Can you be catholic and a pacifist ?

[Brendan]

If by ‘pacifist’, one means that heir personal calling is to not use violent means to protect their life or the life of another, then yes, one can be Catholic and hold that position.

If by ‘pacifist’, one means that it is never permissible for anyone to use violent means for defense, then no, for that would be contrary to the Faith

 

[JReducation]

If by ‘pacifist’, one means that heir personal calling is to not use violent means to protect their life or the life of another, then yes, one can be Catholic and hold that position.

If by ‘pacifist’, one means that it is never permissible for anyone to use violent means for defense, then no, for that would be contrary to the Faith

Actually, it would not be contrary to the faith, because this is not a matter of faith. It’s not even a matter of morality. It would be contrary to reason.

It only becomes a matter of morality when one uses force disproportionately. That’s not a matter of faith. It’s a matter of justice.

There is a difference between, “I’m going to kill a man,” and “I’m going to stop an aggressor.” One may be able to stop him without killing him.

To say that no one may use force to stop an aggressor is unreasonable.

The key words are STOP and AGGRESSOR.

If the result is death of the aggressor that was not the intent. It was an unfortunately outcome caused by the aggressor himself.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[archangel04]

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

That is very true

 

[JReducation]

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 .

The first problem is that of the people whom you mentioned, the only one who was a scripture scholar was Jerome. Neither Augustine, Aquinas or many of the Fathers were scripture scholars.

You may want to look at some of the sermons by Anthony of Padua. He was was scripture scholar. Avery Dulles was a scripture scholar and there should be one or two biblical commentaries in which he writes. I’m drawing a blank now on some of the major scripture scholars in Church history. When I get a few other names come back, I’ll post them for people.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Brendan]

Actually, it would not be contrary to the faith, because this is not a matter of faith. It’s not even a matter of morality. It would be contrary to reason.)

Br, I would disagree on this point.

For to claim that the use of violence to defend is never permissable would be to claim that the times in the Old Testament where God lead the Israelites in batte were done in error.

That would be a claim against the infalliblilty and goodness of God, and thus an error in a matter of Faith.

 

[DaveBj]

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.

Starshiptrooper covered the subject well; I have nothing to add.

 

[JReducation]

Br, I would disagree on this point.

For to claim that the use of violence to defend is never permissable would be to claim that the times in the Old Testament where God lead the Israelites in batte were done in error.

That would be a claim against the infalliblilty and goodness of God, and thus an error in a matter of Faith.

The difference is that we’re not God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Portofino]

Thank you for that exposition, Contarini, particularly as regards Anabaptists. I have a great respect for the Anabaptists, particularly their focus on the Sermon on the Mount and their absolute insistence on non-violence. That phrase, “use of the sword is outside the perfection of Christ” is a line I recognize from the Schleitheim Confession, penned by Benedectine monk turned Anabaptist Michael Sattler. I too have read about how Anabaptism was, in the eyes of many subsequent scholars, a “lay monastic” movement. This is still discernible in the modern-day Amish or Pennsylvania Dutch, who are direct modern-day descendants of the Anabaptists.

Tolstoy was another interesting figure as regards Christian pacifism (for example, in his tract “The Kingdom of God is Within You”). Through letters he exchanged with Mohandas Gandhi–a correspondence that is not very well known, it seems–Tolstoy likely had an influence on Gandhi’s own doctrine of non-violent resistance.

There is also the question of pacifism in the early church, which would seem borne out by the sheer number of Christian martyrs. No clear attempts were made by these early Christian martyrs to defend themselves; rather, like Peter and Paul, they gladly died the death of Christ himself.

Anabaptist martyrs were just as defenseless and seemingly no less courageous in their witness ; their founder, Conrad Grebel, wrote, “true believing Christians are sheep among wolves, sheep for the slaughter.”

 

[Contarini]

For to claim that the use of violence to defend is never permissable would be to claim that the times in the Old Testament where God lead the Israelites in batte were done in error.

That would be a claim against the infalliblilty and goodness of God, and thus an error in a matter of Faith.

Well, it’s quite clear that the atrocities recorded in Joshua and other parts of the OT (whether or not they literally occurred) were morally wrong. Killing women and children is wrong, period.

As John Howard Yoder has pointed out, the overall message in Biblical accounts of warfare was that the Israelites were to trust in God and not in their own military strength–precisely the message that is denied by most modern Christians who believe in the legitimacy of warfare.

So who is really rejecting the Word of God as found in the book of Joshua and elsewhere? Those who use these passages to justify pragmatic warfare while of course condemning any contemporary application of the methods of “total warfare” recorded in the Biblical account, or those who read the stories of OT warfare as a criticism of normal human warfare and a call to total devotion to God and total trust in God, most fully exemplified by the nonviolent conquest of evil achieved by Jesus on the Cross?

