Jesus was not a pacifist, Jesus taught us to forego retaliation for any offense. I checked the history of the Catholic Church and discovered that they established a military force called the Order of the Templars, was this justified Biblically according to Catholics?

Note: This question was an honest search for a Catholic view not an accusation or attack. If I had written an attack it would be a 1000 times more severe and to a specific point. The defensive response in some of the comments leads me to agree that I should have specified the question more narrowly. However I had to ask my real question to get the answer I was looking for. I will now have to also vote to close the question as it seems a little to complicated for the stack exchange guidelines. Thanks to the accepted answer, and the considerable effort it takes to provide one. I know how it feels to he on the other end, and sometimes this community gives better quality answers than can be obtained elsewhere and the person making the question can be very ungrateful if it conflicts with their own faith. ---------- I have never encountered a Protestant leader who believed at any point in history that the church should take up arms, acting as a sort of temporary civil power, and engage in military conflict or apply the death penalty to heretics. I'm sure there might be some odd exception to the rule but, in general, Protestant churches hold separation of church and state. Where there may have been any direct official church involvement in any such action in old Lutheran or Anglican or whatever churches, Protestants in general would unanimously denounce those actions, as the church is separated from state functions. Some Protestants think it's acceptable as a 'citizen' to support the government on civil grounds to war, or even to apply the death penalty, but not as a church. At least this is the most common Protestant view. However, I was surprised when I looked up the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Inquisition. It more or less describes it as something that was necessary for the church to do at the time and does not seem to be opposed to that period when Popes led military conflicts and applied death penalties to perceived heretical Christians, even as they took the clear lead. So it really leaves me wondering: Does the Catholic Church still think such things are OK? Is it OK that at times in history, or potentially the future, Catholics will bear the sword and become a civil power rather then a spiritual one only? I really mean **is it considered OK at times to 'take the clear lead' in commanding others to kill people**, as they did when killing people through the crusades and bulls against perceived heretics. I do not mean merely Catholic citizens following their kings or government, but the 'command' of those kings or governments 'to kill.' Does the Catholic church separate church and state or assume it is a state with power to declare war and kill if it seems God's will? I always thought the whole world no longer approved of that, but now am thinking maybe because Catholics can't admit Papal errors they are sort of stuck approving all those ugly things done in the past by their Popes, but am not sure if my instincts are wrong. Maybe Catholics do oppose direct church involvement in killing others. I really am curious to find a reliable answer on this. I would like to know if Protestants and Catholics generally have a different view.

Everett Ferguson, in [*Church History*, I, 23.I.D](https://books.google.com/books?id=VB_StdsoDV4C&pg=PT498) , discusses the brutality of the crusades in the early 13th century, when Constantinople was sacked. One point I found particularly interesting was a comparison between the persecution then and the harsh anti-religious campaigns of the early 20th century in the USSR: > Memories are long in the East, and Orthodox Christians in the twentieth century affirmed that they had more religious liberty under the Marxists than they did under the crusaders. Wikipedia's article on the [persecution in the Soviet Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union) indicates that that was no walk in the park either – tens of thousands of clergy were murdered and many members were sent to labor camps, transforming an openly Christian nation into one with no public expressions of religion. Yet some Eastern Orthodox Christians apparently judged that persecution as preferable to that of the crusades. I'd love to understand why, but to do so I need to know who Ferguson is referring to – **which Orthodox Christians positively compared Marxist persecutions to the crusades?** Was this a statement by an Orthodox church, or a group of clergy, or just a few individuals speaking for themselves?

This question goes out to any denomination. Why was St. Augustine okay with using force to convert unbelievers to the faith, which also resulted in the eventual Roman Catholic Church's inspiration for the Crusades? As mentioned by Bruce Shelley in his book "Church History in Plain Language": > For Urban and the popes who followed him the Crusades were a new type > of war, a Holy War. Augustine had laid down the principles of a “just > war”: It was conducted by the state; its purpose was the vindication > of justice, meaning the defense of life and property; and its code > called for respect for noncombatants, hostages, and prisoners. All > these evaporated in the heat of the holy cause. Urban appealed for > crusaders in the name of the church; the purpose of the Crusades was > the conquest of the infidels in the Holy Land; and this high calling > excused somehow the total disregard for noncombatants and prisoners. Also per this link : > Urban pulled ideas from St. Augustine to justify the calling of a holy > war to get rid of enemies of Christianity, and Urban had Pope Gregory > VII to thank for already having a group loyal to the papacy so Urban’s > work on power was already partially done (Asbridge, 25-28). Asbridge > points out that “A central feature of Urban’s doctrine was the > denigration and dehumanisation of Islam (33).” As a follow up what caused him to be for that strategy when it came to conversion?

Martin Luther, leader of the Protestant Reformation, was critical of many practices of the Catholic Church. The Crusades were fairly recent in his day. What were his opinions on them? Did he see them as righteous expressions of faith, or did he see them as a further sign of the church's corruption?

Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba was sent by Philip II of Spain to Belgium where he waged war against the protestants in the area. As a bit of history, Belgium in the 16th Century started out as part of the "Seventeen Provinces" within the Burgundian Netherlands . Belgium was formed after the Eighty Years' War (1568–1648) On February 16, 1568, the entire population of the Netherlands—three million—was condemned to death as heretics, apart from a few named exceptions: >Philip next submitted a "Memorial and Representation" of the state of the Low Countries to the Spanish Inquisition craving the judgment of the Fathers upon it. After deliberating, the inquisitors pronounced their decision on the 16th of February, 1568. It was to the effect that, "with the exception of a select list of names which had been handed to them, all the inhabitants of the Netherlands were heretics or abettors of heresy, and so had been guilty of the crime of high treason." On the 26th of the same month, Philip confirmed this sentence by a proclamation, in which he commanded the decree to be carried into immediate execution, without favour or respect of persons. The King of Spain actually passed sentence of death upon a whole nation. We behold him erecting a common scaffold for its execution, and digging one vast grave for all the men, and women, and children of the Low Countries. "Since the beginning of the world," says Brandt, "men have not seen or heard any parallel to this horrible sentence. (Wylie, History of Protestantism, vol. II, p. 70.) Would the sending of the 3rd Duke of Alba to Belgium and his following actions be considered a Catholic Crusade?

According to the ten commandments, you shall not kill anyone. How did Pope Urban II justify from a theological standpoint the First Crusade? Since it was successful, Pope Urban II must have had to deal with the theological ramifications of killing all of the innocent people that were in the way of the armies. What did he do/say to defend his position?

When and why did the Catholic Church stop the Crusades? Was there a specific reason why they stopped? Or were they no longer necessary at some point in time?

It is my understanding that there was a relic, used by the Crusaders, that was claimed to be the very Cross on which Jesus was crucified. I also understand that sometime around 1187, it was captured by Muslims, and subsequently burned. What is the history behind this relic, and if it was believed to be something as important as the true cross, what on earth possessed them to do something as crazy as risk it in battle?

What passages of Scripture were used by the popes and crusaders to justify the Crusades? I am specifically interested what the individuals that were contemporary to the crusades were saying. For the purpose of this question, I am only interested in arguments based in Scripture.

I was reading about [St. Bernard of Clairvaux](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02498d.htm) , and this appears: > The pope commissioned Bernard to preach a new Crusade A similar phrase appear in the respective [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_of_Clairvaux) article. I get what it means to "preach a Crusade" (call Christians in favour of it and to join if possible). The [article](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm) in the Catholic Encyclopedia about Crusades states: >All crusades were announced by preaching. But, what did the **commissioning** of such preaching by the Pope involved? What were the responsibilities? Could someone provide a reference for this? Maybe a papal document related to such commissioning?

How did the Crusades affect the Pope's power/authority, during and after the Crusades? ### [The Crusades](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades) , from Wikipedia >The Crusades were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns, called by the Pope and with the main goal of restoring Christian control of the Holy Land. The crusaders came from all over western Europe. The main series of Crusades occurred between 1095 and 1291; historians have given them numbers, later unnumbered crusades were also taken up for a variety of reasons.

In Dan Brown's novel, *The DaVinci Code*, if my memory serves me correctly, Leigh Teabing asserts that Crusaders were given plenary indulgences to commit unspecified sins with impunity whilst on crusade. I have to admit that I have only seen the film, and not read the novel, but I am assuming that the film follows the novel in this respect. My question is: was this ever official doctrine during the time of the Crusades, if indeed it happened, or was it a perversion of official doctrine, or is it just black propaganda? If the latter, who started it, and when? I understand that indulgences can only be issued for sins already committed.

How do the crusades impact modern day Christianity own sense of morality and spirituality? What do these things mean to a person of faith? ###[The Crusades](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades) , from Wikipedia >The Crusades were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns, called by the Pope and with the main goal of restoring Christian control of the Holy Land. The crusaders came from all over western Europe. The main series of Crusades occurred between 1095 and 1291; historians have given them numbers, later unnumbered crusades were also taken up for a variety of reasons. >Related Question: >https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3555/how-did-the-inquisition-impact-modern-christianity

In [this article](http://www.ok.org/kosherspirit/fall-2009/kosher-music/) , in the section entitled *The “Great” Aleinu History*, the author writes that a particular melody used in Jewish High Holiday prayers was added to the French Church Mass in the late 12th century by French crusaders, and can be heard to this very day. You can directly play the mp3 here . My question is, is it true that this melody can still be heard in the mass to this very day? What part of the mass is it used for? Are there any audio recordings of it? EDIT: Also, from the article linked in caseyr547's answer below: > Another report adds that the Gentiles 'henceforth used the chant in their church,' and musicologist Eric Werner did in fact locate the melody in the Sanctus of the Ninth Mass of the Virgin.

How did the Crusades affect the King's power/authority, during and after the Crusades?