The Crusades - would you join?

[benedicter]

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.

If it wasn’t for the Crusades Europe would be Muslim. I have been to Hungary and they say that the Ottomans nearly wiped them out to a man. That is why they had to ask Austria to help them, hence Austria-Hungary alliance. The Pope at the time of the Crusades did not call for an offensive, but a defensive as the Byzantiums asked him for help. He called the Crusade to defend the Byzantiums from extinction. Whatever else went on that was the Popes involvement.

 

[Teflon93]

Here’s a question I’ve been thinking about. If the Pope called for the Crusades again, would you join?

Please be gentle.

No. I’m too old an out of shape.

In my younger and fitter days, I would have, had I:

a) been Catholic

b) not been in the Air Force and subject to an oath previously sworn to the Constitution of the United States

c) been able to get to wherever such Crusaders were being marshaled

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If the pope called I would go today to the Holy Land and would give my life if necessary.

 

[John89]

Absolutely

 

[JimR-OCDS]

JimR-OCDS;2947921:

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.

If it wasn’t for the Crusades Europe would be Muslim. I have been to Hungary and they say that the Ottomans nearly wiped them out to a man. That is why they had to ask Austria to help them, hence Austria-Hungary alliance. The Pope at the time of the Crusades did not call for an offensive, but a defensive as the Byzantiums asked him for help. He called the Crusade to defend the Byzantiums from extinction. Whatever else went on that was the Popes involvement.

Yes and the Pope also thought that by going to the defense of the Byzantium’s, they would come back into the fold of the Roman Catholic.

As far as the “if not for the Crusades, Europe would be Muslim,” this is mere speculation. For one, the Crusades were not in defense of Europe, but the Holy Land, which was already held by the Muslims.

Also, although the first Crusade was successful, the following Crusades were not and the atrocities committed by both sides, were not in accord with Christ teachings, for sure. Even St. Francis of Assisi, from what he witnessed, was appalled by the behavior of the Crusaders, and he himself showed that violence was not needed to over come the Sultan.

Also, by the time Richard the Lionhearted reached the Holy Land, the Crusades had transformed from being a defense of Christianity, to protecting the trade routes from the East. Richard himself, arraigned a marriage between his brother and the daughter of the Sultan. This was against both the Catholic Religion and Islam, so religion was out of the picture, when it came to motivation for supporting the crusades.

Jim

 

[Contarini]

Even though I’m not Catholic, I’m going to pretend I am for just a moment, since my answer would be no automatically be no since I am not Catholic.

I would definately not join. I am not going to kill people for land or for their beliefs.

What if their beliefs lead them to kill Christians and plunder the lands currently occupied by Christians? That was happening in the late 11th century. The Crusades were called in response to real aggression.

That being said, the concept of holy war is incompatible with good Christian theology, in my opinion. It is an Old Testament concept that has been fulfilled and completed in the sacrifice of Christ. Just war is possible, but the Church should not be directly involved in calling for it. In my opinion the Church’s role in these matters is purely negative–condemning wars that are patently unjust. Otherwise, it’s up to governments.

Edwin

 

[benedicter]

benedicter;2956151:

As far as the “if not for the Crusades, Europe would be Muslim,” this is mere speculation. For one, the Crusades were not in defense of Europe, but the Holy Land, which was already held by the Muslims.
Jim

Jim, the Jihad into Europe was significant before the Crusades - Spain, had fallen. The Middle East, North Africa, fallen and Constantinople under siege. During the Crusades this advance stopped. After the Crusades finished the Jihad into Europe began again - we are still living with the result of their advance securing the Balkans. It is reasonable to say the Crusades gave Europe time, time which could have seen her utterly defeated. The final stop of the Muslim Jihad was after the Gates of Vienna (thank you Poland for this defence) as the Muslims were then attacked from the Mongolian border as well. They had two fronts and took care of the East over the West. If Europe had fallen you and I would be Muslims as would all of America. I thank God I am free to praise him as a Christian, frankly I am deeply afraid for my grandchildrens generation - (when I get some!)

 

[benedicter]

I would also like to say re Crusdaes, yes or no. There is no answer. I agree with Jim and I don’t agree. Confused? It is hard. Jim may know more on this but the prophets Isaiah (first captivity of northern Israel by Assyrians) and Jeremiah (fall of Jerusalem to Babylon) each took a different view. Isaiah said don’t fight - God will defend you (I think because he saw the Jews as faithful at that time), they disobeyed him and fought and lost. Jeremiah said fight defend yourselves (as he saw they were unfaithful Jews at that time), they didn’t fight but tried to negotiate with their neighbours and were overrun by the Babylonians.

I hope I have this the right way round and sort of correct. But in this example the prophets argument for or against was dependant on the relationship with God and their faithfulness to him. Interesting. Question? How faithful are we?

 

[Teflon93]

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!

And as we mark the end of the Great War this weekend, let’s also reflect that had more Scotsmen been of your persuasion German might now be the official language of Scotland.

Do not presume moral superiority over the men who have fought and died that you may be free to criticize their sacrifice. War is an ugly thing, but those who would prefer slavery to it are an uglier reality still.

Thankfully, the Church recognizes this reality, which is why she developed Just War doctrine.

 

[RomanCrusader]

The crusader knights are some of my heros. These were great and brave men who stood up to true evil (Islamic Turks) and died with God in the hearts.

 

[cascherman]

Linnyo

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

Jim

What I see when I see all these people saying ‘yes, I would go’ is people who take seriously the office that Christ established in the Pope. People that believe Christ was telling the truth when he said ‘I will not leave you orphans’.

