"Good" and "bad" are value judgements, and as such are relatively useless mental constructs, Shambles. People's judgements of what or who is "good" or "bad" are totally based on time, place, and context. What is "good" in one century in one culture (say, sacrificing a calf to Yahweh) is often considered "bad" in a neighbouring culture (ie for the Hindus in India, cattle were sacred) or even a few centuries later in the same culture. I don't know any Jews today who still sacrifice their livestock to a god of war.

In her day, Joan of Arc's accomplishments were considered "bad" by the English, "good" by the French. Almost 600 years later, people still argue over the "goodness" or "badness" of her choices and actions. Some say she's nothing but a violent psychotic warmonger; others see her as divine liberator and saint. Certainly as leader of her people against injustice and oppression, she is quite the far cry from the Dalai Lama! He has managed to sustain his policy of compassion, tolerance and non-violent resistance toward Communist China for almost 50 years now. Funny, I consider them BOTH "saints". And I'd love to be the fly on the wall if the two of them were ever to meet for tea and a chat!

In all fairness to Joan, I don't think she ever claimed to do what she did in the name of the Church of Rome. Only in the name of her Savior, her Guides and the war-ravaged people of France. That's what gave the Church the authority to condemn her (or one of the reasons anyway)--- she would not bow to the authority of the Church, where that authority conflicted with her own conscience, with what she knew as the 'Will of God'.

daylia