Can you be catholic and a pacifist ?

[jimmy]

Let me ask you a simple question. What do you think of Bl. Teresa of Calcutta?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

That is a different case. And I respect your vow. Those are not the average case. You and mother Teresa have taken vows of non-violence, and second you don’t have people you are required to protect.

It is different when you are living in the world. Most times in the world pacifism is more about cowardice than peace. As Gandi said, ‘It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.’

 

[Mr_Kooper_513]

If you’re one of the six major Law-Givers all bets are off.

1. Benedict
2. Basil
3. Augustine
4. John de Matha
5. Albert
6. Francis of Assisi

They stated their requirements in their respective rules and the Church sealed them with papal bulls so that no one can touch those rules, except another pope. Not even superior general can tamper with the rule, nor can the general chapter.

Since their rules are untouchable and all who join the community enter freely, then all who enter are bound to pacifism to the degree required by the founder.

As St.Benedict explained in his 12 steps. obedience is the most noble expression of love. No one can force you to enter a religious family. If you enter, you know that you must obey, even what bothers your conscience. In the major religious orders, conscience does not have primacy over the Rule and Constitutions. Any conscience that struggles with the Rule and Constitutions, must be brought into alignment with these until such time as the Church says otherwise. Thus, as St. Benedict says, obedience is the highest expression of love, because it requires that one crucify oneself.

If pacifism is what the Rule commands, then pacifism it is. What I feel about it is irrelevant, because no one forced me to enter and when the superior approved me for vows, it was Christ himself doing the speaking. Therefore, my fate is sealed. This is what I must do no matter how great the sacrifice.

Hence the expression, “Many are called, but few are chosen,” or as Bl. John Paul II wrote in Vita Consecrata, the call to religious orders, secular orders, societies of consecrated life, consecrated virginity, monastic life and religious congregations is only for a select few. God does not give everyone the grace to live this way of life, because it’s a life against human nature.

For many people, this idea of accepting pain or even death rather than fight or even feel anger is impossible. They don’t have the grace that this requires. These are people like St. Edith Stein, OCD; St. Maximilian Kolbe, OFM Conv; St. Miguel Pro, SJ.; and Bl. John Paul II.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

That’s interesting. I meant it like “I personally am a pacifist and that is the standard I will live by, but I can’t require anybody else to live by my standard.” That’s interesting though that people can be bound to that standard by identifying with certain orders.

 

[pete_29]

Yes, but I don’t think I could be that strong. If threatened, I would fall back to my human nature and fight and pray for Gods Mercy.

 

[JReducation]

But at the same time Br. not everyone can accept the responsibility of having to take a life in order to protect others. In a way being in the military or in law enforcement is a calling that only a few can do, although there are many in there that really don’t belong. I guess you can say it’s grace from God to be able to deal with stressful situations like that. I admire all those who are willing to stand down, but for me it’s something I could never do, perhaps if it’s dying for my faith I would be willing, but only God could give a grace like that

I was not thinking of law enforcement or the Armed Forces. It’s their job to protect the innocent. However, they must do so with proportionate responses or they can fall into sin.

That is a different case. And I respect your vow. Those are not the average case. You and mother Teresa have taken vows of non-violence, and second you don’t have people you are required to protect.

Actually, we do. We care for those who are voiceless and cannot protect themselves. As superiors, we are responsible for the welfare of our brothers and sisters.

I remember that there was a conflict some years before Mother died. It may have been between Pakistan and India. Don’t quote me on that detail. You can quote me on the rest.

Mother’s sisters were in grave danger. They were in the middle of the cross fire. She was asked if she was going to pull the sisters out. Her answer was a very matter-of-fact, “No. Why would I? Did Mary pull Jesus off the cross?” I don’t know if any sisters died or were hurt. The point is that she was not going to pull her sisters out and abandon the poor whom the sisters could not carry with them. If the poor had to stay, so did the sisters. If the poor could not defend themselves, neither were the sisters allowed to use any form of violence to do so, nor were they to feel any form of anger or resentment toward those who tried to hurt them and the poor.

