Today, August 12, back in 1099 was the day the forces of Christendom won the Battle of Ascalon, achieving victory in the First Crusade, thus reclaiming territory that had previously been conquered by Muslims who were still aggressively trying to conquer Christian civilization (and who later would get as far as Vienna before having their armies turned back).
GET THE STORY.
MORE ON THE FIRST CRUSADE.
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
Should we be celebrating a “victory” in a campaign that, according to Chistian sources, involved the Crusaders engaging in cannibalism? This disgrace stained the image of Christianity in Muslim eyes to this day. Let’s not forget God loves them as well.
Yes, God loves everyone, but I could not care less what Muslims or members of any other religion think about us or our faith. Let’s remember why the Crusades were initiated in the first place.
I love Hilaire Belloc on this subject:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HERESY4.TXT
From the book, The Great Heresies, reading which was the first time I saw my position as a Protestant vis a vis the Church. I was shocked to hear “the other side”.
Actually the first time I was aware of the incident mentioned above, although it was reported in Christian historians, was from a book which I believe was entitled “Crusades Through Arab Eyes” by Mallouf. John Henry even if you read Brokenkotter’s (very Catholic) history of the Church I think you will find it consistannt with Belloc.
If one doesn’t care what others think about our faith, then one doesn’t care about converting them to our faith. Are you sure you really don’t care?
Glory!
Let’s party like it’s 1099!
🙂
Patrick, it seems that in just about every endeavor, some evil is committed by a human being. It’s part of human nature. We can not condemn just about every good thing because some evil happened in its midst. We must separate that which incidentally contained evil and that which either as a means or a goal either intended or actually contained evil.
The first crusade is no exception. It’s goal was to resist the encroachment of Islam on Europe, to save our fellow Christians who had been overrun and to ensure access to the Holy Land for Christians. The means both intended and used to fight it were, from the perspective of what won the war, morally justifiable. That evil existed in isolated cases within the war does not condemn the overall good that was intended and resulted.
Or said another way, just as we can not ignore the evil that exists amongst good in all the realms of our life, we also can not scoff at the good that exists amongst (or in this case surrounds) evil.
Someone convince Steve Ray to do a historical, archaeological documentary on the Crusades.
Of course we can’t focus of each evil act, but do you seriously think that Jesus, who spoke the words of the sermon on the mount would advocate a violent war (I know that is repetitive) like the crusades? Jesus was about returning good for evil not evil for evil. The early church understood that reality. Take a look at the pre 300 C.E. Church Fathers to whom being a soldier (as I was) was an abomination and not just because of the pagen elements in Roman military tradition.
Except that the first Gentile convert to Christianity was a soldier, and no one even suggested that he quit his job to convert.
Hey, Jimmy Akin, what’s going on?! Deuce Bigalow, European Gigolo here.
Come see my movie, in theaters August 12.
Thanks!
I agree with Patrick, by the way.
Wow, the game Guild Wars has another meaning, as you venture forth from the gates of Ascalon and follow a vizier through the desert to face a foe who has control of a mountain.
Mary. Nothing is said about what he did after conversion but the early church would not accept soldiers as far as church historians can tell.
St. Morris was a roman soldier and his martyrdom inspired the code of chivalry.
Do you mean St. Martin?
Mary. Nothing is said about what he did after conversion but the early church would not accept soldiers as far as church historians can tell.
Which historians, and what evedence do they cite? And how do you explain the Theban Legion, who underwent decimation repeatedly because of their refusal to abandon their Faith? What then of St. Maurice?
Of course we can’t focus of each evil act, but do you seriously think that Jesus, who spoke the words of the sermon on the mount would advocate a violent war (I know that is repetitive) like the crusades?
Jesus said and did a lot more than preach the sermon on the mount; how do you reconcile your image of a non-violent Jesus with the cursing of the fig tree in Mark 11: 12-14? Isn’t the cursing of the fig tree (causing it to wither to it’s roots) an act of violence?
The early church understood that reality. Take a look at the pre 300 C.E. Church Fathers to whom being a soldier (as I was) was an abomination and not just because of the pagen elements in Roman military tradition.
What Church Fathers are you refering to? There were no Church Fathers “pre-300 C.E.”; that would be pre-300 B.C. in proper chronological reconing, making it 300 years or so before Christ was born- a tad bit early for the Church Fathers to be making any comments.
And that still leaves the matter of the Theban Legion and Sts. Maurice, Victor, Candidus, and Exupernis- all of whom faced martyrdom in 286 A.D.
Well, the council of Nicea set penance for ex-soldier Christians going back to the military.
300 C.E. is one particular, and polite, way of refering to 300 A.D. ergo,it does include many Church Fathers.
How can you conclude from Jesus cursing a tree that Jesus thought it was just fine to kill people?
Please note that St. Maurice and his fellow Christians were armed and able to resist, opposing evil with force, but, chose not to. They were slaughtered for the faith as a result. Their unwillingness to shed blood was one part of the reason they were slaughtered.
What Church Fathers? Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen for certain. Actually this is a matter that is much discussed. For a lot of references see “The Letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage” Vol. 2, p. 191, n. 15 (Ancient Christian Writers, No. 44, Newman Press, 1984).
