Not quite, this was in reference to the Truce and Peace of God, where the church tried to limit the impact of the newly formed feudal class. This feudal class had only begun to establish itself in the late 900s and early 1000s.

This knightly/feudal class was completely new, only able to gain power through violent means. In the absence of a strong central power, gangs of armed men would build fortresses and bully nearby communities for tribute. As time went on, fortresses turned into castles and armed thugs into knights.

So while the church was able to slow down this process, it was too late to stop. Instead of centrally appointed figures or administrators, a new class had seized power and made themselves indispensable.

The first crusade was a way of channeling this new found oppressive class into a conflict that wouldn’t hurt Christians as much. However this also created a dangerous precedent were waging war was not a sin but instead a virtue.

As LootLizard mentioned, there was actually a surplus of armed people during the 11th century which had caused major issues for the status quo of western and Central Europe.

The first response had been the Peace of God signed in 989 and then the Truce of God in 1027 where the church attempted to limit how and when knights would wage war. This didn’t really work because an armed and violent minority needs to assert itself, especially when violence is it’s only tie to power and legitimacy.

As the most popular and successful Crusade, the First Crusade probably had the biggest impact in changing this. Because not only did tens of thousands of men leave for Outre-mer, but it also established a consistent trickle of knights who would volunteer or join Holy Orders.

However, European politics did not change so dramatically and war continued in much the same way. Especially after the Second Crusade. Hell, Richard the Lionheart and Phillip Auguste both were in the 3rd Crusade and went to war with each other for the rest of Richard’s reign.