Would you join a Crusade?

[Freshman88]

I feel fairly comfortable that the Gospels accurately portray Jesus’ words. Given that we believe that Jesus was God, I find that there is little interpretation necessary in the passages I have quoted above. I personally give them more creedence than other parts of the bible. I am also familiar with what a crusade entails and I accordingly reject it as a truly Christian action. Rather than kum by ya, I prefer the Agnus Dei…

If an army invaded your country and slaughtered your armed forces - totally unprovoked - would I be just to fight then?
What if that army began to persecute and oppress my family and neighbors - would I be just to fight then?
What if that army now began to round up my neighbors and family and send them to camps - would I be just to fight then?

No, it wouldn’t be a question of justice, it would be a question of duty. A strong young male like me would be a coward to stand idly by and watch as my family and nation is killed.

My Polish grandparents went through such a horror. They followed the Gospel to a tee - it was their duty to fight. My grandfather would probably argue that it would be a terribly Unchristian act to be a pacifist when Christ was calling him to fight off the armies of evil.

Sometimes the most loving thing to do is to pick up a weapon and fight.

 

[Freshman88]

I am also familiar with what a crusade entails and I accordingly reject it as a truly Christian action.

If a Crusade had to be called, it would almost certainly qualify as a Just war.

So, do you deny this entry in the Catechism? ** Do you deny this Church teaching? **

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

 

[LDNCatholic]

Sometimes the most loving thing to do is to pick up a weapon and fight.

I agree. In the genocide of the second world war, those who refused to fight, regardless of their intentions, were allowing evil to continue.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I beg to differ my friend. Peace is both the destination and the route. Any route other than peace cannot lead to true peace. I would humbly submit that you cannot slay your brother and love him at the same time.

Jesus said, “why do you call me, “Lord, Lord” and not do what I say?” Lk. 6.46

So lets be hypothetical. We are a large government, and we see Christians being killed all over the world by a tyrannical empire, do you think that God would think that it is ok for us to let them continue. Peace is necessary, however at times force is needed achieve that peace. I could quote numerous Biblical passages to point this out to you. Why would you not help your Christian brother from the hands of evil. I don’t think you realize what to love your brother means. We feel pain for our enemies and pray that they will change there ways. We love them, however when evil is there what is more evil to stop it or take force. When Hitler was murdering millions of people and would stop at nothing, do you not think it was right to stop that evil. Should we have let him continue.

 

[Freshman88]

I agree. In the genocide of the second world war, those who refused to fight, regardless of their intentions, were allowing evil to continue.

Well it does depend on the individual - some men were truly physically unable to fight or had to fulfill their duty in non-combative positions.

But yes, I think I agree with you. A physically fit man who is drafted to fight in a just war, who refuses to fight has allowed evil to grow.

 

[Peregrino]

If an army invaded your country and slaughtered your armed forces - totally unprovoked - would I be just to fight then?
What if that army began to persecute and oppress my family and neighbors - would I be just to fight then?
What if that army now began to round up my neighbors and family and send them to camps - would I be just to fight then?

No, it wouldn’t be a question of justice, it would be a question of duty. A strong young male like me would be a coward to stand idly by and watch as my family and nation is killed.

I can’t help but draw parallels between your scenario and the Roman occupation of Israel in Jesus’ day. The zealots had the same philosophy as everyone here clamoring /advocating/volunteering for a crusade. Jesus differed with the zealots in both theory and practice.

I choose to follow Jesus, not the zealots…

 

[LDNCatholic]

But yes, I think I agree with you. A physically fit man who is drafted to fight in a just war, who refuses to fight has allowed evil to grow.

That is what I was trying to say.
A doctor should not be asked to pick up a gun
A priest or minister also has another way to serve
Politicians, civil servants etc are also needed in places other than military service.

But a healthy man with no other skills that could be used elsewhere, who chooses to ignore the suffering (and does not seek to end it another way) and hides behind the mask of pacifism, is contributing to evil.

 

[Freshman88]

That is what I was trying to say.
A doctor should not be asked to pick up a gun
A priest or minister also has another way to serve
Politicians, civil servants etc are also needed in places other than military service.