“Should we be celebrating a “victory” in a campaign that, according to Chistian sources, involved the Crusaders engaging in cannibalism? This disgrace stained the image of Christianity in Muslim eyes to this day. Let’s not forget God loves them as well.”
Actually, from what I could tell, the corroborating account on the Christian side used by Mallouf in his book was a report to the Pope on crusaders (most likely minores) engaging in the activity. These misguided men most likely thought the Muslims to be inhuman, thus fair game. In any case, these men were not the rule. Indeed, I think they were punished for it.
“Please note that St. Maurice and his fellow Christians were armed and able to resist, opposing evil with force, but, chose not to. They were slaughtered for the faith as a result. Their unwillingness to shed blood was one part of the reason they were slaughtered.”
And yet there is no condemnation of their participation in the Roman victory that preceded it. Since they were slaughtered for refusal to sacrifice, which would most likely come at a time wherein they would be unarmed or were not expecting to be attacked, that they would resist with force would’ve been impossible.
St. Augustine believed in the existence of just wars. So did Thomas Aquinas. There was never any prerequisite for soldiers who joined the faith to abandon their profession. I would surmise that there were also Christian gladiators who were not condemned by their bishops for being forced into combat.
“How can you conclude from Jesus cursing a tree that Jesus thought it was just fine to kill people?”
The goal of war, a just war, is never to kill people. The goals of a just war are noble. The killing, which is present in any war, is an unfortunate byproduct, and with human nature, unavoidable.
War is not an inherent evil. Jesus Himself would not be averse to violence. The driving of the merchants at the temple showed that. He was also unopposed to having his disciples armed. The sword that Peter used to cut the soldier’s ear was most likely purchased at Jesus’ behest. (Luke 22, I think. Memory is spotty.) Even in the famous “live by the sword” quote, the reprimand that preceded it was not to disregard the sword, but to sheathe it or put it aside.
I daresay, we should celebrate the First Crusade. If I remember Tolkien correctly, he said that history was one long defeat, and it is our obligation to, even in defeat, attempt to let shine on the world a glimpse of that final glorious victory.
I believe he may have been thinking of the Crusades when he said that. The history of the Crusades was one of a long defeat. But let us celebrate the First, for no matter how crudely done by mortal men, it was as best a glimpse of that final victory as an age of rough, simple, noble heroes can provide. These men were Christians…and they were men still. But they did the best they could…an entire generation of them. Another, more recent, group of crusaders would be hailed the same way. They were both the “Greatest Generations” of their respective times.
Oh, and one toast to the battlecry.
“Deus volt!!”
The end cannot justify the means. Evil can never be done to attain the good. There’s nothing romantic or noble about war; it is bloody evil.
Patrick, for a refreshing alternative, I suggest you take a look at the Traditional Catholic Reflections and Reports website. See what they have to say about war.
http://www.tcrnews2.com/
Perhaps Jonathan was thinking of Matthew 26:52, which is entirely clear:
Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword”. (RSV)
how is ‘300 C.E.’ more ‘polite’ than ‘300 AD?’ I always took it as a denial of the centrality of the Incarnation and therefore rude to our Lord.
What Church Fathers are you refering to? There were no Church Fathers “pre-300 C.E.”; that would be pre-300 B.C. in proper chronological reconing, making it 300 years or so before Christ was born- a tad bit early for the Church Fathers to be making any comments.
The notation C.E., common era replaced A.D. or Anno Domini. B.C.E. replaced B.C., or before Christ.
According to Peter Daniels (a Cornell and Chicago trained linguist):
CE and BCE came into use in the last few decades, perhaps originally in Ancient Near Eastern studies, where (a) there are many Jewish scholars and (b) dating according to a Christian era is irrelevant. It is indeed a question of sensitivity.
dating according to a Christian era is irrelevant
Except that they are dating accoarding to a Christian era, they are just plastering it over to hide the fact.
Mary, I don’t believe that by using neutral terminology scholars, Jewish or otherwise, are “plastering over” or “hiding the fact” of dating according to the Christian era. They are simply adhering to the secular standard. The aim is to be inclusive and intelligible simultaneously.
The pacifists should read the 19th chapter of John’s Apocalypse.
A.D. and B.C. are what is polite, and A.D. preceeds the number.
The pagan versions being forced on people against their will are extremely offensive. If Jewish scholars wish to date by the Jewish calendar, fine. Nothing wrong with that.
“The end cannot justify the means. Evil can never be done to attain the good. There’s nothing romantic or noble about war; it is bloody evil.”
Not according to Church tradition. (On a side note, the “no end justifies evil means” rule applies mostly to acts that are inherently evil, something which war is not.)
War is bloody business, to be sure. It is not to be taken lightly. But there is something romantic and noble about war, even if it shines in the midst of bloodshed. War does not bring out just the worst in man. It brings out the best in him too. I cannot imagine a generation being “greatest” if it has not at the very least endured and overcome strife as massive as war. War is like a force of nature. Even God has been known to use war, as he uses other forces of nature in His dealing with Man. Only dead men have seen the end of war.
