That seems a fine opinion. I don’t have enough knowledge on weaponry or motvies to comment. But if the Church teaches and continues to teach today that there is such a thing as a Just War I accept it as a higher wisdom than I can offer.I will have to disagree that there can be a just war waged with today’s nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. In the case of war today, the loss of innocent civilian life in unavoidable, so the just war theory will not apply. Every war waged today will be unjust to the innocent victim.
see:
paxchristiusa.org/
paxchristi.net/
Rome is considered by many to be Holy Land as well. It wouldn’t be a ridiculous wager, to bet that we might have to retake it someday from the Muslims. Not all Crusades have to be about Jerusalem. Many consider Queen Isabella of Spain to be a great crusader, since she kicked all of the Muslims out of Granada. Check out this book from Tan Books:First of all, why would a Crusade be called? I just came from Israel, and we had free access to all the important holy sites (except the Dome of the Rock, which really has little religious significance for me).
Assuming the Christian Holy Sites have been occupied again, sure, sign me up.
Viewed in context, the first Crusades were historical necessities. The purpose was noble but the execution was the problem.The first Crusades were a blunder, so why would we think a modern day crusade would turn out any better?
No, I would not go and I would question the spirituality of a Pope who would call for such a thing.
Jim
I don;t think that it was necessary to sack Constantinople as was done in the fourth crusade.Viewed in context, the first Crusades were historical necessities.
True, but the Fourth Crusade’s target was not Constantinople. The Sack was a shameful deed that remains a blight on the Latins and for which we owe the Orthodox a big, big, apology.I don;t think that it was necessary to sack Constantinople as was done in the fourth crusade.
I’m not sure where you are getting your numbers. If you are considering the invasion of Iraq to have resulted in the loss of 3,000+ American soldiers, are you saying more died in training for D-Day? I’d be very surprised if this were the case, especially since there were less than 2,500 casualites on the first day of the actual invasion.Excellent point.
Many on this board might not realize that in military history, the invasion of Iraq stands alone in terms of the extremely low casualty count—on BOTH sides.
We lost more people in WWII training exercises for D-Day than in Iraq—not that every life lost isn’t precious and tragically mourned.
This is a direct result of the American way of war, itself part of a long Western tradition driven in no small part by the Catholic Church and her concerns for the victims of war.
Considering that the Pope ordered the army to go via Alexandria, they violated the Papal instructions and went via Constantinople.I don;t think that it was necessary to sack Constantinople as was done in the fourth crusade.
Which the Pope gave then, in the same document where he excommicated all those who participated in the sack.True, but the Fourth Crusade’s target was not Constantinople. The Sack was a shameful deed that remains a blight on the Latins and for which we owe the Orthodox a big, big, apology.