Would you join a Crusade?

[Freshman88]

Yes. And I am even more opposed to a Crusade because it does not constitute self defense.

Just war constitutes a defensive war. A crusade could very well be a defensive war and if called, almost certainly would be.

 

[TemplarKnight]

Again there is no teaching that can force one to pick up a weapon and kill except as a means of defending loved ones and oneself. And all other options must be exhausted first. Now I have had enough of all the personal attacks against peregrino and myself and I am washing my hands and feet clean of these forums.

goodbye. We’ll stand watch.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
George Orwell

 

[Freshman88]

Again there is no teaching that can force one to pick up a weapon and kill except as a means of defending loved ones and oneself. And all other options must be exhausted first. Now I have had enough of all the personal attacks against peregrino and myself and I am washing my hands and feet clean of these forums.

Then refute the teachings of the Catholic Church.

1. you must follow valid authority
2. there could be a draft to a just war

thus you would be breaking tenets of the Catholic Church.

Refute these claims or remain in error.

 

[Freshman88]

goodbye. We’ll stand watch.

I don’t hope he leaves, he holds a position that is contrary to the Catholic Church. Pray that he understands the Church’s position and teaching.

Here is something of interest… a local apologist on this forum agrees with me.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=17803

 

[TemplarKnight]

I don’t hope he leaves, he holds a position that is contrary to the Catholic Church. Pray that he understands the Church’s position and teaching.

Here is something of interest… a local apologist on this forum agrees with me.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=17803

Matthew 7:6

 

[TemplarKnight]

Even better

catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp

But let’s not confuse anyone with the facts.

 

[Kielbasi]

WHAT??? Granted that Vatican City has no military but I guarantee you they could acquire absolutely everything they need. Strategists, munitions, and they already have all the cash to buy the latest, greatest weaponry available today. Plus, how many experienced servicemembers, current and former, would pick up and fight a CRUSADE? I gather quite a bit. So if you think the Holy See would be a rollover, you’re taking an ignorant position.

It doesn’t take just cash to have proper weaponry, it takes research and development ,or in lieu of that, operatives who are able to procure them. None of the top military powers is in the business of undermiining their own weapons by providing them to others at any price, at least not the top most effective weapons.

It certainly wouldn’t be advisable for the United States to do so, particularly as the crusading force would be int’l., and some of the other combatants would be from nations adversarial to our nation.

In addition, a major war would also put the Church on the hook to provide for the thousands of injured vets, widows and children that would be left behind. It would be best if a crusade were actually necessary for the pope to just organize allied nations to do the actual fighting.

 

[Freshman88]

It would be best if a crusade were actually necessary for the pope to just organize allied nations to do the actual fighting.

That is how the first crusades worked. Recall King Richard the Lionheart among the many others.

 

[TemplarKnight]

It doesn’t take just cash to have proper weaponry, it takes research and development ,or in lieu of that, operatives who are able to procure them.

I would bet they have the operatives and the contacts.

None of the top military powers is in the business of undermiining their own weapons by providing them to others at any price, at least not the top most effective weapons.

Really? Don’t let Israel find out because I guarantee you they have much of that technology. Besides, they don’t need an aircraft carrier or a nuclear submarine.

It certainly wouldn’t be advisable for the United States to do so, particularly as the crusading force would be int’l., and some of the other combatants would be from nations adversarial to our nation.

If an international situation developed to the point of the Holy See calling for a Crusade, international sensitivities have already gone out the window.

In addition, a major war would also put the Church on the hook to provide for the thousands of injured vets, widows and children that would be left behind.

As opposed the the thousands of widows and orphans they take care of now?

It would be best if a crusade were actually necessary for the pope to just organize allied nations to do the actual fighting.

If it’s a Crusade, it is necessary.

 

[Peregrino]

ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm

You may not go to war, but war can be a valid option.

But tell me, what if war comes to you and your family? Would you join those who fight for you and your family? Or simply sit by idly as they die on your behalf?

Jim already answered this by saying he would defend his loved ones and family. He also clearly stated that he would not go to war (or crusade) in a foreign country. The church also recognizes the right to be a conscientious objector-there is no sin in refusing to fight in a so-called “just” war, especially given that CO status is also recognized by the U.S.

I must admit that I also wonder how the church can override a direct instruction of Jesus (and thus God), especially ones so clear as those I have highlighted. I am at peace with my decision as a pacifist. You guys are at peace with your decision to kill. You can simply trump any scripture, no matter how clear, by saying “the church says so”. The church also says that Jim and I can be a pacifists, therefore we are not in conflict with the church.