Edwin

 

[Brendan]

The difference is that we’re not God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I understand that, note that the violence done against Og and the Bashan, or to Goliath, was done by men.

David, for example, had no specific revelation ( ala Moses at Sinai) on what means to use to stop the attack of the Philistines. Rather, he had a trust in God. And it was that simple trust in God that led David to release the stone and let God choose where it landed and what it did when it landed. To the defintion of pacifist that I outlined, that would be an error, a misplaced trust. David would have be better off doing what his father asked of him, bring food to his brothers, and leaving it at that. To that pacifist, his brother should really have never been there at all and King Saul should have made no opposition to the Philistines at all.

To make a claim that "it is never permissible for anyone to use violent means " would be that God erred in permitting violence. That David erred in trusting God as he did.

That would be a claim against the Faith, would it not?

Likewise, it would be a claim that the use of violence is an intrinsic evil ( never permissable), which strikes against the Churches teaching that it is sometimes usable.

The Catechism of Trent, it’s it examination of the Fifth Commandment, noted

Killing In A Just War
In like manner, the soldier is guiltless who, actuated not by motives of ambition or cruelty, but by a pure desire of serving the interests of his country, takes away the life of an enemy in a just war.

Furthermore, there are on record instances of carnage executed by the special command of God. The sons of Levi, who put to death so many thousands in one day, were guilty of no sin; when the slaughteir had ceased, they were addressed by Moses in these words: You have consecrated your hands this day to the Lord.

and

Killing In SelfDefence
If a man kill another in selfdefence, having used every means consistent with his own safety to avoid the infliction of death, he evidently does not violate this Commandment.

Or Pope John Paul II in Evangelicum Vitae

legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose actions brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason."

Here we have the use of violence being called a ‘grave duty’

If one holds to a position that all use of violence is an immoral act, that strikes against the infallibilty of Church teaching on Faith and Morals.

I understand and agree with your comments

There is a difference between, “I’m going to kill a man,” and “I’m going to stop an aggressor.” One may be able to stop him without killing him.

To say that no one may use force to stop an aggressor is unreasonable.

The key words are STOP and AGGRESSOR

But, if you review my statement, it was not simply "going out to kill’. I agree that should never be in the mind of a Christian., but it is a blanket statement against violence at all that would be in error.

I may be in error, but I would think that the OP’s definition of ‘pacifist’ would not include a solider on the front lines firing his rifle at enemy soliders. To the Church, that is a legitimate form of defense. The correct mindset for the solider would be not to specifically kill, but to stop the aggression of the opposing nation.

But in the colloquial definition of ‘pacifist’, would be one who would be in opposition to perfoming that duty.

I would again claim that, on a matter of personal discernment, that would not be in opposition to the Church. But to claim that every solider, every police officer, or even everyone attacked by a rapist would be in error to use force to oppose an attack would be in moral error, would be an error itself.

In light of that, I will repeat my statement (with your highlights). Br, I know that you have studied Moral Theology extensively.

If by ‘pacifist’, one means that it **is never permissible for anyone **to use violent means for defense, then no, for that would be contrary to the Faith

In light of my claifications, do you see me point? Has the Church REALLY condemned any use of violence under any\all circumstances. Would a person, who on their own authority, made a claim on the intrinsicallity of an evil in an area where the Church has not, be on firm theological ground? Such a pacifist would be doing so.

 

[Brendan]

Well, it’s quite clear that the atrocities recorded in Joshua and other parts of the OT (whether or not they literally occurred) were morally wrong. Killing women and children is wrong, period.

I would disagree, some of those ‘attrocities’ were at the direct command of God, and thus were a moral good.

I would agree that attacks on non combatants cannot be initiated on the authority of men, but if God commands it, it is, by definition, Good.

A great example would be God’s command to the angel of Death to take the life of the first born of Egypt. The was clearly not a moral Error. Neith God, nor the Angel committed a moral fault.

But Moses could not order that on his own.
Rather, as against the Midianites, he followed the command of God.

 

[Contarini]

I would disagree, some of those ‘attrocities’ were at the direct command of God, and thus were a moral good.

I would agree that attacks on non combatants cannot be initiated on the authority of men, but if God commands it, it is, by definition, Good.

God only commands what is good. Good is not good because God commands it–God commands it because it is good. The reason this does not lead to the “Euthyphro dilemma” (i.e., posing goodness as something independent of God) is that goodness is identical with God’s nature.

