Andrew Schnell
Bruce Lusignan
EDGE
6 December 2002
The Just and Holy Wars
War can often be considered an evil act, an act of aggression against another country for economic or social gain, or can be considered a noble event of justice, a defense mechanism of a protectorate country helping a country in need. However, sometimes the issue of war is mingled with religion, which brings the value of war into question. In some religions, war is considered noble and a gateway to heaven. A jihad in Islam is an example of this type, where some Muslims believe that attacking the “infidel” is considered strong promotion of their religion. However, in many religions the ethics of a Holy War, loosely defined as “any war that is regarded as a religious act or is in some way set in a direct relation to religion,” (Erdmann 3)) is in a very grey area. Christianity is one of those religions. Starting in the late 11th century, the Christian church started a series of Holy Wars called the Crusades. After looking at the motives for the war and the teachings of Jesus, the supposed basis of Christianity, it seems as if these wars were not actually representative of how Christians should act toward conflict even though they were considered for the good of the church.
Onward Christian Soldiers
Schnell 2
The view of the Church towards war from its inception in the first century until 1095, when Pope Urban II officially called Christians together to fight in the first Crusade, changed drastically according to Thomas Madden (1). In the first
hundred years after the death of Christ war was seen for only stately gain by the Roman state, which was persecuting Christians. However, the conversion of Emperor Constantine brought a union between the state and Christianity. War became a necessary tool, but due to a lack of a rival religion it was not needed for religious purpose. This changed in the seventh century when Islam started to spread, often through means of jihad (holy war) to force conversion. Through the next four centuries the Muslims would continuously battle to spread the word of Muhammed, much of which was done against Christian areas. Finally, in 1095, the Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos called upon the pope for help against the Muslims, who were warring with the Christians (Urban II). With this, Pope Urban II called the Council of Clermont and gave a speech calling for help to fellow Christians. The acts of the council were lost, but the speech was written down by spectators. Here is a sampling of what the pope said in his speech:
They [Muslims] have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity,
Schnell 3
the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-
soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it. (Urban II)
Knights and soldiers of the first Crusade were forced to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Sepulcher, the burial tomb of Jesus, and wore a cross on the crusader’s clothes, both signs that this was a journey for Christ. With this long and dangerous journey came forgiveness for their sins (Madden 10).
This battle against the Muslims in Jerusalem was the first of five Crusades. The following is a list of the different Crusades and the years they were fought.
The Different Crusades
Number Crusade
Years of Fighting
First
1095-1099
Second
1146-1148
Third
1188-1192
Fourth
1201-1204
Fifth
1218-1221
The popes and reasons for war were different from Crusade to Crusade, but the message was always the same, fight for the good of God and Christianity. According
Schnell 4
to Erdmann, there were several different motivations for the Crusades. The first Crusade, in addition to the next two, were to protect Christian states from attacks of the Muslims. However, the fourth and fifth Crusades were not for protection rather to reclaim land which had been lost in previous Crusades for Christianity.
A Just War?
There are several thoughts on whether these wars were justified or done in the proper interest of Christianity. The two foremost writers of a “just war” in Christian doctrine were St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. While St. Augustine laid the foundation, his and Aquinas’ theories have roughly the same ideas. According to Fr. William Saunders, these were: just cause, proper authority, right intention, last resort, proportionality, and probability of success, in addition to discrimination and due proportion when in actual battle.
One cannot look at the Crusades as a whole to determine whether they were just or not because each was performed with a different meaning or enemy. The first Crusade could be considered just in many aspects of Augustine doctrine. Augustine said, “A just war is apt to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly” (qtd. in Saunders). Since the first Crusade was in response to a call for help by the Byzantine Christians from attacks of Muslims, this seems like just cause. It was a decision by the pope, who is the highest authority
in the church, so that covers the proper authority requirement. These two follow the characteristics of just war according to the doctrine. One element which is questionable is the motivation behind going to war, most notably on the side of the fighters. According to Madden, most of the Crusaders were not noble men, rather “aristocratic second or third sons with no claims to their father’s lands or title, robber barons, highwaymen, ne’er-do-wells, and greedy monks.” In fact, due to large population increases in Europe during the tenth century, these Crusades were often considered Europe’s first colonialist act in their search for more land (10). While there is certainly evidence against the possible justness in this Crusade, it certainly was better in terms of Augustine’s doctrine than the four other Crusades. While all were called by a proper authority (the pope), for many this was the only part of the just war theory to which was adhered. According to Madden, directives of the theory broken included fighting a war in an attempt to regain land without being prompted into war (Innocent III broke this in the fourth Crusade) and bringing armies against an impossible enemy in Saladin during the Third Crusade.
