/lit/ - Literature

[Don Quixote OP No.1107472]

Dear /lit/:

Several times, by several different people, I have been compared to Don Quixote. In high school, I was compared to the man by some of my teachers. In college (which was out of state) I have been compared to him by a few professors. I am a Catholic, and have even been compared to him by some of the priests. Needless to say, it kind of freaks me out that so many people compare me to him.

I am unsure as weather or not to take this as a compliment. When I was younger, I took it as a positive compliment. However, during my senior year of highschool, I read the full book, and I am not sure how to take it. I put it out of my mind because I didn't find it relevent, but when constantly compared to a certain character that you are unaware of, you try to do some research to see if it is a good thing. I feel like an idiot to say that I am still unsure as to if this is something to be proud of or if it was a remark of distain.

tl;dr: I am Don Quixote minus the obsession with romantic literature. Should I be happy about that? What does it mean for my character?

Pic related.

[Anonymous No.1107478]

Better to be called Don Quixote then Bernard Gui.
fellow Catholic btw.

[Bill Murray !0Qo0b8vSmA No.1107483]

You take on windmills and have romantic delusions. It's an insult.

[Anonymous No.1107493]

You're a 50 year old mildly insane man. No I would not take it a a compliment. Unless you have the feeling your teachers haven't read the book. Then fuck those guys

[Don Quixote OP No.1107498]

>>1107478

Forgive my ignorance, good sir, but who is Bernard Gui? A quick synopsis?

[Anonymous No.1107499]

Curiously what college do you go too? I mean it could also be implying that yes, you are a bit too romantic but you also have an inherently chivalrous nature. Not a bad quality for a Catholic.

[Anonymous No.1107506]

For what it's worth, it was one of Sigmund Freud's favorite books, and he often compared himself to the protagonist. Freud learned Spanish specifically to read Cervantes, and for 10 years as a young man he and some friends had a kind of Cervantes "cult" which they called the Academia Española, and they signed their letters to each other in code-names taken from Cervantes' work. Also, when he was engaged to his future wife, he forced her to read DQ. See "Freud's Paranoid Quest" by Farrell.

But seriously, you wouldn't be much of a Don unless you've got yourself a Sancho, so go find one.

Catholic here too. Pax tecum.

[Don Quixote OP No.1107507]

>>1107493

I loved the book. I might be mildly insane, but not 50....

[Anonymous No.1107513]

>>1107498
Well I work for a Dominican Priory and I tend to go on a few rants and raves, Bernard Gui was a very prominent Dominican Inquisitor during the early 14th Century, he was also one of the earliest Dominican Historians. I'm also glibly called "Future Br.Torquemada"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Gui

[Anonymous No.1107523]

>>1107506
Not OP but I have to say

et cum spiritu tuo

[Don Quixote OP No.1107529]

>>1107499

Nothing fancy. Community is all I can afford. I work as a fitness coach part time. Going for Exercise Studies certs. I like to read in my spare time.

>>1107506

I am a bit of a fanatic about my religion and the Crusades, particulary the first. I could spent all night speaking with you about the glory of them.

>>1107513
....that sounds like me, too.

[Anonymous No.1107540]

>>1107529
Have you read Crocker's book "Triumph: The Power and Glory of the Catholic Church"? It's a pretty light read (only 600 pages) and damned hysterical.

Also do you have AIM or some type of IM Client?

[Anonymous No.1107550]

>>1107513
I don't think you know who Torquemada was

[Anonymous No.1107553]

>I am Don Quixote minus the obsession with romantic literature.

>implying that, without the obsession with Romantic literature, there's still a Don Quixote

[Don Quixote OP No.1107554]

>>1107540

I fucking love being Catholic, but I hate Vatican II.

No I have not.
Yes I do.

[Anonymous No.1107556]

>>1107550
I know exactly who he is, hence the glib comment (The Friars were joking).

