Can a crusade be justified (using the Church's doctrine) in today's modern world?

[mike182d]

wcknight:

ARE you even Catholic ???

Yep. In fact, I’m so Catholic that I’ve read just war doctrine by some of the Church’s greatest theologians over the course of 2000 years and they state that it can be quite acceptable to fight an aggressive war, in so far as there is right-intention. “Self-defense” needs no justification, so they spent little time talking about it.

 

[JSmitty2005]

wcknight:

The pope supported the allies but NOT with military supplies or guns, but with encouragement. He never told priest or nuns to arm themselves.

You guys are living in the 21 century, but you are advocaing a middle ages ideology. The Church does not and should not create a standing army. Talk to any priest or bishop, and they will tell you the same thing. Violence goes contrary to the teachings of Our Lord.

The Church may not have supported any modern wars by supplying weapons, but She has also not discouraged use of weapons and war. Church teaching is not relative to historical time period because the Church teaches truth and truth is not relative. Truth is unchanging. There’s no such thing as “middle ages ideology.” Furthermore, the Church has already created a standing army. It’s called the Swiss Guard. As for violence:

“The kingdom of heaven suffers violence,
and violent men take it by force.”(Matthew 11:12)

 

[Orionthehunter]

JSmitty2005:

How can you say that you agree with the original reasons for calling for a crusade yet claim they were a “bad idea”?

When a man who killed an abortion doctor was asked why, he responded “I wanted abortions to end.” I agree with his reason but disagree with his method.

I agree with the goal of the Crusades (protect the Holy Land from occupiers who wanted to destroy Christian sites and massacre or convert Christians).

I agree with the impetus of the Crusades (to assemble an army to provide defense to Christian sites and Christians).

The problem was in the execution of the Crusades where people with non-Christian motives (greed, power) were placed in charge of the various armies and they were “compensated” by pillaging and seizing territory/property of others and enslaving non-Christians.

Which leads to why it was a bad idea as constituted. A remote Pope expecting proper execution by military leaders miles away and isolated from accountability and communication from the Pope was bound to have results not intended by the Pope. This “bad idea” isn’t 20/20 hindsight but reasonable to expect.

The better option of the Pope was to concentrate efforts directly on the Holy Land which would have required a more limited army and not required as much reliance on “unholy military leaders.”

Concurrently, armies charged w/ protecting Christians in certain Muslim controlled areas could have been better focused on providing protection and less on complete vanquishing of the Muslim occupiers.

 

[wcknight]

JSmitty2005:

The Church may not have supported any modern wars by supplying weapons, but She has also not discouraged use of weapons and war. Church teaching is not relative to historical time period because the Church teaches truth and truth is not relative. Truth is unchanging. There’s no such thing as “middle ages ideology.” Furthermore, the Church has already created a standing army. It’s called the Swiss Guard. As for violence:

“The kingdom of heaven suffers violence,
and violent men take it by force.”(Matthew 11:12)

I think for vast mjority of Catholics and Christians, violence is clearly not what Christ or His Church has advocated. The so called standing army Swiss guard has never been used for warfare, and there has never been a call for the general Catholic population to join it for the protection of the faith.

Clearly it was put there for as a personal body guard for the Pope and the Vatican, not for the defense of the faith as you guys imply.

If the middle age ideology is all pervasive as you say, why then has no other Pope called for Catholics to take up arms to protect the faith.

I have never heard any priest or nun or other Church authority advocate anything close to what you folks are calling for here. However to the contrary, all of rhetoric regards to violence has always been for non-violence. None of the martyrs ever resorted to violence to save themselves, even in the face of certain death and horrible tortures.

The examples they set are completely contrary to what you propose here. And also contrary to what you say, the Church has opposed war and violence far many more times than it has supported it.

 

[Steven_Merten]

JSmitty2005:

The Church may not have supported any modern wars by supplying weapons, but She has also not discouraged use of weapons and war. Church teaching is not relative to historical time period because the Church teaches truth and truth is not relative. Truth is unchanging. There’s no such thing as “middle ages ideology.” Furthermore, the Church has already created a standing army. It’s called the Swiss Guard.

