B
Birdpreacher
Guest
Why? Whether she killed them by hand or by leading her army, why do we revere her? Wouldnt non-violent protest (like Ghandi) be more in line with God’s Blessed are the peacemakers rule?
- Status
B
Brendan
Guest
Defending one’s country against invaders is a saintly act.
St. Joan was being a peacemaker by opposing the invasion. How would allowing the invaders to run roughshod over her country be consider promoting “peace”?
B
Bookcat
Guest
Not all killing is murder…
Blessed indeed are the peacemakers …but peacemakers does no mean per se pacifists
Blessed indeed are the peacemakers …but peacemakers does no mean per se pacifists
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
English CATHOLIC Christians at this (Joan lived before Protestants).
Well, for one thing, it is possible that Joan and her party were ‘in the right’. God did not say we could NEVER fight, even if death of an aggressor was the unintended result.
Let’s think for just a minute or two about what could have happened if Joan had not led the French and the English had taken over France. What happened 100 years later? The Protestant revolt.
As it was France had a small minority of those who espoused Protestantism and a large Catholic majority. Had England ruled France as well, Henry (then ruler of England AND France) would have taken BOTH countries and turned them both Protestant. France, on the continent and with at the time the highest civilization and best trained armies (though the Spanish came forward remarkably in the late 1400s) was poised then to attack and subdue Catholic Spain and Portugal and Catholic Italy as well as joining with Protestant Scandinavia and the parts of Germany that were Protestant. . .
But with Joan leading the French the French Dauphin was secure on the throne and France survived possible annexation and forcible Protestantism.
Well, for one thing, it is possible that Joan and her party were ‘in the right’. God did not say we could NEVER fight, even if death of an aggressor was the unintended result.
Let’s think for just a minute or two about what could have happened if Joan had not led the French and the English had taken over France. What happened 100 years later? The Protestant revolt.
As it was France had a small minority of those who espoused Protestantism and a large Catholic majority. Had England ruled France as well, Henry (then ruler of England AND France) would have taken BOTH countries and turned them both Protestant. France, on the continent and with at the time the highest civilization and best trained armies (though the Spanish came forward remarkably in the late 1400s) was poised then to attack and subdue Catholic Spain and Portugal and Catholic Italy as well as joining with Protestant Scandinavia and the parts of Germany that were Protestant. . .
But with Joan leading the French the French Dauphin was secure on the throne and France survived possible annexation and forcible Protestantism.
B
Birdpreacher
Guest
Oh so they where the wrong kind of Christians. 
Really the French state was established by conquering neighbors how is one invasion better than another?
Really the French state was established by conquering neighbors how is one invasion better than another?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
No, they weren’t the ‘wrong kind of Christians’. I was pointing out that unlike a “Catholic versus Protestant” fight, this war preceded the revolt.Oh so they where the wrong kind of Christians.
Really the French state was established by conquering neighbors how is one invasion better than another?
Did you read my post? I recommend you do a quick check of French history and then ponder what MIGHT have happened had both England AND FRANCE (instead of just England) become Protestant forces in the 16th and 17th century, just before the start of the New World exploration, and what the repercussions might have been. . .
S
smichhertz
Guest
Technically speaking, she never killed anyone. At least, not by her own hand.
B
Birdpreacher
Guest
so they turned out to be the wrong kind of christian
B
Birdpreacher
Guest
meh hitler and Osama can say the same thing
S
smichhertz
Guest
Yeah I get the point, just wanted to make a quick clarification.
S
salusanimarum17
Guest
She lived a saintly, virtuous life and died a most impressive, saintly, virtuous death. That’s why.
She led an army that killed people. Sure. If she hadn’t led that army, would fewer people have died? The point is, there are times when “non-violent protest” could get more people killed than a direct, even violent, confrontation of violence. If there was a Joan of Arc at the time of World War II, and France had a vigorous defense of itself, would that have been a bad thing?
This “wrong kind of Christian” stuff–yes, her actions may have prevented many people from becoming heretics and/or schismatics as a result of the “Reformation.” I think we could reasonably say this.
G
George_Stegmeir
Guest
With due respect for all concerned, the instigator of this thread is not only ignorant of
European history, he/she/it wants to argue for arguing’s sake and cannot accept that they are wrong. IMHO continuing this thread is a waste of time.
European history, he/she/it wants to argue for arguing’s sake and cannot accept that they are wrong. IMHO continuing this thread is a waste of time.
S
salusanimarum17
Guest
Wow. Hitler, Osama bin Laden, Joan of Arc. What a comparison!
B
Birdpreacher
Guest
All lead armies that killed people, other than that they are all different.
/feel free to throw in George Washington, King David, etc. No Ghandi though, seems like he had more Jesus in him then Joan if you ask me
M
Myqyl
Guest
Actually sainthood is not DECIDED by anyone on Earth. God made Saint Joan de Arc a saint. The Church just recognized that fact. Joan is a Saint because God admitted her into Heaven.
Why did God make her a Saint? You’ll have to ask Him…
God bless
B
Birdpreacher
Guest
Rather then insult me, enlighten me friend
J
john81
Guest
It is always lawful to defend one’s own country, no matter the religion of the invading force. If you read St. Thomas Aquinas, he gives the points of a just war. Here is one quote:
“I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged…Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault…Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil.”
ethics.sandiego.edu/Books/Texts/Aquinas/JustWar.html
If you study the history of Joan of Arc versus Hitler, you will see that the Patron of France meets all three of these requirements (and is thus justified in her actions), while Hitler meets none.
God bless
B
Birdpreacher
Guest
Fair enough, I guess my question is why does the RCC recognize her as a saint. Does it have something to do with papacy being in Avignon for so many years? Just seems awfully political to me.
B
Birdpreacher
Guest
Did France follow this on the road to becoming a state in a fashion that was morally superior to England at the time? Wasn’t The English and French claims to throne based on mere bloodlines of a monarchy? what a funny thing to fight a war over
J
john81
Guest
I don’t think it was political as she was not canonized until 1920. I hardly think that was influenced by the Avignon Papacy!
God bless.
- Status