He was described by a Spanish contemporary as:"the hammer of heretics, the light of Spain, the saviour of his country, the honour of his order"

[Anonymous No.1107558]

>>1107554
post it and we can carry on a decent conversation before the trolls come out of the woodwork. Also Vatican II was a tragedy, but multos annos for Holy Father Benedict XVI

[Anonymous No.1107565]

>>1107556
Ok then you're just an asshole. At least back then they had the excuse of not knowing any better. Also you must have found the only nice things anyone ever said about him

[Anonymous No.1107567]

>>1107565
I was being glib dammit! Torquemada was a bit of an ass but he was no better or worse then anyone else in the context of his time.

[Don Quixote OP No.1107571]

>>1107558

Of come now. Who's to say you're not the troll, my friend? We can talk here and ignore the trolls that pop in.

On the other side, what can be said about my question in the opening post?

[Anonymous No.1107577]

>>1107571
I really wouldn't take it as an insult, but as I mentioned before I have a bit of a romantic notion of the church. I mean I would just try and temper being quixotic with a bit of a more pragmatic nature of The Church (and perhaps your life). Do you attend an FSSP parish? I know when I was attending my local archdiocesan parish I was accused of being overly clerical etc because I had the audacity to think that "Eagles Wings" and "Gather us In" were terrible protestant sounding hymns.

[Anonymous No.1107580]

>>1107571
forgot to add, if you want a good book on the Crusades Wheatcroft's "Infidels" provides a very good overview. It's also very Academic unlike Crocker.

[Don Quixote OP No.1107587]

>>1107580

I prefer to go straight to the horse's mouth and read the Gesta Francorum. I have many different copies.

[Anonymous No.1107588]

I was the one who posted about Freud, and I have to say: surely the best way to define Bernard Gui for somebody who never heard of him is to say "He's played by F Murray Abraham in the movie version of The Name of the Rose."

And while we're on the subject, do you think Papa-Ratzi (as I call His Holiness Benedict XVI) sits up late at night thinking about the Prophecies of Saint Malachi?

Because SURELY it must be on his mind. It's been on mine....

Then again, I have faint sedevacantist tendencies which I would only confess on an anonymous board like this. I can't believe the cavalier way in which Papa-Ratzi seemingly closed the gap with the Anglican Heresy, sheerly out of a recognizably Teutonic power-grab over the schismatic Anglican bishoprics in Africa. Did SS Thomas More, Edmund Campion, and Robert Southwell die for NOTHING?

[Anonymous No.1107598]

>>1107588
Woah woah friend, Anglicanorum Coetibus seems to be a very fair document in regards to those Anglicans who choose to make use of it's provisions. Remember the Holy Father created the ordinate out of continual requests by the few remaining "Anglo-Catholics" who were looking for a way to jump ship out of the utter cluster fuck that is the Anglican Communion. I will be forever indebted to the Holy Father if for nothing else then Summorum Pontificum.

Umberto Eco was not very kind to Fr.Bernard Gui O.P., while yes he was an Inquisitor he wasn't nearly as despotic as Eco makes him out to be (at least in the film). When most people talk about the Inquisition in France they seem to paint Albegensianism as if it's some type of Proto-Protestantism.

[Anonymous No.1107600]

>>1107587
this is
>>1107577

Have you perhaps been entertaining thoughts of a Religious Vocation? I'm curious if perhaps one of the Priests you talk too think you have overly romantic views of what Religious life entails.

[Don Quixote OP No.1107601]

>>1107588

I am affraid that that all is a bit too sedevacantist for me to handle. It is impossible to question the Pope on a matter such as this. I can trust that it is a mild lapse that is akin to something that all true faithful go through, but do try to keep it anon, yes?

On a side note, I saw Pope Benedict cry on tv about the recent scandals. I saw in the grocery store a copy of TIME magazine the next day, said on it's cover "Why Being Pope Never Means Having To Say You're Sorry". I hat the US and it's rebellion against the one true Church. I feel filthy living so far away from the Vatican and the TRUE leader of the temporal world, the Pope.