Hello JSMitty,

It depends on what you define as Church. The American Bishops did come in and back America and NATO as fighting a just war after Pope John Paul II condemned American and NATO troops of committing murder in the Kosovo war.

If Catholics go with the Pope using his “moral authority” to determine that NATO troops committed “murder” in fighting to protect the Albanians from “expulsions” (genocide, rape, torture, destruction of homes), I think the Church has changed their view from how the Church visioned just war in the middle ages.
May 8, 1999*
Web posted at: 11:55 a.m. EDT (1555 GMT)*

BUCHAREST, Romania (AP) – Pope John Paul II and Romania**'s Orthodox Christian** patriarch combined their moral authority Saturday in a joint appeal for an end to the Kosovo conflict, condemning both forced expulsions and “murderous bombings.”

John Paul and Patriarch Teoctist appealed “in the name of God” to those “who in one way or another are responsible for the current tragedy” to return to the negotiating table.

The appeal was issued on the second day of John Paul’s historic visit to Romania, a mainly Orthodox country that borders on Serbia. Before the visit, some in Romania questioned inviting a religious leader from the West while NATO was bombing fellow Orthodox in Serbia**.
**
Since the NATO attacks began March 24, John Paul has issued a series of statements condemning the bombing as well the expulsions of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo.

But the expression of solidarity with “those expelled from their homes, their land, separated from their loved ones, who know the cruel reality of the exodus,” was considered one of the strongest statements by an Orthodox leader against Serbia’s campaign against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. The Russian patriarch, Alexy II, mentioned the plight of refugees during a visit to Belgrade last month.

The communique raised the issue of expulsions before it expressed their solidarity with the “victims of murderous bombings.” It did’nt name NATOor specifically say that the ethnic Albanians were the victims of expulsions.

But it called for a resumption of dialogue that will lead to a “just and lasting” peace that will permit the return of displaced persons to their homes" and relieve the suffering of all those who live in the Federal Republic of Albania, Serbs, Albanians and people of other nationalities.

The two religious leaders also called for a “visionary gesture” by all parties to spur coexistence in the Balkans.

christusrex.org/www1/pope/romania-visit.html

 

[Steven_Merten]

wcknight:

I think for vast mjority of Catholics and Christians, violence is clearly not what Christ or His Church has advocated. The so called standing army Swiss guard has never been used for warfare, and there has never been a call for the general Catholic population to join it for the protection of the faith.

Clearly it was put there for as a personal body guard for the Pope and the Vatican, not for the defense of the faith as you guys imply.

Hello wcknight,

Can you please give the scriptures from Jesus which indicate the Pope should use violence and killing to protect his own life and property but not to protect victims of genocide in Kosovo, Sudan and Rawanda?

 

[wcknight]

Steven Merten:

Hello wcknight,

Can you please give the scriptures from Jesus which indicate the Pope should use violence and killing to protect his own life and property but not to protect victims of genocide in Kosovo, Sudan and Rawanda?

IS there anything written about this either way ??? Where does it say for Christians to take up arms to protect oourselves or anyone else ?

I think you know either is an absurd request, and I think you already know Christ’s stand on violence, but I think you are simply choosing to ignore it.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Steven Merten:

I think the Church has changed their view from how the Church visioned just war in the middle ages.

I disagree. The episode in the article you cited did not change any kind of Church doctrine. It was merely the pope’s opinion, which we should respect, but that’s all it was. Not infallible.

 

[Steven_Merten]

wcknight:

IS there anything written about this either way ??? Where does it say for Christians to take up arms to protect oourselves or anyone else ?

I think you know either is an absurd request, and I think you already know Christ’s stand on violence, but I think you are simply choosing to ignore it.

Hello wcknight,

Glad to hear that you agree that there is nothing in Christ’s words opposing troops killing in war to protect the innocent. It truly is absurd to think that Jesus would not want us to protect people of the world from atrocity.

Jesus gives St. Peter and his Successors the big gun. A weapon more powerful than any man made weapon on earth. Where Moses was commanded to physically stone enemies of the Church, Jesus gave St. Peter and His Successors the power to put enemies of the Church to spiritual death.

