Flawed?

[qfnol31]

Aww, don't leave. I would help you if I could.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]Did any crusaders or modern Catholics for that matter, consider that violence, even defensive violence, instead of "turning the other cheek" might provoke Muslims, only strengthening their anger. You're giving them what they want after all. Every Muslim wants to be a martyr for Allah. I guess Catholics do too. Look at all the saints who were martyrs. Not all of them were active fighters though. Some were burned at the stake for turning the other cheek.[/quote]

That is very true, and that is part of what is so wonderful about catholicism. As GK Chesterton explained, the Catholic Church is the only place in which the crusader and the monk can stand side by side in holiness. Neither one is more or less right than the other. The Crusader is right to defend the Holy Land. The monk is right to humbly accept martyrdom without lifting a finger in anger. This mimics the live of Christ as well. Christ came down upon the vendors at the temple with a Righteous Indignation, yet humbly accepted the injustice of his death upon the cross without trying to stop it.

I know it may seem like a paradox, but it is precisely in this paradox that we find ourselves and our calling, for the Church needs both the crusader and the monk. Dusty, if your calling is that of the peaceful monk, you most certainly have a place in the Church, and one of great esteem as well.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Dusty Fro]

I can't be a monk. I'm a woman. Maybe that's why I don't understand you boys with your testosterone raging, telling you to smash and kill!

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Dusty Fro' date='Aug 3 2004, 01:41 AM'] I can't be a monk. I'm a woman. Maybe that's why I don't understand you boys with your testosterone raging, telling you to smash and kill! [/quote]
Ahhh, now this explains quite a bit. I suggest you read the story of St. Joan of Arc. Then get back to us.

[Dusty Fro]

I have read the story of Joan of Arc, a couple of them, actually, and seen her statue in that white cathedral in Paris. But I'm mostly British, so I still don't know what to make of this saucy French tart.

She didn't lead a religious crusade though. She fought and led for France, and though she was led by God, it's still different from the crusades demanded by the popes. It was a bishop who condemned her after all.

Actually, that brings up a good point. Who would be wrong here? Either Joan or the clergy. Since she was later made a saint, we can only assume that the bishop did a bad thing. Is that a flaw in church history? Or was burning a woman at the stake a good and holy thing as well?

[Aloysius]

Bishops are human beings who can sin. That doesn't make the Church wrong, but a person in the Church wrong. Why go all the way back then to proove that bishops can sin? Didn't a bunch of bishops cover up a sex abuse crisis recently? Bishops aren't perfect, we never claimed they were.

The Crusades were in defense of persecuted Christians. The Crusades were in defense of all of Christendome.

[Aloysius]

I guess the British never quite liked Joan of Ark, William Shakespear wrote a play about King Henry The Sixth and made Joan out to have goten her military power from the Devil though she claimed it was from the Blessed Mother.

[White Knight]

[quote name='Dusty Fro' date='Jul 28 2004, 02:07 AM'] Do you think in the history of the Church, the head dudes have made any mistakes?  For example, the Crusades.  A modern person can agree that a violent crusade is no way to convert people, and it's something that non believers hold over the Church's head as a reason they don't want to be a part of Christianity, even though it happened a long time ago. [/quote]
I politely erge you to do more reserach on the Crusades you'll learn it was an Offensive-Defensive War between the Christians and Muslims, and you'll learn the Muslims were the agreesors, yes believe it or not they were, they took 2/3rds of Christendom, and were going to evenually invade South-Eastern European, The Church Saw this as a obivious threat at the time, and reacted in Defensive action of itself and European Countries in General.


Christians won, sure we didn't get the Holy Land Back our first objective that is, but our second objective was to keep the Muslims in Check and keep them from invading Europe and out of Europe in general, and we did, so our Second Objective was more important than our first most people wont tell ya that. Sure we lost one but we won a greater battle, Muslims at this time had the same unifed hatred as they do today, and they wanted to Destroy the Christians and Jews, they Failed, obiviously, Muslims didn't gain ground after the 2/3rd's of Christendom were taken, and they didn't Destroy the Christians or Jews. Big Lose for the Muslims lol, Huge Victory for us, and this makes [b]"Matthew 16:18"[/b] SO much more powerful. Now yes, Christians did do some wrong things back then you can't denine it, but so did the Muslims.




Baist Historians, Scholors, wont tell ya that, research the history yourself, I read this for myself, from Non Catholic and Catholic Sources, and I find it to be the most believeable out of any other source out there, Public Liberial Media wont tell ya about that, nor will Liberial Historians, Scholors, Universities, Education programs, they wont tell you that, they will only give you a peice of the truth, and when they do, its all twisted and wrong.

Out of all 8 Crusades, its safe to say "The Christians Won" Despite what went wrong during that time, and to a certian "degree" it was "justifble" cause to do what we did. Like it or not, Believe it or not, the Christians won Period.


Back about 3 years ago I used to think the Crusades were wrong, now I dont.

Edited August 3, 2004 by White Knight

[White Knight]

Checkmark....

[Ellenita]

[quote]But I'm mostly British, so I still don't know what to make of this saucy French tart.[/quote]




That's an outrageous statement to make to these British ears....maybe the word 'tart' has a different meaning in the US? It certainly would never be a word used to describe any saint in the UK!

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Dusty Fro' date='Aug 3 2004, 03:39 AM'] I have read the story of Joan of Arc, a couple of them, actually, and seen her statue in that white cathedral in Paris. But I'm mostly British, so I still don't know what to make of this saucy French tart.

She didn't lead a religious crusade though. She fought and led for France, and though she was led by God, it's still different from the crusades demanded by the popes. It was a bishop who condemned her after all.

Actually, that brings up a good point. Who would be wrong here? Either Joan or the clergy. Since she was later made a saint, we can only assume that the bishop did a bad thing. Is that a flaw in church history? Or was burning a woman at the stake a good and holy thing as well? [/quote]
Excuse me!
You are talking about a Saint of the Church here.

The bishop was thinking more politics than God. It is a sin powerful people make, in and out of the Church.

[Dusty Fro]

My original question was if the head guys in charge of the church ever made mistakes. Bishops are head dudes. I guess y'all have answered my question.

[amarkich]

Fro, you misunderstand "turn the other cheek". That command is for individuals not for nations or governments. We turn the other cheek and forgive the sinner when he wrongs us, but the government seeks justice. If you are claiming that "turn the other cheek" applies to all institutions, then you have abandoned justice. When a man rapes a girl and kills her, we are called to forgive him and to pray for him. The government has the duty to find him and execute him for his crime, giving him a chance for repentance.