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

  • Thread starter Thread starter JSmitty2005
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why is it that the church only defends mortal life and not eternal life? Why is it that a just war only involves protecting people while they are on earth? Shouldn’t the church fight to protect peoples souls as well as their earthly bodies?

Take homosexuality for example. Since it has become glorified by the popular media there has been an explosion in the number of individuals living an “alternative” lifestyle. Don’t try and tell me there are as many homosexuals now as there were 50 years ago. The truth is that the promotion of a homosexual lifestyle has lead to an increase in the number of people living such a lifestyle, the church has just stood by while thousands of souls have been lost to this epidemic. Would the church stand by and watch an entire civilian population being slaughtered???

What would happen if the church could use the “just war” concept to defend the souls of the innocent?
 
40.png
Brendan:
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.
Click to expand...
BUT far more often folks are canonized for NOT offering resistence.
 
40.png
levi86:
Why is it that the church only defends mortal life and not eternal life? Why is it that a just war only involves protecting people while they are on earth? Shouldn’t the church fight to protect peoples souls as well as their earthly bodies?
Click to expand...
Hello Levi,

What you suggest is what Jesus commanded of His Church. Have you read my post 49 (on this thread) on Apostolic Successors Christ given power to put foes of the Church to spiritual death?

Through out the bible capital punishment is described as cutting off a portion of the body of people. Moses did this by physically stoning foes of the Church. Apostolic Successors cut people off from the body of the Church (cut off from the spiritual life of the Church) through Anathema. Anathema is the Church’s use of the Christ given power to call upon Jesus to bind people to sin in heaven which causes eternal death.

Jesus commands His Church that if her hand is her undoing she should cut it off and throw it into Gehenna, if her foot is her undoing she should cut it off and throw it into Gehenna. Jesus says it is better for the Church to enter into life missing some limbs (members of the Church) than have the whole body of the Church be lead into Gehenna by the wicked. When the Church calls upon Jesus to bind foes of the Church to sin, this is the Church cutting off a limb from her body and throwing that member into hell for the protection of the body of the Church.

Please visit: Throwing Stones

NAB LEV 20 Penalties for Various Sins.

**The LORD said to Moses, “Tell the Israelites: Anyone, whether an Israelite or an alien residing in Israel who gives any of his offspring to Molech shall be put to death. Let his fellow citizens stone him. I myself will turn against such a man and cut him off from the body of his people: for in giving his offspring to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name.”**NAB MAT 18:5"Whoever welcomes one such child for my sake welcomes me. On the other hand, it would be better for anyone who leads astray one of these little ones who believes in me, to be drown by a millstone around his neck, in the depths of the sea. What terrible things will come on the world through scandal! It is inevitable that scandal should occur. Nonetheless, woe to that man through whom scandal comes! If your hand or foot is your undoing, cut it off and throw it from you! Better to enter life maimed or crippled than be thrown with two hands or feet into endless fire. If your eye is your downfall, gouge it out and cast it from you! Better to enter life with one eye than be thrown with both into fiery Gehenna.

Anathema

…“To understand the word anathema”, says Vigouroux, “we should first go back to the real meaning of herem of which it is the equivalent. Herem comes from the word haram, to cut off, to separate, to curse, and indicates that which is cursed and condemned to be cut off or exterminated, whether a person or a thing, and in consequence, that which man is forbidden to make use of.”…

…but anathematized, and that he may be stricken by the sword of Heaven"…

…“Know that Engeltrude is not only under the ban of excommunication, which separates her from the society of the brethren, but under the anathema, which separates from the body of Christ, which is the Church.”…

…“If, after having been deposed from office, he is incorrigible, he should first be excommunicted; but if he perseveres in his contumacy he should be stricken with the sword of anathema; but if plunging to the depths of the abyss, he reaches the point where he despises these penalties, he should be given over to the secular arm.”…

…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**,…

quoted from New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm
 
40.png
levi86:
Why is it that the church only defends mortal life and not eternal life? Why is it that a just war only involves protecting people while they are on earth? Shouldn’t the church fight to protect peoples souls as well as their earthly bodies?

Take homosexuality for example. Since it has become glorified by the popular media there has been an explosion in the number of individuals living an “alternative” lifestyle. Don’t try and tell me there are as many homosexuals now as there were 50 years ago. The truth is that the promotion of a homosexual lifestyle has lead to an increase in the number of people living such a lifestyle, the church has just stood by while thousands of souls have been lost to this epidemic. Would the church stand by and watch an entire civilian population being slaughtered???

