B16: war in God's name is never acceptable!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steadfast_love
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sir Knight,

God never changes. But man sure does. Man has passed beyond the ignorance and darkness present in the old Testament when God had not yet revealed so much of himself to us as he has now. Part of that process of revelation somehow required those wars, but the lesson is done. Christ has come, died, risen and ascended! We have a new covenent. Not because God changed, but because He has changed US!

So while God himself never changes, His will for mankind changes according to the maturity and knowledge present in mankind. He is THE just judge, after all.
 
Steadfast Love (and others),

First of all, let’s separate what Benedict XVI said from what he did not say. He said that “war in God’s name is never acceptable.” He didn’t say “war in God’s name was never acceptable.” He is specifically addressing our present age and the various courses of action open to us; he was not standing in judgment on history.
In my opinion, the Holy Father is using present tense (is) because he is speaking of an eternal truth.
+God IS love.
+Murder IS a grave issue.
+Jesus IS Lord.

If he had used the past tense (was) that would indicate a historical truth.
+God WAS pleased with Abraham.
+Able WAS murdered.
+Jesus WAS crucified under Pontius Pilate.

But the most rigorous indication is that the Holy Father was talking about an eternal truth is that he did not say “for now” or “in the modern day and age” or anything else to imply a temporary comandment. On the contrary he invoked the word “never” i.e. not at any time.
Second of all, let’s draw a distinction between asking God’s blessing on your going to war and going to war for God. In the first case, you are going to war for some reason–self-defense comes to mind, given that the United States was attacked rather seriously on September 11, 2001–and you are asking God to bless your efforts. In the second case, you are going to war for the express purpose of being God’s instrument–“the scourge of God,” if you will (that was how Christians of the time described Attila the Hun). There is a major difference between the two concepts.
The fulfillment of the prophesy, the Assyrians destroying the Babylonians, was the classic example of “the scourge of God.” But what I’m wondering about is the wars in the Bible where God comes up with the idea in the first place and (1)identifies Himself as the reason the war should be fought and (2)the reason why it was won.

When the Israelites grumbled: Why can’t we keep the plunder? Why do we have to march around Jericho and toot our horns? Why do we have to leave most of the army behind and attack at night with jars and torches? Why can’t we fight a *normal *battle like everyone else? etc etc… the answer was: because God said so! On who’s authority? Not on Joshua’s or Gideon’s but on the authority of the Lord. Those were by any definition, wars fought in God’s name.
 
Hello All,

In 1870, about the time of the American Civil War (not that long ago), States of the Church fell after being protected by wars for over millenium. The Church had been the largest land owner in Italy. No longer in possession of any land, Popes have never seen the need to back any wars since 1870 (as I am told), no matter what the attrocities being committed, even Hitler’s attrocities in WWII. Before 1870 Popes saw fighting to protect Rome (the Church), to be the faithful to God thing to do.

If you truly want to know the Church’s stand on war, one must look a little deeper than the last 137 years of pacifist Papal statements.

When reading about a millenium+ of States of the Church, one has to ask if popes, busy with wars, had any time for spiritual things? In one episode the Pope crossed the Alps, not an easy task, to get the Franks to come over and do war against the Lumbards to get four Church castles and Church land back.

I have to agree that Pope Benedict XVI does not mean “never” but is addressing instead the evil of the Muslim terrorists.

States of the Church
There Pepin executed in writing a promise to give to the Church certain territories, the first documentary record for the States of the Church. This document, it is true, has not been preserved in the authentic version, but a number of citations, quoted from it during the decades immediately following, indicate its contents, and it is likely that it was the source of the much interpolated “Fragmentum Fantuzzianum”, which probably dates from 778-80. In the original document of Quiercy Pepin promised the pope the restoration of the lands of Central Italy, which had been last conquered by Aistulf, especially in the exarchate and in the Roman Duchy, and of a number of more or less clearly defined patrimonies in the Lombard Kingdom and in the Duchies of Spoleto and Benevento. The lands were not yet in Pepin’s hands. They had therefore first to be conquered by Pepin, and his gift was conditioned by this event. In the summer of 754 Pepin with his army and the pope began their march into Italy, and forced King Aistulf, who had shut himself up in his capital, to sue for peace. The Lombard promised to give up the cities of the exarchate and of the Pentapolis, which had been last conquered, to make no further attacks upon or to evacuate the Duchy of Rome and the districts of Venetia and Istria, and acknowledged the sovereignty of the Franks. For the cities in the exarchate and in the Pentapolis, which Aistulf promised to return, Pepin executed a separate deed for the pope. This is the first actual “Donation of 754”. But Pepin had hardly recrossed the Alps on his return home, when Aistulf not only failed to make preparations for the return of the promised cities, but again advanced against Rome, which had to endure a severe siege. The pope sent a messenger by sea, summoning Pepin to fulfil anew his pledge of loyalty. In 756 Pepin again set out with an army against Aistulf and a second time hemmed him in at Pavia. Aistulf was again compelled to promise to deliver to the pope the cities granted him after the first war and, in addition, Commachio at the mouth of the Po. But this time the mere promise was not considered sufficient. Messengers of Pepin visited the various cities of the exarchate and of the Pentapolis, demanded and received the keys to them, and brought the highest magistrates and most distinguished magnates of these cities to Rome. Pepin executed a new deed of gift for the cities thus surrendered to the pope, which together with the keys of the cities were deposited on the grave of St. Peter (Second Donation of 756).

Quoted from States of the Church
newadvent.org/cathen/14257a.htm
 
Our battle is not against flesh and blood, but rather a spiritual battle. I remember reading that the desert fathers taught the 7 peoples to be conquered in the OT story of Joshua were a type of the seven deadly sins we are to conquer in ourselves by God’s grace in the sacraments. We are to take no prisoners and cherish no spoils from these deadly enemies of our soul. Even the smallest manifestation must be uprooted and destroyed. I suppose this is the kind of violence Jesus is talking about when he says that those who take the kingdom of Heaven take it by violence. The violence is against our tendencies to sin, pride and selfishness. I certainly need all His help in this battle.
 
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it previously accepted (sometime in the last few years I think) in the Catholic Church that the Old testament is not infallible fact and that it is not representative of history?
 
A lot of the stuff in the OT have been proven to be historically correct. Even the big bang theory. Non-Christians use to laugh at the story of creation found in the bible asking how God could have created light if He did not create the moon and the stars until a few days later.

The big bang theory actual supports the story found in the bible. At the time of the big bang, photos (particles of light) were flying around all over the place and everything was bathed in an intense light.

Years ago, that biblical passage was though to be historically incorrect because one could not have light without the sun and the stars. Now, we see how that passage could indeed be historically correct.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top