If Jesus binds some one to sin in heaven they are doomed to spiritual death. Jesus gives St. Peter His sworn oath that anyone St. Peter (and his Successors) bind to sin on earth, He will bind to sin in heaven and thus damn that soul to spiritual death. One soul going to hell is infinitely more death than the combined loss of life cut short from all the wars in human history.

**NAB MAT 16:13 **

Jesus replied, “Blest are you, Simon son of John! No mere man has revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. I for my part declare to you, you are ‘Rock,’ and on this rock I will build my church, and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it. I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
NAB REV 1:16

A sharp, two-edged sword came out of his mouth…

…I hold the keys of death and the nether world."
**NAB ISA 11:4 **The Rule of Immanuel

He shall strike the ruthless with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked.​

**NAB JOH 20:20 **

"Recieve the Holy Spirit. If you forgive men’s sins, they are forgiven them; if you hold them bound, they are held bound." **NAB MAT 18:17 **

“If he ignores them, refer it to the church . If he ignores even the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. I assure you, whatever you declare bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven, and whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be held loosed in heaven.” Anathema

In passing this sentence, the pontiff is vested in amice, stole, and a violet cope, wearing his mitre, and assisted by twelve priests clad in their surplices and holding lighted candles. He takes his seat in front of the altar or in some other suitable place, amid pronounces the formula of anathema which ends with these words: “Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N-- himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.”

He who dares to despise our decision, let him be stricken with anathema maranatha, i.e. may he be damned at the coming of the Lord, may he have his place with Judas Iscariot, he and his companions.

Quoted from New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm

 

[wcknight]

I absolutely do NOT agree that the notion that Jesus wants us to take up arms even to defend the innocent. Remember He told Peter that those who live by the sword die by the sword. And rather than strike back in self defense he tell us to turn the other cheek. Those are NOT words of aggresssion.

No where in His teachings does He tell us to take up arms to protect anyone even in self defense. I don’t know what kind of Catholic upbringing you may have had but it is most definitetly non-standard. No school or religion teacher I’ve ever had has ever advocated taking up arms to defend anyone.

It’s speculative ar best to suggest that Jesus would be for or against taking up arms against evil dictators. BUT you will notice that Jesus lived during the time of Tiberius, also a tyrant of some repute AND his Apostles and the early Christians lived during the time of Caligula a nutcase as bad as Hitler and neither Jesus nor the early Church fathers ever advocated overthrowing or taking up arms against the Romans.

The actions or inactions of the early Church clearly demonstartes Christ and His Apostles were opposed to violence in any form, even in the situation of atrocities.

 

[wcknight]

And what has the power to forgive sins have to do with this debate ???

That is NOT telling the Church members to go out and take up arms by any stretch.

 

[thistle]

wcknight:

I absolutely do NOT agree that the notion that Jesus wants us to take up arms even to defend the innocent. Remember He told Peter that those who live by the sword die by the sword. And rather than strike back in self defense he tell us to turn the other cheek. Those are NOT words of aggresssion.

No where in His teachings does He tell us to take up arms to protect anyone even in self defense. I don’t know what kind of Catholic upbringing you may have had but it is most definitetly non-standard. No school or religion teacher I’ve ever had has ever advocated taking up arms to defend anyone.

It’s speculative ar best to suggest that Jesus would be for or against taking up arms against evil dictators. BUT you will notice that Jesus lived during the time of Tiberius, also a tyrant of some repute AND his Apostles and the early Christians lived during the time of Caligula a nutcase as bad as Hitler and neither Jesus nor the early Church fathers ever advocated overthrowing or taking up arms against the Romans.

The actions or inactions of the early Church clearly demonstartes Christ and His Apostles were opposed to violence in any form, even in the situation of atrocities.

Are you suggesting that if your country is invaded nobody should take up arms to oppose it.
Are you suggesting that if somebody attacks a family member you would just stand by and let them be killed?

 

[fix]

wcknight:

I absolutely do NOT agree that the notion that Jesus wants us to take up arms even to defend the innocent. Remember He told Peter that those who live by the sword die by the sword. And rather than strike back in self defense he tell us to turn the other cheek. Those are NOT words of aggresssion.