And yes, the saying from Matthew is entirely clear. Those who live by the sword, die by the sword. And yet we honor many who have done so, for various reasons. They live by the sword, so we do not have to. They die by the sword, so we do not have to.
After all, as implied in the passage, the sword still has its place.
As pretty as it sounds, a blanket condemnation of violence simply can’t be reconciled with Christian moral reasoning. Shall we condemn the police officer, as well as the soldier?
300 C.E. is one particular, and polite, way of refering to 300 A.D. ergo,it does include many Church Fathers.
The notation C.E., common era replaced A.D. or Anno Domini. B.C.E. replaced B.C., or before Christ.
You are correct; C.E. is the secular for A.D.- I realized my mistake the moment my head hit the pillow several hours later.
How can you conclude from Jesus cursing a tree that Jesus thought it was just fine to kill people?
Where did I say that Jesus thought it was “just fine to kill people”? I asked you “how do you reconcile your image of a non-violent Jesus with the cursing of the fig tree in Mark 11: 12-14? Isn’t the cursing of the fig tree (causing it to wither to it’s roots) an act of violence?
“. I took no position either way.
As pretty as it sounds, a blanket condemnation of violence simply can’t be reconciled with Christian moral reasoning. Shall we condemn the police officer, as well as the soldier?
“Thus says the Lord GOD: Enough, O princes of Israel! Put away violence and oppression, and execute justice and righteousness; cease your evictions of my people, says the Lord GOD.” (Ezekiel 45:9, RSV)
JonathanR said:
There was never any prerequisite for soldiers who joined the faith to abandon their profession.
Are you sure? To me, this seems to imply the opposite:
Those who have been called by grace, have given evidence of first fervour and have cast off their [military] belts, and afterwards have run back like dogs to their own vomit, so that some have even paid money and recovered their military status by bribes — such persons shall spend ten years as prostrators after a period of three years as hearers. In every case, however, their disposition and the nature of their penitence should be examined. For those who through their fear and tears and perseverance and good works give evidence of their conversion by deeds and not by outward show, when they have completed their appointed term as hearers, may properly take part in the prayers, and the bishop is competent to decide even more favourably in their regard. But those who have taken the matter lightly, and have thought that the outward form of entering the church is all that is required for their conversion, must complete their term to the full. Canon 12 of First Ecumenical Council of Nicea, A.D. 325.
Humm. Is the grace in question Christianity? What was the evidence of first fervour?
If a soldier/Christian threw away his position as a soldier so as to do something else — such as resort to a life of prayer — we could all agree that leaving such a position would be wrong.
About Ezekiel:
Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning hooks into spears; let the weak man say, “I am a warrior!” Joel 4:10
And perhaps more cutting
They would repair, as though it were nought, the injury to my people: “Peace, peace!” they say, though there is no peace.
They are odious; they have done abominable things, yet they are not at all ashamed, they know not how to blush. Hence they shall be among those who fall; in their time of punishment they shall go down, says the LORD. Jeremiah 6:14-15
The use Jesus overturning the tables in the Temple as a justification for war is a non sequitur, to put it mildly. To use it as a justification for such a great evil, if not the greatest evil, is wrong. Read Josephus, or better still M. Smallwood’s “The Jews Under Roman Rule” for some perspective on the attitude of many Jews and others of His time toward violance. The contrast helps me at least to recognize the radical non violence of Jesus.
I think a good reexamination of the Sermon on the Mount might be in order for warmongering “Christians.” Saying that Jesus would have been in favor of war is arguing similarly to those who say Jesus would have been in favor of abortion. You don’t have much evidence to support the claim.
It is interesting that Mary sites Joel 4:10 but ignores Isaiah 2:4 and Micah 4:3, of which the Joel reference is a reversal, or a literary device used to contrast final judgement and damnation with the peace that is the kingdom of God. The call to war in Jonah is a vengeance upon the nations, or a “Day of the Lord” scenario that fortells the final defeat against Satan. It is not an endorsement, in any manner, of modern-day warfare.
It is difficult to reconcile a pro-war attitude with the Catholic peacemaking tradition. If a soldier throws away his position to lead a life of prayer, he or she has chosen the better path. He or she has chosen the pro-life option.
Here is something to ponder that I found in Stephen Hand’s musings:
“Do you know what Catholic Peace Fellowship was doing this week? Fasting for the suffering in Darfur. What were the Catholic warbloggers doing? If what you see at their blogs is typical, then tilting at intellectual and theological opponents with what they think are clever sentences, searching for anecdotes to justify what JPII and Benedict called an unjustifiable war… Theology is more than cleverness… God hates war and encourages us to greater and greater enlightenment. If war is to be fought and a reliance on minimal justice is opted for, it is ever a collapse, an undoing, an implosion of God’s intention, the most minimal standard of conflict resolution. But the nation or person who refuses war—not out of cowardice, but out of brave conscience and love for all humanity—has shown greater enlightenment, greater spirituality, and is closer to God’s intention of perfection.”
OK. So pacifism is the only acceptable option for Christians.
