What the Catholic Church Shamefully Denies
The Recovering Catholic | 2 Nov. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ-5jDDkUQo
Conquistadors
1:08 I think the Delawares are lots more wiped out, if not by the sole Quakers, at least by people coming after William Penn, than ... (citing wikipedia on Nahuatl, language of the Azteks) ...
Varieties of Nahuatl are spoken by about 1.7 million Nahuas, most of whom live mainly in Central Mexico and have smaller populations in the United States.
... or (on Quechuan languages, language of the Inka Empire) ...
Derived from a common ancestral "Proto-Quechua" language,[4] it is the most widely spoken pre-Columbian language family of the Americas, with an estimated 8–10 million speakers in 2004,[8] and just under 7 million from the most recent census data available up to 2011.[9] Approximately 13.9% (3.7 million) of Peruvians speak a Quechua language.[10]
... or (on Aymaran languages, a minority language with sister languages within the Inka Empire after it conquered for instance the Collas) ...
Aymara has approximately 2.2 million speakers; 1.7 million in Bolivia, 350,000 in Peru, and the rest in Chile and Argentina. Jaqaru has approximately 725 speakers in central Peru, and Kawki had 9 surviving speakers as of 2005. Kawki is little documented though its relationship with Jaqaru is quite close.
1.7 + 7 + 2.2 = 10.9 million. Not counting Mayas, whose Quiché (Kʼicheʼ language) also survives:
Quiché, is a Mayan language spoken by the Kʼicheʼ people of the central highlands in Guatemala and Mexico. With over a million speakers (some 7% of Guatemala's population), Kʼicheʼ is the second most widely-spoken language in the country, after Spanish.
10.9 + 1.1 = 12 million.
The largest indigenous language in the United States is ...
Navajo 170,000 Navajo Nation, United States Southwestern United States
... according to Indigenous languages of the Americas.
Significantly, this is a part of the US which once was Spanish.
1:08 bis Let's break it down in a fair comparison.
Latin America and the Caribbean Population (LIVE)
The current population of Latin America and the Caribbean is 669,383,454 as of Monday, November 3, 2025 based on Worldometer's elaboration of the latest United Nations data. Latin America and the Caribbean population is equivalent to 8.11% of the total world population.
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/latin-america-and-the-caribbean-population/#
(PDF) Spanish in Contact with Amerindian Languages
ResearchGate
only 4% of the languages of the world. Speakers of Amerindian languages in Latin America number between 40 and 50. million, and represent 10% of the total ...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286431659_Spanish_in_Contact_with_Amerindian_Languages
45 000 000 / 669 383 454 = 6.722 %
The current population of the United States of America is 347,902,504 as of Sunday, November 2, 2025, based on Worldometer's elaboration of the latest United ...
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/
The current population of Canada is 40,254,811 as of Sunday, November 2, 2025, based on Worldometer's elaboration of the latest United Nations data1. Canada ...
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/canada-population/
The Census Bureau counted about 372,000 people who speak Native North American languages at home.
https://languagemagazine.com/census-shows-native-languages-count/
According to the 2011 Census, almost 213,500 people reported an Aboriginal mother tongue and nearly 213,400 people reported speaking an Aboriginal language most often or regularly at home.
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-314-x/98-314-x2011003_3-eng.cfm
372 000 / 347 902 504 = 0.107 %
213 500 / 40 254 811 = 0.53 %
So, 6.722 % is less than the 10 % mentioned in the quote, but the pdf Spanish in Contact with Amerindian Languages or the printed text it is based on could be older* than the statistic of 669,383,454 people living in Latin America. If so, the speakers of Amerindian languages there could also have gone up.
But even with 6.722 %, that's way better than the 0.107 % in the US (nearly 63 times better) or the 0.53 % in Canada (12.68 times better).
Where there is a language, there is a culture. Ending Inka pageantry in Perú was not worse than ending Nazi pageantry in Germany. Such pageantry in either case is not all of the culture. Chewing coca leaves survived the Conquistadors and October-Fest survived Patton.
Principle
1:49 Don't you forget something?
Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost
[Matthew 28:19]
Nations would seem to imply a government, right?
For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil
[Romans 13:4]
So, governments, by the nature of their work, cannot be as peaceful as individual Christians ideally should be and should be safely able to be.
Should be = Christ's at least preference.
Should be safely able to be = a Christian government's pretty clear duty.
If you don't deny both Christ's and St. Paul's words, Christian governments using violence was foreseen as part of the deal.
Crusades
2:21 No. Urban II was not liberating the Holy Land from Christian Palestinians, nor from Muslim Palestinians.
