Was reading yesterday’s Herald about two American soldiers, Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman. One captured, the other killed in Iraq. Apparently stories had been made up and circulated about Jessica’s capture and Pat’s death, all in an effort to make them appear like heroes, most likely for a disillusioned public.
It got me wondering about history. Sure we’ve got to put some faith in what we read or hear about. But how much of it is tainted by bias from the ‘winning’ side? Now that I think about it some more, what about cultural / religious bias? If I was to read a historical account of the Crusades for example, whose side of the story would I see as more correct?
I also wonder sometimes what would happen if some core pillar of my faith, or something i read in the Bible, is proven to be a little flawed…. I’m not sure to be honest. To have something you believe in so fervently proven to be untrue? Could be devastating… or maybe I could move on. Who knows? if the Shroud of Turin isn’t actually authentic, it’s not the end of the world for me. I have faith, do I need miracles to bolster my faith, or to prove my God is real? I don’t think so.
Maybe I think too much… or too little…
It’s interesting, Beardy, to think about this. In discussions I have had with our separated brethren, they have often claimed that the history of the Church only looks so Catholic because it was written by the ‘winning’ side.
Initially I was taken aback by this, but a couple of thoughts arose in response to it. Firstly, such a view is a tacit admission that at least some part of Christianity (prior to the Council of Nicaea) was Catholic (something they would never have admitted openly). Secondly, the crucial thing with Christianity comes down to faith…ie whether we believe Jesus said what he said, or even meant what he said…(eg upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it…)
Sorry, I’ve lost my train of thought…what do others think? It’s been a quiet day on the blog…let’s charge it up a bit! I suppose one could talk about a female clergy, or a quadrinity, or a Just War…
no, no, bad FXD…
If I was to read a historical account of the Crusades for example, whose side of the story would I see as more correct ?
Which side was Jesus on ? The side of the soliders, political and religious authorities who killed him ? Or the side of the one killed ?
The first crusade stormed Jerusalem and slaughtered the Jews and Muslims.
Our faith must be built on a personal relationship and a trust in Christ. Not in an attachment to the things of this world, especially to political and religious authorities (the very forces who killed God). If we trust in Caesar and Sanhedrin, they’ll always betray us and let us down. Better to trust in God who never betrays us or fails us.
God Bless
Hi Chris
I think Beardy was maybe commenting on which side’s tale would be more historically correct?
Beardy,
In one sense it is true that the victor gets to write history, but when you really examine this claim you realise how much of a red-herring it actually is.
We have a lot of historical knowledge today, which comes to us from all sorts of competing sources, so we have a much better grasp on historical events than what was once the case.
It’s actually a trite saying (the victor gets to write history) that is used as a cop out by those who wish to negate true history.
They normally make this statement and then follow it up by suggesting that this means that can never really know the truth of history – which is obviously nonsense.
The Crusades is a classic example of this.
For years (and sadly it still goes on today) we have been feed complete nonsense and anti-Catholic propaganda about the Crusades.
Many Catholics still lack a true understanding of what the Crusades were, and what actually happened.
As a result of this they have accepted the lies and misinformation of anti-Catholic propaganda which proclaims that the Crusades were some great evil perpetrated by a power-hungry warmongering Church.
This is obviously complete nonsense.
About time Maximus…!
I blame the reformation
Maximus,
The slaughter of innocent Muslims and Jews by the Crusaders when they stormed Jerusalem in the very first crusade was instrinsically evil (Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae defined this).
The Crusaders locked the Jews in the Jerusalem synagogue and burnt it to the ground along with everyone in it.
The slaugther of Jews in Europe by Crusaders en route to the Holy Land was also intrinsically evil.
These are historical facts about the Crusades which are neither nonsense or anti-Catholic.
Pope John Paul II apologised for these attrocities committed in the name of the Church. He was right to do so.
Our faith is in Christ, not in Popes or religious leaders who launch wars in his Holy Name (which is a form of blasphemy).
God Bless
Your Beardiness,
Your question about things that shake people’s faith is interesting.
I was speaking with someone recently who told me a friend of hers had left the Church because of “The Da Vinci Code”.
Then I was at a dinner last weekend and someone talked about how awful the Church is/was; it was her response after watching the BBC documentary that portrayed the Church as full of paedophiles and a hierarchy that seeks to cover for the paedophiles. Now, that was true once, but the show suggested it was still going on and B16 was covering things up to this day.
Some years ago, I might have believed the doco, but I now know more about what happened during the sex abuse crisis and what has happened since, so I know the truth. Many others don’t, though, and that’s dangerous and can shake their faith in the Church and her leaders. If people were more sceptical of the media, and aware of its anti-religious bias, they’d be less inclined to believe everything they see in print, watch on the TV or hear on the radio.