No where in His teachings does He tell us to take up arms to protect anyone even in self defense. I don’t know what kind of Catholic upbringing you may have had but it is most definitetly non-standard. No school or religion teacher I’ve ever had has ever advocated taking up arms to defend anyone.

It’s speculative ar best to suggest that Jesus would be for or against taking up arms against evil dictators. BUT you will notice that Jesus lived during the time of Tiberius, also a tyrant of some repute AND his Apostles and the early Christians lived during the time of Caligula a nutcase as bad as Hitler and neither Jesus nor the early Church fathers ever advocated overthrowing or taking up arms against the Romans.

The actions or inactions of the early Church clearly demonstartes Christ and His Apostles were opposed to violence in any form, even in the situation of atrocities.

The fact is Jesus founded a Church that He speaks through. She says defending innocent life is morally licit, and at times, a duty. That is His teaching.

 

[Brendan]

wcknight:

I absolutely do NOT agree that the notion that Jesus wants us to take up arms even to defend the innocent. Remember He told Peter that those who live by the sword die by the sword. And rather than strike back in self defense he tell us to turn the other cheek. Those are NOT words of aggresssion.

Why do you think that Peter had a sword in the first place? Because Christ told him to go get one and to carry it when he went out into the world! (Luke 22:36)

And did Christ tell Peter to get rid of the sword, NO, he said to put it back in it’s scabbard.

 

[wcknight]

fix:

The fact is Jesus founded a Church that He speaks through. She says defending innocent life is morally licit, and at times, a duty. That is His teaching.

That really is the best argument by far. However in the last 100 years, the Church has NOT told its members to go on any Crusade and it has not told any of its members to take up arms or use violence to stop atrocities, even abortions.

 

[fix]

wcknight:

That really is the best argument by far. However in the last 100 years, the Church has NOT told its members to go on any Crusade and it has not told any of its members to take up arms or use violence to stop atrocities, even abortions.

This I agree with.

 

[JSmitty2005]

wcknight:

That really is the best argument by far. However in the last 100 years, the Church has NOT told its members to go on any Crusade and it has not told any of its members to take up arms or use violence to stop atrocities, even abortions.

The Church has not told anyone to take up arms for several hundred years, but She has also not said that we couldn’t. Why? Because it’s Church doctrine that war can sometimes be justified! What makes you think that the Church is constantly updating it’s teachings? Does the Church’s silence really imply that She does not approve of war? No. It doesn’t imply anything. Think of all the countless saints that were soldiers. Finally, when it comes to waging a war on abortionists, it doesn’t meet the requirements of a just war because there is not a likely chance that anything would be accomplished. Abortion is legal. That’s the problem. So, if we were to have a chance to stop it, we’d have to hunt down every single abortionist and overthrow the government. That’s just silly.

 

[Palamite]

PART I

Dear, dear, it’s a very strange day indeed when it’s the “Eastern Orthodox guy” who ends up offering a defence (even if it’s a heavily qualified one) for the Crusades.

It is true, you will read many harsh critiques of the Crusades authored by Orthodox Christians, or those highly sympathetic toward them. They all raise important points.

However what is generally criticized are certain peculiars of the Crusades, and more significantly, how they ended up turning out. But if one examines the actual basic intent of the Crusades, it would be hard I think to find a critique of this from an Orthodox p.o.v. (of course this is ultimatly my own opinion, but I’ve yet to see it contradicted.)

Within a relatively short period of time, much of Eastern Christendom had been overrun by Mohammedans. The Christian populations of these lands were reduced to what might be “irenically” described as “second class citizenship”. Forcible conversion was the norm, whether it be directly by sword point, or via crushing oppression which allowed only the most tenaciously faithful of Christians to resist the temptation to apostacize to Muhammed’s blasphemy. Suffice it to say, innumerable martyrs were made.

Byzantine (Eastern Roman) armies, with the blessing and prayers of their heirarchs (including the Eastern Patriarchs), attempted to fight the onslaught, but ultimatly in vain. In the year 1453, Constantinople fell, and has been known from that point on to most as “Istanbul”. In truth (though many western history books don’t acknowledge this fact) this actually marked the end of the Roman Empire, as the legitimate successors of Caesar Augustus (via St.Constantine the Great) ruled from Constantinople (New Rome) right up until that time.

