Would you join a Crusade?

[nsper7]

The resort to arms shows a lack of faith that Christ will protect His Church, and that She needs to take arms for Herself.

Not necessarily. In some cases, it can almost be the opposite. If you read the Old Testament, you’ll see that the Israelites (even when being faithful to God) still had to fight (i.e. to conquer the Land of the Canaanites) and part of proving their faith was having to trust that God could help them overcome people who had greater numbers and better weaponry. When the Israelites negotiated/surrendered/signed alliances with other groups, it was usually a sign of low faith.

Yes, Christ will protect His Church, but will it be through some miraculous victory or will it require us to do something? If we are just going to claim that a miraculous victory will save us every time, why don’t we just sit around and do nothing? After all, Christ will provide for our needs miraculously, the Church doesn’t nead human involvement because will do everything miraculously, etc.

In reading the OT, it does not seem like God disapproves of war, what He disapproves of is going to war for the wrong reasons (i.e. revenge, personal aggrandisement, etc.) and without seeking to honor His will.

If we believe that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, how can we say that God is pacificistic? He certainly wasn’t in the OT.

 

[Peregrino]

No matter the storm, Christ will preserve his Church…without our resort to arms.

The resort to arms shows a lack of faith that Christ will protect His Church, and that She needs to take arms for Herself.

Bravo! This is an awesome articulation of the position for non-violence. There is no need for “catholic jihad”. Thank you for your clarity in expression. Love you enemies, pray for them and show them the truth of our faith through our actions and words.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Bravo! This is an awesome articulation of the position for non-violence. There is no need for “catholic jihad”. Thank you for your clarity in expression. Love you enemies, pray for them and show them the truth of our faith through our actions and words.

There is a difference between a war to help people and one to hurt people, last time I looked.

 

[nsper7]

Bravo! This is an awesome articulation of the position for non-violence. There is no need for “catholic jihad”. Thank you for your clarity in expression. Love you enemies, pray for them and show them the truth of our faith through our actions and words.

Even as you’re fighting your enemies, you can still pray for them and show them the truth of faith through actions (most people would say it requires a lot of faith to be willing to fight, especially since you may well die or be grievously injured).

Further, should our love for our enemies supercede our love for everyone else? Use the Nazis as an example. They were killing millions of people (not just Jews, but also Catholics and Lutherans, and other people deemed ‘untermenschen’) and do great damage to Europe in their wars of conquest. Should we have allowed our love for the enemy (Nazi Germans in this case) to supercede our love for those being brutally exterminated and conquered and made to suffer?

 

[Freshman88]

The resort to arms shows a lack of faith that Christ will protect His Church, and that She needs to take arms for Herself.

That only follows if you can prove that Christ would never call us to arms. If Christ did call you to arms, and you did not answer, then that would be an of cowardice.

Extreme-Pacifism is foreign to Catholicism and can only be supported by historical revisionism or a skewed view of the scriptures.

I look to the Church - not to men. And the Church is quite clear that there is a time and a place to fight.

 

[nsper7]

Also, remember the context of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and other so-called ‘pacifistic’ speeches. In the Sermon on the Mount, He is addressing relationships between individuals. Remember that Ancient Greco-Roman society was group-oriented (modern-day America/Europe are very individual oriented) and Jesus did not address groups who are locked in war. Remember that the Church, a military and state, etc. are ‘groups’. As individuals, we should love our enemies, but He is not addressing group dynamics issues.

Also, not that, for a healthy person at least, being slapped in the face (one or both cheeks), being forced to give up your coat (in the mild climate from which Jesus was preaching) or being forced to walk an extra mile will not kill you or maim you. It may humiliate, inconvenience or anger you, but it won’t kill you.

Looking at things from a Greco-Roman context, a Crusade would not be an issue of two individuals who are enemies, but of a legitimate authority (if you’re Roman Catholic at least) calling for action against another group.

 

[John_Higgins]

I only voted for the choice I did because “Of course not, are you goofy?” was not one of the choices. The Crusades were so successful, let’s have another one.

Right.

John

 

[elt1956]

You do realize you are saying Pope Urban II was wrong, and you are right?