History is riddled with massive amounts of anti catholic propaganda. Was the Church mistaken in many things…yes. Did evil things happen …. yes. Were all Popes holy… no. The Crusades, were bad, but please, make sure you read your history right, putting it not only in historical context, but also realising that while a massive slaughter did go on, it was not condoned by the leaders of Crusaders. Nor were the Crusades a particulary organsised (and in the long run, successful) campaign. Things happened and continue to happen in the name of Christ which are wrong. But history is a funny thing, and always open to interuptation. Thankfully many historians are now painting the Church in a much more fair, and correst light.
I think its a bit funny to say ‘history is written by the winners’ therefore when you read Catholic history which says ‘it wasn’t so bad’ its biased. While there may be some bias by Catholic authors, I would hardly put the Church, especially in its beginnings and currently in the ‘winning basket.’ We are more and more being discriminated against, having our rights taken away, and generally being slanted in every possible way. And there is much more bias in anti catholic authors; so why believe what they write? If your going to complain that Catholic writers are biased so you have to take what they write with a grain of salt, I think you have to do the same thing the other way!
Our Faith is in Christ, in his Church. From the very beginning there have been controversies, and failures. (Peter anyone? Or how about Judas?) Scandal certainly is a bad thing, which is why we as Catholic’s carry such a responsibility for living an exemplary Christitan life and to help those who may have been led away by scandal of others, come back home.
Lets get to it people
You have to break some eggs to make an omelette… or a crêpe for that matter.
Just to be slightly put off course by Chris’ redherring: I recommend a great book on the Crusades by Regine Pernoud. What gives her the edge is her attentiveness to records. She is an arhivist and has spent years wading through very boring documents that no one else but an arhivist would bother to read. Thus, she has a grasp of real detail that others easily brush over. Anyway – give it a go before pronouncing too publicly any premature ‘wisdom’ on the Crusades.)
Back on course now:
The issue raised concerns faith and historical facts. Regarding supernatural faith: we believe what God says because it is God who speaks, and God, who reveals himself neither deceives nor can be deceived. Josef Pieper outlines the structure of faith brilliantly in “Faith, hope and love” and I cannot recommend this book highly enough. Basically, in all faith (human or divine) there is a witness to something who tells it to another who cannot see the event being witnessed to for himself (and possibly can never verify it). Then the question comes down to the credentials of the witness – (unless what is being told is somehow intrinsically impossible!) – and there is a preliminary phase of investigation: is this person trustworthy and reliable, honest, and indeed, do they know what they are talking about. If yes to all, then I make an act of trust in them, and this is the beginning of believing them – and as such, I gain certainty as to their message and so I hold it as though I have seen it (ie, I live of the truth of it, as if I was there myself).
So faith comes down to the reliability of the witness (knowing what they are talking about and trustworthy). In the case of Christ – who witnesses to the Father, who reveals the Trinity, and the sharing of the divine life through his Cross, applied in the sacraments etc. he must first establish his credentials, which he does by rising from the dead and appearing to men and women who become firsthand witnesses to his credentials. Thus the saying: if you want to start a religion, get yourself killed and three days later rise from the dead, and if you can’t do that, don’t bother”. Credentials. If Mohammed had tried that, there would have been no crusades! If Luther and Calvin had tried that there would be no need for ecumenical dialogue today!
So – what about little facts turning up – historical ones, or even scientific ones. First of all – scandal, which may sometimes be historical fact, cannot legitimately destroy faith, if faith is properly understood and properly embraced. Scandal is a horrible problem, but it is more a problem for those whose faith is weak or non existent. Now, as that is a lot of people, scandal is a big problem. It is of course always a problem for the one who scandalises the others – because it is their sin that scandalises in real scandal. But no person’s sin can take away from Christ’s credentials, from his trustworthiness, from the fact that he knows what he is talking about, indeed from his ability to save, to heal, to impart the divine life of the Most Holy Trinity. Christ is the priest in every Mass and his perfect Sacrifice is reenacted or re – presented (hyphen important!) in every Mass – and so the Mass saves us – by applying the cross to us, regardless of the sins of priests or even popes.
Now, if the historical facts in themselves are not facts – such as the idea that the crusades is a simply a story about what evil Christians did to innocent Muslims and Jews, and not also about what evil Muslims did to innocent Christians, (or indeed if one forgets other incidents in history, like the first persecutions of the Church, which were from Jews against innocent Christians) then one perhaps risks being falsely and unnecessarily scandalised.