So the Magisterium has been wrong for centuries about the possibility of a just war.
So the Church has misled us for generations.
So the gates of Hell have prevailed.
So . . .
In any case the Crusades are not something to hold up as one of the Church’s finest moments to say the least. A good discussion people!
Again, for the true-blue pacifists out there, do we condemn the actions of the police? If the violent supression of violence can be justified on a smaller scale, it can be justified on a larger scale. It is the underlying principle I’m interested in.
Can Christians be police officers, or should we be content to let people of other faiths do the dirty work for us?
to justify what JPII and Benedict called an unjustifiable war.
When did they say that?
Does no one want to party with me like it’s 1099?
:_(
Billy, if you do don’t get sick, you won’t like their idea of medicine!
Billy-
How would a person party like it’s 1099? Homebrew seems like a safe bet, but I don’t know any tunes from the period.
Mead.
Here, have some virtual mead. Yes, it’s alcoholic.
To use it as a justification for such a great evil, if not the greatest evil, is wrong.
The greatest evil?
To throw that out as even a possibility is against Jesus’s teaching, that we should not fear those who can only kill the body.
Yuck, you’re American mead tastes like water. I’ll need to bring some Canadian mead to this party.
It is interesting that Mary sites Joel 4:10 but ignores Isaiah 2:4 and Micah 4:3,
Joel gives a command, in the present tense. Isaiah and Micah give visions of the future, explicitly billed as “days to come.”
of which the Joel reference is a reversal, or a literary device used to contrast final judgement and damnation with the peace that is the kingdom of God.
Why do you think, given their different forms, that the Joel one is the (only) vision of the future? Micah and Isaiah explicitly speak of the time when God shall judge the peoples of the earth directly, which is manifestly clear is not now.
Do you know what Catholic Peace Fellowship was doing this week?
What were the Catholic warbloggers doing?
Let’s see. This man can grab two sets of people and cite them as the totality of all Christians who support peace, and all pacifist Christians.
You know, even granting that, these pacifists let other people know they were fasting. If Jesus’s commands about blows do not admit of interpretation, his commands about letting others know you are fasting also do not.
Cool, Billy. Let me have some.
If a soldier throws away his position to lead a life of prayer, he or she has chosen the better path.
If someone decides not to marry to lead a life of prayer, he or she has chosen the better path.
One can still get married.
Humm. Is the grace in question Christianity? What was the evidence of first fervour?
If a soldier/Christian threw away his position as a soldier so as to do something else — such as resort to a life of prayer — we could all agree that leaving such a position would be wrong.
The canon only says that if converted soldiers go back to military (comparing this to dogs going to their own womit), and then sets severe penance for them. I’m sorry, but I can’t find this explanation conclusive – it reminds me of “traditionalists” rejecting baptism of desire on the basis that the Bible doesn’t say that the Good Thief had not been baptised with water.
Other explanations or interpretations, anyone?
Sorry, I misunderestimated my typoing skills.
>>As pretty as it sounds, a blanket condemnation of violence simply can’t be reconciled with Christian moral reasoning. Shall we condemn the police officer, as well as the soldier?<< You do not seem to support your premise that a complete rejection of violence cannot be squared with Christian teaching. This is another reason why the claims of Roman Catholicism do not hold up well when compared with, say, Jainism, which believes in a total rejection of violence. And I am a Catholic and am not promoting Jainism.
If someone decides not to marry to lead a life of prayer, he or she has chosen the better path.
One can still get married.
Mary,
Based on your previous ad populum arguments, I should know that everyone except me is right, but I’ll try anyhow. But this is the last time I’m responding to you until you take a logic class.
I don’t know that making a comparsison between the vocation of marriage and the vocation of soldier is a good analogy; however, you do have my sympathy since for some reason you think it is. Perhaps I better understand how you cannot realize the “peaceable kingdom” now. Again, my sympathy –
Tim J.,
Being a police officer is not the same thing as participation in an act of war. Having a police force is a legitimate act of defending society against a criminal element (there may be a loose analogy only in cases of just war – when all qualifications for it are met). The role of the police is to eliminate violece and to resort to force only as a final means, not to proliferate it. When force is used by police as a last means, there is a question of whether it is immoral per se. Not all Christians would be, or even should be, comfortable in the role being police. Likewise, being a soldier or even having a standing army is not in itself evil given its legitimate purpose to defend against agressors. However, it is increasingly difficult to justify war at all in our era given the potential for mass destruction and loss of life.
Your question is really one that common sense serves to solve. I know your response already: war is peace. There’s nothing original there, but that’s the argument I see on the war blogs most often.
However, it is increasingly difficult to justify war at all in our era given the potential for mass destruction and loss of life.
That’s a very different statement that saying that “It is difficult to reconcile a pro-war attitude with the Catholic peacemaking tradition.”
However, it is increasingly difficult to justify war at all in our era given the potential for mass destruction and loss of life.
Oh, and the ancients didn’t have the same ability? Why don’t you try telling the residents of Jerusalem circa A.D. 70 that? How about Germans after the Thirty Years’ War? A third of the population died in some areas in that fighting.
