I don't get it...Benedict XVI says that Religion can never be used to justify violence

[catholicsem]

The crusades were not an example of using religion to justify violence ? Thou shalt not kill only applies to the innocent? (Who gets to decide who is innocent?)

Thou shalt not kill does apply only to the innocent to some extent. That doesn’t mean that you have license to run around and kill every criminal, but it does mean that one can defend oneself against an unjust agressor. I think the “innocent” in these cases aren’t very hard to decide upon. For example, if someone attacks you with a gun, he is obviously not innocent and you are justified in killing him if that’s the only way to protect your life. If a nation unjustly invades another, the other nation can justly defend itself with violence.

 

[Genesis315]

Benedict XVI says that Religion can never be used to justify violence, right? Urban II launched the first crusade, another Pope condoned torture, others supported the death penalty. So my question is, which Pope is right? How can one Pope say that killing is not a sin, but another says that it is?

Put what he said in context. He was speaking generally about terrorism, violent proslytizing, etc. Obviously he upholds the truth that violence is permitted to ward off unjust attackers and to maintain peace and the just ordering of society (which is the principle behind the death penalty and just wars) as he has armed security himself.

As for torture, it’s a complex issue. Here’s a good two-part article on it:

**Torture and Corporal Punishment as a Problem in Catholic Theology: Part I. The Witness of Sacred Scripture ** by Brian W. Harrison

**Torture and Corporal Punishment as a Problem in Catholic Theology: Part II. The Witness of Tradition and Magisterium ** by Brian W. Harrison

 

[Mannyfit75]

Did you know that Popes very, *very *rarely invoke infallibility when making statements and such?

They never did invoke infallibility with such statements, which I find to be very good for the Church.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The crusades were not an example of using religion to justify violence ? Thou shalt not kill only applies to the innocent? (Who gets to decide who is innocent?)

The call for the Crusade was defensive. No action were taken, we would be all Muslim today.

Killing can be justify if the life of the innocent is in grave danger. It is a means to perserve life from being taking away.

The Jews were commanded to kill entire peoples when they came to the Land of milk and honey.

The crusades were defensive? Really? All of them, I mean arguably the first, but all of them?

For the most part I would say yes.

Sometimes we have to face facts and admit that there are uncomfortable things in our own past. We lose our intellectual integrity if we do not. The Church has condoned the use of violence as a means to achieve ends in the past. This violence was motivated by secular events, but did use religion as a justifier. The Church doesn’t do that anymore.

Atrocities were committed and the Church condemned them. Those who ignore the Church pleas just did out of their own vanity.

 

[TMC]

Thou shalt not kill does apply only to the innocent to some extent. That doesn’t mean that you have license to run around and kill every criminal, but it does mean that one can defend oneself against an unjust agressor. I think the “innocent” in these cases aren’t very hard to decide upon. For example, if someone attacks you with a gun, he is obviously not innocent and you are justified in killing him if that’s the only way to protect your life. If a nation unjustly invades another, the other nation can justly defend itself with violence.

I think you are confusing innocence and self-defense. Your right to defend yourself does not depend in any way on the guilt or innocence of the attacker. The right to self defense is based on the idea that the end you intend (preserving your life) is moral and that any damage to the attacker is a necessary but unintended result. (This mirrors just war doctrine.) So innocence is not relevant, a perfectly innocent (but mistaken or deluded) attacker can be fought off with the same force as a malicious attacker.

The call for the Crusade was defensive. No action were taken, we would be all Muslim today.

Killing can be justify if the life of the innocent is in grave danger. It is a means to perserve life from being taking away.

I suppose we will have to disagree on the defensive nature of the Crusades. I accept that some people take your view, and I don’t wish to spend the time to lay out the other side. But I have to quibble with the last sentence I quoted above. Killing is only justified if it is the ONLY means available, it can never be reduced to “a” means available. And even when violence is the only means available, using violence can still be wrong. See the Catechsim 2309.

 

[dove51]

I think the Pope’s right–religion cannot justify violence. But what is violence? Defense against a Muslim uprising over all Europe, removing heretics from holding positions of religious leadership, defending yourself from modern-day terrorism?

I do not consider the Crusades or the Inquisition as acts of violence. Others may, but I do not. I know there were violent methods employed in those times, but I am sure that most people would agree that is okay to use force to defend yourself. I think the difference here is between someone who thinks it’s okay to go out and kill all infidels versus someone who realizes that force can be a valuable last resort.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Benedict XVI says that Religion can never be used to justify violence, right? Urban II launched the first crusade, another Pope condoned torture, others supported the death penalty. So my question is, which Pope is right? How can one Pope say that killing is not a sin, but another says that it is?

Violence is physical force with the INTENT to injure. In other words, violence has to be the end and or the means to further a particular religion. This is what the Pope has condemned.

Then why does the Catholic Church want to abolish the death penalty?

The death penalty has become a means to injure or extract retribution verses its other intended purposes.

That is correct. Religion cannot condemn violence. The Church never condemn violence.

The crusade was a defensive means to protect Christian pilgrims going the Holy City. Um, I’m not so sure which Pope support the death penalty? I hardly think any Pope ever declare those infallible. Name a Pope who did, and I like to know what document. The entire document.

The Pope is right; religion cannot be an excuse for violence. Muslim extremist have distorted Religion to justify their so called Holy War.

The Church has always condemned violence as an end or means. However, it has never condemned acts which violence is the result. Big distinction.

There is a difference between the use of force in the interest of justice, and violence.

Very succinctly said.

The Crusades were defensive wars against invading Turks and Arabs.

Remember that the Turks were not from Asia Minor, but rather began an invasion of Greek Asia Minor. The Byzantine Emperor requested Western aid in repellign the invaders.

The same holds true for North Africa, which was Roman and Coptic and Spain.

All of which were invaded by Arabs.

Defending against invasion, or helping an ally recover land lost to an invader is not unjust.

If so the Allies were at fault for the D-Day invasion.

You make a good point. However, the defensive nature of the Crusades were an offensive reaction to previous offensive action of others to take over the Holy Land. To say it as you do, opens yourself up to criticism that you don’t intend.