Also, if they are historical facts from the imagination of ambitious novelists, such as the idea that Jesus was married and had children, etc or that he died some second time in a retirement village, or a myriad of other things that might contradict revealed truth – then we can safely say: these are not facts at all. These are fiction. And indeed, if science thinks it has evidence to bring down faith – it will be sure that if it has found a genuine contradiction between science and faith, that it will be bad science – probably bad philosophy posing under the disguise of science, as with concepts of atheistic purely random evolution, etc.
When it comes to certainty – arguments from authority are the weakest in the philosophical sphere because they are appealing to human authority which can get things wrong, but arguments from divine authority are the strongest because God can’t get it wrong, and if I disagree with God on the basis of what I think I have even seen myself, I can be sure that there is more chance of my eyes deceiving me than of God mucking it up!
Thus, understanding what supernatural faith is is vital for all this. When it comes to lesser things, like ‘what I’ve always thought’ – it is simply being humble in the search of truth to change one’s mind when it becomes clear that the truth lies in another direction.
But that is never easy for us for some reason
I should add of course that with supernatural faith it is God who gives the grace to make that full act of trust – for it is a total handing over of ourselves to Him. But the structure of faith remains the same for the faith we put in human beings and the faith we put in Him. It is not at all to equate the two – they are totally different because only God is absolutely trustworthy in knowing everything.
Some good points about the Crusades Gianna, but I don’t think it’s right to say that the Crusades were all bad.
Yes, some attrocities happened during some Crusades, but this doesn’t invalidate the Crusades as a whole.
People seem to forget that the Muslim armies under leaders like Salahden and Ben Yousef weren’t guitar playing hippies who got lost on a peaceful pilgrimage to Mecca.
The Muslim threat to Western freedom was very real, and they were unjust aggressors who started the whole conflict known today as the Crusades.
It seems that many people have forgetten this rather important fact, choosing instead to adopt the Osama Bin Laddin version of history.
I didn’t mean to say the Crusades were all bad; to the contrary I realise they were in the face of a threat and did some good. I was just pointing out more that history is often skewed and that even if they WERE all bad, that doesn’t change the fact that our faith must go beyond human error
All this reminds me of a joke I heard the other day (well, maybe not funny enough to be classified as a joke, but the person who told me it thought it to be such)
At the end of time, at the final judgement, all those who attack the Church at every opportunity, dragging up the sins of its members will be weeping and grinding their teeth – saying: “If we only knew half the sins of the members of the Church!!!”
I don’t get it…
re: Scribe post#7
Scribe, are you absolutely sure that it’s a ‘was’, i.e. of the past, and thus not relevant anymore??
Hey Beardy, to add my two cents worth – I think rational people generally do take into account the possibility of bias and the motive of historical writers – that’s why when things are proven (like the books in the bible, what Jesus said and did etc.) more emphasis is put on evidence written by secular sources who don’t have a vested interest, or writers such as the gospel writers in the bible who didn’t have a financial motive to write what they wrote (and in fact it wasn’t even in their interests at all), and they were close to in time to actual events… so I don’t think too much of what we believe is faced on historical fancy or a ‘victors’ view of events. I don’t know a huge amount, but where due, I think the Church is quite ready to agree that people within it have not always been right… I guess we are all sinners, and don’t always do the right thing.
Aye I agree eye!
Which is why, on things like the Crusades I often think that the LEAST biased commentaries are the Catholic ones. Everyone else has an agenda on such a contentious issue as this. The Church’s agenda is getting the truth out to the world.
Even if that isn’t the case I think it would be foolish to believe popular opinion on one of the top 5 Catholic Scapegoat Issues. We need to be very prudent who and what we listen to. On that note I might try and hunt out that book, thanks poorclear.
Very good points Max.
Some of those things need to be yelled a little louder I think!
Reality check people: the crusades were launched some 500 odd years after muslim armies conqoured Jerusalem.
You can’t justify starting a war because 500 years ago someone conquored a country that you’d like as part of your own empire.
Before I became a Catholic I had to come to terms with all the attrocities committed by Catholic Church leaders (including Popes). This has strengthend my faith considerably, because I have grasped that the Church herself is holy despite the sins of its members and leaders. Having come to terms with the crusades and the inquisition, there’s no other attrocity church leaders can comit that could ever shake my faith in the church.
God Bless
History check people: the Crusades were actually launched about 400 (not 500) years after Islam had started its campaign of unjust attack on Christian lands.
Sooner or later the West had to respond, they had no choice in the matter.
I recomend that you read the following article by Thomas F. Madden, who is a Crusades historian and associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. He is the author of numerous works, including A Concise History of the Crusades, and co-author, with Donald Queller, of The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople.
