Editing Catharism (section)

=== Debate on the nature and existence of Catharism ===
Starting in the 1990s and continuing to the present day, historians like [[R.&nbsp;I. Moore]] have challenged the extent to which Catharism, as an institutionalised religion, actually existed. Building on the work of [[French historians]] such as Monique Zerner and Uwe Brunn, Moore's ''The War on Heresy''{{sfn|Moore|2012a|p=}} argues that Catharism was "contrived from the resources of [the] well-stocked imaginations" of churchmen, "with occasional reinforcement from miscellaneous and independent manifestations of local anticlericalism or apostolic enthusiasm."{{sfn|Moore|2012b|p=}} In short, Moore claims that the men and women persecuted as Cathars were not the followers of a secret religion imported from the East. Instead, they were part of a broader spiritual revival taking place in the later twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. Moore's work is indicative of a larger [[historiography|historiographical]] trend towards examining how heresy was constructed by the church.<ref>{{harvnb|Biller|2014}}</ref>

Scholars since the 1990s have referred to the fearful rumours of Cathars as a [[moral panic]]. The crusade against Cathars as a possibly-imaginary enemy has been compared to European [[witch-hunt]]s, [[anti-Semitic]] persecution, and the [[Satanic Panic]].<ref>{{harvnb|Victor|1998|p=missing}}</ref>

In 2016, ''Cathars in Question,'' edited by Antonio Sennis, presented a range of conflicting views by academics of medieval heresy, including Feuchter, Stoyanov, Sackville, Taylor, D'Avray, Biller, Moore, Bruschi, Pegg, Hamilton, Arnold, and Théry-Astruc, who had met at [[University College London]] and the [[Warburg Institute]] in London in April 2013.{{sfn|Roach|2018|pp=396–398}} Sennis describes the debate as about "an issue which is highly controversial and hotly debated among scholars: the existence of a medieval phenomenon which we can legitimately call 'Catharism.'"{{sfn|Sennis|2016|p=}}

Dr. Andrew Roach in ''[[The English Historical Review]]'' commented that "Reconciliation still seems some distance away [among the] distinguished, if sometimes cantankerous, scholars" who contributed to the volume. He said:

{{blockquote|The debate is a now familiar one which has been rehearsed for a number of periods and contexts, namely, given that the overwhelming majority of sources about medieval heresy come not from "heretics" themselves but from their persecutors, is there any way historians can be sure that this classification is not just a result of [[mindset]]s driven by pre-conceptions of what is correct or the conscious "fitting up" of opponents?|source={{harvnb|Roach|2018|pp=396–398}} }}

Professor Rebecca Rist describes the academic controversy as the "heresy debate"—"some of it very heated"—about whether Catharism was a "real heresy with Balkans origins, or rather a construct of western medieval culture, whose authorities wanted to persecute religious dissidents." Rist adds that some historians say the group was an invention of the medieval Church, so there never was a Cathar heresy; while she agrees that the medieval Church exaggerated its threat, she says there is evidence of the heresy's existence.{{sfn|Rist|2015}}

Professor Claire Taylor has called for a "post-revisionism" in the debate, saying that legacy historians assumed the heresy was a form of dualism and therefore a form of [[Bogomilism]], whereas "revisionists" have focused on social origins to explain the dissent.{{sfn|Rist|2015}} Lucy Sackville has argued that while the revisionists rightly point to the Cathars' opaque origins and their branding as 'Manichaeans,' this does not mean we should disregard all evidence that their heresy had an organised theology.{{sfn|Rist|2015}}