He's liberating them along with pilgrims and holy sites from the Seldjuks, a recent new power.
Only in the Counter-Crusade did Muslim Palestinians get hijacked into a "defense" against the Crusades that was oppressive to Christians (notably, a "local pilgrimage" ... not labelled Hajj ... which had as date "one week before the Christian Easter" in order to survey Christian pilgrims).
Also, it was in the time of the Counter-Crusade that Christian Palestinians were forced to abandon Aramaic in favour of Arabic.
So, you get the facts all backwards.
2:28 Unlike what happened at least in some villages, in 1947 and 48 and the prior years, Crusaders didn't steal village land from locals.
They settled in as the new lords, but Palestinian villagers by and large remained where they had been when Urban II was speaking in Clermont.
They ousted Seldjuks, not villagers, armies, not farmers.
2:37 If people were wiped out in their houses, that were instances of war crimes, not planned.
According to lots of Germans, French and US soldiers in both world wars, notably black, raped German women. Perhaps the story is very exaggerated, perhaps claiming rape was for some women better than admitting an actual love affair, but supposing there was at least some to this, does this mean that Entente and later Allies had no reasons to invade Germany, or that the war as such equals the war crimes?
I don't think so.
The most well known instance of such war crimes was the plundering and massacre of Jerusalem when it was taken in 1099. Three days it took before Geoffrey of Bouillon get the Crusaders in order. It reminds a bit of the Islamic custom of three days of looting (a custom that Mehmed II wavered, after taking Constantinople, by the way). I am very sure that Urban II wasn't primarily thinking in terms of this kind of thing being a possibility, but if he did, he considered the immediate fault to be that of sinful soldiers, and the ultimate fault to be that of those provoking the war by being more repressive than Arabic predecessors in Islamic power had been.
Equally, no clergyman ordered the killing of 5000 in Béziers, the Church just ordered the Albigensian Crusade. For reasons I suppose I'll have occasion to return to when you bring up the Inquisition.
2:59 Would you mind telling me where exactly the wording is "wipe out all these Muslims"?
He certainly wanted the Islamic state as run by the Seldjuks gone. I don't know any source saying he wanted Muslim villagers gone too.
3:10 The pillaging, partial massacre of Jews in the Rhineland belongs to the First Crusade, not to every one of the Crusades (seven major ones or eight, I have come across different counts).
The reason for this was, the First Crusade recruited lots of riffraff with few officers to put them in their place.
Geoffrey of Bouillon never took part in the Rhineland pogroms, he actually wasn't there and wasn't able to stop them.
The People's Crusade was the beginning phase of the First Crusade whose objective was to retake the Holy Land, and Jerusalem in particular, from Islamic rule. In 1095, after the head of the Roman Catholic Church Pope Urban II started to urge faithful Christians to undertake an armed pilgrimage to Jerusalem, the People's Crusade was conducted for roughly six months from April to October 1096. It is also known as the Peasants' Crusade, Paupers' Crusade or the Popular Crusade as it was executed by a mainly untrained peasant army prior to the main church-organized crusade. It was led primarily by Peter the Hermit with forces of Walter Sans Avoir. The peasant army of this crusade was destroyed by the forces of the Seljuk Turks under Kilij Arslan at the Battle of Civetot in northwestern Anatolia.
The People's Crusade was the first, largest, and best documented of the popular crusades. The start of the more official and fully church-backed crusade, called the "Princes' Crusade", occurred a few months later and was better organized, better armed, and better funded; it was also successful.
Citing wiki "People's Crusade"
3:11 — 3:15 WHAT did you just say?
They started massacring Jews in the Rhineland cities, just because that's what the Catholic Church said to do.
This is preposterous nonsense.
Peter the Hermit was a preacher partly authorised by the Church, the Church hadn't pre-vetted everything he said, then he inspired the Popular Crusade, then he actually left it after seeing the Rhineland pogroms.
If you are not yourself a blatant liar, who is it? Whom did you have the bad judgement to believe?
Is it Kevin Annett?**
[on massacre of Jerusalem]
3:23 They killed Muslims, Jews and Christians.
And they were obviously not the Church, but simply soldiery who were letting off frustrations on people weaker than themselves in the most shameful and bloody way possible.
All three days, Geoffrey of Bouillon tried to stop it and he succeeded on day 3.
[Sack of Constantinople, 1204]
3:39 "went in there to wipe out Christians who weren't Catholic"
More like, were detained by non-Catholic Christians, a k a schismatics, and were trapped, and fought back and got the better of it.