All hail Servus Pio, great Antipope!

Question: Was Pope Urban speaking ex Cathedra regarding a “doctrine” of the Church?

 

[nsper7]

I only voted for the choice I did because “Of course not, are you goofy?” was not one of the choices. The Crusades were so successful, let’s have another one.

Right.

John

Question: Was Pope Urban speaking ex Cathedra regarding a “doctrine” of the Church?

Wait a second. If you say you’re Roman Catholic and acknowledge the Pope’s authority, then isn’t it wrong to disobey the Pope if he calls you to a Crusade? You can tell me that you believe that Jesus taught pacifism, but if you believe that the RCC is the One True Church founded by Him and that the Pope has authority and Apostolic Succession from St. Peter, how can you disobey if the Pope calls for a Crusade?

 

[Caesar]

Wait a second. If you say you’re Roman Catholic and acknowledge the Pope’s authority, then isn’t it wrong to disobey the Pope if he calls you to a Crusade? You can tell me that you believe that Jesus taught pacifism, but if you believe that the RCC is the One True Church founded by Him and that the Pope has authority and Apostolic Succession from St. Peter, how can you disobey if the Pope calls for a Crusade?

Excellent point! I am sure many here would demand complete obedience to His Holines Benedict XVI, but if they lived in 1095, would they rush to obey Blessed Urban II?

Like it or not people there is such a thing as a Just War. Sometimes to achieve peace or defend the Church it is necessary to prepare for war.

 

[nsper7]

Excellent point! I am sure many here would demand complete obedience to His Holines Benedict XVI, but if they lived in 1095, would they rush to obey Blessed Urban II?

Like it or not people there is such a thing as a Just War. Sometimes to achieve peace or defend the Church it is necessary to prepare for war.

I am merely brining this point up hypothetically. I am soon-to-be-confirmed Episcopalian/Anglican (puts on swim trunks and prepares to swim across the Thames), so the Pope has no intrinisic authority (I don’t even live in the Diocese of Rome) for me, but this brings up an interesting issue.

Some Roman Catholics accuse Protestants (and, unfortunately, they Anglicanism in with everything else) of having no respect for authority and that that is the reason they left Catholicism, but in looking at this thread, we have seen an area where Catholics could potentially be in disagreement with the Pope.

If the Pope gave an order that every able-bodied male not in Holy Orders or in a ‘necessary job’ drop what they were doing and join a Crusade to defend the Catholic Church, would they do so? If one’s response is that they feel Jesus was a pacifist and they wish to imitate Jesus in this way, aren’t they now guilty of putting their personal interpretation of Scripture above the Church’s?

Now, I think it was Peregrino who earlier stated that the Church allows CO status, but remember that is in a foreign army. What if the Pope called for a Crusade and said times were so desparate there was no room for CO status in this new Catholic Crusadrer Army?

I think if the Pope called such a Crusade, it would force people to put their proverbial money where their mouth is. It is easy to say the Pope is infallible and has authority blah-blah-blah when everything these days discussed is either highly theological/philosophical or something that people can easily and secretly ignore if they disagree with it.

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

I think if the Pope called such a Crusade, it would force people to put their proverbial money where their mouth is. It is easy to say the Pope is infallible and has authority blah-blah-blah when everything these days discussed is either highly theological/philosophical or something that people can easily and secretly ignore if they disagree with it.

Ask any married couple how easy or hard it is to be a faithful Catholic. It’s not easy at all. We do put our money where our mouth is. Sure, we could secretly ignore the teaching on contraception, but only if we had already decided the Pope wasn’t infallible. For me - and for plenty of others - it would result in my leaving the Church. For plenty of Catholics, it still means showing up on Sunday mornings, but they’ve either come to the conclusion that Papal Infalibility isn’t real or they haven’t really given it any thought at all.

I can’t really imagine the Pope demanding that the faithful go on a crusade. But, I suppose if such a circumstance arose, then it would be like any of the other “hard teachings” that Catholics accept and live with.

 

[elt1956]

That only follows if you can prove that Christ would never call us to arms. If Christ did call you to arms, and you did not answer, then that would be an of cowardice.

