The Crusades - would you join?

[Dempsey1919]

I would join…and I’d be willing to die. If the pope called for another crusade then you can be sure it would be for a good reason.

On a side note, I wish the Holy Father had more political power. I’m sure he’d clean up the mess that is the modern world.

 

[Linnyo]

I am seriously shocked and disgusted by how quickly some of you would welcome a war. Reminds me a bit of people who are inciting acts of terrorism. It certainly wouldn’t make our Catholic faith any better than those radicals within the muslim religion. What happened to the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’? What happened to loving our neighbours?

Thankfully, none of you are the Pope or we would all be ‘terrorists’ killing people because they don’t have the same religion as us or because we want their land! Have we not learned yet, that war only ever leads to death and misery, murder and loss? When will the human race ever learn?

I am a peaceful person and I would oppose war. I have always opposed war and I am proud to be a pacifist!

 

[chris_molter]

I’m saddened but not at all surprised at the number of people who think a “crusade” is called because the Catholic Church wants to “kill people of another religion” or “take other peoples’ land”.

Read some history, people. REAL history, not Dan Brown. And multiple sources, for that matter.


Yes, for the sake of my soul, I would take up the crusaders’ cross were the Holy Father to call upon all the faithful. I would serve in whatever capacity allowable, and whatever the focus of the crusade I would do whatever is morally permissable in my power to achieve it.

That being said. At no time would I disparage those who did not take up that cross. I would expect (but not receive, of course) the same level of courtesy from them.

 

[Miles_Militis]

Uhg, ok…think about this for half a second ok? The OP didn’t ask ‘If a war started would you join?’ he said “If the Pope called for the Crusades”.

Now, those of us who know a little history know that the Church does not start wars for selfish or stupid reasons. Given the fact that it seems that Islam (or violent Islam anyway) never really stopped fighting & trying to spread their faith with violence. It is not too great a stretch to imagine that should radical Islam or another similar religion get the ability, it would wage WWIII against not a country or a group of people, but against our cultures and our very faith.

To protect my faith, I would gladly lay down my life. Maybe I’m a wretched and horrible person, but I would spend my every last energy on ensuring the survival of Catholicism, if it means war then so be it. Should it come to that, I would wage war with every ounce of my being and you can rest assured I will do everything in my power to stop my enemy. If that means I must kill on the battlefield, I would not hesitate a moment.

Catholicism is not pacifism. We like peace, and I pray to God it never has to come to violence, but there is a difference between slaughter and defense. There was plenty of fighting in the OT. We are not a pacifist people.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

the first crusade was not a blunder, and did indeed liberate Jerusalem and part of the Holy Land from Muslim control and maintained a stable kingdom there for over 150 years. later crusades ranged from unsuccessful to disaster to scandal for all Christendom with effects lasting into the next millenium.

War, especially war conducted by the church, is a blunder. It also led to the other crusades along with all the atrocities that war brings against humanity, and they scandalized the Church.

Would Jesus have led the first Crusade?

St. Bernard of Clavieux, told the Crusaders heading to the Holy Land, that peace would never be won through the sword, but only through prayer. Some of those Crusaders, after being disgusted in what they saw, threw down their swords and went to live as hermits on Mt. Carmel. They became the known as Carmelites. It was through their prayers, that the Crusades were brought to an end, and the Holy Land remained open.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Linnyo

I am seriously shocked and disgusted by how quickly some of you would welcome a war.

Kinda makes you wonder what gospel they follow, doesn’t it?

Jim

 

[Miles_Militis]

War, especially war conducted by the church, is a blunder.

Evil will always wage war. If good does not, it will soon cease to exist. Simple fact of life. War is not good, nor should it ever be glorified, but it is necessary at times.

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” – John Stuart Mill

Would Jesus have led the first Crusade?

Tell me, what was Christ’s response to the tax collectors and merchants outside the temple? Did He sit and pray with / for them? Did he peacefully compel them to leave? Think about it.

Is nothing worth fighting for?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Miles_Militis

Tell me, what was Christ’s response to the tax collectors and merchants outside the temple? Did He sit and pray with / for them? Did he peacefully compel them to leave? Think about it.

Christ response was not killing people and as from what we know, he didn’t physically injury anyone.

Is nothing worth fighting for?

Sometimes we have no choice, especially in self defense or defense of innocent people. However, the notion that a Pope would call for a Crusade and it would be justified, after what we learned from the first Crusades, is silly and spiritually immature.