Pope Innocent III hadn't planned it, but once it was done, he took advantage of it to make a Latin Patriarch in Constantinople.
The fact of the matter is, the Crusaders had planned to pass through, and ...
Following the siege of Constantinople in 1203, on 1 August 1203 the pro-Crusader Alexios Angelos was crowned Emperor Alexios IV of the Byzantine Empire. He attempted to pacify the city, but riots between anti-Crusader Greeks and pro-Crusader Latins broke out later that month and lasted until November, during which time most of the populace began to turn against him.[10][11]
On 25 January 1204, the death of co-Emperor Isaac II set off rioting in Constantinople in which the people deposed Alexios IV. He turned to the Crusaders for help, but was imprisoned by the imperial chamberlain, Alexios Doukas, who declared himself Emperor on 5 February, before executing Alexios IV by strangulation on 8 February.[12] Alexios V then attempted to negotiate with the Crusaders for a withdrawal from Byzantine territory without payment, but they refused in order to avenge Alexios IV and receive the money that was promised.[12] In March 1204, the Crusader and Venetian leadership decided on the outright conquest of Constantinople in order to settle debts, and drew up a formal agreement to divide the Byzantine Empire between them.[13]
Wikipedia "Sack of Constantinople" footnotes with:
"Alexius IV Angelus". Encyclopedia Britannica. Archived from the original on 25 April 2021. Retrieved 25 September 2023.
Brand, Charles M. (1968). "A Byzantine Plan for the Fourth Crusade". Speculum. 43 (3): 462–475. doi:10.2307/2855839. ISSN 0038-7134. JSTOR 2855839.
Robert of Clari (1936). "62". The Conquest of Constantinople. Translated by Holmes McNeal, Edgar. New York: Columbia University Press.
Robert of Clari (1936). "68". The Conquest of Constantinople. Translated by Holmes McNeal, Edgar. New York: Columbia University Press.
3:49 You pretend that the Church organised the Children's Crusade, but according to wikipedia, it's more like there were two of them and the Church couldn't stop them.
You see, this was in 1212, before the Inquisition had given the Church lots of leverage over social affairs, a leverage since then inherited by shrinks and social workers and much less well used than most acts of the inquisition, and this meant, the Church didn't have the means to stop a charismatic boy who was either a charlatan or deluded or both in turns.
1212 is also the year in which St. Clare successfully eloped from her parents and was placed by St. Francis of Assisi in the Benedictine nunnery. So, 1212 was pretty much a year in which young people were so free that the late 1960's would have seemed Victorian by comparison.
Will your next move be to say the Catholic Church planned Woodstock?
4:01 You are inventing manipulators that didn't exist.
Nicholas of Cologne and Stephen of Cloyes were shepherd boys, they were (the latter even at age 12) on an amateur level "manipulating" masses of other boys, but they were not manipulated by the Church.
[Reconquista]
4:17 What did you say, again?
"Crusades in Spain, against Muslims and Jews alike. They're wiping people out."
1) Muslims were a force of occupants. If you missed the memo, in Covadonga, Alqama and Munuza hoped to wipe Pelagius out. They failed. This was in 711.
2) Muslim forces and régimes had plenty of time up to 1492 (781 years) to give Christians (the majority) their freedom back (in a way that Crusaders didn't hurt the freedoms of Muslim Palestinians), but no, they had to keep exacting jiziya and things, and on occasion killed people for apostasy when someone else had promised they would become Muslims and didn't (like the priest Perfectus of Cordoba or the stepdaughters Alodia and Nunilo, when brother or stepfather had made the promise), and the powers were kicked out.
3) Civilian Muslims weren't usually massacred, but eventually asked to convert or leave. With Moriscos, ex-Muslim communities, an expulsion was arranged in 1609.*
4) Jews came at the butt end of this pretty late. Basically, they were seen in relation to Muslim rulers, like Vichy-French were seen in relation to Nazi occupants. As collaborators. Like Muslims, they weren't simply massacred, but also asked to convert or leave, and those converting have not been expulsed, are a good proportion of the population of the Baleares to this day.
*The Expulsion of the Moriscos (Spanish: Expulsión de los moriscos) was decreed by King Philip III of Spain on April 9, 1609. The Moriscos were descendants of Spain's Muslim population who had been forced to convert to Christianity. Since the Spanish were fighting wars in the Americas, feeling threatened by the Ottomans raiding along the Spanish coast and by two Morisco revolts in the century since Islam was outlawed in Spain, it seems that the expulsions were a reaction to an internal problem of the stretched Spanish Empire.***
4:40 The Papal support for Crusades and a President going to war cannot be compared.
