Did the last Pope make an error in apologizing for Crusades?

[Lawdog]

It seems the last Pope (of blessed memory) may have made an error in apologizing for the Crusades.

1) The Crusades postponed Europe and Christiandom from a Muslim take over for several centuries.

2) Also, study of the era shows that the Church condemned certain massacres (such as killing Jews or civilians) by Crusaders at the time.

3) Most Crusaders who died did not see themselves as commiting crimes, but only doing what the Church wanted.

4) Christians should not apologize for the actions of others, even those in their own Church. People should make their own apologies.

5) Muslims will not think any better of Christianity because of the Apology

 

[okinrus]

I don't think the Pope apologized for the crusades, but for the atrocities committed during the crusades.

1) The Crusades postponed Europe and Christiandom from a Muslim take over for several centuries.

Alone, this isn't a sufficient reason. A country cannot merely take over another country just because of the perception of threat. There has to be real tangible evidence that the muslims in the holy city were going to strike. There has to be dialog between the two countries.

3) Most Crusaders who died did not see themselves as commiting crimes, but only doing what the Church wanted.

No, I don't think the Pope apologized for the actions of all individual cursaders, but for those in charge, bedause to unleashing a disorganized band of crusaders to do war and pillage isn't moral; it's downright insane. And this lack of foresight could be apologized for.

 

[Adstar]

If one pope apologizes for the actions of another pope he undermines the lie of papal authority/infallibility.

One must be wrong. Either the one apologizing for the action or the one who authorized the action. Both cannot be right in what they did. And if one is not right then the whole facade of their authority falls in a heap.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[okinrus]

If one pope apologizes for the actions of another pope he undermines the lie of papal authority/infallibility.

Papal infallibility applies when the Pope proclaims an ex-cathedra(from the chair) statement, basically allowing for official approval of doctrine.

 

[Lawdog]

Okrinus has understood correctly.

However, the very apology has caused people, such as Adstar, to question not just the authority of the Church, but wisdom, in history. Therefore this was unwise.

I also think that the Crusades were justified, although not the atrocities. The crusade as an aggression were necessary, since, in the eyes of the Church and of actual history, the Muslims had forced entire cultures to abandon christianity, ie. Turkey, North Africa, Egypt. It was only a matter of time. Offensive action was necessary in order to be Defensive.

 

[Adstar]

However, the very apology has caused people, such as Adstar, to question not just the authority of the Church, but wisdom, in history. Therefore this was unwise.

Oh i discounted the authority of the catholic church way before the apology.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[FieryIce]

Both were/are not doing what is right, then the whole facade of their authority falls in a heap.

 

[Lawdog]

Perhaps people today do not want authority, because it means that they will have to follow ways of living that they did not choose for themselves, and thats too much effort, they think.

the phrase "facade of authority" is irrelavant, since, even if an authority makes mistakes, that does not mean that its not appointed by God.

 

[spidergoat]

1) The Crusades postponed Europe and Christiandom from a Muslim take over for several centuries.

2) Also, study of the era shows that the Church condemned certain massacres (such as killing Jews or civilians) by Crusaders at the time.

3) Most Crusaders who died did not see themselves as commiting crimes, but only doing what the Church wanted.

4) Christians should not apologize for the actions of others, even those in their own Church. People should make their own apologies.

5) Muslims will not think any better of Christianity because of the Apology

The crusades may have had a political purpose, but they were un-Christian, and so an apology was the least they could do. Jesus didn't want people to kill, period.

 

[Lawdog]

The crusades may have had a political purpose, but they were un-Christian, and so an apology was the least they could do. Jesus didn't want people to kill, period.

It seems I must restate my point, the distinction I was making. It was about whether the Pope has the authority. Un-christian acts did occur.

The Church allows war provided it is just, and several conditions (5) must be met for this. Our Iraq war did not meet all criteria. the Pope did not want him to go.

Were the Crusades initiated Justly? It is just as difficult to discern today as it was back then.

 

[Adstar]

The Church allows war provided it is just

The Body of Christ follows the teachings of Jesus and do not take part in war.

your "church' follows the thoughts of men, who seek to justify their rebellion against the teachings of Jesus by using theology to say that their thoughts are the will of God. From the first lie all other lies mushroomed.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[okinrus]

The Church allows war provided it is just, and several conditions (5) must be met for this. Our Iraq war did not meet all criteria. the Pope did not want him to go.

The requirements for just war have to be determined by the individual. Bush thought the requirements were met; the Pope didn't. Whether Bush knew something the Pope didn't, or whether Bush thought the side-effects of the war would be better, we don't know.

 

[§outh§tar]

your "church' follows the thoughts of men, who seek to justify their rebellion against the teachings of Jesus by using theology to say that their thoughts are the will of God. From the first lie all other lies mushroomed.

You mean the lie of inerrancy, or the lie of the resurrection?

 

[Lawdog]

The requirements for just war have to be met, a discernment by the governing individuals. Bush thought the requirements were met; the Pope didn't. Whether Bush knew something the Pope didn't, or whether Bush thought the side-effects of the war would be better, we don't know.

 

[Cottontop3000]

The requirements for just war have to be met, a discernment by the governing individuals. Bush thought the requirements were met; the Pope didn't. Whether Bush knew something the Pope didn't, or whether Bush thought the side-effects of the war would be better, we don't know.

Maybe Bush did know something the Pope didn't: that He (Bush, I mean), was going to go kick Saddam's ass whether anyone else liked it or not. Priviledge of the Holy Rollin' President, you know? Didn't even need the Congress to actually declare war against Iraq for him, did he?

Also, do you really think Bush thought at all? Or was it Cheney? Or Bush's daddy, ole Bush senior? You know, I have some experience with these three knuckleheads. One of them nominated me to West Point, another spoke at my graduation from same, and the third, well, thank Gawd I got out of the Army before his dumbass got elected. On the other hand, maybe I could have been one of the 1600+ soldier dead in Iraq if I had stayed in. For me, I wouldn't have minded too much. For the others, all I can say is, I HOPE they are in a good place.

Do you think Bush is gonna send his interenet goons to come get me for saying this shit? Wouldn't surprise me in the least. I am from Texas after all, and things work a little different down here South of the Bible Belt and all. Be seeing ya'll in hell maties.

 

[Clockwood]

Now I will just wait a few more hundred years for assorted Islamic holy leaders to apologise for the Moorish invasions and the bloody near-extermination of the Zoroastrian religion.