I will continue to try and follow the teachings of Jesus to the best of my ability, especially those that are so clear as to say “love thy enemies” and “offer the wicked man no resistance”. In religion, it doesn’t get much clearer than that… God bless all of you.

 

[Freshman88]

by saying “the church says so”. The church also says that Jim and I can be a pacifists, therefore we are not in conflict with the church.

This is quite a worrying statement. You must understand that scriptures are only interpreted correctly by the Church - if you disagree with the Church you disagree with the scriptures. That you think there can even be a contradiction with the Church and Scriptures is itself worrying. There are some basic tenets of Catholic thought that you seem to be missing.

Anyway, just to display the logic of the Church - in case you do wish to tackle it.

there are three points which you must tackle in order for you to prove the Church wrong, if you so wish to prove the Church wrong.

There is such a thing as a Just war.
Catholics are obliged to follow legitimate authority.
A legitimate authority may hold a draft to a Just war.

Given these three points, it is possible according to the Church, to be asked to fight and a refusal to fight would be a sin.

Now this all hypothetical - if I were you I wouldn’t be so worried that I’m going to be drafted to just war. Rather, I’d be more concerned that you think that the Church disagrees with Jesus (impossible) and that you believe you have interpreted scripture correctly and the Church has interpreted scripture incorrectly (also impossible)

 

[Peregrino]

This is quite a worrying statement. You must understand that scriptures are only interpreted correctly by the Church - if you disagree with the Church you disagree with the scriptures. That you think there can even be a contradiction with the Church and Scriptures is itself worrying. There are some basic tenets of Catholic thought that you seem to be missing.

Anyway, just to display the logic of the Church - in case you do wish to tackle it.

there are three points which you must tackle in order for you to prove the Church wrong, if you so wish to prove the Church wrong.

There is such a thing as a Just war.
Catholics are obliged to follow legitimate authority.
A legitimate authority may hold a draft to a Just war.

Given these three points, it is possible according to the Church, to be asked to fight and a refusal to fight would be a sin.

Now this all hypothetical - if I were you I wouldn’t be so worried that I’m going to be drafted to just war. Rather, I’d be more concerned that you think that the Church disagrees with Jesus (impossible) and that you believe you have interpreted scripture correctly and the Church has interpreted scripture incorrectly (also impossible)

The government itself says I can be a CO to a “just” war or an “unjust” war. Therefore I am not in conflict with “legitimate authority”. Never did I say that the church disagrees with Jesus, (I said it seems to override Jesus), nor did I speak to the church’s interpretation. The church allows me to be a pacifist, thus my conscientious objection is valid.

You would seem to want to hammer your point in that your perspective is the only correct and valid perspective. I think that is a rather narrow way of looking at things. You are in disagreement with the church if that is your position. Peace.

 

[Freshman88]

The government itself says I can be a CO to a “just” war or an “unjust” war.

Laws change, this isn’t always the case. The governemnt could legitimley ask you to go to war. Remeber, we are talking about hypotheticals.

Never did I say that the church disagrees with Jesus, (I said it seems to override Jesus),

Override? There would be no need to override if they didn’t disagree - one can only “override” if there is a disagreement. Either Jesus is correct or the Church is correct… which is it? Can’t you see the dilhemia in this?

nor did I speak to the church’s interpretation. The church allows me to be a pacifist, thus my conscientious objection is valid.

Yet if you were drafted to a just war, you would not have the privialge of that position.

You would seem to want to hammer your point in that your perspective is the only correct and valid perspective.

My opinion is meaningless, I am arguing straight out of the Catechism. I also don’t understand your assertion of “only” as if there can be more then one opinion when it comes to Church teaching. Unless ofcourse Church teaching allows for choice, which She would explicitly express - the case I presented however, does not allow for a pacifist position.

I think that is a rather narrow way of looking at things. You are in disagreement with the church if that is your position. Peace.

Premise is false.

 

[hosemonkey]

So you are saying you would be the last ones to support a war if no other way is possible???

SO in other words if no other way is possible, you STILL would not support a war? That’s the way it is written.

Or did you mean to say you would be the first ones to support a war if no other way was possible?

I would like some clarification.

If no other way was possible, then I would support a war. A war directed by professionals, a war with clearly stated goals and objectives, a war fought with due regard for civilians but with total ruthlessness for enemy combatants. A war with no sanctuary for the enemy. Full stop. Are you a combat veteran sir, not an armchair warrior? Have you smelled the blood of the enemy, have you burned his villages? Have you seen your friends and comrades die? If you have, I will recognize you as a brother. If you have not, then you know little of war. No offense intended, but if you have not “seen the elephant” you have no concept. Peace.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

I would never join a Crusade, and I would have difficulty remaining in the Catholic Church if one were called.