But a healthy man with no other skills that could be used elsewhere, who chooses to ignore the suffering (and does not seek to end it another way) and hides behind the mask of pacifism, is contributing to evil.

ah yes - I agree entirely

 

[Freshman88]

I can’t help but draw parallels between your scenario and the Roman occupation of Israel in Jesus’ day. The zealots had the same philosophy as everyone here clamoring /advocating/volunteering for a crusade. Jesus differed with the zealots in both theory and practice.

I choose to follow Jesus, not the zealots…

I’m afraid you have a VERY POOR grasp of history.

Let’s look at the situation.

WWII - Poland
The invasion of Poland was done by the Nazis to whip out an entire race - those Slavs, Jews and Gypsies who were not to be liquidated were to be used as slave labour. The Ukrainians taken as slave labour were the beginnings of slave-race.

The Russians wished to strip the nation of their faith and beliefs. Those who did not comply were sent to gulags or shot.

Roman Occupation of Palestine
Jews continue to worship freely. Persecution exists through heavy taxes. Jews however, can continue to live in peace. Roman rule is unfair and makes life hard - but one can continue to exist and live as a Jew.

The difference? Men are not being randomly rounded up during Jesus day - being sent to their death or to an existence of hard slave labour. Men are not being forced with decescion to drop their beliefs or die. In such a case, one has the choice to deny Christ or to die.

This isn’t zealotry - this is simply being able to exist.

Thank God men like you didn’t exist then - The Slavs and Jews as a race would cease to exist had the Nazis won. There is no honour, no love, in watching your family die while you hold the power to stop such an evil.

 

[hosemonkey]

Those of us here who have truly experienced war will be the last ones to advocate it’s use if no other way is possible. We are/were the first to bear the brunt of battle and suffer the deaths, wounds and sorrow that war always brings with it. We pay the first costs. The rest of the nation must bear the other costs, fell the pain of loss and deal with the aftermath of the conflict. But… unfortunately, we have those in our world who do not hesitate to inflict their crimes and tyrany on others who are less able to defend themselves. Just as the strong man has the obligation to defend and protect the weak, so does the stronger country have the obligation to defend the weaker. Not to exploit, but to defend. It has not always developed that way, but I think that the heart of America is basically in the right place. There are those who disagree, but I think that history will bear this out. You will seldom see military folks clamoring for war, we know the cost. We give our youth, our innocence, our blood and our lives. I wish that the politicians would keep this uppermost in their minds when they think about going to war.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Thank God men like you didn’t exist then - The Slavs and Jews as a race would cease to exist had the Nazis won. There is no honour, no love, in watching your family die while you hold the power to stop such an evil.

Unfortunately they did, The British government at the time was notorious for appeasement to Hitler. If they had taken him out of power when they had a easier chance things probably would have been different. God never would encourage someone to kill, however He does want us to help our brothers.

 

[TemplarKnight]

Those of us here who have truly experienced war will be the last ones to advocate it’s use if no other way is possible. We are/were the first to bear the brunt of battle and suffer the deaths, wounds and sorrow that war always brings with it. We pay the first costs. The rest of the nation must bear the other costs, fell the pain of loss and deal with the aftermath of the conflict. But… unfortunately, we have those in our world who do not hesitate to inflict their crimes and tyrany on others who are less able to defend themselves. Just as the strong man has the obligation to defend and protect the weak, so does the stronger country have the obligation to defend the weaker. Not to exploit, but to defend. It has not always developed that way, but I think that the heart of America is basically in the right place. There are those who disagree, but I think that history will bear this out. You will seldom see military folks clamoring for war, we know the cost. We give our youth, our innocence, our blood and our lives. I wish that the politicians would keep this uppermost in their minds when they think about going to war.

I think we have to remain specific to the definition of a Crusade. It’s not war for the sake of war but rather a war for faith, to protect our faith and for our very existence. It’s one thing to fight in a political conflict, it’s an entirely different fight for GOD.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I think we have to remain specific to the definition of a Crusade. It’s not war for the sake of war but rather a war for faith, to protect our faith and for our very existence. It’s one thing to fight in a political conflict, it’s an entirely different fight for GOD.