[Don Quixote OP No.1107604]

>>1107600

I have not, but several priests I speak closely with and the local Bishop (yes I take EVERY chance I can just to see the man) say that I should be.

[Anonymous No.1107613]

>>1107601
This is the proto Dominican (lol), The Church in America believe it or not is in much better shape then the Church in Europe where it is practically dead. I know that in the past two years or so i've been a book keeper for the Dominicans the amount of sheer "bad news" from Europe just continues day after day. But hey, the Eastern Dominican province managed to get 21 new Novices for this year.

Also remember being Anti-Catholic is as American as Baseball and Apple-Pie. If the world approves of the Catholic Church we are doing it wrong.

[Bernard No.1107619]

>>1107604
this is
>>1107613
and
>>1107577
>>1107540
>>1107513
>>1107478

Perhaps you should give it a look? I mean I know I didn't pay it much heed until a Dominican told me point blank that I have all the charisms of a Dominican. I know that most places usually have "Come and See" weekends where you get to live the life for a couple of days.

[Bernard No.1107622]

>>1107619
also I'm leaving my AIM because this is getting ridiculously convoluted to follow. (it's in ze email)

[Anonymous No.1107624]

>>1107601
>I feel filthy living so far away from the Vatican and the TRUE leader of the temporal world, the Pope.

I don't think that's reasonable, man. You may not like the Church in America, but the Vatican isn't, like, the center of holiness or something - it's possible to live in a holy and righteous way anywhere in the world. i mean, it's the Catholic church, you know?

[Anonymous No.1107627]

>>When most people talk about the Inquisition in France they seem to paint Albegensianism as if it's some type of Proto-Protestantism.

Oh hush. I think anybody who's heard of the Albigensian heresy realizes that it's more like a revived Manichaeanism / Gnosticism.

Incidentally, this is one of my favorite trivia questions....Can you name the only song to hit #1 on the pop charts which specifically mentions the Albigensians? (Hint: in America, it knocked Elvis off the chart, and outsold him....)

[Bernard No.1107631]

>>1107627
You tell me to hush but I can't tell you how many times in school that i've seen the comparison made. It's usually by people of the Evangelical stripe.

[Anonymous No.1107637]

>>1107627
Well, people tend to make any kind of anti-Catholic movement (besides the Orthodox churches) into proto-Protestantism. Because Catholics are Bad and rebelling against them is Good and Protestants rebelled against the Catholics (because they're good) and therefore anyone who rebelled against the Catholics must be both good and a Protestant.

[Don Quixote OP No.1107641]

>>1107624

I believe that it used to be more like that in the past, when you could go to a Church in China and in America and in Germany and hear the same thing that day, when we were all praying as one and followed the same source, but I feel as though we are breaking too far from the path nowadays. The best way to describe it would be that I feel the need to almost "retreat" to the place of origin in order to help defend the bulwarks of what it was supposed to stand for. I think it might be rotting in the worst of ways; Vatican II was a surrender doccument that acknoledged other religions other than Catholicism (if not Christendom in general) as separate and individual in their own right.

[Bernard No.1107647]

>>1107641
I think the issue here isn't so much the Council herself as it is the manner in which she was implemented. I agree that the loss of a universal language and liturgy was one of the biggest tragedy's that came out of the council but you should take heart in that the young men who are entering seminary are generally very Orthodox and usually have a very deep love of the Liturgy and are sympathetic tot he Extraordinary Form.

[Anonymous No.1107652]

>>1107641
>acknoledged other religions other than Catholicism (if not Christendom in general) as separate and individual in their own right.

Sorry - you don't think that religions other than Catholicism are separate and individual? You think, what, that they're all Christian heresies?

[Bernard No.1107659]

>>1107652
Well *Technically* they are. It's what the term Protestant means, they are "protesting" the Catholic Church. The Orthodox are a special case as they are in schism but posses fully valid sacraments and holy orders.