"Da sprach Jesus zu ihm: Stecke dein Schwert an seinen Ort; denn wer das Schwert nimmt, der soll durchs Schwert umkommen."
Mattheus 26: 52

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

I would never join a Crusade, and I would have difficulty remaining in the Catholic Church if one were called.

"Da sprach Jesus zu ihm: Stecke dein Schwert an seinen Ort; denn wer das Schwert nimmt, der soll durchs Schwert umkommen."
Mattheus 26: 52

 

[First_of_9]

If no other way was possible, then I would support a war. A war directed by professionals, a war with clearly stated goals and objectives, a war fought with due regard for civilians but with total ruthlessness for enemy combatants. A war with no sanctuary for the enemy. Full stop. Are you a combat veteran sir, not an armchair warrior? Have you smelled the blood of the enemy, have you burned his villages? Have you seen your friends and comrades die? If you have, I will recognize you as a brother. If you have not, then you know little of war. No offense intended, but if you have not “seen the elephant” you have no concept. Peace.

Couldn’t have said it better.

Unfortunately, there are too many “armchair warriors” spouting off about that which they know not.

Fortunately, most of them are in positions where they can do no harm–yet.

 

[Freshman88]

I would never join a Crusade, and I would have difficulty remaining in the Catholic Church if one were called.

How do you reconcile with the fact that Catholic theology does indeed make room for the possibility of a crusade?

 

[TemplarKnight]

If no other way was possible, then I would support a war. A war directed by professionals, a war with clearly stated goals and objectives, a war fought with due regard for civilians but with total ruthlessness for enemy combatants. A war with no sanctuary for the enemy. Full stop. Are you a combat veteran sir, not an armchair warrior? Have you smelled the blood of the enemy, have you burned his villages? Have you seen your friends and comrades die? If you have, I will recognize you as a brother. If you have not, then you know little of war. No offense intended, but if you have not “seen the elephant” you have no concept. Peace.

Couldn’t have said it better.

Unfortunately, there are too many “armchair warriors” spouting off about that which they know not.

Fortunately, most of them are in positions where they can do no harm–yet.

Gentlemen,
I thought we were going to have an intelligent conversation about this. If you feel it needs to degrade to personal attacks, we can do that too.

If you are veterans and fought in Viet nam as is implicated, good on you. Thanks for serving. However, if with that same mentality you feel you are the only ones that have ever fired a shot in anger as part of the military, then you are sadly mistaken. Remember there were and still are conflicts since Viet Nam where we have fought and died. You don’t know me and I don’t know you. So I wouldn’t make presumptive BS statements like “there are too many “armchair warriors” spouting off about that which they know not.” I, for one, would be more than happy to compare DD-214’s.

So gentlemen, the decision of how you would like to proceed with this conversation is up to you.

With that being said.

I am the first to stand up and say we better have a very good reason to fight a war. And I feel we need even a better reason to fight a Crusade. Nevertheless I believe in the authority of the CC, and I recognize that as a legitimate authority. I trust in the decision of our Pope. Therefore, if he did call a Crusade, I believe he would have a very good reason and I would answer his call. My personal feelings aside, I would answer the call. My faith means that much to me.

Nobody wants to go off and fight. But sometimes things need to be done and there is only a certain type of individual who can do it.

As it says in my sig line
VVVVVVVVVVV

 

[elt1956]

In modern times we too can say that the first crusade in both it’s principles and intentions were morally right.

Not just during our present age but during the times of the crusades did Christians and pilgrims face persecution. In fact that was one of the many reasons behind the first crusade, pilgrims were not safe.

You almost seem to be suggesting that the Crusades are the cause of today’s problems when in fact, the problems of the middle east pre-date even the crusades.

I’m not too sure what this means, but it seems to be implying an isolationist or perhaps pacifist view? If that is the case I would like to say that our actions can have a positive outcome and so I don’t think we should be so quick to shy away from any kind of action. This is especially so when you consider what remains of our apostolic brethren throughout the whole of the middle east who face so much opposition.

Oky doky. Would you clarify some history for me as I seem a bit muddled about who was attacking the Pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem. I “thought” that Christians lived peacefully in the Muslum countries until the Crusades??? and that the Pilgrims were being attacked by robbers, bandits etc. Thus sprang up the Knights Templar. I don’t believe it was an all out attack of Muslims preventing Christians from visiting the Holy places in the Holy Land. Just trying to get to the bottom of the cause of unrest in the Middle East between Islam and Catholocity. And yes, I am a Pacifist until I am threatened by individuals or groups, but it has to be a real threat, not one imagined.