What would happen if the church could use the “just war” concept to defend the souls of the innocent?
Click to expand...
are you suggesting a crusade against homosexuals? Perhaps you can offer the holy warriors their pirate share of gay men’s money and property. I’m sure you’ll find takers.
 
40.png
MikeinSD:
are you suggesting a crusade against homosexuals? Perhaps you can offer the holy warriors their pirate share of gay men’s money and property. I’m sure you’ll find takers.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what I am suggesting.

ps: .there’s no need for sarcasm.
 
40.png
MikeinSD:
are you suggesting a crusade against homosexuals? Perhaps you can offer the holy warriors their pirate share of gay men’s money and property. I’m sure you’ll find takers.
Click to expand...
No, I am proposing a crusade against homosexuality, there’s a huge difference.

ps: no need for sarcasm.
 
40.png
levi86:
No, I am proposing a crusade against homosexuality, there’s a huge difference.

ps: no need for sarcasm.
Click to expand...
Can’t get rid of homosexuality without getting rid of homosexuals. One way or another. Since this is a crusade against me, sarcasm is…perhaps the very least I can say. I have $ and property.
 
Allow me to use an analogy, if I was to attempt to combat a drug problem within a community how would I go about it?
Can’t get rid of homosexuality without getting rid of homosexuals
Click to expand...
By this logic one would have to take all the drug addicts and “dispose” of them. We now that this is not how a war on drugs works. In order to combat the problem we must attack the root of the problem not the people who are affected by that problem

With respect to homosexuality this would mean dismantling the info-structure of institutions that promote this lifestyle. Without this negative influence on a population the incidence of homosexuality will decrease and many souls will be saved.
 
The Chinese Communists had a huge problem with opium addicts in Chinese society when they took power in 1949. With typical Communist throughness, they wiped out the opium dens, the sellers, the addicts, the entire web of opium smoking within 10 years. The Communists didn’t hesitate to spill blood to gain their objectives. Therefore, Communist China did not have a drug problem by the early 1960s. Their solution did “work” if you don’t care about human life.

Realistically, how you can even hope to impose a crusade against people like me in the US? Try to shut a gay bar down, you’ll get sued. Try to shut down a gay magazine, you’ll get ignored. Invade a gay couple’s house to, I dunno, stop them from loving each other, you might get shot. Try to abduct gay parents’ kids will get you killed or imprisoned for life. What can you do?
 
40.png
MikeinSD:
The Chinese Communists had a huge problem with opium addicts in Chinese society when they took power in 1949. With typical Communist throughness, they wiped out the opium dens, the sellers, the addicts, the entire web of opium smoking within 10 years. The Communists didn’t hesitate to spill blood to gain their objectives. Therefore, Communist China did not have a drug problem by the early 1960s. Their solution did “work” if you don’t care about human life.

Realistically, how you can even hope to impose a crusade against people like me in the US? Try to shut a gay bar down, you’ll get sued. Try to shut down a gay magazine, you’ll get ignored. Invade a gay couple’s house to, I dunno, stop them from loving each other, you might get shot. Try to abduct gay parents’ kids will get you killed or imprisoned for life. What can you do?
Click to expand...
Hmmm, yes, its quite a quandary, how does one overcome evil in a country that is hell bent on protecting the “rights of the individual” instead of Gods law?
 
40.png
levi86:
Hmmm, yes, its quite a quandary, how does one overcome evil in a country that is hell bent on protecting the “rights of the individual” instead of Gods law?
Click to expand...
You can start by talking to us. The gay chat lines are full of fear of Christians. The women esp think you guys are after their kids. That kind of fear kills any attempt at conversation.

I refuse to be afraid. Even of Christian crusaders. 😉
 
You can not justify attacking homosexuals or non-believers or even Satanists in a pre-emptive strike no matter how evil you think they may be or what potential danger they may pose. You have every right to stop them from harming you or innocent others ONLY IF they are attacking you, BUT you do not have the right to pre-emptively attack them.

Coincidently the person I lent my book to also returned it this weekend, the name of the book is Dungeon, Fire and Sword ( A History of the Knights Templar) by John Robinson.
BTW I definitely do NOT support the Bush administration in it’s pre-emtive strike against Iraq. It was the first time Americans attacked a country that did not attack us first.

