ome references suggested the possibility of the second attack on Constantinople in 1204 to be a religious nature;

             if this event is viewed from the perspective of the religious context at the time, this seems to be justifiable. As

             mentioned in the Religious Context, the Roman Catholic Church was going through the beginning of the East-West Schism, also known as the "Great Schism", with the Greek Orthodoxy Church. Many sources pointed out that the Greek Orthodoxy Church was based in Constantinople at the time, with many worshippers spread out across the Byzantine empire.

​

     It was very possible that Pope Innocent III, the leader of the Catholic Church, may have instructed the Crusaders to deliberately attack Constantinople. It was worth noting the strange behaviours exerted by the Pope after the sacking as well, as he did not excommunicate any of the Crusaders involved (even though he did excommunicate many Crusaders after the attack on Zara, and had vowed to do so again if the Crusaders attack any other Christian city), and he accepted many spoils of war given to him by the Crusaders. He had even given blessing to the newly formed Latin empire that preached upon Byzantium lands. These actions by the Pope made some wonder if he was behind the sacking all along.

"How, indeed, will the church of the Greeks, no matter how severely she is beset with afflictions and persecutions, return into ecclesiastical union and to a devotion for the Apostolic See, when she has seen in the Latins only an example of perdition and the works of darkness, so that she now, and with reason, detests the Latins more than dogs? As for those who were supposed to be seeking the ends of Jesus Christ, not their own ends, who made their swords, which they were supposed to use against the pagans, drip with Christian blood, they have spared neither religion, nor age, nor sex. They have committed incest, adultery, and fornication before the eyes of men. They have exposed both matrons and virgins, even those dedicated to God, to the sordid lusts of boys. Not satisfied with breaking open the imperial treasury and plundering the goods of princes and lesser men, they also laid their hands on the treasures of the churches and, what is more serious, on their very possessions. They have even ripped silver plates from the altars and have hacked them to pieces among themselves. They violated the holy places and have carried off crosses and relics."

     The conflicting behaviours of Pope Innocent III makes it impossible to determine whether he had supported this operation from the start. It was possible that the Pope was forced to accept the outcome of the ill-fated Crusade because he had no other choice; or the angry letters and the order to refrain from attacking Byzantium were simply smoke bombs from the papacy to push the blame for the attack onto the Crusaders. Regardless, the involvement of the Pope in the sacking was unclear, as there were very few primary sources written regarding this matter (as such topics were definitely forbidden to be written about, and if such a primary source did exist, the author must have been severely discredited and possibly excommunicated), other than letters and reports from the papacy, which may be subjected to severe bias.