Yes, it is a Just War.

 

[Freshman88]

Unfortunately they did, The British government at the time was notorious for appeasement to Hitler. If they had taken him out of power when they had a easier chance things probably would have been different. God never would encourage someone to kill, however He does want us to help our brothers.

Exactly.

Right now Peregrino is pacifist who is so devoid of love that he would have sat by and watched as my family, nation and race was brutally murdered and enslaved despite having the power to stop such an evil.

I hope he recants such a position and expresses some kind of warmth.

I hope he looks at the Catechism and accepts Church teaching on war not his own. The Church teaches that there is a Just war. Peregrino is pontificating that this is not so. Good thing his position is anti-Catholic.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Exactly.

Right now Peregrino is pacifist who is so devoid of love that he would have sat by and watched as my family, nation and race was brutally murdered and enslaved despite having the power to stop such an evil.

I hope he recants such a position and expresses some kind of warmth.

I hope he looks at the Catechism and accepts Church teaching on war not his own. The Church teaches that there is a Just war. Peregrino is pontificating that this is not so. Good thing his position is anti-Catholic.

Yes, true. It’s not very Christian to say “well I know people are dieing and you are asking someone to help you, but I’m not supposed to kill so hope things turn out better for you.”

 

[hosemonkey]

I think we have to remain specific to the definition of a Crusade. It’s not war for the sake of war but rather a war for faith, to protect our faith and for our very existence. It’s one thing to fight in a political conflict, it’s an entirely different fight for GOD.

I understand. But let’s be clear, you are just as dead in a just war as you are in an unjust war. There may be different spiritual consequences (martyrdom,etc.) but no less physical consequences. Make no mistake, I would defend my Faith with my life, a just Crusade would have to be declared by the Pope for the good of the Church and the world.

 

[Kielbasi]

I understand. But let’s be clear, you are just as dead in a just war as you are in an unjust war. There may be different spiritual consequences (martyrdom,etc.) but no less physical consequences. Make no mistake, I would defend my Faith with my life, a just Crusade would have to be declared by the Pope for the good of the Church and the world.

Regardless of how just the cause it is, without proper munitions and advanced weaponry, as well as experienced military strategarists to coordinate the effort of a multinational force, such a Crusade would be futile. The Church doesn’t have any of these prerequisites necessary for war, doesn’t have the expertise needed to actually organize the effort, and most critically has no way to get the advanced weapons needed to actually make a success of it.

 

[Freshman88]

Regardless of how just the cause it is, without proper munitions and advanced weaponry, as well as experienced military strategarists to coordinate the effort of a multinational force, such a Crusade would be futile. The Church doesn’t have any of these prerequisites necessary for war, doesn’t have the expertise needed to actually organize the effort, and most critically has no way to get the advanced weapons needed to actually make a success of it.

Very true - this whole debate is very hypothetical but is still very interesting.

 

[First_of_9]

Those of us here who have truly experienced war will be the last ones to advocate it’s use if no other way is possible. We are/were the first to bear the brunt of battle and suffer the deaths, wounds and sorrow that war always brings with it. We pay the first costs. The rest of the nation must bear the other costs, fell the pain of loss and deal with the aftermath of the conflict. But… unfortunately, we have those in our world who do not hesitate to inflict their crimes and tyrany on others who are less able to defend themselves. Just as the strong man has the obligation to defend and protect the weak, so does the stronger country have the obligation to defend the weaker. Not to exploit, but to defend. It has not always developed that way, but I think that the heart of America is basically in the right place. There are those who disagree, but I think that history will bear this out. You will seldom see military folks clamoring for war, we know the cost. We give our youth, our innocence, our blood and our lives. I wish that the politicians would keep this uppermost in their minds when they think about going to war.

Amen! Amen! Amen!

 

[Freshman88]

Amen! Amen! Amen!

I’m not American - but is because of men like you that I admire America.