In other words; he knows more than any of us about the Crusades.
Let me quote a couple of bits from his article:
“With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.”
That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.
“Crusading,” Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith has rightly argued, was understood as an “an act of love”—in this case, the love of one’s neighbor. The Crusade was seen as an errand of mercy to right a terrible wrong. As Pope Innocent III wrote to the Knights Templar, “You carry out in deeds the words of the Gospel, ‘Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends.’”
You can read the entire article here: http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm – it gives a ver good overview of the Crusades and provides balance to the erroneous pop-history version of the Crusades that some on this blog have obviously read
REALITY CHECK CHRIS
The immediate cause of the crusades was much later than the first rampages by the Mohammedian armies – that wiped out large sections of the Church in North Africa.
The immediate cause was the slaughter by muslims of a large Christian pilgrimage, which was attacked and murdered (martyred) while they simply knelt and prayed. They did not fight back on that occasion. This was the first unprovoked attack. Before that, pilgrimages had been able to continue to Jerusalem without problem.
After that and other incidents of its nature, it was seen by the Christian west that it would be legitimate to protect itself with arms from unjust aggressors while making pilgrimage to these Christian shrines in formerly Christian lands. There were still significant Christian communities in these areas that were increasingly in danger of being wiped out.
The people who went on crusades were not colonialists, conquering new lands. They had every intention of coming back home and living there once their sacred task was dispatched.
To demonise them is unjust and ignorant.
We are not canonising them here – simply asking for some balance and for Catholics to look into the matter a little more carefully rather than simply accept the unhistorical propaganda that surrounds them.
It is true that there were atrocities committed against innocent populations in the long process fo the crusades and that they degenerated badly. For that, the pope has apologised. But he has not apologised for what was good and holy about the crusades. And to think that all is evil due to the abuses within them, is unhistorical and simply ludichris.
I am glad Chris that you made the important distinction in your conversion process between the holiness of the church and the sinfulness of its members. That is a vital distinction to make. And it may have helped you get over the enormous scandal that the crusades posed to you. That is good. The fact that the evil of the crusades may have been exaggerated in your head and imagination at that time doesn’t alter the necessity of holding on to this important distinction in any case. We need it for our own lives – otherwise, every sin we commit would be the end of the Church!
Here is the speech of Pope Urban II who launched the first crusade:
Well-beloved brothers,
The heavy demands of the times have forced me, Urban, by the grace of God the wearer of the pontifical tiara and Pontiff of the whole earth, to come before you, the servants of God, as a messenger to reveal the divine will….
Although, children of God, you have made a solemn promise to keep peace among yourselves and faithfully uphold the rights of the Church, you must now, fortified anew by the grace of our Lord, show the strength of your zeal in the performance of a precious task which concerns all of you no less than it concerns the Lord. It is imperative that you bring to your brothers in the East the help so often promised and so urgently needed. They have been attacked, as many of you know, by Turks and Arabs, who have spread into imperial territories as far as that part of the Mediterranean which is known as the Arm of Saint George [1] and who are penetrating ever farther into the lands of these Christians, whom they have defeated seven times in battle, killing or capturing many of them. Churches have been destroyed and the countryside laid waste. If you do not make a stand against the enemy now, the tide of their advance will overwhelm many more faithful servants of God.
Therefore, I beg and beseech you–and not I alone, but our Lord begs and beseeches you as heralds of Christ–rich and poor alike make haste to drive this evil race from the places where our brothers live and bring a very present help to the worshippers of Christ. I speak in my own person to you who stand here. I will send the news to those who are far off, but it is the voice of Christ which commands your obedience.
Crusading,” Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith has rightly argued, was understood as an “an act of love”—in this case, the love of one’s neighbor.
I see.
Killing your enemies is now an “act of love”. Despite what Christ taught in the sermon on the mount about loving your enemies and praying for them.
The pograms the crusaders lauched against the Jews in Germany on their way to sack Jerusalem were acts of love.
The 1st crusade was an act of love when it stormed Jerusalem and slaughterd the Jews and Muslim inhabitants.
The crusaders who locked the Jews in the Jeruslaem synagogue and burnt it to the ground with everyone inside it were comitting an act of love.
The last crusade which stormed Christian Constantinople, fatally weakening it, was an act of love.
When the crusaders were committing all these “acts of love” they had painted on their shields and and bodies and held in front of their armies the cross. Can you see why the symbol of the cross is such a scandal in Muslim and Jewish eyes ? Because those who slaughtered them wore it !
Sometimes Christians don’t know what love is.
Pope Pope Urban II’s “but it is the voice of Christ which commands your obedience” to join the Crusades is in direct opposition to the sermon on the mount and the 5th commandment.