[Don Quixote OP No.1107662]

>>1107652

Sorry for the poor spelling, chaps. I am a TERRIBLE fast-typer, and am trying to get some work done in the middle of all this talking.

Anyway, are you implying that they are not?

[Anonymous No.1107663]

>>1107631

Well, that's presumably because they're trying to claim that any heretics who were forcibly suppressed by the Church *must* somehow be "Protestant".

(Always, of course, leaping on the Inquisition as the prototype of religious intolerance, as though John Calvin didn't burn Michael Servetus at the stake, as though the Lutherans didn't hang the dead bodies of the Münster Anabaptists in Cages, and as though Oliver Cromwell didn't put 3500 civilians to the sword in one day at Drogheda simply because they happened to be Catholic.)

Lollardy as proto-Protestantism? Sure. But Catharism. Absolutely not.

Then again, if they're American evangelicals, these are people who probably have never heard of the Arian heresy, and are unaware that they believe in it.

Incidentally: how is this conversation possibly taking place on 4chan?

[Bernard No.1107670]

>>1107663
I was about to ask that myself, apparently /lit/ is an underground Catholic hangout.

And you are correct, that is EXACTLY why they do it regardless of when you try to take the time and explain what Catharism was etc.

Luther was an annoyance but I really think the one who caused more damage overall (because he was a far better theologian) was John Calvin.

[Anonymous No.1107673]

>>1107659
>>1107662
Sorry, I'm not entirely sure that I understand what you're saying.

If your argument is that Protestant versions of Christianity are essentially heretical, that's a perfectly reasonable argument.

My assumption is that you were arguing that 'other religions' in general were not separate and distinct from Catholicism / Christianity, and I don't really see your case there - I don't see how even Islam, let alone things like Hinduism, can be seen as Christian heresies. You can call them heathens if you wish, but I don't see how they can be heretics.

[Anonymous No.1107679]

>>1107663
>Incidentally: how is this conversation possibly taking place on 4chan?

The consistent and accurate use of obscure religious/historical terminology scares away the militant Atheists whose knowledge of religion begins and ends with their complete disavowal of their parents' beliefs.

[Bernard No.1107681]

>>1107673
Well I don't know what Don was getting at but I agree with what you said. Heathen=Non Christian.

In regards to Islam I always found it interesting that Hillaire Belloc had it listed as one of his "Great Heresies" claiming that it's really just an attempt of resolving the Arian vs Trinitarian struggle by doing away with the whole thing all together.

[Anonymous No.1107685]

>>1107681
Yeah, Chesterton thought that too - probably got it from Belloc. Completely wrong, of course, but interesting.

[Anonymous No.1107687]

>>(because he was a far better theologian) was John Calvin.

I couldn't agree more. As far as I'm concerned, Calvin is the world's premiere example of the old adage that even the devil can quote scripture to his purpose.

Calvin's Institutes is (are?) a dangerous joyless nightmare.

[Don Quixote OP No.1107694]

>>1107673

I appologize. I was refering to only the different kinds of Christianity.

[Bernard No.1107696]

>>1107685
The Chesterton and Belloc two of my favorite authors although I find Belloc far more easier to read however.

I think the largest threat facing the Church today is what the Holy Father calls, "The Dictatorship of Relativism" something you can see play out here on 4chan on a almost daily basis.

[Bernard No.1107699]

>>1107687
They are, I really think Lutheranism would have resolved itself but it was Calvinism that really cemented the Protestant Revolt. Really though even Lutheranism wouldn't have gotten off the ground if Charles V wasn't so busy trying to defend the Empire from the Turks.

[Don Quixote OP No.1107704]

Ah, yes, the best country to grace the earth next to the Vatican herself...

The Kingdom of Jerusalem.

[Anonymous No.1107706]

>>1107699
To be absolutely fair, the Protestant Revolution would probably never have succeeded if the medieval Church hadn't been so incredibly venal and temporal. I mean, the Church gave them a lot of room to make valid criticisms, you know?

