The Crusades

[Resurrexi]

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

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition." ([i]Catechism of the Catholic Church,[/i] no. 2309)

Edited June 26, 2009 by Resurrexi

[CatherineM]

It really isn't fair to judge someone's actions from such a long time ago, against the culture and values we now live in. Maybe we should sue doctors from the middle ages who used bleeding to remove evil vapors from the body. How about condemning in absentia the Israelites for taking land from the Philistines? Their lives were different, their rules were different, and we can't even imagine how different.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1902291' date='Jun 26 2009, 02:54 PM']It really isn't fair to judge someone's actions from such a long time ago, against the culture and values we now live in. Maybe we should sue doctors from the middle ages who used bleeding to remove evil vapors from the body. How about condemning in absentia the Israelites for taking land from the Philistines? Their lives were different, their rules were different, and we can't even imagine how different.[/quote]

The natural law doesn't change.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1902293' date='Jun 26 2009, 03:57 PM']The natural law doesn't change.[/quote]
No it doesn't but that is assumingthat the Just War requirments from the CCC are Natural Law. THe CCC is not infallable, and As Far as I know there has been now infallable document discussing Just War, butthere have been Ecumentical Councils which called for Crusade. THus our default assumption is that the Crusades were holy wars inspired by God and certianly Just.

THe requirments for Just War as laid out in the CCC are binding because the Church, at this time, says they are, that does not mean that these thing are required, Naturally to make a war Just. It simply means that the Church, acting with the Authority given by Christ has said that these requirments are needed, at this time in history, for a war to be Just. The Church could alter such requirments at will, inso far as the requirments did not violate the Natural Law, or the Law of God.

[goldenchild17]

I feel bad for anyone who thinks we need to apologize for and/or regret the crusades.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1902303' date='Jun 26 2009, 04:35 PM']I feel bad for anyone who thinks we need to apologize for and/or regret the crusades.[/quote]

Agreed.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1902301' date='Jun 26 2009, 03:30 PM']No it doesn't but that is assumingthat the Just War requirments from the CCC are Natural Law. THe CCC is not infallable, and As Far as I know there has been now infallable document discussing Just War, butthere have been Ecumentical Councils which called for Crusade. THus our default assumption is that the Crusades were holy wars inspired by God and certianly Just.

THe requirments for Just War as laid out in the CCC are binding because the Church, at this time, says they are, that does not mean that these thing are required, Naturally to make a war Just. It simply means that the Church, acting with the Authority given by Christ has said that these requirments are needed, at this time in history, for a war to be Just. The Church could alter such requirments at will, inso far as the requirments did not violate the Natural Law, or the Law of God.[/quote]

In my opinion the conditions for a just war set forth in the CCC are an expression of the natural law. That said, I feel that the Crusades did meet those conditions.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1902314' date='Jun 26 2009, 05:01 PM']In my opinion the conditions for a just war set forth in the CCC are an expression of the natural law. That said, I feel that the Crusades did meet those conditions.[/quote]


I do not. I will agree with St. Augustine and The Israelites and say that they are not.

I will explain point by point.

Please note That this does not mean they are not binding, simply by virtue of being taught by the Church.


I. [i]the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;[/i]

This is the most problematic. First it implys that one can only have a just war agianst someone who is an agressor aganst a Nation. It elimentates the possiblity that offensive war can be Just ( which is not in keeping with either Christian or Jewish tradition), and it eliminates the possiblity that other activities might be cause for war. Further it argues againts the justice of punitive wars agianst the wicked, which is simply not in keeping with Tradition.

As it applys to the Crusades, it isn't a problem, Islam was indeed the agressor.

II. [i]all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;[/i]

THis I think is fine, so long as it is not interpreted to mean that "all other means must be exausted" Impractical can mean that you don't have time for other means, as long as it is understood in this way I think this is firmly in the Natural Law.

III. [i]there must be serious prospects of success;[/i]
THis one is the one I think is both the most easily dismissed and absolutly out of keeping with Natural Law. This can only be interpreted as a legal requirment imposed by the bishops. the weak are not required to submit to the strong becasue they have little prospect of success. If ten men invade my home I am not obliged to let them kill me and my family without struggle because I have little chance of defeating them. I have every right to try and defend myself and the innocent.