The only differences in capability between us and the ancients are that we can do it faster and more often with fewer men.
The only differences in capability between us and the ancients are that we can do it faster and more often with fewer men.
Which is precisely why Just War theory has come into question and whether such a thing as a just war can be possible at all. Ultimately, it is difficult, if not impossible, to justify war in any age.
We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, “Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” I suppose we all thought that one way or another.
-J. Robert Oppenheimer
>>As pretty as it sounds, a blanket condemnation of violence simply can’t be reconciled with Christian moral reasoning. Shall we condemn the police officer, as well as the soldier?<< You do not seem to support your premise that a complete rejection of violence cannot be squared with Christian teaching. This is another reason why the claims of Roman Catholicism do not hold up well when compared with, say, Jainism, which believes in a total rejection of violence. And I am a Catholic and am not promoting Jainism.
“Which is precisely why Just War theory has come into question and whether such a thing as a just war can be possible at all. Ultimately, it is difficult, if not impossible, to justify war in any age.”
Oh really? Even the wars that God Himself called?
Go read the Angelic Doctor before peddling what is rank heresy. The right to war is a part of natural law.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/304001.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15546c.htm
Paul Druce,
Even the most angelic of saints and theologians can have there glaring errors, such as Aquinas on the infusion of the rational soul. Popes and all the rest of us are entitled to have an opinion. One may agree or disagree within certain confines, but only a fool presumes to know the mind of God. It a great charity to surrender one’s arrogance to a greater wisdom; however this charity is one that I must withhold with respect to your opinion.
War is a right, per se, only within the conditions of Just War theory (keeping in mind the difficulty of moving from theory to actuality). Even as early as Thomas More there was serious doubt expressed concerning the possibility of a just war. I feel there is no heresy in standing up for the cause of peace. There is no heresy defending the innocent victims of blood lust. There is no heresy in condemning war as a great blight, even a sin, upon the soul of humanity.
I’m certain that you must be aware of then Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement on Iraq:
“There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war’.”
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
May 2, 2003
“Even the most angelic of saints and theologians can have there glaring errors”
Ah, so I can simply declare your sources and theologians in error as well. Cheap tactic.
“There is no heresy defending the innocent victims of blood lust.”
As there is no heresy in condemning those who would equate every war, even just ones, to mere “bloodlust”.
“There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war’.”
You’re gonna compare this bit of speculation with the Summa?
I think the good Cardinal is asking a good question, but he seems to be operating on the notion that it is modern war that cannot seem to be just. The Crusades never involved modern technology whose destruction cannot be confined to combatants alone. (Though that modern technology cannot overcome this particular glitch is debatable.)
“In any case the Crusades are not something to hold up as one of the Church’s finest moments to say the least.”
I wouldn’t say it was the finest. I wouldn’t say it was evil either. But long live the Crusaders, still!
“Saying that Jesus would have been in favor of war is arguing similarly to those who say Jesus would have been in favor of abortion. You don’t have much evidence to support the claim.”
Yes, indeed. “Blessed are the peacemakers” is the money quote, I suppose. A thought which conveniently forgets that the world’s greatest peacemakers were the ones who carried swords. Rare is the peacemonger who stops wars at mere words and gestures. Indeed, I cannot think of any who could, save for Jesus Himself. Not even Gandhi could stop the wars that followed the independence he peacably attained. What peace that followed only came when all sides were forced to comply by a power with greater arms.
After all, as the old Athenian proverb goes, “we make war, so we can live in peace.”
Unlike the abortion claim, there is sufficient proof to infer that Jesus Himself would not be averse to war. Or else, would Heaven need a Captain for its own “Heavenly Host”?
“Your question is really one that common sense serves to solve. I know your response already: war is peace. There’s nothing original there, but that’s the argument I see on the war blogs most often.”
That’s truly fascinating, Dan. For one thing, this is not a “war blog” or an “anti-war blog”. Your leap to the assumption that I believe that “war is peace” is breathtaking. I was simply using the analogy of the police to shed a little light on the whole non-violence debate. It is not a far-removed analogy.
War is a right, per se, only within the conditions of Just War theory (keeping in mind the difficulty of moving from theory to actuality). Even as early as Thomas More there was serious doubt expressed concerning the possibility of a just war. I feel there is no heresy in standing up for the cause of peace. There is no heresy defending the innocent victims of blood lust. There is no heresy in condemning war as a great blight, even a sin, upon the soul of humanity.
Actually, there is. And quite notably, you refused to response to my question of whether the wars that God ordered were unjust, even though they slaughtered even children at His command.
All of the wars that “God commanded” (and that is a subject that an OT very well qualified scholar should address) were before Jesus. Jesus revealed the truth about human violance. Jesus/God says don’t do it. It is just that simple.
Oh, so you’re saying that either natural or divine law changed, or that God commanded something that was inherently evil?
St. Joan of Arc and King St. Louis IX would both consider this discussion amusing…
As would the Virgin Mary, known as Our Lady of Victory after the Battle of Lepanto.
St. Joan of Arc, King St. Louis IX and Our Lady of Victory are all invited to my party.
