Would you join a Crusade?

[holdencaulfield]

Oky doky. As I said, I need to read up on it A LOT!!

Yes, they were.

 

[Pondero]

Canada is in armed conflic??? How many troops, I know they were “helping out” ((thanks) a little but I thought that stopped.
You don’t know that the pope wouldn’t certainly not at the moment but there are situations…
There has been in the past. Be ready to serve Holy Mother Church. Even if you can’t take up arms you can sow uniforms for the rest of us, or sharpen swords, Ya know help from the domestic side, with prayers even or cooking. Send over some cookies for those of us fighting. You can sow right?

We are still in Afghanistan, and are supposed to be out of there sometime in 2009.

 

[Freshman88]

Canada is in armed conflic??? How many troops, I know they were “helping out” ((thanks) a little but I thought that stopped.

Canada has never been involved in the Iraq war, but is one of the major contributors to the Afghani mission.

 

[Godi]

If hypothetically, the Pope called for a military crusade, would you join it?

And let’s say the cause was a just one, not some crazy political action like the attack on Byzantium.

Basically, it’s the idea of it- is it ever right to use force in defense of the Good? That’s how the question presents itself to me.

I’ll say this, if we had not fought the Crusades Westminister Abbey would be a Mosque today. The Crusades blunted and slowed the Islamist Fascist expansion. Those Blessed Martyrs saved Western Culture from extinction:knight1:

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

Maybe the sedevacantists should go on a Crusade to reclaim St. Peter’s Basillica from the infidel…

 

[Pondero]

Canada has never been involved in the Iraq war, but is one of the major contributors to the Afghani mission.

Quite true. The House of Commons is debating the topic right now as to whether or not to extend the Afghan mission to 2011 from 2009.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

It is not a question of avenging martyrs, it is a question of defending the innocent.

And of killing them.

Very true! Yet if Justice is God’s, how does he enact it? If a man steals from me is it wrong for me to call the police because justice is God’s and not the police? This can go even further, if my family is being attacked am I taking away from God’s justice by calling the police?

The police do not murder, or at least intend to. They maintain the legitimate civil and domestic order. War is nothing but a declared intention to murder on grounds of nationality or religion - unacceptable, unacceptable.

If my nation is being attacked, am I taking away from God’s justice by fighting?

“your nation”. What a perception! To group whole groups of people into mobs of “just” and “unjust”. Cry justice when Iraq retaliates for the US invasion by killing Americans for their being American!

If you war, you declare that you and your cause are just, as are all of your comrades - simultaneously, you JUDGE every soldier of the enemy as unjust and, in the name of arbitrary defence against men who may well be opposed to their own acts, set to kill them.

This is not zealotry. There is a big difference between the zealots of Israel and the crusaders. The zealots believed that their sword could fulfill the promises of God. Only God can fulfill his promises. That is why we have to take EXTRA care to ensure that when we pick up a weapon, it is indeed for God’s will.

And you cannot be sure. I would rather err in life’s favour; if I must die to do that, so be it - it is God, not I, who should decide when one should die. I will not kill.

So how do we know when it is God’s will and when it is not? The answer is the Church. The Church lets us know when it is God’s will to fight through the just war doctrine.

Clearly as mud; see the conundra for the last century over modern war? By the time they are resolved, modern war will be as history.

Just war theory, by the way, is a pragmatic exception. It has no parallel in the Early Church, which was pacifist, and this pacifism remains a legitimate moral option. Therefore, to claim that war is “right” or “necessary” or “God’s will” is to call the Church a liar for its continued embracing of pacifism.

What you and other pacifists have done is claim that the Church cannot discern when fighting is appropriate because there are no grounds to fight. An enemy like Islam of the days of the crusade was a grounds to fight. North Africa, Spain, Egypt and Parts of Levant and syria were all Christian. There are no longer Christian. If Islam had not being resisted through Christian warriors, the fate of Europe would have been the same. The fact of the matter is, is that God relied on the courage of men to enact his will. He used soldiers to resist an evil force.

There were good and bad in the Crusader rabble and there were good and bad in the Islamic rabble. There is never an unilaterally noble cause or side of the just in war.

And to the young man who has the means to defend the defenseless? Is he not overcoming his fallen-nature by overcoming his cowardice and risking his life for those whom he loves? You make it sound like this is the easy way out, I can hardly see whats so easy about putting myself in the line of fire, so the defensless are not in the line of fire.

It is easier to kill to defend oneself than to live up to the highest Christian ideal and, overcoming one’s desire to live, lay down one’s life for Christ’s sake.