There was another situation when India was fighting for its independence. There was shooting everywhere. At some point, the shooting reached the children’s home. Apparently, there were either Indian or Englishmen in the house. That’s how the house got sucked into the violence. In any case, Mother would not allow those inside the house to fire on those who were about to blow them all away, children too. She opened the door and went out. She shouted at the top of her lungs and got the attention of the aggressor. I think they were shocked to see this young woman in the middle of flying bullets giving them a tongue lashing. She could give good ones too.

She told them that if they could not stop shooting at each other that was their business, but at least give her a few minutes to get the children out of the house. All the firing ceased. She got the children to safety. I don’t know if they went away thinking she was crazy or if they picked up where they left off.

It is different when you are living in the world. Most times in the world pacifism is more about cowardice than peace.

Why do you assume that we don’t live in the world? The difference is not that we don’t live in the world. The difference is that we try to view the world from God’s perspective, not from man’s point of view. That’s not something that only religious are called to do. That’s a universal vocation. Some people have abdicated it to religious alone.

As Gandi said, ‘It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.’

The Church admires Ghandi’s great love for his people, his sacrifices for them and his intelligence, but she has serious reservations about his methods and teachings. This is one of them. Impotence is not a sin or contrary to the Gospel. Violence is. If there is violence in our hearts, then there is evil in our hearts.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[archangel04]

I was not thinking of law enforcement or the Armed Forces. It’s their job to protect the innocent. However, they must do so with proportionate responses or they can fall into sin.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

It is true Br, but I feel that it’s more than a job. To be out there and willing to risk your life for your fellow brother to make sure he/she can go home to their family. Willing to patrol a neighborhood in which society has given up on, I feel that one could only do this job either if they saw it has a calling or in it for the money.

 

[JReducation]

It is true Br, but I feel that it’s more than a job. To be out there and willing to risk your life for your fellow brother to make sure he/she can go home to their family. Willing to patrol a neighborhood in which society has given up on, I** feel that one could only do this job either if they saw it has a calling** or in it for the money.

There are many vocations and this certainly can be one of them. The proof as to whether you’re responding to a vocation or just collecting a pay check is in your moral integrity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Qoeleth]

Hello just wondering about this , the above question and also apply to war etc .
Thanks chuck

Can one be a Catholic (Christian) and NOT be a pacifist?

“Offer the evil man no resistance. If anyone strikes you one one cheek, offere the other”

 

[DaveBj]

Can one be a Catholic (Christian) and NOT be a pacifist?

“Offer the evil man no resistance. If anyone strikes you one one cheek, offere the other”

If you research what Jesus was actually saying, you’ll find that He was referring to insults, not to physical violence. To sharpen the point on the pencil, he was referring to insults directed at you, not to physical violence directed at innocent third parties.

 

[fix]

Hello just wondering about this , the above question and also apply to war etc .
Thanks chuck

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

 

[Contarini]

I oppose pacifism because it seems to be a copout, and most pacifists are simply cowards.

I find this utterly baffling. Pacifism seems quite obviously a position only possible for very, very brave people. But I think part of the problem is that people just equate pacifism with “refusing to fight.” So a person who submitted to an attacker out of fear would be, in this definition, a “pacifist.” But that has nothing whatever to do with pacifism. A pacifist is someone who is morally opposed to violence.

I am not a pacifist myself. I’m not brave enough.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

As I just said in my reply to jimmy, I think there’s a lot of misunderstanding of what “pacifism” means. This is shown in the many posts that say something like, “of course you can be a pacifist,” meaning “of course you can choose to practice nonviolence.”

But that’s not what is generally meant, in my experience, by the term “pacifism.” More commonly it means a rejection of violence (at least lethal violence) as a matter of moral principle, which would mean that it’s binding on everyone. But there are two qualifications to this when it comes to Christian pacifism:

1. As many folks have noticed, religious orders and the Catholic clergy are generally “pacifist” in the sense that they are not themselves to use force. (This has sometimes been strained, with bishops leading armies, for instance, but it’s been the rule in principle from the beginning, as far as we can tell.) What makes this perhaps a kind of pacifism is the understanding that clergy and religious are practicing a “counsel of perfection”–that is, their practice is the ideal for everyone, but most people are unable to live up to it.
2. Similarly, the Anabaptist tradition has historically taught that the “sword” is a divine ordinance “outside the perfection of Christ.” That is to say, God has ordained for governments to have the power to kill (in war and capital punishment), but true Christians shouldn’t take part in this. Modern scholarship on the Anabaptist movement has often emphasized its ties with the monastic tradition, and I think this is a good example. They essentially take the “counsel of perfection” idea and push it further. (This was basically the view with which I was raised, in the “Holiness movement,” which originally tended to take a position similarly to the Anabaptist one, though most conservative Wesleyans have now abandoned this position.)

