I have to say I find the recurrence of this take to be ridiculous. It’s always done under the argument of defence against invasion, thus suggesting that what we’re talking about is a mere contingent justification for some random medieval war, a bit like discussing whether Edward III was justified in invading France. If that was all we were talking about it would be of little relevance to Christians outside of historical interest, but what is somehow smuggled in is that what we are talking about is plenary indulgences for participation in holy war and the genocidal violence that ensued even against other Christians deemed to be heretical, not to mention that Constantinople, which Pageau says was what needed defending, ended up getting destroyed by the crusaders. Given Pageau has recently posted videos talking about how Christians need to be concerned with immigration, the whole thing is just a confused mess of terrible conflation that makes itself pretty open to being misused.