Doubly worse was the fact that the Holiest of cities, Jerusalem and the rest of the Holy Land and the Holy Sites therein (Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Church of the Nativity, Mt. of Olives, etc.) fell into the hands of the enemies of the Cross.

And triply bad - the Mohammedans had no intention of stopping their violant path of expansion. Western Europe, like Asia Minor, the Middle East, North Africa, etc. was next. It was not a matter of “if” but “when.”

Honestly, I don’t know what anyone expected Latin Christendom to do…sit and wait? Worse yet, sit while the Holy Land lay captive, a place which western Christians still considered the place of pilgrimage? And were the westerners supposed to just ignore (despite their differences with the Eastern Church) the incredibly offensive things that were being done to the Christian peoples the Mohammedans conquered?

(cont’d)

 

[Palamite]

PART II

That the Christian nobles of western Europe were rallied to go and liberate Jerusalem and put a stop to Jihadi expansion is not only rationale, it was necessary. This is precisely what rulers are authorized and called upon to do. While you and I as individuals have no right to “take the law into our own hands”, rulers do have the right to “brandish the sword” for morally lawful causes.

1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing (Romans 13:1-6, emphasis mine)

Interestingly, the above passage was once quoted to St.Vladimir, the first Christian ruler of 'Rus (what is now modern Russia/Ukraine). When he converted, he was incredibly sincere; his was not , shall we say, “gradual” conversion. He was very zealous, and tried his best to practice the principles of the Gospel. However he immediately experienced what he felt was a “tension” - the tension between his ability to rule, and follow the evangelical doctrine. It got to the point, that he had qualms of conscience about routing bandits, and putting them to death when necessary. Quickly things got out of hand in some regions, and it was the Bishops in his Kingdom who approached him and said that he must do his duty. They gently explained to him that as a sovereign, his duties included the excercise of powers which would not be lawful to him simply as a common man. They quoted the above passage to him. Afterward (though without joy), he resumed excercizing his duty, and the previous lawlessness in some regions of his dominion were put to an end.

St.Augustine writes at great length about the “just war”. There are many qualifications for such, but suffice it to say, the Latins waging war upon the Mohammedans in this context easily qualified.

Where the Orthodox have been critical of the Crusades, is in what became of them. Many who went to battle had good intentions. But others started with good intentions, but ended up acting as criminals. And others, simply went because it was a potential payday in plunder. Worse yet, many of the Crusaders treated the native Eastern Christians as badly (or sometimes worse!) than the Mohammedans did. I’m sure many here are familiar with the notorious “sacking of Constantinople”, which many believe so weakened the city that in future generations it never truly recovered (hence became even easier pickings for future Islamist predations.) The Orthodox also questioned the formation of “fighting monastic orders”, on the basis that clergy and monastics are not permitted (according to ancient canons) to shed blood.

Sadly the Crusades never fulfilled their ultimate goal, but they did ultimatly prevent the Islamicization of western Europe, which is obviously something!

It is a gross mischaracterization of the Crusades, or the desire to see some kind of military intervention for the protection of Christian populations still in the Islamic world, as “killing Muslims for their beliefs” or “forcing Christianity on them by the sword.” This is absolute rubbish, nor what anyone is talking about.

And again, I find it very disturbing that people who support what the Bush White House is now doing in the Middle East, can have any reasonable objections to the Crusades, or something akin to the Crusades occuring again in our day.

 

[Brendan]

wcknight:

That really is the best argument by far. However in the last 100 years, the Church has NOT told its members to go on any Crusade and it has not told any of its members to take up arms or use violence to stop atrocities, even abortions.

That’s kind of interesting.

A little over 100 years ago, a small town in Italy was being overrun by bandits (some of Garabaldi’s men)

A young seminarian ran out to defend the town. He grabbed two pistols from some startled bandits and, with expert marksmanship, drove them off.

That seminarian is St. Gabriel Possenti, the Patron Saint of Handgunners.