Jim

 

[Miles_Militis]

Christ response was not killing people and as from what we know, he didn’t physically injury anyone.

Perhaps not, but His response was not pacifist. That was my point.

Sometimes we have no choice, especially in self defense or defense of innocent people. However, the notion that a Pope would call for a Crusade and it would be justified, after what we learned from the first Crusades, is silly and spiritually immature.

But don’t you see? That’s what I’ve been saying! I’m not talking about just randomly starting a war. I’m saying that if the Pope declared a Crusade for the sake of defense. Like the case of the first Crusade. In a scenario like the one I mentioned we are talking about defense.

I’m not saying a Pope wakes up and says: “Jee, we should take over the Holy Land…lets go!”, I’m saying that there is a serious threat to the existence of Catholicism and the only response is to fight.

That is not an unconceivable situation. Given this situation, would you fight?

 

[Linnyo]

Perhaps not, but His response was not pacifist. That was my point.

But don’t you see? That’s what I’ve been saying! I’m not talking about just randomly starting a war. I’m saying that if the Pope declared a Crusade for the sake of defense. Like the case of the first Crusade. In a scenario like the one I mentioned we are talking about defense.

I’m not saying a Pope wakes up and says: “Jee, we should take over the Holy Land…lets go!”, I’m saying that there is a serious threat to the existence of Catholicism and the only response is to fight.

That is not an unconceivable situation. Given this situation, would you fight?

Nobody ever wins in a war! Children are killed, women, elderly people and young men are killed. God commands us not to kill. God always provides other ways to protect faith. People are just sometimes too proud to see it. Humans are the only species that actively seek out and destroy. Who does that remind you of?There is nothing Godly about war. It is just folly to think that God would expect us to break one of his commandments just because ‘the situation arises.’ Don’t you think God Himself would take action if His people were in danger of extinction? How far does your faith stretch?

 

[Hrvoje]

Perhaps not, but His response was not pacifist. That was my point.

Show me how. Where do you draw the conclusion that He was not a pacifist from?

 

[Miles_Militis]

Linnyo,

If good people did not fight in wars. The way of life you enjoy, even your faith, would not exist on this earth. Plain and simple fact. Yes God would work, through the lives of men and women who fight to protect His children. God helps him who helps himself.

God smote people, He has killed to protect His people. The angel of death? There are plenty of examples in the OT.

Show me how. Where do you draw the conclusion that He was not a pacifist from?

A pacifist is: “someone opposed to violence as a means of settling disputes”

“He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple area, with the sheep and oxen, and spilled the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables” John 2:15

Hmmm, using a whip to drive people out? Throwing over tables? That doesn’t sound in the least bit violent to you?

 

[bobzills]

So why haven’t you joined a peaceful crusade yet? Pro-life demonstrations by your nearest abortion clinic? Media crusade against liberal stands re: moral issues (gay marriage, no-fault divorce, ban against conscience-objections to dispensing birth control, etc.) and social issues (better care for homeless children and insured, etc.)…?

Why haven’t I stopped beating my teacher?
Ha Ha
I have already joined peaceful demonstrations.

 

[bobzills]

Linnyo

Kinda makes you wonder what gospel they follow, doesn’t it?

Jim

Yes. It is the gospel of the New Testament: Have you heard of the Sermon on the Mount:
Blessed are the peacemakers.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Perhaps not, but His response was not pacifist. That was my point.

But don’t you see? That’s what I’ve been saying! I’m not talking about just randomly starting a war. I’m saying that if the Pope declared a Crusade for the sake of defense. Like the case of the first Crusade. In a scenario like the one I mentioned we are talking about defense.

I’m not saying a Pope wakes up and says: “Jee, we should take over the Holy Land…lets go!”, I’m saying that there is a serious threat to the existence of Catholicism and the only response is to fight.

That is not an unconceivable situation. Given this situation, would you fight?

“Defense” is an easy sell, and more often than not, abused. I would question the spirituality of a Pope who would call for a military crusade.

Human beings are so quick to rush to violence, but seldom do we take the course of nonviolence.

In war, there is always evil, even when its fought for a just cause.

So often, people who go to war, end up becoming like the enemy they’re fighting against.

Jim

 

[chris_molter]

“Defense” is an easy sell, and more often than not, abused. I would question the spirituality of a Pope who would call for a military crusade.

Human beings are so quick to rush to violence, but seldom do we take the course of nonviolence.

In war, there is always evil, even when its fought for a just cause.