This even more so when you meet the scorn of your bellicose neighbours for doing so…no, to die is much more difficult than to kill.

So we shouldn’t of helped them, had we known sooner. That would be a sin to help them?

You have a very one-sided view of life. To help them by killing others =/= a moral choice.

The ends NEVER justify the means

Gee thanks because you are so right and God will agree with you and change my heart. I hate it when people do this to try to establish themselves as supirior.

Good thing I’m not. No, people who believe that they know God’s will well enough to kill someone genuinely scare me, and I fervently pray for them.

I just hate it when people are so smug and upity. I save my prayers for those that honestly want them, who arein need of assistance not someone I disagree with on a hypothetical situation.

I’m humble enough to admit that I cannot discern God well enough to kill in His Holy Name.

Are you?

By the way, when I pray the rosary I am often reminded that it came about as a prayer for warriors to be victorious in battle.

Hence why I don’t. But, private devotions are just that - private.

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

BTW, Potato -

If you don’t believe I have grounds to be alarmed to prayer by your post, I remind you of its contents:

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.

You declare your high discernment of God’s will to go on a military venture even without the Church’s condonement.

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.

You disregard even the just war theorists’ insistence upon defence as the only means to war.

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!!!

I’m sorry if I came across as arrogant, but you will notice I prayed for none of your predecessors in posting - yours literally frightened me so greatly that I felt compelled to do so.

-SPXII

 

[TemplarKnight]

And of killing them.

So in a Crusade, we would go after innocents? Are you that cynical?

War is nothing but a declared intention to murder on grounds of nationality or religion - unacceptable, unacceptable.

So when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and our Navy completely unprovoked, our intent was solely to commit murder on grounds of nationality and had nothing to do with defending our country right? Unprovoked attack allows for a defense with force in kind.

“your nation”. What a perception! To group whole groups of people into mobs of “just” and “unjust”. Cry justice when Iraq retaliates for the US invasion by killing Americans for their being American!

Iraq didn’t retaliate for the U.S. “invasion” (BS word). It’s the radical islamic fundamentalists that are attacking Americans. The true and honest Iraqi citizens embrace the American presence there.

Also, there is right and wrong. There is not sorta right and sorta wrong.

If you war, you declare that you and your cause are just, as are all of your comrades - simultaneously, you JUDGE every soldier of the enemy as unjust and, in the name of arbitrary defence against men who may well be opposed to their own acts, set to kill them.

So your religion is not just? So you agree with your religion only when it suits you? If men are opposed to their own acts, then they do not act. No one forces the faithful to fight in a Crusade. It’s a voluntary effort.

And you cannot be sure. I would rather err in life’s favour; if I must die to do that, so be it - it is God, not I, who should decide when one should die. I will not kill.

You are right. It is God’s will, no one else’s. And if God wills that we go on a Crusade, then we’re off. If you don’t want to fight you can stay back with the women and children and other pacifists.

Clearly as mud; see the conundra for the last century over modern war? By the time they are resolved, modern war will be as history.

Big student of history are you? You have the answer to all of the wars in the last century? Does the earth revolve around you too?

Just war theory, by the way, is a pragmatic exception. It has no parallel in the Early Church, which was pacifist, and this pacifism remains a legitimate moral option. Therefore, to claim that war is “right” or “necessary” or “God’s will” is to call the Church a liar for its continued embracing of pacifism.

**I like this a “pragmatic exception”. So it’s OK under specific certain circumstances?? Where do you draw the line?

The Church “accepts” pacifism and recognizes that some of it’s followers prefer that stance, however it is not the preferred action of the Church. And I’m not sure of what “continued embracing of pacifism” is but the Church sure supported the U.S. and allies in WWII. **

There were good and bad in the Crusader rabble and there were good and bad in the Islamic rabble. There is never an unilaterally noble cause or side of the just in war.

Yes, there is. To side with your enemy or against your Church in a Crusade is blasphemous.

It is easier to kill to defend oneself than to live up to the highest Christian ideal and, overcoming one’s desire to live, lay down one’s life for Christ’s sake.

No, it’s very easy to die. In fact, at the hands of a determined enemy it’s about the easiest thing you can do. What is tough is to have the guts to FIGHT for your cause. To look your enemy in the eye and kill or die for your Church. Being a pacifist martyr to prove a point is ridiculous. I guess when God sent the Israelites off to remove the people from Canaan, they should have taken the peaceful route and ignored God’s orders.

This even more so when you meet the scorn of your bellicose neighbours for doing so…no, to die is much more difficult than to kill.