Modern Christian pacifists often come from or are influenced by the Anabaptist tradition, but they tend to argue that Christians should actively campaign for peace in the world, which the “traditional” position didn’t necessarily do. What distinguishes Christian pacifists from secular, “liberal” pacifism is that it’s based in following the example of Jesus and does not presuppose that pacifism will have satisfactory practical results, except in the sense that death and resurrection are satisfactory practical results.

So can one be an orthodox Catholic and a pacifist? Obviously, as many have noted, one can be a Catholic in good standing and be committed to nonviolence. And on the other hand, I would agree that the Catholic tradition rules out the kind of pacifism that simply identifies war and capital punishment with murder.

But there clearly are, whether you consider them orthodox or not, Catholics who are pacifists in the sense of saying that all Christians, not just clergy and religious, should be nonviolent and should oppose war politically. Dorothy Day was one.

I think that it’s possible to argue for this position from within the Catholic tradition, by starting from the “counsels of perfection” idea. It’s not that war is intrinsically unjust, but that Christians are called to follow Jesus by denying themselves in the service of the neighbor.

And again, I just don’t see how anyone can argue that this kind of pacifism is cowardice. It seems to me that people who equate the two just haven’t thought very carefully about pacifism–they are simply equating pacifism with “not fighting.”

If you are a coward who does not want to have to fight, it is very stupid to proclaim your unwillingness to fight. And (this doesn’t apply to the “conservative Anabaptist” view or I described above) it certainly makes no sense to try to stop others from fighting for you, as most pacifists do.

The position most congenial to a coward, it seems to me, is to try to get other people to protect you so that you yourself aren’t endangered. So if I say that I don’t want young men and women to go off to the Middle East and fight and die in order supposedly to keep me safe, how on earth is that even remotely a cowardly position? I’m a 38-year-old man with a fairly sedentary lifestyle and a blood clotting disorder (not to mention that I’m extremely absent-minded and physically clumsy, and if given a weapon or a fighting vehicle of some kind I’d probably blow my own side up by accident). There’s no chance that anyone is going to want me out there fighting. By opposing war, I’m saying that I don’t want other people to be killed even if it makes me safer.

A Christian pacifist is one who is willing to put his or her life on the line, nonviolently, in the struggle against evil. As I said, I’m not quite brave enough to be a pacifist. But I’m pretty close, because the circumstances under which I think the use of force is justified are extremely narrow. And I respect pacifists immensely.

Edwin

 

[april32010]

If you research what Jesus was actually saying, you’ll find that He was referring to insults, not to physical violence. To sharpen the point on the pencil, he was referring to insults directed at you, not to physical violence directed at innocent third parties.

i have researched this,because i really would like this to be true. where could one find a source for this belief ?

 

[starshiptrooper]

i have researched this,because i really would like this to be true. where could one find a source for this belief ?

In some of the Gospels, the right cheek is mentioned in this particular statement. Most people are right handed, and the easisiest way to slap someone on their right cheek with your right hand is to strike them with the back of your hand. A backhanded slap is not the type of blow you would use to hurt somebody. Instead, you would use it to indicate disgust or disdain.

 

[JReducation]

If you research what Jesus was actually saying, you’ll find that He was referring to insults, not to physical violence. To sharpen the point on the pencil, he was referring to insults directed at you, not to physical violence directed at innocent third parties.

I’m not sure which commentary you were reading, but he is actually referring to the old law that said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” St. Anthony of Padua, the Church’s Biblical Doctor, once explained that the issue here was retribution. He used this in one of his sermons, because people of his time were very much into retribution rather than justice.