It’s no accident that US university apologists for the Crusades like Thomas Madden are busy rewritting history at precisely the time their own country is expanding its global empire by invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Crusades revisionism is part of the ongoing war propoganada effort to whip up support for war and empire today.
God Bless
Chris,
You’re dreaming pal.
Thomas Madden is one of the top Crusade historians, his interest has always been in presenting the truth about what the Crusades were and weren’t.
I suspect that you’ve read too much bad pop-history on the Crusades, and you are now bringing that bias to this issue.
No one here is saying that everything that certain Crusaders did was good or loving, but let’s get real here – the Crusades were a legitimate defence against an unjust aggressor.
You seem to be letting your judgment be clouded by false histories, and by other totally unrelated events like the US Iraq war (which has nothing to do with the Crusades).
You need to take another look at this issue man.
Maximus,
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches :-
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
The Crusades did not meet these conditions. Therefore, they were not a legitimate defence.
All other means of putting an end to it were not shown to be impractical or ineffective.
There were not serious prospects of success; (The Crusades were total failures; the most “sucessful” being the 1st which slaugthered the Muslim and Jewish population of Jerusalem).
The use of arms did produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated (as I’ve shown above). Christians have lived in peace under Muslim regimes for over a millenium and their rights to worship were almost always respected by their Muslim rulers.
Thomas F. Madden is a right wing pro-war U.S. Catholic who publishes in Crisis Magazine, a magazine founded by Deal Hudson, who was President Bush’s man responsible for the White House’s outreach to Catholics (Deal resigned after a sex scandal inwhich he had used his position as a university professor to engage in adulterous relations with a student).
God Bless
Chris,
Your inability to make key distinctions really holds you back from advancing in these discussions.
Can you not see how…
(1) a group of people can start doing something which is
(2) a good act (good in itself – per se – i.e., self defence, and defence of the innocent, and defence of holy places),
(3) called for by those with authority over them,
(4) with an original good and right intention,
(5) but that some of the members of the group…
(6) mess up some part of it (the circumstances), i.e., some bad knights or soldiers get blood thirsty …and
(7) that doesn’t destroy the original good act, or the original good intentions, or the original goal/end of the act…of achieving some good for others?
(8) But that it only makes some parts of it bad and evil committed by only some of them, not the whole thing?
Can you not see that?
And so Pope John Paul II apologised for the evil acts committed during the Crusades, not the good act of the Crusades in itself. He never apologised for that.
The first crusade began badly with the slaughter of Jews in Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade
The First Crusade ignited a long tradition of organized violence against Jews in European culture. While anti-Semitism had existed in Europe for centuries, the First Crusade marks the first mass organized violence against Jewish communities. In Germany, certain leaders understood this war against the infidels to be applicable not only to the Muslims in the Holy Land, but even against Jews within their own lands. Setting off in the early summer of 1096, a German army of around 10,000 soldiers led by Gottschalk, Volkmar, and Emicho, proceeded northward through the Rhine valley, in the opposite direction of Jerusalem, and began a series of pogroms which some historians call “the first Holocaust”.[2] This understanding of the idea of a Crusade was not universal, however, and Jews found some refuge in sanctuaries, with one example being the Archbishop of Cologne’s attempts to protect the Jews of the city from the slaughter carried on by the city’s population.
The preaching of the crusade inspired further anti-Semitism. According to some preachers, Jews and Muslims were enemies of Christ, and enemies were to be fought or converted to Christianity. The general public apparently assumed that “fought” meant “fought to the death”, or “killed”.
…
The crusaders moved north through the Rhine valley into well-known Jewish communities such as Cologne, and then southward. Jewish communities were given the option of converting to Christianity or being slaughtered. Most would not convert and, as news of the mass killings spread, many Jewish communities committed mass suicides in horrific scenes. Thousands of Jews were massacred, despite some attempts by local clergy and secular authorities to shelter them. The massacres were justified by the claim that Urban’s speech at Clermont promised reward from God for killing non-Christians of any sort, not just Muslims. Although the papacy abhorred and preached against the purging of Muslim and Jewish inhabitants during this and future crusades, there were numerous attacks on Jews following every crusade movement.
You can read about the first Crusade storming of Jerusalem at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_%281099%29 :-
Once the Crusaders had breached the outer walls and entered the city almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem was killed over the course of that afternoon, evening and next morning. Muslims, Jews, and even a few of the Christians were all massacred with indiscriminate violence. Many Muslims sought shelter in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, where, according to one famous account in Gesta, “…the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles…” According to Raymond of Aguilers “men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins.” The chronicle of Ibn al-Qalanisi states the Jewish defenders sought refuge in their synagogue, but the “Franks burned it over their heads”, killing everyone inside.[1] The Crusaders circled the flaming building while singing “Christ, We Adore Thee!”.[2] Tancred claimed the Temple quarter for himself and offered protection to some of the Muslims there, but he could not prevent their deaths at the hands of his fellow crusaders.