Natural law is a branch of human philosophy. From the viewpoint of such a philosophy there can be such a thing as a “just war,” although even the Pope has his doubts. Jesus went beyond that and said no violance, period. There is no contradiction involved.
“Natural law is a branch of human philosophy. From the viewpoint of such a philosophy there can be such a thing as a “just war,” although even the Pope has his doubts. Jesus went beyond that and said no violance, period. There is no contradiction involved.”
The existence of the natural law is part of Church teaching as I recall.
Do you realize that you are suggesting that St. Joan of Arc committed blasphemy in saying that her revelations instructed her to lead armies?
“All of the wars that “God commanded” (and that is a subject that an OT very well qualified scholar should address) were before Jesus. Jesus revealed the truth about human violance. Jesus/God says don’t do it. It is just that simple.”
They were before Jesus walked the earth but they were not “before Jesus”. Jesus has always been the Son of God and the second person of Trinity. Even before the world knew Him as Jesus.
oops, forgot to sign my name. The last post was me.
Yes, of course Mike, before Jesus in His human nature was bourn about 4 B.C.E.
Since Jesus was before all worlds, why would His taking on flesh affect matters?
I think a good reexamination of the Sermon on the Mount might be in order for warmongering “Christians.”
Let’s!
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
But indeed those who carry the sword may make peace.
But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.
Note that this is not limited to lethal violence. If it is not a prohibition of violent revenge, it would certainly prohibit Jesus’s attack on the moneylenders.
I was told that in here there are Catholics who oppose a just war. I’m shocked that there actually are.
So I just want to say. Wake up people, a just war is a perfectly Catholic doctrine. Don’t let some warm fuzzy feeling ala liberals, clouded your Catholic mind.
Have some mead, beng!
I have noticed that some have misrepresented Cardinal Ratzinger
Q: Is there any such thing as a “just war”?
Cardinal Ratzinger: This is a major issue of concern. In the preparation of the Catechism, there were two problems: the death penalty and just war theory were the most debated. The debate has taken on new urgency given the response of the Americans. Or, another example: Poland, which defended itself against Hitler.
I’d say that we cannot ignore, in the great Christian tradition and in a world marked by sin, any evil aggression that threatens to destroy not only many values, many people, but the image of humanity itself.
In this case, defending oneself and others is a duty. Let’s say for example that a father who sees his family attacked is duty-bound to defend them in every way possible — even if that means using proportional violence.
Thus, the just war problem is defined according to these parameters:
1) Everything must be conscientiously considered, and every alternative explored if there is even just one possibility to save human life and values;
2) Only the most necessary means of defense should be used and human rights must always be respected; in such a war the enemy must be respected as a human being and all fundamental rights must be respected.
I think that the Christian tradition on this point has provided answers that must be updated on the basis of new methods of destruction and of new dangers. For example, there may be no way for a population to defend itself from an atomic bomb. So, these must be updated.
But I’d say that we cannot totally exclude the need, the moral need, to suitably defend people and values against unjust aggressors. …
http://www.sfarchdiocese.org/rome2.htm
What exactly here is being asserted, that there is a just war theory? Who knew it! Since there is this handy dandy just war theory thingee every war is great? I don’t think so.
I can understand Dan’s exhaustion on the topic. Despite all the piling on and everything else, the only thing the pro side has established is that there is a just war theory.
Just show me one bishop, one bishop is all I ask, that supports this war. Granted, they may not be as aware of the handy dandy just war doctrine thingee. Only the enlightened are aware of its proper application.
According to the catechism, it’s not the bishops’ call. It’s not the pope’s, either. The catechism explicitly states the responsibility for deciding whether to go to war lies with those in charge of nations.
MZ Forrest is exactly right. Furthermore, the existence of a just war theory implies that the state does have to use it for evaluating whether to go to war. Now if you can show me any evidence that the United States used such evidence in deciding to wage the current wars, then your point of view will be more credible.
Mary,
Are you asserting that the Church needs responsibility in an area in order to teach on it? Are you asserting that authority translates into rightness of cause? If you are not, then you are throwing out a red herring.
>>According to the catechism, it’s not the bishops’ call. It’s not the pope’s, either. The catechism explicitly states the responsibility for deciding whether to go to war lies with those in charge of nations.<< So your point is then, that any private citizen's opinion of a war the US is involved in is meaningless, so any discussion is pointless?
>>According to the catechism, it’s not the bishops’ call. It’s not the pope’s, either. The catechism explicitly states the responsibility for deciding whether to go to war lies with those in charge of nations.<< So your point is then, that any private citizen's opinion of a war the US is involved in is meaningless, so any discussion is pointless? The existence of a just war theory implies that the state does have to use it for evaluating whether to go to war. Now if you can show me any evidence that the United States used the critera of the Just War theory in deciding to wage the current wars, then your point of view will be more credible.
Mary, you are a party animal!
Let me re-present a bit of Joshua’s comment, for everyone who might like to comment on Cardinal Ratzinger’s thoughts…
Ratzinger: “I’d say that we cannot ignore, in the great Christian tradition and in a world marked by sin, any evil aggression that threatens to destroy not only many values, many people, but the image of humanity itself.