[Bernard No.1107707]

>>1107704
Truthfully the Papal States were horribly run and had the misfortune to be placed next too bickering Italian City States. The Habsburg Empire however generally lived up too its Catholic credentials.

[Anonymous No.1107709]

>>I don't see how even Islam, let alone things like Hinduism, can be seen as Christian heresies. You can call them heathens if you wish, but I don't see how they can be heretics.

Well, if I can play advocatus diaboli for a moment....the Quran quotes Jewish scripture freely, and there has always been speculation that since Muhammad was basically illiterate and Mecca and Medina had a large population of Jewish scribes, that in essence Islam is---in the way that many Protestant denominations are---an effort to acknowledge the existence of Christ but also try to tap into the more bloodthirsty impulses of the Old Testament.

As for Hinduism.....well, Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for arguing for the transmigration of souls. (Also for heliocentrism, but the church has since apologized to Galileo, but not to Bruno---whose statue still stands in the Campo dei Fiori, staring down the Vatican.) Now I've never been sure what Bruno's heresy was specifically called---hermeticism? Pantheism? But it's certainly got something in common with the Hindus, as well as the Pythagoreans, and that's metempsychosis.

Also, don't some people make some argument for the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas as having Hindu influence on it? Based on the historical tradition that Thomas evangelized his way into that territory....

[Bernard No.1107712]

>>1107706
Right, and some of the best critquers at the time were Catholics themselves. Luther just had to go the extra step of making a formal break. Erasmus I think was a far better reformer in the genuine sense of the word as was St.Thomas Moore.

[Anonymous No.1107713]

>>1107709
re: Islam obviously the argument has been made that Islam is a Christian heresy, I just don't give much credence to those arguments.

re: Hinduism, it may bear resemblance to Christian heresies, but that does not make it, in essence, a Christian heresy. It is not Christian and does not originate in Christianity.

[Bernard No.1107715]

>>1107709
So could we also define Buddhism as a Christian heresy then, or would Christianity be a Buddhist heresy with Judaic roots?

[Bernard No.1107722]

>>1107709
I think you'll be waiting a long time for an apology for Bruno as I believe the Church takes the stance he was tried for this theology not his science. It still doesn't stop him from being used as some sort of martyr for science.

[Anonymous No.1107725]

I have nothing to contribute to the conversation, but I do want to say that I am pleasantly surprised to know that there are a few Catholics who post here.

[Anonymous No.1107728]

>>re: Islam obviously the argument has been made that Islam is a Christian heresy, I just don't give much credence to those arguments.

I think Chesterbelloc's point probably was no more complicated than the fact that, because Islam emerges after Christianity and is aware of the existence of Christ, it is therefore a heresy.

As opposed to the Jews, which I'm not sure what the proper theological term for them would be in this sense. And as opposed to (say) Julian the Apostate, who had the opportunity to reject Christ for polytheism (which Muslims don't do).

>>So could we also define Buddhism as a Christian heresy then, or would Christianity be a Buddhist heresy with Judaic roots?

Buddhism is atheistic. As far as I know atheism isn't really heresy because it's not a form of doctrinal deviance. Buddhism can be classified as a philosophy rather than a religion in this sense---it's an atheistic set of moral precepts, not unlike Epicurus or Confucius or Ayn Rand offered (with varying degrees of respectability).

[Bernard No.1107737]

>>1107728
I know Hillaire goes a bit further and point's out that Mohammed was aware of Christianity due to his visits in the region of Syria and willfully rejected it due what he viewed (according to Belloc) the continual struggle between Arianism and Orthodoxy in the Byzantine Empire.

The Buddhism comment was more of a joke deriving from how I have heard a few people in my life state off the cuff that Christianity is identical to Buddhism.

Since this is /lit/ after all anyone read Pope Benedict's Spirit of The Liturgy? I found it very well written and it makes a great case for returning too Ad Orientem as opposed too Ad Populum.