**Spoken by a true pacifist that has never been in a battle, never been close to death. Try hearing shots fired at you in anger and tell me it’s “hard” to die. **

The ends NEVER justify the means.

Try telling that to a Jesuit. Of course, what do they know?

Good thing I’m not. No, people who believe that they know God’s will well enough to kill someone genuinely scare me, and I fervently pray for them.

I don’t know God’s will. Never will. I know that if my Church calls for a Crusade, I’m wagering it’s God’s will.

I’m humble enough to admit that I cannot discern God well enough to kill in His Holy Name.

Are you?

I’m humble enough to have complete faith in my Church and faith and not just follow those rules and precepts that I agree with. Total faith, total commitment.

Hence why I don’t. But, private devotions are just that - private.

Very interesting. A Catholic that refuses to pray the rosary. How dedicated.

 

[Potato1]

BTW, Potato -

If you don’t believe I have grounds to be alarmed to prayer by your post, I remind you of its contents:

You declare your high discernment of God’s will to go on a military venture even without the Church’s condonement.

You disregard even the just war theorists’ insistence upon defence as the only means to war.

I’m sorry if I came across as arrogant, but you will notice I prayed for none of your predecessors in posting - yours literally frightened me so greatly that I felt compelled to do so.

-SPXII

Lighten up. you are waaaaay too serious and a little odd.
I’ll pray for you too, to not be so upity and presuptuous about what you think God wants for me so much that you are “litterally frightend” LOL phallese drop your dramatics. I’ll put my beating heart on the line so that your bleeding one can wring your hands and fret. It is a good thing there are people like me to protect people like you.

 

[Potato1]

BTW, Potato -

If you don’t believe I have grounds to be alarmed to prayer by your post, I remind you of its contents:

You declare your high discernment of God’s will to go on a military venture even without the Church’s condonement.

You disregard even the just war theorists’ insistence upon defence as the only means to war.

I’m sorry if I came across as arrogant, but you will notice I prayed for none of your predecessors in posting - yours literally frightened me so greatly that I felt compelled to do so.

-SPXII

LOL lighten up dude.
Didn’t mean to "frighten you… LOL nice dramatics:thumbsup:

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

So in a Crusade, we would go after innocents? Are you that cynical?

I’m a realist. There has not yet been a war in which at least one innocent did not die - and I am not one who is willing to weigh the value of lives against each other by quantity or any other quality.

So when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and our Navy completely unprovoked, our intent was solely to commit murder on grounds of nationality and had nothing to do with defending our country right? Unprovoked attack allows for a defense with force in kind.

Nuclear Strikes on civilians =/= Attack (albeit surprise) on a military target

Iraq didn’t retaliate for the U.S. “invasion” (BS word). It’s the radical islamic fundamentalists that are attacking Americans. The true and honest Iraqi citizens embrace the American presence there.

Good for them. Wasn’t my point at all.

(BTW, if that is not an invasion, what is?!?)

Also, there is right and wrong. There is not sorta right and sorta wrong.

We agree here - but I contend that war is never ‘right’ it is always ‘wrong’…see?

So your religion is not just? So you agree with your religion only when it suits you? If men are opposed to their own acts, then they do not act. No one forces the faithful to fight in a Crusade. It’s a voluntary effort.

But it enters the realm of the unforgiveable when spiritual benefits become attached to killing - the promise of “indulgences”, the classification of those killed as “martyrs”, etc.

What martyr dies with sword in hand? The cowardly one.

You are right. It is God’s will, no one else’s. And if God wills that we go on a Crusade, then we’re off. If you don’t want to fight you can stay back with the women and children and other pacifists.

So far, it hasn’t been God who has called the Crusades…

When He does so Himself, I will retract all of my statements in humility.

Big student of history are you? You have the answer to all of the wars in the last century? Does the earth revolve around you too?

Myself and several million people (R.I.P.) probably agree that the wars were best not fought at all, but no - I’ve not got all the answers.

My point is that, by the time the Church decides whether modern war is permissable or not, an entirely new form of warfare will probably have arisen to be dealt with. Thus, the timely answer is always peace.

I like this a “pragmatic exception”. So it’s OK under specific certain circumstances?? Where do you draw the line?

This was a derogatory meaning that its existence contradicts the fundamental stance of the Church - in this case for the benefit of the Christian Empire - and cannot be viewed as the standard, apostolic view of the matter.

The Church “accepts” pacifism and recognizes that some of it’s followers prefer that stance, however it is not the preferred action of the Church. And I’m not sure of what “continued embracing of pacifism” is but the Church sure supported the U.S. and allies in WWII.