In this case, defending oneself and others is a duty. Let’s say for example that a father who sees his family attacked is duty-bound to defend them in every way possible — even if that means using proportional violence.”
Violence, a duty? Golly! That war-mongering heretic!
“What exactly here is being asserted, that there is a just war theory? Who knew it! “
Actually, the discussion was about whether or not war is permissible under certain circumstances.
“Since there is this handy dandy just war theory thingee every war is great? I don’t think so.”
No one claimed that every war is great.
“I can understand Dan’s exhaustion on the topic. Despite all the piling on and everything else, the only thing the pro side has established is that there is a just war theory.”
And the existence of a just war theory pretty well proves that, according to the Church, war is permissible under certain circumstances.
Just show me one bishop, one bishop is all I ask, that supports this war. Granted, they may not be as aware of the handy dandy just war doctrine thingee. Only the enlightened are aware of its proper application.”
Once again the current war wasn’t under discussion before you entered the thread.
I’m a bit confused since M. Z. Forrest’s post. I thought this discussion was about whether Christ taught pacifism, not about any current wars…
It really isn’t a just war that some — though not all — of you seem to be supporting, but a good war: a war that shows the determined desire of the destined race to support and save the sacred commonwealth. In such a war man is noble, rising above his innate desire to live, laying down life, limb, and his most cherished values upon the battlefied for the sake of the Holy Ideal of his Nation. Courage has only to do with Coeur, the noble heart. The courage to look beyond the illusory to the stark what-is does not exist. The preconceived notions of the Good, outweigh the moral question of the rightness of war. The value of the actual cannot escape from the blinding grasp of the higher ideals of virility, nation, race and unquestioned ancestral value. Again, I know that not all of you adhere to such fantasy, but to those who do, it is merely idolatry. Your god is indeed dead. It is as dead as that victim of romantic idealism of 154 years past, which lay dead, beached, white, motionless, demonic, yet pure, God-like, innocent, hunted by the righteous warrior.
The battle you fight is no less than Jihad, yet in your struggle you lose your identity and become one with that object of your intense hatred. You wield your sword by the blade, inflicting your own mortal wound.
You ask me why I do not reply to your assertions about the God calling for war in the Hebrew Scripture. Did I not answer that only a fool presumes to know the mind of God? What greater fool preaches her sermon to the Christ, instructing him on the just use of violence. It was not me you addressed.
Are we Biblicists? Do we interpret scripture by the letter? Could we not for a moment see the anagogical sense in the ancient scripture? Not as a call to war on earth but as a call to warfare against the Satan that instills mourning in the heart of a mother who has lost her son; that demon of old that leaves only a burned tricycle beneath the fire of a billion suns; the absolute evil that deprives us of our tomorrows. War I curse you. I curse all of your prophets and sages, all of your disciples. But more so, I pity you. I pity you for you have dug hell all around, and you have fallen into it yourselves.
So you’re either a pacifist, or a idealistic racist idolator who yearns for the “good old days.” No poisoning of the well there, no sirree.
Are we Biblicists? Do we interpret scripture by the letter? Could we not for a moment see the anagogical sense in the ancient scripture?
1. Those parts are actually quite literal.
2. What’s anagogical about passages where God says to wipe them out, even the children?
I’m a bit confused since M. Z. Forrest’s post. I thought this discussion was about whether Christ taught pacifism, not about any current wars…
It was. Redirection is a favored tactic when someone has lost their case as the pacfists have.
No one ruins a good party like a stubborn pacifist.
Pacifism sounds lovely for a few brief moments till I look back to WWII. What would the world look like if Britain and the US had taken France’s lead and rolled over and played dead? I can’t see that our going to war was anything but just under those circs. (therefore there must be such a thing as a just war, therefore pacifism isn’t an option. )
Pass the mead, Billy!
“Just show me one bishop, one bishop is all I ask, that supports this war. Granted, they may not be as aware of the handy dandy just war doctrine thingee. Only the enlightened are aware of its proper application.”
We were talking of the First Crusade, not the Iraq War. And I can point you not just to bishops, but Popes, who supported the Crusades.
“Now if you can show me any evidence that the United States used such evidence in deciding to wage the current wars, then your point of view will be more credible.”
The United States went on Crusade? Which one? Or has the topic been hijacked?
“In such a war man is noble, rising above his innate desire to live, laying down life, limb, and his most cherished values upon the battlefied for the sake of the Holy Ideal of his Nation. Courage has only to do with Coeur, the noble heart. The courage to look beyond the illusory to the stark what-is does not exist. The preconceived notions of the Good, outweigh the moral question of the rightness of war. The value of the actual cannot escape from the blinding grasp of the higher ideals of virility, nation, race and unquestioned ancestral value. Again, I know that not all of you adhere to such fantasy, but to those who do, it is merely idolatry. Your god is indeed dead. It is as dead as that victim of romantic idealism of 154 years past, which lay dead, beached, white, motionless, demonic, yet pure, God-like, innocent, hunted by the righteous warrior.”