Extreme-Pacifism is foreign to Catholicism and can only be supported by historical revisionism or a skewed view of the scriptures.

I look to the Church - not to men. And the Church is quite clear that there is a time and a place to fight.

I think that although we would like to think that a war of defense, or aggression is altruistic, I don’t believe such an action can be classified as such. Those making the decisions for such wars are neither pure, nor saintly. We are only human.

 

[Zooey]

Well, I doubt seriously if the pope would want a 60 year old Methodist woman with a heart condition to join up, BUT–

I must say that I am deeply disturbed to see people claim the title of pacifist, without ever once offering themselves up for dangerous, but completely peaceful job of nursing the wounded.
Are the Quakers the only ones who have the guts to put themselves in harm’s way, to save lives (and comfort the dying)??

Pacifism is one thing.
Sheer ornery refusal to get involved in messy situations brings to my mind this little story I seem to recall from Methodist Sunday School:
“A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him and departed, leaving him half dead…”

So?? Will those claiming pacifism please answer this question:
Will you follow these words from the gospel narrative, and go to him, & bind up his wounds?? Will you put him on your own animal, and bring him to an inn?? Will you care for him?? Will you leave money with the innkeeper for his care??
Or are you planning to stand with those “passed by on the other side”???Because, you see, there is yet another gospel portion which covers that choice:

‘When the Son of Man shall come in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His throne in glory…and divide them from one another as a shepherd divides his sheep from his goats…
and He will say to those [who are the goats ], “Depart from me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
For I was hungry, and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty & you did not take Me in. I was naked & you did not clothe Me; sick & in prison, and you did not visit Me…
In as much as you did not do it to the least of these, you did not do it unto Me”.
And these shall go away into eternal punishment; but the righteous into life eternal’.

I have never ‘seen the elephant’, gentlemen. But I have cleansed and bandaged war wounds, the sight of which turned my stomach over.
I do not ask for thanks. Not from anyone.
But I will not, at least, have to face the just Judge of all the earth, having cringed from what little I could do.

*And anyone who believes that Jesus Christ was a ‘pacifist’ is in serious need of a refresher course in :bible1: *.

[SIGN1]:twocents: [/SIGN1]

 

[elt1956]

Well, I doubt seriously if the pope would want a 60 year old Methodist woman with a heart condition to join up, BUT–

I must say that I am deeply disturbed to see people claim the title of pacifist, without ever once offering themselves up for dangerous, but completely peaceful job of nursing the wounded.
Are the Quakers the only ones who have the guts to put themselves in harm’s way, to save lives (and comfort the dying)??

Pacifism is one thing.
Sheer ornery refusal to get involved in messy situations brings to my mind this little story I seem to recall from Methodist Sunday School:
“A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him and departed, leaving him half dead…”

So?? Will those claiming pacifism please answer this question:
Will you follow these words from the gospel narrative, and go to him, & bind up his wounds?? Will you put him on your own animal, and bring him to an inn?? Will you care for him?? Will you leave money with the innkeeper for his care??
Or are you planning to stand with those “passed by on the other side”???Because, you see, there is yet another gospel portion which covers that choice:

‘When the Son of Man shall come in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His throne in glory…and divide them from one another as a shepherd divides his sheep from his goats…
and He will say to those [who are the goats ], “Depart from me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
For I was hungry, and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty & you did not take Me in. I was naked & you did not clothe Me; sick & in prison, and you did not visit Me…
In as much as you did not do it to the least of these, you did not do it unto Me”.
And these shall go away into eternal punishment; but the righteous into life eternal’.

I have never ‘seen the elephant’, gentlemen. But I have cleansed and bandaged war wounds, the sight of which turned my stomach over.
I do not ask for thanks. Not from anyone.
But I will not, at least, have to face the just Judge of all the earth, having cringed from what little I could do.

*And anyone who believes that Jesus Christ was a ‘pacifist’ is in serious need of a refresher course in :bible1: *.