God Bless
JPIII,
The 5th commandment is quite simple :-
Thou shalt not kill
The Crusades intended to kill.
God Bless
Oh boy.
I have a certain sense of deja vu…
Chris,
our attitude towards information off the internet is quite simple…
Don’t trust all the stuff you read on Wikippedia
So Chris, based on your reasoning, if you are to remain consistent and intellectually honest, you MUST HOLD the view that the defense of the Allies during WWII was completely evil because they killed people; and further because committed some abuses at different parts of the war. And due to those abuses, it makes their whole defense during WWII completely evil and immoral.
And further, YOU MUST hold that it would have been more Christian and Christ-like to have “peacefully” allowed the Germans to come through and take England and any other country that they wanted, and further, allowed them to deport all the Jews living in England at the time back the Concentration Camps in Austria and Germany. And you MUST maintain, based on your own pronounced reasoning, that it would be more Christ-like to allow the Germans to suppress and destroy Polish culture, Austrian culture, French culture and English culture, among others, so that they could install the “superior” Arian Culture in Europe, because, if they had resisted using force, in your reasoning, that would have been sinful and evil, because to resist by force, is evil in itself (according to your reasoning).
Therefore, in your reasoning, it would have been better to allow even greater evil to befall Europe, because it would have been evil to resist by force.
This is where you contradict yourself Chris. You have previously maintained (falsely/wrongly I might add) that in the contraception issue one can go with the lesser evil argument…i.e., that in the case of two people having sex, and there is a danger of transmitting HIV, then the lesser evil of a person using a condom, is better than the greater evil of somebody contracting the disease.
But here in your own system of argument you can’t keep any consistency, even in your own erroneous system. In your own system, why can’t the lesser evil argument be used? Why can’t a group of people use force to defend themselves, even to the point of possible loss of life (the lesser evil), to avoid the greater evil, of many many more people dying; and cultures and countries being destroyed, if one didn’t use force?
You contradict yourself left, right, and centre Chris.
Some crusaders broke the fifth commandment (and opposed the will of the ecclesial authorities that commissioned them) by killing innocent people en route to or from crusading wars. But those who killed unjust aggressors in the legitimate defence of the innocent did not.
The firth commandment is no a prohibition against all killing. It does not prohibit the killing of carots, of apple trees, of mice, of cows or even of men who are unjust agressors in certain circumstances. It prohibits the deliberate killing of any innocent human beings, where innocent refers to someone who is not an unjust aggressor. Thus, it prohibits every abortion – for the child is never an unjust aggressor, but it doesn’t prohibit every act of capital punishment, where circumstances justify it, or every act of war, where circumstances justify it.
I looks like continuing this debate about the crusades is a fruitless endeavour – seeing that both sides are so far off having the same principles to work from.
Let’s remember though that the crusades were a red herring in this topic – and that it is really about what someone might do if a core belief of their faith or a core teaching of the bible was proven to be a little flawed. To that I would say: don’t worry – that is not possible, as God is the principle author of the bible and the guarentor of the faith that He has revealed. So as long as our interpretation of those is correct, we have nothing to fear from any branch of the lower sciences.
JPIII,
Did JPII take up arms to fight and kill the German invaders of his country? No.
Did Jesus take up arms to fight and kill the Roman invaders of his country? No.
Did any of the Apostles ? No.
Should we ? No.
Deliberate killing is a direct violation of the commandment. Something intrinsically evil. Something intrinsically evil is never justified regardless of how many lives it is claimed can be saved.
There is no commandment against using a condom. The church does not teach that using a condom is intrinsically evil.
QED.
God Bless
But those who killed unjust aggressors in the legitimate defence of the innocent did not.
If it’s not a legitimate use of military force (and I contend that the crusades weren’t) then it’s an illegimiate use of military force and any killing is simply murder, whether of enemy troops or civilians.
My belief in the 5th comamndment is a core belief of my faith and a core teaching of the bible. I used to believe in wars and I thought JII a wimp. Part of my conversion was realising that he was right and I was wrong – war is never justified (as JPII proclaimed on arrival at the Beunos Aires airport during the Falklands war).
God Bless
Bubble,
I’d go so far as to say it’s deja vu all over again…
Chris. You mentioned:
‘Christians have lived in peace under Muslim regimes for over a millenium and their rights to worship were almost always respected by their Muslim rulers.’