That God still lives, for as long as men still have courage, and still have the great sense to be able to lay down their lives for something more than themselves.
It is a shame that in the great swirl of war and human conflict, all that some fools will remember is the killing. It is not romanticism to find the good in Man engaging and overcoming strife. Indeed, it is the pacifist who is the foolish romantic, the Utopian, the utter fool who still believes that mere words and fluffy pillows will calm the savage beast within the evil of men.
“The battle you fight is no less than Jihad, yet in your struggle you lose your identity and become one with that object of your intense hatred. You wield your sword by the blade, inflicting your own mortal wound.”
No, the battle those men fought were not in the name of such a sinister concept as “jihad”, which aims to subjugate all under the foul name of its master, but a battle to ensure that their lands be kept free, and the Faith be kept free. That men become no different from their enemies does happen, but just as the existence of sexual perversion does not undermine the gift of sexuality, the existence of twisted warriors and twisted wars does not undermine the fact that holy warriors and holy wars do exist.
“What greater fool preaches her sermon to the Christ, instructing him on the just use of violence. It was not me you addressed.”
Who said anything about preaching to Christ, lest you think you are His exclusive speaker? We only offer how Christ Himself may have looked at War, in our own limited capacity. Heck, it is those who try to dissuade us into thinking that God may find some wars just who seem to be trying to read God’s mind differently from what He has done.
“Not as a call to war on earth but as a call to warfare against the Satan that instills mourning in the heart of a mother who has lost her son; that demon of old that leaves only a burned tricycle beneath the fire of a billion suns; the absolute evil that deprives us of our tomorrows.”
You try to separate thew war in heaven and the war on earth, when they are both the same. Just as God has angels marching in heaven, so must there be men marching on earth. So the mother mourns, and so the earth is scorched. I know of no god who would call us to run away from suffering simply because it entails suffering. The God I know of demands sacrifice, and sometimes, that sacrifice is one that must be made in personal blood, be it in martyrdom or soldiery. A coward’s mother has no cause to mourn, and earth be as good as burned under cowardly stewardship. For there is no greater ally of Satan than the coward who would sit aside and do nothing…simply because the cost of the sword, the cost of suffering, seemed too high.
“War I curse you. I curse all of your prophets and sages, all of your disciples. But more so, I pity you. I pity you for you have dug hell all around, and you have fallen into it yourselves.”
Cowardice and false dreams be cursed, more so than War! For there is no more greater blight to a people’s existence than the lack of valiance and courage in its own character. Those who curse war and deem it wrong due to its violent recourse have not the sense to live among the savagery of mankind. What do they have to offer other than false dreams that even God would not indulge? Mankind, indeed, civilization itself, will not have come to flower had there been nobody strong enough to address the question of war with steel. The God of Peace we worship knows this. For even the chosen people had to conquer, or fade away. When they called to God for succor, God led them to the battlefield, stopping even the Sun so that His chosen people may conquer.
God is the same. I cannot imagine one Person contradicting or overruling the other. All this talk about the rules of the world changing when Jesus came have no sense. For while Jesus’ coming brought Grace to the world, it did not change the nature of the world nor the nature of the hearts of men. Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not destroy it or make it obsolete. Lest you wish to make the argument the coming of Christ means that we no longer have Laws we must obey….
So, let those of us who have the sense to honor valour celebrate. If you wish to obfuscate and triumph the utopian pacifism of your heady dreams, do so in the dark. Now, somebody pass me some ale.
Sorry, no ale, lager.
Mankind, indeed, civilization itself, will not have come to flower had there been nobody strong enough to address the question of war with steel. The God of Peace we worship knows this.
Jonathan,
At least your style of expression has come to “flower.” You should read Orwell and imitate his economy of expression and lack of doublespeak. Whatever you have to say, regardless of how morally flawed it is, will improve greatly.
Now, somebody pass me some ale.
Obviously, you have had enough.
Here’s the ale, Jonathan!
(Me, I don’t like ale. I’m sticking to mead. Easy for me to pass it. 🙂
Yup! Here’s to Jonathan saying what I was thinking.
Prost!
Still no explanations about the 12th Canon or Nicea I (excluding Mary’s, of course).
“You should read Orwell and imitate his economy of expression and lack of doublespeak. Whatever you have to say, regardless of how morally flawed it is, will improve greatly.”
I only wish to reflect an age wherein flowering words were the effective way of evoking an idea. It is not doublespeak, at least, not a conscious attempt to be so. For even all poetry is but doublespeak by the broadest of standards. I can be as bluntly Orwellian-economical as you like, but I find the approach less imaginative, and indeed, unfitting for a rhetorical defense of a more poetic, heroic age.
As for “morally-flawed”, that is highly debatable, but I do not expect the militant pacifist to rise to the occasion, to the question of human valor, beyond donning the horse-blinders.
Oh, and Mary, Tim, thanks for the drinks. Liquor proves itself the creation of a loving God in times of celebration! (and Satan’s tool when the morning after comes, but we’ll cross that bridge when we get there…)
Office furniture.
Home office computer furniture. Office furniture. Home office furniture. Office furniture rental.