I don’t think we’ve made much progress. We’re still into retribution and rather than justice. Anthony explained that Christ teaches us that we do not have to respond in kind to any form of aggression, physical or verbal. There is no obligation to do so.

The CCC explains it even more clearly. It speaks of proportionality. A proportionate response is a just response. Retribution is rarely proportionate, because it’s rooted in anger and a desire to vindicate. Anger and indignation are not the same thing.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[april32010]

In some of the Gospels, the right cheek is mentioned in this particular statement. Most people are right handed, and the easisiest way to slap someone on their right cheek with your right hand is to strike them with the back of your hand. A backhanded slap is not the type of blow you would use to hurt somebody. Instead, you would use it to indicate disgust or disdain.

this is recalled is in two Gospels ,Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29,right cheek is only mentioned in Matthew. may i ask is this your interpretation or the the Churchs, no offense,i am asking for Church teaching.the only interpretation that i have found that agrees with this is Protestant.

 

[JReducation]

is your interpretation or the the Churchs.

Let’s be fair here. It is unreasonable to expect the Church to have an official interpretation for everything that is written in the bible or anywhere for that matter. Most of the time, we rely on scholars to interpret for us, not the Magisterium. The Magisterium has offered very little by way of formal interpretation of scripture. It’s not that important to the Magisterium. What is important to the Magisterium is that scripture be interpreted according to the faith of the Church. A credible scholar is one who does just that.

In this case, the Church believes that humanity has the ability to to exercise justice and restraint, so that “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” is no longer an appropriate response, because humanity should have matured toward a more moral response to personal attacks.

Biblical passages are interpreted by scholars. The Magisterium uses the interpretations that agree with what the Church teaches.

We must avoid the tendency to be asking, “Does the Church say that?” or “Where did the Church say it?” or “What pope said it?” Catholicism does not work that way. Catholicism, unlike any other form of Christianity, except Orthodoxy, takes a very academic approach to the faith.

A wonderful read are the three books by Pope Benedict, Jesus of Nazareth. He poses a Christology and he admits that his Christology is up for discussion WITH SCHOLARS. Pope Benedict has always refused to discuss theology with the non scholars. That’s been so since he was a professor. But the point is that he’s interpreting what scripture has to say about Christ and admitting that this is not his field of expertise. His fields are Augustinian and Franciscan Theology, not Scripture. He’s open to how Scripture scholars respond to his work, while he also challenges certain methods used by some scripture scholars.

That’s how the Catholic Church studies Scripture. There are very few points in Scripture that the Catholic Church has ever needed to formally speak on. Most points are accepted as they are. The big ones or course have been the Hypostatic Union, the Eucharist, the Primacy of Peter, the sacraments and today, abortion. The Church has formally interpreted those points either through councils or by popes.

Asking for the Church’s interpretation on this passage is not going to produce a response, because there is none. The Church follows what credible scholars say it means and leaves it at that. It’s not a major doctrinal point.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

 

[april32010]

Asking for the Church’s interpretation on this passage is not going to produce a response, because there is none. The Church follows what credible scholars say it means and leaves it at that. It’s not a major doctrinal point.

Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

agreed, are there any credible scholars who have written on this.i have looked for commentary from the Fathers ,Augustine , Jerome, Aquinas et al. and ishould made myself clearer ,i have read and heard this interpretation a number of times,and i have never seen anything that backs it up except someone feelings. and i would think if not a major doctrinal point , a doctrinal point that would have been contemplated. e.g. Aquinas i would examined in his study on just war .

 

[JReducation]

april32010:

 

[april32010]

apologies,too quick on the post trigger.

 

[starshiptrooper]

this is recalled is in two Gospels ,Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29,right cheek is only mentioned in Matthew. may i ask is this your interpretation or the the Churchs, no offense,i am asking for Church teaching.the only interpretation that i have found that agrees with this is Protestant.

It is my own interpretation and I should have mentioned that. However, it is a reasonable interpretation because, it does not disagree with anything the Church teaches, and it is the only good explanation that I have heard for why the right cheek is specifically mentioned in Matthew.