If it never rejected the pacifist stance as legitimate, it never fully embraced the just war theory as absolute truth - that is my only point, the opinions of wartime Popes aside.

Yes, there is. To side with your enemy or against your Church in a Crusade is blasphemous.

I’ll side with human dignity, thank you ever so kindly.

Besides, if disagreement with a war is considered blasphemous, then you obviously deify the war - which is blasphemous.

No, it’s very easy to die. In fact, at the hands of a determined enemy it’s about the easiest thing you can do.

Here’s to the noble army of martyrs, who apparently took the easy way out. :tiphat:

What is tough is to have the guts to FIGHT for your cause. To look your enemy in the eye and kill or die for your Church.

I have never known love to be shown through a bullet, which seems to me an odd way to ‘love your enemies’ and ‘bless those who curse you’.

Being a pacifist martyr to prove a point is ridiculous. I guess when God sent the Israelites off to remove the people from Canaan, they should have taken the peaceful route and ignored God’s orders.

Likewise those silly martyrs ought to have defended themselves…silly people, didn’t they know that God wanted them to kill?

Spoken by a true pacifist that has never been in a battle, never been close to death. Try hearing shots fired at you in anger and tell me it’s “hard” to die.

Oh no you don’t…military service is voluntary, it is not a suffering with which you can guilt me out of my opinions.

Try telling that to a Jesuit. Of course, what do they know?

Heard it from a Jesuit.

I don’t know God’s will. Never will. I know that if my Church calls for a Crusade, I’m wagering it’s God’s will.

I was never lucky with bets.

I’m humble enough to have complete faith in my Church and faith and not just follow those rules and precepts that I agree with. Total faith, total commitment.

Ah ha…what about conscience?

Even the late Pope admitted that the Church has made mistakes in the past which did not align with God’s will. Blind commitment to the Church without discernment is different than a conscientious commitment to the Truth.

Very interesting. A Catholic that refuses to pray the rosary. How dedicated.

Eastern.

Tho it made a good point, didn’t it?

 

[elt1956]

I’m a realist. There has not yet been a war in which at least one innocent did not die - and I am not one who is willing to weigh the value of lives against each other by quantity or any other quality.

Nuclear Strikes on civilians =/= Attack (albeit surprise) on a military target

Good for them. Wasn’t my point at all.

(BTW, if that is not an invasion, what is?!?)

We agree here - but I contend that war is never ‘right’ it is always ‘wrong’…see?

But it enters the realm of the unforgiveable when spiritual benefits become attached to killing - the promise of “indulgences”, the classification of those killed as “martyrs”, etc.

What martyr dies with sword in hand? The cowardly one.

So far, it hasn’t been God who has called the Crusades…

When He does so Himself, I will retract all of my statements in humility.

Myself and several million people (R.I.P.) probably agree that the wars were best not fought at all, but no - I’ve not got all the answers.

My point is that, by the time the Church decides whether modern war is permissable or not, an entirely new form of warfare will probably have arisen to be dealt with. Thus, the timely answer is always peace.

This was a derogatory meaning that its existence contradicts the fundamental stance of the Church - in this case for the benefit of the Christian Empire - and cannot be viewed as the standard, apostolic view of the matter.

If it never rejected the pacifist stance as legitimate, it never fully embraced the just war theory as absolute truth - that is my only point, the opinions of wartime Popes aside.

I’ll side with human dignity, thank you ever so kindly.

Besides, if disagreement with a war is considered blasphemous, then you obviously deify the war - which is blasphemous.

Here’s to the noble army of martyrs, who apparently took the easy way out. :tiphat:

I have never known love to be shown through a bullet, which seems to me an odd way to ‘love your enemies’ and ‘bless those who curse you’.

Likewise those silly martyrs ought to have defended themselves…silly people, didn’t they know that God wanted them to kill?

Oh no you don’t…military service is voluntary, it is not a suffering with which you can guilt me out of my opinions.

Heard it from a Jesuit.

I was never lucky with bets.

Ah ha…what about conscience?

Even the late Pope admitted that the Church has made mistakes in the past which did not align with God’s will. Blind commitment to the Church without discernment is different than a conscientious commitment to the Truth.

Eastern.

Tho it made a good point, didn’t it?

Question. Question. Potato1, hope I am addressing the right poster. Do you think Christ “supported” militant action? Peace.

 

[elt1956]

I’m a realist. There has not yet been a war in which at least one innocent did not die - and I am not one who is willing to weigh the value of lives against each other by quantity or any other quality.

Nuclear Strikes on civilians =/= Attack (albeit surprise) on a military target

Good for them. Wasn’t my point at all.