Yeah right. Tell that to the Iraqi Catholics who have left the country in droves because their rights to worship were not respected. Tell that to Catholics in Indonesia, who have left and come to NZ because their rights to worship have not been respected.
I’d love to know where these Muslim regimes to which you refer are.
In fact, Chris, tell that to the Sister Disciples of the Divine Master, Vermont St, whom I have seen get spat on and abused by the Muslim taxi drivers next to their mosque while on their way to Mass at the Seminary or at the Parish of the Sacred Heart, Ponsonby. I’ve seen it happen.
Sorry, but I feel very strongly about this.
Yes, I tend to agree poorclear.
Chris, I assume that from this reply you would have allowed the Germans to plunder Europe. I think any normal human being can see how this is against natural reason, common sense and good will. I think that any Christian can see how this is against natural reason, common sense, good will, Holy Scripture and the perennial Tradition of the Church.
Chris, your position is at odds with natural reason and the Teaching of the Church.
That said, I agree with poorclear. We keep going round and around with this argument. Let us leave it lie.
Chris,
Did you know that JP II did actually support the underground resistance movement during WWII?
Did you read the news last week about the Muslim man who has been given the death penalty because he left his copy of the Koran in a washroom?
If I had lived during the time of the Crusades I would have gone on Crusade – you see, I don’t believe in letting unjust agressors have their way.
Maybe it’s cause I’m an old fashioned guy who doesn’t like oppression, and believes that sometimes you just gotta man up and protect the innocent.
sometimes you just gotta man up and protect the innocent.
How do you explain, then, that neither Christ nor his apostles nor the early Christians joined the Jewish war to liberate Israel from Roman tyranny ? There was heaps of pressure for them to sign up to that Crusade to liberate the Holy Land and heaps of people all around them were joining up to kill and be killed.
But they had another kind of war in mind. A war against our own sin, not against our fellow men.
God Bless
The Jewish rebellion wasn’t a Crusade – in fact it wasn’t even close to a Crusade, in fact there wasn’t even a united Jewish group – there were pockets of Jews who pursued millitary action, and others who were quite happy to live under Roman rule.
Roman rule can’t be compared to Islamic invasion and rule – they were two different animals.
The simple fact is that there are a lot of things that Jesus and His apostles never did – this means nothing.
Jesus and his apostles never gave money to starving Africans, they never prayed the Rosary, they never had websites or iPODs – so I guess all these things are immoral too?
Maximus, yes, I know what you mean about there being no united Jewish groups…I saw a very good movie on this once.
There was the People’s Front of Judea, the Judean People’s Front…lots of others too, but I can’t remember all their names now
Blessed are the cheese makers FXD, blessed are the cheese makers!
Come now Maximus, the statement clearly refers to any makers of dairy products…
and by the way, I’m Brian, and so’s my wife! (although I don’t have one…).
Now, write it out a hundred times…
He’s not the messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!
“All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?”
Oh man, I’m laughing so hard…!
Lucky noone’s here at the moment, such immoderate laughter does not become us.
Right! That’s it! That’s your last chance! I won’t tell you again! If you call me ‘bignose’ one more time…
“There shall, in that time, be rumours of things going astray, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia work base that has an attachment. At this time, a friend shall lose his friend’s hammer and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o’clock.”
“Crucifixion?”
“Er, no, freedom actually.”
“What?”
“Yeah, they said I hadn’t done anything and I could go and live on an island somewhere.”
“Oh I say, that’s very nice. Well, off you go then.”
“No, I’m just pulling your leg, it’s crucifixion really.”
“Oh yes, very good. Well…”
“Yes I know, out of the door, one cross each, line on the left.”
“What I was thinking was I was going to ask him if he could make me a bit lame in one leg during the middle of the week. You know, something beggable, but not leprosy, which is a pain in the ass to be blunt and excuse my French, sir.”
“Do we have anyone in our pwisons at all?
Oh, yes, sir. We’ve got, uh, ‘Samson’, sir.
Samson?
Samson the Sadducee Strangler, sir. Silus the Syrian Assassin. Several seditious scribes from Caesarea. Sixty-seven seers from–
Let me thpeak to them, Pontiuth!
Oh, no.
Ah. Good idea, Biggus.
Thitizens! We have Thamthon the Thadduthee Thtrangler, Thilus the Athyrian Athathin, theveral theditiouth thcribth from Thaetharea, and…”
“Now, look! No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle! Do you understand? Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say ‘Jehovah’.”
“If you want to join the People’s Front of Judea, you have to really hate the Romans.
“I do!”