Not Always Just, But Holy
The Crusades, in addition to attempting to protect their Byzantine brethren from Muslims attacks, were mostly fought in the name of protecting and spreading
Schnell 6
Christianity. The very name “Crusade” comes from crucesignati, which means “those signed by the cross” (Madden 1). The idea of Holy War has its roots in the Bible,
with several battles being fought in the Old Testament. For instance, chapter six of Joshua describes how the Lord came to Joshua and told him to take Jericho when the
trumpets sounded. Verses 21-22 of Joshua tell what happened with this order from the Lord:
When the trumpets sounded, the people shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the people gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed, so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. The devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it- men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.
In addition to this passage, chapter 8, verse 1 says, “Then the Lord said to Joshua, ‘Do not be afraid, do not be discouraged. Take the whole army with you, and go up and attack Ai…Set an ambush behind the city.” These passages describe gruesome images of a Lord condoning violence.
However, the faith of Christianity that I have learned is not based on violence. There are many examples in the Old Testament such as the aforementioned wars, but most of the New Testament and Jesus’ teachings are based on peace. Several verses from the book of Matthew show very well Jesus’ message of non-violence. The first of these is in chapter 5, where on his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells the crowd,
Schnell 7
“You have heard it said, ‘Eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other
also” (39-40). Rather than violence, Jesus actually promotes love and forgiveness, which can be seen in chapter 5, verses 43-46
You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those you love you, what reward will you get?
The last example comes in chapter 26 where Jesus says, “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” These teachings directly from the mouth of Jesus in the Gospels are supposed to be the basis of the Christian religion and are considered above all holy. If Jesus consistently denounces violence, then how can any war be considered holy?
Aside from Jesus’ teachings, there are more reasons why these wars were not truly about spreading Christianity. A major reason why many Crusaders went on these battles was to receive penance. According to Phillip Schaff, who in volume 5, chapter 7 of his History of the Christian Church wrote about the Crusades that the idea of penance was a common theme in bringing in soldiers. Urban II set aside a
Schnell 8
journey to the tomb of Jesus before the Crusade, and also stated that this trip would be a substitute for penance. Eugenius, the pope during the second Crusade, stated that any Crusader would receive eternal life. Pope Innocent III went beyond those who fought, but also promised a better eternal life for any individual who contributed to
the Crusade such as a shipbuilder. With some popes, indulgences went beyond the realm of eternal life. Eugenius III placed Crusaders in the same category as clerics, and were given such privileges as freedom from debt. In fact, a chronicler of the first Crusade, abbot Guibert stated, “God invented the Crusades as a new way for the laity to atone for their sins, and to merit salvation” (qtd. in Schaff).
If this seems familiar, that is because it is. In Muslim religion, eternal bliss is said to be given to any Muslim who participates in a jihad. This point came under intense scrutiny when Osama bin Laden proclaimed all those who participated in the 9/11 terrorist attacks would live eternally in happiness. If this was not all right for Muslims in the terrorist attacks, then why should it be considered all right in the cases of indulgences being given for the Crusades?
The last source I have seen that contradicts the concept of war being happy is my own life experience. When I attended a Catholic high school, I was immersed in the Catholic culture and its teachings of non-violence. I also was raised Catholic, but high school was the first time I had real contact with priests. Throughout theology classes I
Schnell 9
always learned the teachings of non-violence, but these would have been rendered useless without actually talking with priests about Church doctrine on this subject. I have had
many talks with one of these particular priests, Fr. Joel Rippinger (who I must also give credit to giving me guidance on where to go for sources on this subject). I remember one
of these conversations in detail. It was on September 12th, 2001, the days after the terrorists attacks occurred. The entire country was either mourning or focused on retaliation, and many were both. I gave him a call because I was confused on how I should feel, I felt like I wanted for us to fight back, yet I also remembered the teachings I had learned in church and class. He sensed this confusion and started to quote some scriptures that I should read, and told me to pray for those who had lost their lives and for our leaders to not make rash decisions. That last line has always stuck on me. In a time of such distress, we should put aside our own feelings of hatred and concentrate them on remembering those who were directly affected. This I believe is the epitome of the word “Holy.”
Not Just, Not Holy, Then What?
Having looked at scripture and the facts about the Crusades, the basis the popes gave for leading Christians into battle appear neither just nor holy. While it is very interesting to study the events of nearly 1000 years ago, it is also very important in today’s society due to the actions of September 11th and even in the war currently
Schnell 10
being planned against Iraq. As I mentioned before, Osama bin Laden proclaimed his attack on the World Trade Center a holy war. While the world looked back and could
not understand how this could be considered holy, if one were to look back they could see similarities between the Christian Crusades and the terrorist attacks. When I was looking for websites on just war theory of St. Augustine, nearly every single site I found had a discussion on whether the possible action by the United States in Iraq would be justified according to St. Augustine. Most declared that it would be justified based on the actions of Iraq over the past decade and our status as a world leader with an international council such as the United Nations. It is nice to know that the information from the Crusades can help us now, but I prefer knowing that the Christian church has not repeated its action in the past 500 years.