(BTW, if that is not an invasion, what is?!?)

We agree here - but I contend that war is never ‘right’ it is always ‘wrong’…see?

But it enters the realm of the unforgiveable when spiritual benefits become attached to killing - the promise of “indulgences”, the classification of those killed as “martyrs”, etc.

What martyr dies with sword in hand? The cowardly one.

So far, it hasn’t been God who has called the Crusades…

When He does so Himself, I will retract all of my statements in humility.

Myself and several million people (R.I.P.) probably agree that the wars were best not fought at all, but no - I’ve not got all the answers.

My point is that, by the time the Church decides whether modern war is permissable or not, an entirely new form of warfare will probably have arisen to be dealt with. Thus, the timely answer is always peace.

This was a derogatory meaning that its existence contradicts the fundamental stance of the Church - in this case for the benefit of the Christian Empire - and cannot be viewed as the standard, apostolic view of the matter.

If it never rejected the pacifist stance as legitimate, it never fully embraced the just war theory as absolute truth - that is my only point, the opinions of wartime Popes aside.

I’ll side with human dignity, thank you ever so kindly.

Besides, if disagreement with a war is considered blasphemous, then you obviously deify the war - which is blasphemous.

Here’s to the noble army of martyrs, who apparently took the easy way out. :tiphat:

I have never known love to be shown through a bullet, which seems to me an odd way to ‘love your enemies’ and ‘bless those who curse you’.

Likewise those silly martyrs ought to have defended themselves…silly people, didn’t they know that God wanted them to kill?

Oh no you don’t…military service is voluntary, it is not a suffering with which you can guilt me out of my opinions.

Heard it from a Jesuit.

I was never lucky with bets.

Ah ha…what about conscience?

Even the late Pope admitted that the Church has made mistakes in the past which did not align with God’s will. Blind commitment to the Church without discernment is different than a conscientious commitment to the Truth.

Eastern.

Tho it made a good point, didn’t it?

Question. Question. Potato1, hope I am addressing the right poster. Do you think Christ “supported” militant action? Peace.

 

[PaulJason]

I joined a Crusade the day I was baptized. From the day of our baptism forward all of us are in a state of Spiritual Warfare against satan and all his warriors.

 

[elt1956]

I joined a Crusade the day I was baptized. From the day of our baptism forward all of us are in a state of Spiritual Warfare against satan and all his warriors.

I think the operative word here is “spiritual” and I really don’t believe that anyone who isn’t Catholic is my enemy. Maybe misguided, but not deserving of either War, or a slap in the face, or any other physical action. I believe in defense if provoked, but then I guess that leaves wide open the door to levels of tolerance. I believe in conversion by example and communication, not force. Peace.

 

[PaulJason]

I think the operative word here is “spiritual” and I really don’t believe that anyone who isn’t Catholic is my enemy. Maybe misguided, but not deserving of either War, or a slap in the face, or any other physical action. I believe in defense if provoked, but then I guess that leaves wide open the door to levels of tolerance. I believe in conversion by example and communication, not force. Peace.

I could not agree more, just because someone is not Catholic does not make them my enemy. However those who wage war for my soul and all souls in the name of satan are my enemy and I am more then willing to do spiritual battle with them.

 

[TemplarKnight]

SPXII

I’ll respond to your lengthy post this evening when I have enough time to give it its due attention.

God Bless.

 

[Potato1]

Question. Question. Potato1, hope I am addressing the right poster. Do you think Christ “supported” militant action? Peace.

I dont think you quoted the right person but I’ll stab at this anyway…
If by Christ you mean God (and as a Catholic you should) Then YES! Christ Himself leads a war in Heaven. Cmon fellow Catholics…read your Bible and not just the Gospels. God lead wars in OT and Jesus says there will be Wars and rumors of Wars until the end. He does not condemn them. Sometimes wars protect those who need it. (like peace activist)

 

[elt1956]

I dont think you quoted the right person but I’ll stab at this anyway…
If by Christ you mean God (and as a Catholic you should) Then YES! Christ Himself leads a war in Heaven. Cmon fellow Catholics…read your Bible and not just the Gospels. God lead wars in OT and Jesus says there will be Wars and rumors of Wars until the end. He does not condemn them. Sometimes wars protect those who need it. (like peace activist)

Why do you think Christ warned us there would be wars and rumours of wars? Do you suppose He understood human nature all too well? Just because He talked of wars, “I” don’t believe means He approved of them. The problem is, I think in all wars, everyone believes God is on their side. How can that be? Peace.