[Anonymous No.1107742]

I'm dissapointed by the lack of support for the Vatican II in this thread.
Our great Church did some very barbaric deeds in the past. The Crusades, however thrilling they might be to read about, are just one of the mistakes we as Catholics did and upon which we must not look upon with nostalgia. We must look at those mistakes and learn from them.

Vatican II steered the Church to a more social role in our community, applied better hermeneutics for a better understanding of the word of God and is leading us away from the mistakes we made in the past.

I see nothing wrong with that.

[Bernard No.1107748]

>>1107742
I fail to see how the Crusades could be construed as some sort of Catholic Mistake. They were a series of defensive wars launched initially at the behest of the Eastern Roman Empire to help defend itself against an ever militant Islam.

[Anonymous No.1107752]

Doesn't Quixote have a lot of fun? It's not so bad.

[Anonymous No.1107760]

>>1107748
Supported by the whole institution of the Holy Church, and initially promoted by Urban II.
The crimes a lot of Catholics commited along the pass of the Crusades, the sacking of countless innocent villages along the way, pillaging Constantinople, seat of our christian orthodox brothers and a beacon for culture at the time.
Also, mass murders of infidels on cities taken.

You don't see a single mistake there?

[Anonymous No.1107762]

/lit/ you have given me a renewed hope in this website. I've spent far too many nights lurking the wrong boards. I'm going to check out the two books that have been mentioned so far. If /lit/ has any more suggestions i'd love to hear them.

[Bernard No.1107767]

>>1107760
Not really because the alternative was worse. Hell it wasn't even until the Battle of Leapanto that Christians could have some relative security on the Medeteranian and it would be even later at the final siege of Vienna (1683) that Turkish aggression would be halted. The Crusades are a very nuanced thing and should be viewed as such. Were crimes committed on both sides? Most assuredly so.

Also the Venetians who sacked Constantinople were all excommunicated as soon as the Pope found out. HOWEVER the Byzantine Emperor invited the Venetians to depose his brother and then refused to cough up the Cash.

[Anonymous No.1107773]

I felt some in this thread might enjoy this - it's an essay that Chesterton wrote about Cervantes. I absolutely love it.

http://chestertonandfriends.blogspot.com/2006/05/true-romance.html

Cervantes on his galley sets the sword back in the sheath
(Don John of Austria rides homeward with a wreath.)
And he sees across a weary land a straggling road in Spain,
Up which a lean and foolish knight for ever rides in vain,
And he smiles, but not as Sultans smile, and settles back the blade....
(But Don John of Austria rides home from the Crusade.)

[Anonymous No.1107792]

>>Vatican II steered the Church to a more social role in our community, applied better hermeneutics for a better understanding of the word of God and is leading us away from the mistakes we made in the past.

I think it's mostly about what it did to the liturgy and the celebration of the mass.

I mean, if you ask me, I think allowing mass to be celebrated in the vernacular has---in America, at least (which is where I am)---allowed American Catholicism to become more similar to the ghastly nonsense that passes for Mainstream Protestant Christianity in the average megachurch. This has more to do with America than Catholicism---and with the desire of American Catholics to "assimilate" in a country where they founded the Ku Klux Klan to attack Catholics as much as black people---and obviously I myself was born a good long time AFTER Vatican II so I can hardly track those social changes in my own lifetime.

I'm just constantly left wondering how American Catholicism in the past produced people like Dorothy Day, and currently produces people like Antonin Scalia. Which again may be a political point, but you mentioned the "social role" of the church.

[Bernard No.1107793]

>>1107762
>>1107762
Pope Benedict's "An Introduction to Christianity" is a very good resource and is a good introduction to Catholic Thought. It's a pretty theologically heavy book however as is most of Pope Benedict's work. Pretty much anything by Ignatius Press is good reading material.

