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.
40.png
ComradeAndrei:
. I don’t care about “individual rights”, in this case I side with “error has no rights”.
Click to expand...
Maybe your should care about indivividual rights. Your statement could easily mean that YOU have no rights, since from our point of view you are in error. 😃
 
I am reading through New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia: States of the Church. It is amaizing! Is anyone else reading this?

Wow! Popes were not chosen by the cardinals until 1059! The Church ageed to Emperer controled selection of popes in exchange for papal and, States of the Church, military protection.

I know that this is a condensed explination of how popes gained military protection for themselves and their property, but one almost has to ask how much time did popes have to do other things like the spiritual work of the Church.

Milleniums of military history of the States of the Church is a far cry from the last few decades where we have seen mainly only pacifist, world protected, landless popes.

I really think we have to look at the millenium before 1870 on how the Church understood, gained and used military protection for themselves and their property before we put too much emphasis on modern pacifist Church leader political objections to the use of military force to protect the Sudanies, Albanians, Rawandanees, Jews and all those suffering from mass atrocities of hundreds of thousands and even millions being murdered.

Popes may not have judged any of the wars since 1870 as just but, Wow!, take a look at the use of military in the protection of popes and States of the Church before 1870. We can separate a pope or two from being in line with Christ’s teachings and Church doctrine on war. I hardly think we can do so with a block of over a millenium of popes.

States of the Church
newadvent.org/cathen/14257a.htm
 
“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”.”

What if the radical homosexuals hit back? And win? Here in the US, us gay guys have Second Amendment rights – i.e. right to own (and use) guns. What if crusaders lose?
 
40.png
MikeinSD:
What if the radical homosexuals hit back? And win? Here in the US, us gay guys have Second Amendment rights – i.e. right to own (and use) guns. What if crusaders lose?
Click to expand...
How many people do you believe are actually homosexual? In general homosexuals make up 2-3 of the population. Some radicals claim it is as high as 10%, even if this figure was accurate it would be ten against one.
 
I took a poll. Radical homosexuals unanimously voted not to invade your family’s 1600 sq ft rambler with the heavy mediterranean furniture, stiff brocade drapes and the 1975 RCA TV console (still works!) in the garage. Nothing personal. Radical homosexual taste is still mired in the postindustrial look. Although chintz is coming back. Go figure.

Also, get yrself a decent gun. Glocks are good. Smith and Wesson 357 Mags are a classic. Of course as a responsible gun owner, you regularly take marksman courses, practice gun safety, and keep the kids away from the locked gun cabinets.

I believe my post asked how individuals could conduct a crusade against gay guys. The whole idea of crusades against certain minorities seems less than executing God’s will and more like gang warfare. What place do crusades have in modern civilization?
And what happens if you launch a crusade and you lose?
 
40.png
MikeinSD:
Also, get yrself a decent gun. Glocks are good. Smith and Wesson 357 Mags are a classic. Of course as a responsible gun owner, you regularly take marksman courses, practice gun safety, and keep the kids away from the locked gun cabinets.
Click to expand...
The gun pictured above is what I would expect a homosexual to have. 😛 Marksman courses are uneccesary. I have my dad to teach me. Also, I’ve had a gun ever since I was a kid, so there’s no need to keep them locked up.
I believe my post asked how individuals could conduct a crusade against gay guys. The whole idea of crusades against certain minorities seems less than executing God’s will and more like gang warfare. What place do crusades have in modern civilization?
And what happens if you launch a crusade and you lose?
Click to expand...
I don’t know how a crusade against homosexuals even came up. I was simply responding to your claim that the homosexuals would win. I found that quite hilarious. The thread was intended to be a hypothetical not aimed at anyone in particular. I do recognize, however, that your question was also a hypothetical. So, here’s my answer, if the homosexuals would “win,” then I guess we’d be SOL. Now let’s please get back on topic. Thanks. 👍
 
Maybe your should care about indivividual rights. Your statement could easily mean that YOU have no rights, since from our point of view you are in error.
Click to expand...
Cute… :rolleyes: except that Truth is not relative, so “our point of view” doesn’t cut it.
What if the radical homosexuals hit back? And win? Here in the US, us gay guys have Second Amendment rights – i.e. right to own (and use) guns. What if crusaders lose?
Click to expand...
Yeah, right, that is just hilarious. You do realize that the vast majority of Americans that have guns are conservatives, right?
My household alone could arm a small militia. I’d like to see the homosexuals try. I dare ya!
Click to expand...
I’m with JSmittly, my personal collection alone could arm a small militia and I know lots of guys that put my meager collection to shame-all of them staunch conservatives.
Also, get yrself a decent gun. Glocks are good. Smith and Wesson 357 Mags are a classic. Of course as a responsible gun owner, you regularly take marksman courses, practice gun safety, and keep the kids away from the locked gun cabinets.
Click to expand...
Can you take a 9x19 or a .357 mag out to 100m? How about 500? A thousand? I didn’t think so.