What would Christ have done if Christians were being slaughtered when on religious pilgrimages to the site of Christ’s life and passion by power/land hungry Turks? Keep in mind the Christians who lived in the land that was being taken over were calling for help, as they were close to being slaughtered as well?

Maybe not a crusade, but what would Christ have done in that situation? Much of Europe would probably be Muslim if the Crusades had not happened. Maybe it was God’s will that Europe stay Christian, as American and many many other countries would not be Christian now if it hadn’t.

Just a curious question…

 

[cascherman]

And as we mark the end of the Great War this weekend, let’s also reflect that had more Scotsmen been of your persuasion German might now be the official language of Scotland.

Do not presume moral superiority over the men who have fought and died that you may be free to criticize their sacrifice. War is an ugly thing, but those who would prefer slavery to it are an uglier reality still.

Thankfully, the Church recognizes this reality, which is why she developed Just War doctrine.

It is funny hearing people relishing in the freedom they have and scorning the people who died for it… do you really think if nothing was done when the Turks were invading Europe things would be how they are now?

God allows, and even commands, war to protect his people. Have any of you read the Old Testament? I think you’ll find the battles in the Old Testament follow the Just War doctrine as do the Crusades.

 

[Teflon93]

It is funny hearing people relishing in the freedom they have and scorning the people who died for it… do you really think if nothing was done when the Turks were invading Europe things would be how they are now?

God allows, and even commands, war to protect his people. Have any of you read the Old Testament? I think you’ll find the battles in the Old Testament follow the Just War doctrine as do the Crusades.

Well said!

The Crusades were a defensive war—it is the Mohammedans who sought to conquer the world, to seize the lands of their neighbors, and to convert at the point of the sword Christian and Jew.

It is a practice they continue to this day. For a post-Crusades perspective, try the excellent monograph “Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters”. Students of early American history will gain a wider perspective on the threat of the Barbary pirates in the process.

 

[cascherman]

On the flip-side though, I don’t think a grass-roots style Crusade like what happened then would work now. Military technology is a little different at this point.

 

[Chris_B]

seriously folks, the first crusade was called to liberate the Holy Land, which is doing just fine, thank you very much under the Israelis.

I wouldn’t say that… But then again, since when has the Holy Land been “doing fine”, within the last 1500 years?

As for the Crusade question, I may join depending on the reasons. I’m in horrible bodily condition as far as being a Soldier is concerned, but I could probably lead a brigade or small number of troops with some success.

 

[Swamp_Yankee]

To you cascherman, Roman Crusader, teflon93, and you who said “Yes” , I say to you , Bravo Zulu! ( the traditional Navy, “well done”). As an addendum to my last post, what I here from those who said “yes” is not an unchristian bloodlust or a desire for war. Soldiers want peace more than anyone. What I here is people eager to give of themselves for a cause greater than themselves. To sacrifice, so that others need not. They hear the clarion call to Duty, and are ready to oblige. There is no love of war in these posts, instead, the willingness to serve for the love of the cause. Do not look down your noses at us and cry piety. There are only two entities that ever willingly gave their lives for your freedom, Jesus Christ, and a United States soldier. Thank them both.

 

[ImmaculataChamp]

Here’s a question I’ve been thinking about. If the Pope called for the Crusades again, would you join?

Please be gentle.

Maybe.

 

[Contarini]

I think you’ll find the battles in the Old Testament follow the Just War doctrine

That’s almost unbelievable. The battles in the Old Testament break the just war doctrine to shreds. They were holy wars of annihilation (at least the battles fought in the conquest of Canaan–other battles, such as Asa’s defeat of an invading Kushite army, or Jephthah’s war against the Ammonites, do meet just war criteria). They cannot be used as a precedent for Christians. Are you suggesting that just war involves the slaughter of women and children?

as do the Crusades.

This is a bit more reasonable–the original reason for the Crusades does meet just war criteria. But again, the passions of a holy war break through the limits of just war. Rather than modifying the normal code that allowed for the massacre of the population of a city that had resisted, the Crusaders’ sense of divine mission gave them a clear conscience about slaughtering defenseless civilians after the fall of Jerusalem, or murdering the female camp followers after the defeat of the Muslim armies around Antioch. This is in no way meets just war criteria, to put it mildly.

Edwin

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

On one hand, I remeber Gandhi, and his great teachings. On the other, nothing would please me more than grabbing a battle-axe and jumping into a horde of militant heathens, screaming “TODAY IS A FINE DAY TO DIE!”…

 

[Teflon93]

That’s almost unbelievable. The battles in the Old Testament break the just war doctrine to shreds. They were holy wars of annihilation (at least the battles fought in the conquest of Canaan–other battles, such as Asa’s defeat of an invading Kushite army, or Jephthah’s war against the Ammonites, do meet just war criteria). They cannot be used as a precedent for Christians. Are you suggesting that just war involves the slaughter of women and children?

This is a very good point. The conquest of the Promised Land was but one example. I would caveat that if God tells you to go to war, it’s a just war of some stripe.

This is a bit more reasonable–the original reason for the Crusades does meet just war criteria. But again, the passions of a holy war break through the limits of just war. Rather than modifying the normal code that allowed for the massacre of the population of a city that had resisted, the Crusaders’ sense of divine mission gave them a clear conscience about slaughtering defenseless civilians after the fall of Jerusalem, or murdering the female camp followers after the defeat of the Muslim armies around Antioch. This is in no way meets just war criteria, to put it mildly.

Edwin

This is also correct, but I have a slight quibble in that there is not a requirement that a war be atrocity-free in order to be just. All wars, from the War of Jenkins’ Ear to World War II, have their atrocities. The difference is of course whether the policy is atrocity, and whether the violence is in any sense proportional.

Otherwise, I think you’re on the money, Edwin.