[Anonymous No.1107797]

>>1107767
Yes, yes, I've heard all of that before. Troubled times and all the social attenuants.

But what it all comes down to is that Urban II not only gave permission to kill other people, but assured (I'd even go as far as to say tricked) people that by killing them, they would get absolution for their crimes.

If you are not personally offended by such claims, and don't see that as a mistake, then you're not a Catholic, or even a christian, for that matter.
It is not only in violation of one of the most important commandments, it is encouraged.

[Anonymous No.1107805]

>>1107797
>for their crimes.
I meant sins.

[Bernard No.1107806]

>>1107792
I think it's pretty universal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZVCbXiSYFk
but man I love these puppets, so inclusive!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh_nqtp3VrU

[Bernard No.1107814]

>>1107797
I'm not offended because I understand the context of the times. Would you say St.Dominic or St.Francis aren't really Catholic because they advocated for the Crusades?

[Anonymous No.1107816]

>>1107806
OH GOD WHAT IS THAT

We have none of that stuff over here in Argentina, thankfully. I don't appreciate the new singing though, but it's bearable.
I guess we don't have the same problems you guys have/had with the elevated percentages of protestantism over there.

[Bernard No.1107818]

>>1107816
Thankfully the "grey beards" are going the way of the Dodo,

This is from my Parish:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMZYg1SmFVY

[Anonymous No.1107819]

>>1107806
What's with the creepy giant nigger puppets?

I'm not a catholic, is this something you guys pulled while I wasn't looking?

[Anonymous No.1107820]

>>1107792
Scalia's a fucking badass. Continue to suck cocks on your way to hell, heathen. If you think religion is too religious for you, go join Hitchens and stop fucking pretending.

[Anonymous No.1107827]

>>1107814
No, I would not. I'd just say they made a mistake. One we can learn from.

Time context does not magically justify everything. The commandments were written much time before the Crusades took place.

[Anonymous No.1107828]

>>1107820
Bro, if you're going to keep calling people heathens, at least get your shit straight

[Anonymous No.1107831]

>>It is not only in violation of one of the most important commandments, it is encouraged.

As though Islam didn't actively encourage putting infidels to death, and actually has it in the scripture? Perhaps the worst one can say of the Crusaders is that, in failing to live up to their own principles, they accidentally lived up to those of the Saracen.

[Anonymous No.1107835]

>>1107831
Exactly. The fact that the sarracens committed those sins, it does not make it right for us to do so as well.

We'd be no better than them if we did.

[Anonymous No.1107841]

>>1107835
do you seriously believe that there is no situation in which a catholic may justifiably kill another human being

if you do believe that, do you at least understand that your position is not particularly orthodox, and that there is a long tradition of catholic thought that goes against you

[Anonymous No.1107850]

>>Scalia's a fucking badass. Continue to suck cocks on your way to hell, heathen. If you think religion is too religious for you, go join Hitchens and stop fucking pretending.

Excuse me, how did you assume my damnation---or assume that I thought religion was too religious for me---from the fact that I think Antonin Scalia is a shitty human being and a lousy Christian to boot? He's the one who's in a position of power in America, which should bring with it certain social responsibilities---which is why I brought up Dorothy Day. Meanwhile, you'd have to explain to me in light of what Catholicism teaches in "Rerum Novarum", how Scalia can call himself a good Christian, or how he is anything more than Tony Soprano trying out the rhetorical stance of Joseph de Maistre.

[Anonymous No.1107857]

>>1107850
damn son

(i think what we should take from this is that there can be legitimate disagreement within the confines of the church, and that two catholics can disagree on religious or social matters, within certain limits, and still be good catholics)

[Anonymous No.1107862]

>>1107841
>do you seriously believe that there is no situation in which a catholic may justifiably kill another human being

I never made such claim. A Catholic should only fight for the preservation of one's own life, which can indeed result on the death of the aggresor. The first thing is intended, but the aggressor's death can never be so.