There was NO evidence that Iraq was helping the terrorists.
 
40.png
MikeinSD:
You can start by talking to us. The gay chat lines are full of fear of Christians. The women esp think you guys are after their kids. That kind of fear kills any attempt at conversation.

I refuse to be afraid. Even of Christian crusaders. 😉
Click to expand...
Grrrr, be afraid, be very afraid!!! 😛 😃

No, I do like to think of myself as a pacifist - I have never hit a person 🙂 Thus my opting for the first choice - but I know that if I had super powers I probably wouldn’t be a pacifist so that is that down the pan… 😃
 
40.png
levi86:
With respect to homosexuality this would mean dismantling the info-structure of institutions that promote this lifestyle. Without this negative influence on a population the incidence of homosexuality will decrease and many souls will be saved.
Click to expand...
You cannot erradicte an orientation by simlpy stopping the people and groups that promote it. The orientation is scientifically determined, it would be very hard to stop…

P.S. Spare me the NARTH quotes and I’ll stay on topic 😛 😃 😉
 
You cannot erradicte an orientation by simlpy stopping the people and groups that promote it. The orientation is scientifically determined, it would be very hard to stop…
Click to expand...
What proof do you have that the “orientation” is “scientifically determined”?

As to homosexuality, I would agree that stopping the people and groups that promote it wouldn’t magically cure every homosexual but it would certainly be a good thing. The radical homosexual agenda pushes immorality and scandal and if we could silence them, it would definately be a good thing.

For instance, here at UNL we have all sorts of “diversity” and “tollerance” pro-gay propaganda plastered on the walls of the Union and other buildings. This kind of garbage should not be allowed. I don’t care about “individual rights”, in this case I side with “error has no rights”.
 
Error may have no rights but people do. At least in the western democracies. Until you can establish some sort of dictatorship, you are just going to have to put with whom you disagree. I think that is a good thing. I believe the Pope also said something similar when he proclaimed the Catholic church does not seek political rule.

Also, do you honestly believe if called to a crusade, you could hurt other people, even homosexuals?
 
Error may have no rights but people do. At least in the western democracies.
Click to expand...
There are rights, and as the Founding Fathers of the American republic pointed out, true rights are God-given. Some “rights” such as the “right” to an abortion or the “right” to privacy (as interpreted to mean homosexuality is acceptable, abortion is acceptable, contraception is acceptable etc.) or the “right” for homosexuals to have a “marriage” are mere political contrivances.
Until you can establish some sort of dictatorship, you are just going to have to put with whom you disagree. I think that is a good thing. I believe the Pope also said something similar when he proclaimed the Catholic church does not seek political rule.
Click to expand...
Nope, the Catholic Church does not seek political rule-that is correct. However, the State should exist to protect the rights of the Church as the State (and all authority) ultimately comes from God-and thus they must rule and establish order according to the order that God has commanded through His Church. So, even while we do not want the Church micromanaging secular government or the government medling in Church business the State still has an obligation to rule justly, in accordance with the Church.

Also, we should “put up with people that we disagree with” only to the extent that charity demands. Charity demands that we respect people, but that isn’t the “I’m OK, and you’re OK” nonsense that the tolerance and diversity liberals like. Charity demands chastising the sinners and heretics-that doesn’t mean sitting by while the leftists steal the soul of the nation.
Also, do you honestly believe if called to a crusade, you could hurt other people, even homosexuals?
Click to expand...
I don’t know how one would go about calling a crusade against homosexuals, if you mean doing medieval battle against them. However, it would be worth silencing the radical homosexuals that want to propagate their filth and lies as “normal”.
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
Can a crusade be justifiable in today’s modern society?
Click to expand...
Hello All,

Does anyone know the timeline as to when the Church seems to have switched to an “all war is evil” position?

The time seems to somewhat corrilate with the end of the States of the Church. From the time of Emperer Constantine’s conversion, fourth century, to the 19th century the Pope that was the largest land owner in Italy. In an era of land grabs between lords and knoblemen, one can understand that it would take great armies and wars to protect such vast boundaries of the States of the Church.

Is there a corrilation between papal land losses and the new (modern) papal postion that all war is evil?

States of the Church

newadvent.org/cathen/14257a.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top