-eyed look at the great Muslim leader.
Thomas Madden, A New Concise History of the Crusades, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. An excellent, readable, up-to-date survey of the crusades to the Holy Land.
Jonathan Riley-Smith, What Were the Crusades?, 3rd ed., San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002. The benchmark introduction to the concept of crusading, by a practicing Catholic who is the foremost historian of the crusades today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)