Last night I watched a movie, State of Play, that starred Russell Crowe as an investigative reporter who ferrets out the bad acts of a Congressman who's working to uncover an evil conspiracy by private defense contractors. The scriptwriter said that at the core of the story was the question of whether a person would be justified in doing "a pretty awful thing" if they were performing great deeds in other areas of their life.
Today, when I saw some posts online about Bernard of Clairvaux, that question came to mind. The posts I saw were positive, relating all of Bernard's good works, but when I think of Bernard, I think instead of his connection with militancy -- he was a fan of the Templars, preached the Second Crusade, and was death on heretics.
People often say that the great goodness men like Bernard achieved obviates any possible badness in which they may also have participated. This is one answer to the question asked by the scriptwriter of State of Play, but it wouldn't be mine. The writer of the film seems to agree with me because Russel Crowe's character turns the Congressman in to the police, even knowing that this will derail the Congressman's expose of the bad guys.
For those interested, you can read Bernard's letter to the Templars - Bernard of Clairvaux: DE LAUDE NOVAE MILITIAE (1128-1131). Here's a bit from it ...
[...] Christ's knights can fight their Lord's fight in safety, fearless of sin in slaughter of their adversaries and fearless of danger at their own deaths, since death suffered or dealt out on Christ's behalf holds no crime and merits great glory. Hence one gains for Christ, and then gains Christ Himself, who most willingly accepts the death of an adversary for the ends of vengeance and then even more willingly offers Himself to a knight for the end of consolation. Christ's knight deals out death in safety, as I said, and suffers death in even greater safety. He benefits himself when he suffers death, and benefits Christ when he deals out death. 'He does not wear a sword without cause; he is God's agent for punishment of evil-doers and for glorification of the good.' Clearly, when he kills an evil-doer, he is not a homicide, but, if you will allow me the term, a malicide, and is plainly Christ's vengeance on those who work evil and the defense Christ provides for Christians. When such a knight is himself killed, we know that he has not simply perished but has won through to the end of this life. The death he inflicts accrues to Christ's profit; the death he receives accrues to his own. The Christian glories in a pagan's death, because Christ is glorified; in the death of a Christian, the King's generosity is confirmed, by revelation of the knight's reward. Moreover, in the first case, the just will be gladdened when they see vengeance done; in the second, 'men will say, if there is indeed a reward for the just, it is God Judging men on earth.' Pagans would not even have to be slaughtered, if there were some other way to prevent them from besetting and oppressing the faithful. But now it is better that they be killed than that the rod of these sinners continue to imperil the lot of the just, preventing the just from reaching out their hands against iniquity.
- Saint-Bernard prêchant la 2e croisade, à Vézelay, en 1146 by Émile Signol