But anyway, I really don’t recall whipping up a crusade against gays at the last Crusader’s meeting. There is no need for a “crusade” against them.
 
The Crusades started when the Muslims were invading Christian lands. And since the Crusaders were fighting off an invading army, then yes, it fits Augustine’s just war theory. Though, ISTR that there were several Crusades. And I’m referring to the First Crusades since I’m not familiar with the others.
 
40.png
ComradeAndrei:
Cute… :rolleyes: except that Truth is not relative, so “our point of view” doesn’t cut it.
Click to expand...
The Truth of the matter is that your point of view IS in error. Violence is rarely justifed if ever, and your call to violence by the Church is way off base. The vast majority of Church leaders is completely opposed to violence.

No one has called for a crusade for several hundred years. Even against Hitler and the Nazis, there was no crusade, not even against Stalin and the evils of communism.

Part of the mentality that leads to genocides is the thinking that one group of folks is purely evil, while another claims it is not. The one thing folks should learn is that violence begets violence.

Not all muslims are terrorists. Just because they don’t believe as you do does not give you the right to exterminate them.
 
The Truth of the matter is that your point of view IS in error. Violence is rarely justifed if ever, and your call to violence by the Church is way off base. The vast majority of Church leaders is completely opposed to violence.
Click to expand...
Rarely, if ever? Read the Catechism concerning the pertinent issues. Pope John Paul II said that the death penalty is rarely justified, if ever but it isn’t intrinsically immoral. Just as slavery isn’t intrinsically immoral. Just as a war isn’t intrinsically immoral.

Let me ask you something, how about self defense? Is this justifiable?
Not all muslims are terrorists. Just because they don’t believe as you do does not give you the right to exterminate them.
Click to expand...
I don’t recall ever calling for the extermination of muslims, I merely stated that they will have to be dealt with eventually because they are setting themselves up more and more as rivals to the One True Church. Not necessarily even the people themselves, but the idea. More and more westerners are converting to Islam, like they do to Buddhism or whatever. That doesn’t mean “neca eos omnes, Deus suos agnoscet” that could just mean more aggressive missionary work towards them.

I am completely against Islam as a religion because it is a false religion, however that doesn’t mean that I want the heads of everyone in the middle east.
 
40.png
ComradeAndrei:
Pope John Paul II said that the death penalty is rarely justified
Click to expand...
This is true. We must remember, though, that this was the pope expressing his opinion. The death penalty being “rarely justifiable” is up for debate and is in no way doctrinally binding. What all Catholics must believe is that governments have the authority to exercise capital punishment as well as wage war - that IS Church doctrine.
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
This is true. We must remember, though, that this was the pope expressing his opinion. The death penalty being “rarely justifiable” is up for debate and is in no way doctrinally binding. What all Catholics must believe is that governments have the authority to exercise capital punishment as well as wage war - that IS Church doctrine.
Click to expand...
Hello JSmitty,

I would like to add to your point. Do we all agree that spiritual death Church anathema’s are infinitely deadlier than State physical capital punishments? If even one person dies to eternal death due to a Church anathema more life is lost (eternal life) than the combine loss of life cut short from all the State physical capital punishments and wars from all of history.

Jesus swears to His Apostles that anyone that they bind to sin on earth, He will bind to sin in heaven. What happens when Jesus binds someone to sin in heaven. They suffer eternal death.

The Church using the sword of Christ’s mouth, the power to have Jesus bind a person to sin in heaven, is far deadlier than State physical capital punishment. Obviously Apostolic Successors calling upon Jesus to bind a person to sin in heaven is not “intrinsically evil”. It is the will of Jesus otherwise Jesus would not have bestowed the power of the “keys to the Kingdom” to Apostolic Successors.

Throwing Stones

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.”…

…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,"…

…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**,…

…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

NAB MAT 16:13

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."
 
This is true. We must remember, though, that this was the pope expressing his opinion. The death penalty being “rarely justifiable” is up for debate and is in no way doctrinally binding. What all Catholics must believe is that governments have the authority to exercise capital punishment as well as wage war - that IS Church doctrine.
Click to expand...
That is why I said that it isn’t “intrinsically immoral”, the state can put people to death. Granted what Pope John Paul II was expressing his opinion and that when he said that the death penalty was “rarely justifiable” it was not defined dogma, but I agree with him for one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top