Crusaders were volunteer forces, and while they had some obedience to the Pope, they had their own chiefs, who gained power and in the case of the Nordic Crusades ended up turning on the Church and declaring secular states with themselves as hereditary rulers, like Brandenburgs in Prussia (now in Poland and Lithuani + Kaliningrad enclave) and Kettlers in Curonia and Semgallen (in Latvia).
Pope Innocent II was Pope after the Crusades had already begun, and he was persecuted by the Emperor who supported an antipope. Just before the Crusades, two popes before Urban II, Gregory VII had been obliged to flee to Canossa from another Emperor who supported another antipope. His antipope failed, so, the Emperor went to Canossa "as penitent" to force the pope to absolve him.
5:06 Nobles having material motives, not the least disputed.
5:35 No, it was not an atrocity over anyone who believed differently than they.
Especially not in the Middle East.
Idolatrous Prusians and Latvians were perhaps less lucky ... but they were also more Barbaric. Like in massacring peaceful missionaries who had dared to come without Crusaders.
5:46 No, Muslims were not all the population of the Holy Land, Christians and Jews were oppressed by them much as in Spain, and the oppressors were obviously not all the Muslims, so, not all the Muslims were the targets. Just the armies and politicians.
So much for "interesting to have a defense against people in their own land" ... the US actually defended Anglo-Texans against Mexicans in the Mexican province of Texas, making it for a short while a free state and then a state of the Union.
5:50 "The Muslims were not coming to wipe out England or wipe out Spain ..."
Get a clue. Spain was in 1095 Southern part occupied by Muslim forces. Sicily and South Italy had recently been liberated from Muslim forces by a joint venture of Byzantium and Normans, ending up with Normans taking land after being denied wages, in 1033.
Between 700 and 1000, Muslims could do lots of raiding on Europe (outside their conquests in Spain / Portugal and S. Italy), and a reddit comment on a thread about it° reads:
Its honestly amazing how weak western christian nations were around 700-1000 compared to what they would be after 1100
They were fractured into small realms that often weren't very stable, and had to contend not only with the saracens raiding from the south but also the pagan northmen from the north.
In other words, yes, Muslims actually were a threat to Christian Europe.
6:13 Statistics?
When statistics are taken down near the events, in a credible fashion, fine. But in the time of the Crusades, a certain code of military valour loved to exaggerate the numbers of killed in massacres, to the point that some Apologists for the book of Joshua ... I disagree with them ... have explained that with exaggerated statistics.
You don't dispose of graveyeards comparable to Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial where you can walk around and count 9,388 graveplots. You don't have military commanders cleaning up afterwards, so you don't have them report "we killed so and so many, we got so and so many killed, therefore we need five days to bury them all and so many reinforcements" because military commanders left the cleaning up to civilians. There are usually no means of getting actual accurate statistics from this period about killed in battle.
Inquisition
6:37 You are misdefining heresy.
Believing differently than the Catholic Church is "unbelief" (opposite of "faith"). Heresy is just one species of unbelief.°°
Accordingly we must say that if unbelief be considered in comparison to faith, there are several species of unbelief, determinate in number. For, since the sin of unbelief consists in resisting the faith, this may happen in two ways: either the faith is resisted before it has been accepted, and such is the unbelief of pagans or heathens; or the Christian faith is resisted after it has been accepted, and this either in the figure, and such is the unbelief of the Jews, or in the very manifestation of truth, and such is the unbelief of heretics. Hence we may, in a general way, reckon these three as species of unbelief.
If, however, the species of unbelief be distinguished according to the various errors that occur in matters of faith, there are not determinate species of unbelief: for errors can be multiplied indefinitely, as Augustine observes (De Haeresibus).
The problem is, some people were already obliged to Christianity, either by accepting the OT (Jews) or by even accepting the NT (Catholics, Schismatic, Heretics). These people not believing is a more shameful act than a pure Pagan (one such since childhood) not believing.
As per definitions, Inquisitors could have proceded against Armenians, Copts, Assyrians or even Greeks (variously viewed as Schismatics and as Photian Heretics). But in practise, when heresies comprised populations and these were not in war with Catholics, they were left alone. The one thing one wanted to avoid (even by prosecution and killing offenders not repenting) was an apostasy within the Catholic powers, since it was believed this would ussher in the Antichrist (and I can't say this belief is wrong either).
6:51 "And then burn ...They set up permanent tribunals across Europe ..."
For Inquisitorial processes, as other judiciary, when protocols are preserved, we actually do have statistics.