However, even with that said. It really matters not because this has no real meaning. "I God is with you. Who can stand agianst?" If God willed it so, Bob the Builder could come right off the TV with his antropromorphic tools and whoop up all over any country there is.

This is not in keeping with Natural Law and is so easily answered by the cry "but God is on my side" that it is usless.

IV. [i]the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition."[/i]

This is simply the requirment of proportionality with an added sentence ment to say " please don't nuke people". Instead of just saying:The use of Strategic Nuclear weapons is not permissable.

I don't see a problem with this one from a Natural Law point of view.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Don John of Austria

[Resurrexi]

Two people accused three very holy Saints of God of sinning in supporting and participating in an indulgenced act.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Winchester]

If the Seljuks had kept their beaver dam mitts off unarmed pilgrims, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The mohammedans are still like that--whiny brats who don't want anyone responding to their tantrums.

[Selah]

If only they had challenged the heretics to a children's card game

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Selah' date='06 July 2010 - 08:37 AM' timestamp='1278419864' post='2138379']
If only they had challenged the heretics to a children's card game
[/quote]

or a dance off

[Ed Normile]

I was torn, but I ended up voting, yes then no. I find it hard to ignore the murder of christians, the rape of women, and the destruction of places of worship so I would have taken up the sword and shield and joined right in.

ed

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='08 July 2010 - 11:03 PM' timestamp='1278655380' post='2139726']
I was torn, but I ended up voting, yes then no. I find it hard to ignore the murder of christians, the rape of women, and the destruction of places of worship so I would have taken up the sword and shield and joined right in.

ed
[/quote]

You are aware that a decent portion of the christian murdering, raping and destruction of christians was actually perpetrated by some of the christian crusaders?

[Apotheoun]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99X8WDQWAKg[/media]

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='09 July 2010 - 02:59 AM' timestamp='1278658763' post='2139785']
You are aware that a decent portion of the christian murdering, raping and destruction of christians was actually perpetrated by some of the christian crusaders?
[/quote]


Christians sin? Really? Clearly you have no clue of Christianity. What people individually do during a just war
does not change whether the war is just or not or whether the leaders who call the war sin or not. When people like you have trouble resolving moral dilemas it is clear that you are lacking some logic and cognitive reasoning.

[thessalonian]

I did not answer the pole. I would say that some if not all the wars were just. Again as I said above the
actions of those in the war does not determine whether they were just or not. Most were called in good
faith by the leaders entrusted with the obligation to protect their people. As for whether the
leaders sinned, it is the right and duty of governments and those in power to keep order and protect their people. Romans 13 makes it clear that this may even be by the sword. It is a very grave and solemn obligation
for them. I will leave it to God to judge whether they did it properly.

[thessalonian]

I did not answer the pole. I would say that some if not all the wars were just. Again as I said above the
actions of those in the war does not determine whether they were just or not. Most were called in good
faith by the leaders entrusted with the obligation to protect their people. As for whether the
leaders sinned, it is the right and duty of governments and those in power to keep order and protect their people. Romans 13 makes it clear that this may even be by the sword. It is a very grave and solemn obligation
for them. I will leave it to God to judge whether they did it properly.

[Winchester]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='09 July 2010 - 09:18 AM' timestamp='1278681532' post='2139829']
I did not answer the pole. [/quote]
Enter Phatmass, a magical world of talking poles.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='09 July 2010 - 06:15 AM' timestamp='1278681354' post='2139827']
Christians sin? Really? Clearly you have no clue of Christianity. What people individually do during a just war
does not change whether the war is just or not or whether the leaders who call the war sin or not. When people like you have trouble resolving moral dilemas it is clear that you are lacking some logic and cognitive reasoning.
[/quote]

excuse me? people like me? lacking logic and cognitive reasoning? you sure have inferred a great deal about me from my single sentence.

at what point would the actions of the individual soldiers and leaders actually come into play with just war? do you have a convenient number? 50%? 63.2%? 21%?

and actually it went a good bit past just the individual "bad apples" doing the christian-on-christian killing. several large battles, including the siege of a predominantly christian city happened, mostly cause the higher up commanders got greedy and used the war as cover to loot places.