[SIGN1]:twocents: [/SIGN1]

Correct me if I am wrong please, but I thought Pacifism meant only that one did not fight in wars. I can’t really see myself as a nurse in a war zone, but I don’t think I could turn my back to anyone who needs help. Bless you for what you have done. But could you also stand being in a classroom with twenty three to five year olds and not being reminded at times of being in a war zone? Each of us is called to do what we can.

 

[Valke2]

Ask any married couple how easy or hard it is to be a faithful Catholic. It’s not easy at all. We do put our money where our mouth is. Sure, we could secretly ignore the teaching on contraception, but only if we had already decided the Pope wasn’t infallible. For me - and for plenty of others - it would result in my leaving the Church. For plenty of Catholics, it still means showing up on Sunday mornings, but they’ve either come to the conclusion that Papal Infalibility isn’t real or they haven’t really given it any thought at all.

I can’t really imagine the Pope demanding that the faithful go on a crusade. But, I suppose if such a circumstance arose, then it would be like any of the other “hard teachings” that Catholics accept and live with.

Are U.S. Roman Catholics using contraceptives as much as their non-Catholic neighbors? There is some evidence that the answer is yes. So reported Msgr. Irving A. De Blanc, director of the National Catholic Family Life Bureau, citing still inconclusive studies* resulting in “an alarming, arresting and provocative finding.” time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,869536,00.html?iid=chix-sphere

 

[Zooey]

Correct me if I am wrong please, but I thought Pacifism meant only that one did not fight in wars. .

That was precisely my question.
It is one thing to say, that you are a pacifist, but would help the wounded, in the war zone, or at home.
It is another to claim, (and I have heard this, in my youth), that “nursing the sick and injured is freeing up someone else to kill people”–as though, somehow, the wounded could be used as a political pawn.

I am no nurse, by the way; I am only a woman who came of age during the Vietnam War, and was not about to watch my school friends come home injured, and develop life-threatening complications because no one else would change dressings, and debrade exit wounds.
It is not pretty. If there were a crusade, there would be need of strong stomachs & brave hearts, to both get the wounded to a place of safety, and to care for them.
In World Wars 1 & 2, there were a good many COs who served as ambulance drivers, medics, nurses, &aiding chaplains. Somewhere in the intervening years, the concept changed.More & more, pacifism has come to mean:crying: “let enough people die, & the war will be over sooner”. :nope: :nope: Not so; it means an opportunity for the faint of heart to talk much, whilst doing little, except:banghead: keep a scorecard on the day’s casualties.

 

[Potato1]

Of course I would. Heck I don’t even need one to be called… Just give me a “morrally permissible” and a freakin sword. Christ and His Church would provide all else.
Goofyjim: You said you would only devend yourself or your loved ones… Goofy jim, I love YOU. I will defend so that you do not.
Heck, not even defense, just the Will of God is all I need.
People that say that Christ Church does not need this and that Jusus can handle Himself in a fight need to remember that Jesus Is God and God Himself has often used soldiers as a TOOL for his defense. His Establishment, and yes even His Offense!
ONWARD Christian Soldiers!!!

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

In reading the OT, it does not seem like God disapproves of war, what He disapproves of is going to war for the wrong reasons (i.e. revenge, personal aggrandisement, etc.) and without seeking to honor His will.

Now, through Christ, we understand God’s will more fully - a will completely salutory, not malicious or vengeful.

Where does war, which is the deliberate taking of human life, fundamentally, fit into this at all?

To war in the name of the Prince of Peace is to defame His name and dishonour his Will.

People that say that Christ Church does not need this and that Jusus can handle Himself in a fight need to remember that Jesus Is God and God Himself has often used soldiers as a TOOL for his defense. His Establishment, and yes even His Offense!

Praying for you. :byzsoc:

 

[holdencaulfield]

Now, through Christ, we understand God’s will more fully - a will completely salutory, not malicious or vengeful.

Where does war, which is the deliberate taking of human life, fundamentally, fit into this at all?

To war in the name of the Prince of Peace is to defame His name and dishonour his Will.

Again, we go to the same point. Should we not protect those in need? Even if force needs to be used? What about the Armenians? Should we have just let them die?