1) Bernard Guy was involved in 930 procedures, sometimes more than one against the same suspect. No, not the one from Name of the Rose, the real man. Of these 45 were "burned in effigie" because they escaped. This means a puppet of straw was presented as a criminal to be punished, and "he" was burned without anyone actually dying. 42 were actually burned. The proportion is typical.°°°
2) Across Europe is an exaggeration, and the English one was not set up by the Pope but decided by the English parliament in 1401. In 1430, there were no Albigensians left in France, Waldensians were mostly not brought before the Inquisition, the Waldensians burned in Arras were burned by the English Inquisition and St. Joan of Arc too, because a large part of France was occupied by the English.
The Spanish Inquisition was set up in 1478 because there were fake converts, real converts were being massacred (Torquemada was of such a family) and one wanted to defend real converts by credibly rooting out the fake ones (with generous chances of becoming real ones ... or hiding the fake better).
So, neither England nor Spain had an Inquisition set up by Gregory IX. Both had their inquisitions set up much later for their own political reasons.
7:19 Cathars, Waldensians, wiped out, you said.
More Cathars (a k a Albigensians) were wiped out by returning to the Catholic Church (of their youth or their dad's or grand-dad's youth) than by getting burned.
I commpared the Children's Crusade to Woodstock, one could compare what Albigensians did, before the Church got back more control than she had had before over the regions, to Altamont. Except, instead of killing one Meredith Hunter, the Albigensians arranged abortions and prolonged starvations to death of the old who made certain rites in the Albigensians religion (as they had no repeatable confession, they saw such killing as a way of rescuing a soul from reincarnation). And children fared far worse under Albigensian rule than the poor boys in the Children's Crusade. Albigensians had a horror of procreation and of marriage, and therefore obviously weren't too keen on taking responsibility for children.
[tried to add]~
Waldensians weren't finally seen as half as bad, and there are Waldensians to this day.
* I couldn't access it while making the comment, hence the ignorance of the year. Checking elsewhere, the publication is from 2012, so, the 10 % proportion may still be valid. And when a language dies in Latin America, the heir do not always replace it with Spanish, but sometimes with a larger relative of the same language. Here are the info on the paper:
Spanish in Contact with Amerindian Languages
March 2012 DOI:10.1002/9781118228098.ch4
In book: The Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics (pp.65-88)
Authors: Anna María Escobar, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286431659_Spanish_in_Contact_with_Amerindian_Languages
**I've encountered him before. Here is my assessment on him:
It is a sad fact that Kevin Annett is himself an ex-pastor from United Church of Canada. He found his own sect guilty, and he found, as habitually among such anti-Catholic sectarians, the Catholic Church guiltier.
And here is the series about his wild accusations: 1) Communists and others have smeared Pius XII and Alojzije Stepinac ... ; 2) I do not favour Kevin D. Annett in these things ... ; 3) To Wilfred Fox Napier, reputedly Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church ; 4) Answering itccs, first 34 minutes of evidence, five charges and no Catholic culprit so far ; 5) Watching exhibits 1 - 14 (first video ITCCS, continued) ; 6) Bishop Coudert has offered to pay for hospital ... ; 7) Was Catholic Church main culprit in Canada? ; 8) This is Not a Mortara Case ... the cited assessment being in number 7.
*** Footnoting within the comment. Citing wiki Expulsion of the Moriscos
° Why were the Saracens/Arabs/Muslims allowed to freely plunder Europe for almost 300 years before the First Crusade?, where the head entry features the blog post Breve cronologia degli attacchi saraceni (termine con cui si designano gli attacchi arabo-islamici del primo millennio) nel Mediterraneo, nella penisola italiana, in quella ispanica, in Provenza e sulle Alpi, di Andrea Lonardo
°° Summa: Second Part of the Second Part : Question 10. Unbelief in general
Article 5. Whether there are several species of unbelief?
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm#article5
°°° I think I may have found the info in Pour en finir avec le Moyen Âge by Régine Pernoud. (Pour en finir avec le Moyen Âge, Paris, Le Seuil, 1977, 162 p. ; rééd. poche, Paris, Le Seuil, coll. « Points-Histoire », 1979.) She also wrote La Femme au temps des cathédrales, Paris, Stock, 1980. I briefly consulted it in a public library in the South of France, but "Pour en finir" I owned for years.
~ The last of the comments still up, right now when writing this, is on 5:50, so still on Crusades / Reconquista, not on Inquisition. Intentional, or the mass of my comments triggered a spam filter? Either way, 9PM and some, 9.XI.2025, I find it time to leave this video for now. See if I'll have time to add anything tomorrow. The post is getting published by somewhat before 5 PM.