The Crusades were and invading force on foreign lands with the explicit intention of causing death to the heathens, and many crimes against innocent cities and kingdoms along the way were commited. They killed thousands of civilians in the cities they conquered.

[Anonymous No.1107866]

>>1107862
>I never made such claim. A Catholic should only fight for the preservation of one's own life, which can indeed result on the death of the aggresor. The first thing is intended, but the aggressor's death can never be so.

so can a catholic fight for the defense of his family, or just for his individual? can he defend his nation? his co-religionists? the innocent in general?

Or may a Catholic only use force to defend his own life, and stand idly by while his neighbor's house is pillaged and looted, his neighbor dragged out, his throat slit in the street?

[Anonymous No.1107874]

>>1107866
>so can a catholic fight for the defense of his family, or just for his individual? can he defend his nation? his co-religionists? the innocent in general?

All of those, yes. Key word is defense.

[Anonymous No.1107878]

>>i think what we should take from this is that there can be legitimate disagreement within the confines of the church, and that two catholics can disagree on religious or social matters, within certain limits, and still be good catholics

Yes, I fully agree. Catholicism has a vast tradition and a lot of different practitioners. Personally, I happen to be proud that my Catholic church includes the likes of both Oscar Romero and Oscar Wilde. Whereas the majority of American Catholics see both of those as an embarrassment, mostly because American Catholics are more obsessed with policing other people's sex lives (forgetting the example of the woman taken in adultery) and pursuing the kind of economic policies that Scalia in the judiciary no less than Dubya in the executive have advocated (forgetting about camels and eyes of needles) than they are in pursuing anything like an imitatio Christi.

[Anonymous No.1107879]

>>1107874
the key argument made by most defenders of the crusade is that it was a defensive reaction against muslim aggression, and particularly a move to aid the byzantine empire (their co-religionists). like, it's pretty foundational.

[Anonymous No.1107883]

>>1107879
Yes, that argument was already used in this very thread before and I've already discussed it.

See
>>1107760
>>1107797
>>1107827

[Anonymous No.1107887]

>>1107879
i don't think you actually addressed that argument as such, tho

you made the (essentially valid) point that mistakes were made a long the way and a lot of the conduct of the Crusades was pretty terrible. But as far as I've seen, you haven't addressed the central argument that the Crusades were essentially a defensive action.

[Anonymous No.1107896]

>>1107887
Well, if the Crusades were such a defensive move, why didn't they take over the North of Africa first, which was from where most of the muslim expeditions targeted at Europe came from, or the Moors in Spain, which were a more real and pressing threat on Europe at the time?

Instead, they conquered a small fraction of land that led them to control trade to and from Orient, moved by both the promise of richness and new kingdoms, as well a religious motive, which is the take of Jerusalem, which led them to kill countless of innocent men and women.

[Anonymous No.1107901]

>>1107896
>Well, if the Crusades were such a defensive move, why didn't they take over the North of Africa first, which was from where most of the muslim expeditions targeted at Europe came from, or the Moors in Spain, which were a more real and pressing threat on Europe at the time?

because they were more engaged in defending the byzantine empire than anything else. that was their specific goal, in the broader context of a general reaction to muslim aggression. so they went to the byzantine empire.

[Anonymous No.1107906]

>>1107901
Yes, that was the immediate goal of the First Crusade.
There were many more after that bro. Not all of them had the same motives, yet they all commited the same crimes.
Even in the first one, the goal of aiding Constantinople was just accessory to the take of Jerusalem and the founding of a christian empire in the orient, which, as I can't stress enough, led to many more unnecessary deaths.

[Anonymous No.1107907]

>>1107887

Isn't it possible to pursue a just war unjustly?

See also
>hey let's depose Saddam Hussein
>now let's debaathetize the whole place and hire some PMCs!

[Anonymous No.1107912]

>>1107907
ius ad bellum / ius in bello

[Anonymous No.1107926]

Your name wouldn't happen to be Ignatius Reilly, would it?