Catholic Answers

[Aeson]

... by killing a whole bunch of people (Muslim, Christian, Jew, other) who had nothing to do with the attacks on Christians?

[Proteus_MST]

...

As for Crusaders - it depends on your position concerning war and self defense. The Catholic church would argue it is not a sin to fight to protect other Christians who had been attacked by Muslims.

In which case the catholic church would deliberately omit the crusades on european soil, fought against other christians (Albigensian crusade) or against pagans (for example the north east german pagan tribes at the baltic coast)

[Ben Kenobi]

by killing a whole bunch of people (Muslim, Christian, Jew, other) who had nothing to do with the attacks on Christians?

Which is why the Caliph ordered the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1009, touching off the First Crusade?

[Ben Kenobi]

In which case the catholic church would deliberately omit the crusades on european soil, fought against other christians (Albigensian crusade) or against pagans (for example the north east german pagan tribes at the baltic coast)

Like at Tours, eh?

[Proteus_MST]

Like at Tours, eh?

If you refer to Karl Martell against the Muslims, I wonder why you refer to it ... it happened centuries before the european crusades, was no crusade by itself ...
and surely has absolutely nothing to do with the european crusades against the cathars and pagans

[Ben Kenobi]

If you refer to Karl Martell against the Muslims, I wonder why you refer to it ... it happened centuries before the european crusades, was no crusade by itself ...

Yes, it was considered to be a crusade at the time, as was the Reconquista.

[Proteus_MST]

Yes, it was considered to be a crusade at the time, as was the Reconquista.

I disagree, as the church wasn't involved into the military campaign at all ... neither did the pope order it/call upon the christians to support it,
nor was it in any way supported by the church. It was a purely military campaign by the frankians to protect their lands.

And still the question remains what Tours or the reconquista have to do with the crusades against pagans and albigensians,
which clearly were ordered/supported by pope and church and weren't against muslims at all

[MichaeltheGreat]

We seem to have two schools of thought here on Catholicism, the BK School and the Ming School. I probably should have written the Ming school first since no one really thinks BK is a real catholic except Nikolai and I haven't seen him around lately.

Anyway, my question is what if a child molester priest went to Purgatory. Could another catholic pray him into Heaven?

Yes.

[Ben Kenobi]

I disagree

Well isn't *that* precious.

as the church wasn't involved into the military campaign at all ... neither did the pope order it/call upon the christians to support it

Which is why Pope Gregory III requested that Charles Martel become the defender of the Holy See?

Here's a nickel, go read a history book sometime. Yes, the Catholic church at the time backed Martel, which is also why they crowned Charlemagne Emperor.

[Proteus_MST]

Well isn't *that* precious.

Which is why Pope Gregory III requested that Charles Martel become the defender of the Holy See?

Here's a nickel, read a history book sometime.

And that was before, or after the battle at tours?
You see

Rewarding a military leader after a certain battle/war (as with Kart Martell) isn't the same as supporting a war from the beginning on (and telling everyone that he would get indulgence from all of his sins, if he takes part in the war).

[Ben Kenobi]

Rewarding a military leader after a certain battle/war (as with Kart Martell) isn't the same as supporting a war from the beginning on (and telling everyone that he would get indulgence from all of his sins, if he takes part in the war).

This is a concession that every battle fought against Islam after Tours was part of the Crusades. Also, given Martel's extensive support of Catholic bishops prior to Tours, it stretches credibility that he did not have ecclesiastical patronage after defeating Odo in 718.

[Aeson]

Which is why the Caliph ordered the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1009, touching off the First Crusade?

... and that excuses killing a whole bunch of people (Muslim, Christian, Jew, other) who had nothing to do with the attacks on Christians ... how?

[Ben Kenobi]

... and that excuses killing a whole bunch of people (Muslim, Christian, Jew, other) who had nothing to do with the attacks on Christians ... how?

Given that he was the Caliph, this would render attacks on any part of his domain legitimate. Given his claims to all of Islam, it would extend to any Islamic occupied territory, including Jerusalem.

Destroying the black mosque would be a measured response to the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

[Proteus_MST]

This is a concession that ever battle fought against Islam after Tours was part of the Crusades.

Nope, as for me a crusade is a war which was called for / started by the catholic church / the pope from the beginning on.

That's clearly the case with the Albigensian crusade, where Innocent III ordered the king of france to crusade against the Cathars ... and which was supported/joined in by clerics (it was a papal legate/catholic abbot who was responsible for the massacre at Beziers, by telling the crusaders to "Kill them all, god will know his own" )
It can also be shown for several crusades against the european Pagans (for example the Wendish crusade, which was started by a papal bull, or the prussian crusade, started by Honorius III)

I don't see any call for a crusade in case of Tours or the early stages of the reconquista.

(also still, the war against the muslims doesn't excuse the crusades against fellow christians or pagans )

[Ben Kenobi]

crusade is a war which was called for / started by the catholic church / the pope from the beginning on.

That definition makes no sense. Given the outward support of the Church towards Martel, and the sanction of Pope Gregory II to go to war against Islam, it seems clear to me that the Crusades in the West began with Martel. Are you suggesting that the financial support and crowning Charlemagne as Emperor was insignificant? Isn't that what you cite all the time - where the Church was involved and paying for the war as a sign that the Catholic church supports the Crusade?