“Oh yeah, how much?”
“A lot!”
“Right, you’re in.”
“You have been found guilty by the elders of the town of uttering the name of our Lord, and so, as a blasphemer, you are to be stoned to death.”
“Look. I’d had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was, ‘That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.’”
“Blasphemy! He said it again!”
“Look. I don’t think it ought to be blasphemy, just saying ‘Jehovah’.”
“You’re only making it worse for yourself!”
“Making it worse?! How could it be worse?! Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!”
“I’m not a roman mum, I’m a kike, a yid, a heebie, a hook-nose, I’m kosher mum, I’m a Red Sea pedestrian, and proud of it!”
“‘We, the People’s Front of Judea, brackets, officials, end brackets, do hereby convey our sincere fraternal and sisterly greetings to you, Brian, on this, the occasion of your martyrdom.’
‘What?’
‘Your death will stand as a landmark in the continuing struggle to liberate the parent land from the hands of the Roman Imperialist aggressors, excluding those concerned with drainage, medicine, roads, housing, education, viniculture, and any other Romans contributing to the welfare of Jews of both sexes and hermaphrodites. Signed on behalf of the P.F.J., etcetera.’”
“I am NOT the Messiah!”
“I say you are Lord, and I should know. I’ve followed a few.”
Monty Python much?
The competition heats up…! You’ve come up with some beauties, I will say! Bravo!
“‘It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.’
‘But…you can’t have babies.’
‘Don’t you oppress me.’
‘I’m not oppressing you, Stan. You haven’t got a womb! Where’s the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!’”
So,
Getting back to our original poser. How do we now answer the question thus posed;
“I also wonder sometimes what would happen if some core pillar of my faith, or something I read in the Bible, is proven to be a little flawed”
A rather interesting conundrum. But, I think, solved by a little piece of rhyme we all know so well.
Life’s a piece of s**t
When you look at it
Life’s a laugh and death’s a joke, it’s true.
You’ll see it’s all a show
Keep ‘em laughing as you go
Just remember that the last laugh is on you.
But always remember…
“You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody! You’ve got to think for yourselves. You’re all individuals!”
“Have I got a big nose, Mum?”
“Oh, stop thinking about sex.”
“I wasn’t.”
“You’re always on about it… morning, noon, and night. ‘Will the girls like this?’ ‘Will the girls like that?’ ‘Is it too big?’ ‘Is it too small?’”
“We are the Judean People’s Front crack suicide squad! Suicide squad, attack!”
“Right. Now, item four: attainment of world supremacy within the next five years. Francis, you’ve been doing some work on this.
Yeah. Thank you, Reg. Well, quite frankly, siblings, I think five years is optimistic, unless we can smash the Roman empire within the next twelve months.
Twelve months?
Yeah, twelve months. And, let’s face it, as empires go, this is the big one, so we’ve got to get up off our arses and stop just talking about it!
Hear! Hear!
I agree. It’s action that counts, not words, and we need action now.
Hear! Hear!
You’re right. We could sit around here all day talking, passing resolutions, making clever speeches. It’s not going to shift one Roman soldier!
So, let’s just stop gabbing on about it. It’s completely pointless and it’s getting us nowhere!”
Wome is your fwiend.
“Er, well, um, if you’re dropping by again, do pop in. Heh. And thanks a lot for the gold and frankincense, er, but don’t worry too much about the myrrh next time. All right?”
‘Now, this is the palace in Caesar’s Square. Our commando unit will approach from Fish Street, under cover of night, and make our way to the northwestern main drain. If questioned, we are sewage workers on our way to a conference. Reg, our glorious leader and founder of the P.F.J., will be coordinating consultant at the drain head, though he himself will not be taking part in any terrorist action, as he has a bad back.’
‘Aren’t you going to come with us?’
‘Solidarity, brother.’
‘Oh, yes. Solidarity, Reg.’
“Please, please, please listen! I’ve got one or two things to say.
“Tell us! Tell us both of them!”
“Look, you’ve got it all wrong! You don’t NEED to follow ME, You don’t NEED to follow ANYBODY! You’ve got to think for your selves! You’re ALL individuals!”
“Yes! We’re all individuals!”
“You’re all different!”
“Yes, we ARE all different!”
I’m not.
Romani ite domum!
‘Go home’? This is motion towards. Isn’t it, boy?’
Ah. Ah, dative, sir! Ahh! No, not dative! Not the dative, sir! No! Ah! Oh, the… accusative! Accusative! Ah! ‘Domum’, sir! ‘Ad domum’! Ah! Oooh! Ah!
Except that ‘domus’ takes the…?
The locative, sir!
Which is…?!
‘Domum.’