So often, people who go to war, end up becoming like the enemy they’re fighting against.

Jim

Jim, I’m by no means a pacifist, but I do concur with your statements.

I think the idea of a modern Pope calling for a military crusade are zilch. After all, the Catholic Church has taken a VERY nonviolent approach for the last couple centuries. I think if there WERE a situation where the Pope called for military action, we’d be somewhere near the end of civilization as we know it.

I think pacifism is compatible with being a Catholic, but it certainly isn’t required and never has been. After all, Christ did not tell the centurion to lay down his spear, shield, and sword and go live in a cave and pray for peace. He could have, but he didn’t. So in the absence of clear scriptural warrants for pacifism (I’m not saying there isn’t a CASE for it, but it’s not overwhelming by any means), we must look to the Church for guidance. And the Church has never taught pacifism is the right, or only, option for the faithful.

 

[bobzills]

Jim,
I think pacifism is compatible with being a Catholic, but it certainly isn’t required and never has been. After all, Christ did not tell the centurion to lay down his spear, shield, and sword and go live in a cave and pray for peace. He could have, but he didn’t…

But did not Our Divine Lord say to turn the other cheek? Should we not follow Our Divine Lord instead of the military machine?
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” (Matthew 5:38-42)
and
"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back."Luke 6:27-30.

 

[Swamp_Yankee]

Bob, when a bad guy ( God forbid) breaks into your home with the intent to do evil (use your imagination) , will you do nothing? I doubt it. The secular world has done a great disservice to Men over the years. It has stripped us of the fine ideals we held dear (allegence, honor, duty, ect. ). Concepts that defined masculinity. They have been replaced with beer swilling , lady oogling, undisaplined rogueish delinquents, and those are the adults. Being a Man meens self sacrifice, standing up so others may sit, and putting yourself in evils path and saying “no further”. We " battle against powers and principalities" , well those “powers” enlist the aid of bad people to do their dirty work. Standing against those forces does not make one a war monger or unchristian. It makes him a Man.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

BTW, it should be made known the difference between pacifism and nonviolence.

Pacifism, is not participating in violence, but also not doing anything to prevent it. Quakers for the most part, are pacifist.
During WWII, they did not go into combat, but served in other ways, so in essence, they helped those who engaged in violence.

Nonviolence on the other hand, is activism against violence and oppression, through nonviolent means. Gandhi used nonviolence, not pacifism.

Jesus, used nonviolence, not pacifism. He defended the woman caught in adultery, and stopped the Apostles from being arrested, when he was taken.
This is not pacifism, but nonviolence.

I chose to nonviolence. I will use nonviolent means to put down oppression, as best I can.

However, I would not stand by and watch a person being brutalized, even if it means I must use violence to stop it. I would however, attempt to use nonviolence first.

As far as war however, for the most part, the wars of history did not have to be fought. For the most part, it was failed diplomacy, and fear, that has brought people into war.

I’m a history buff, and I also served in the Marine Corps. I have learned much about the causes of war, and I have no doubt, that the majority could’ve been avoided.

If we ever get a Pope who is calling for a military crusade, I would probably look at that Pope as being an impostor and agent of the anti-Christ.

Jim

 

[Linnyo]

This seems like what I would be inclined towards. Starting wars is a non-Christian act regardless of who the order comes from!

BTW, it should be made known the difference between pacifism and nonviolence.

Pacifism, is not participating in violence, but also not doing anything to prevent it. Quakers for the most part, are pacifist.
During WWII, they did not go into combat, but served in other ways, so in essence, they helped those who engaged in violence.

Nonviolence on the other hand, is activism against violence and oppression, through nonviolent means. Gandhi used nonviolence, not pacifism.

Jesus, used nonviolence, not pacifism. He defended the woman caught in adultery, and stopped the Apostles from being arrested, when he was taken.
This is not pacifism, but nonviolence.

I chose to nonviolence. I will use nonviolent means to put down oppression, as best I can.

However, I would not stand by and watch a person being brutalized, even if it means I must use violence to stop it. I would however, attempt to use nonviolence first.

As far as war however, for the most part, the wars of history did not have to be fought. For the most part, it was failed diplomacy, and fear, that has brought people into war.

I’m a history buff, and I also served in the Marine Corps. I have learned much about the causes of war, and I have no doubt, that the majority could’ve been avoided.

If we ever get a Pope who is calling for a military crusade, I would probably look at that Pope as being an impostor and agent of the anti-Christ.

Jim