So if God appears to command something that is evil there are three possibilities:

1. God is not really good, and thus not really God at all (obviously we both reject that option);
2. The thing in question is not really evil (which appears to be your solution); or
3. God did not really command it (which is the answer toward which I’d lean).

What is not an orthodox option is to say that God’s command itself makes something good simpliciter.

One can argue that in particular circumstances, something that is not intrinsically evil might be evil only when commanded by God.

For instance, God might command me to jump off a cliff. That is not intrinsically suicidal, but only incidentally so (i.e., I’d be unlikely to survive). If I were sure God were commanding me to do so (I don’t know how I could be, but just hypothetically), it would not be morally wrong, because I could trust in God to take care of me. It would, however, be wrong to just jump off a cliff in the belief that God would take care of me without a divine command assuring me that the leap was God’s will (as Jesus said to Satan).

But something that is intrinsically evil cannot, it seems to me, be made good by the divine command. One can rather be confident that God would not command such a thing. To believe that God had commanded it, one would have to be more certain that God had commanded it than that it was intrinsically evil. Given the relationship in the order of knowing between our knowledge of the moral law and our knowledge of divine commands, this is unlikely except in the case of highly controversial, dubious issues.

Edwin

 

[jimmy]

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

You might have a point if cowardice were reducible to a fear of death, but it isn’t. Cowardice includes a fear of violence and a fear of causing others pain. It includes a fear of failure. It is impotence and paralysis.

I find it morally reprehensible for a man to refuse to do violence to defend his wife or kids. It isn’t bravery that keeps him from defending them, it is cowardice and indifference. He should have a certain passion that drives him to defend them.

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.

There is an assumption that violence is always evil. You have to wonder about the OT then. There are passages where God tells the Jews to bash the heads of pagans into stones. Maybe it could be allegorized to refer to sin in some way, but that doesn’t change the historical context.

Violence is sometimes necessary, and to avoid it is cowardice. We have certain responsibilities in life, and we are responsible to specific people. I will not pretend indifference and suppress my passion toward them. I will not pretend to love all men equally, or even pretend that the idea of loving all men equally is good. I will not pretend to love the rapist equally with his victim. I would not sit by and pretend some moral superiority if he attacked someone I love.

I have a problem with this pretending that impotence is fine, but violence is evil. It is simply a sign of the whole approach to faith and life. You would be better off living in a straight jacket, chained to a wall than living as a free man because you might sin if you do anything. Impotence and paralysis are good things because they prevent you from committing a sin. Morallity is cast in a negative form so that all that matters is that you avoid violating the law. Just as long as you don’t break these laws you are ok. If you destroy your spirit and soul and become a coward in order to keep from doing them, all the better.

This attitude creates passive and weak men who are unable to do anything. Passion should be supressed and we should pretend that we don’t actually care about anything. Nothing gets us sexually aroused; nothing gets us angry; nothing makes us proud. We are dispassionate.

 

[JReducation]

I understand that, note that the violence done against Og and the Bashan, or to Goliath, was done by men.

David, for example, had no specific revelation ( ala Moses at Sinai) on what means to use to stop the attack of the Philistines. Rather, he had a trust in God. And it was that simple trust in God that led David to release the stone and let God choose where it landed and what it did when it landed. To the defintion of pacifist that I outlined, that would be an error, a misplaced trust. David would have be better off doing what his father asked of him, bring food to his brothers, and leaving it at that. To that pacifist, his brother should really have never been there at all and King Saul should have made no opposition to the Philistines at all.

To make a claim that "it is never permissible for anyone to use violent means " would be that God erred in permitting violence. That David erred in trusting God as he did.

That would be a claim against the Faith, would it not?

Likewise, it would be a claim that the use of violence is an intrinsic evil ( never permissable), which strikes against the Churches teaching that it is sometimes usable.

The Catechism of Trent, it’s it examination of the Fifth Commandment, noted

and

Or Pope John Paul II in Evangelicum Vitae

Here we have the use of violence being called a ‘grave duty’

If one holds to a position that all use of violence is an immoral act, that strikes against the infallibilty of Church teaching on Faith and Morals.

I understand and agree with your comments

But, if you review my statement, it was not simply "going out to kill’. I agree that should never be in the mind of a Christian., but it is a blanket statement against violence at all that would be in error.

I may be in error, but I would think that the OP’s definition of ‘pacifist’ would not include a solider on the front lines firing his rifle at enemy soliders. To the Church, that is a legitimate form of defense. The correct mindset for the solider would be not to specifically kill, but to stop the aggression of the opposing nation.

But in the colloquial definition of ‘pacifist’, would be one who would be in opposition to perfoming that duty.

I would again claim that, on a matter of personal discernment, that would not be in opposition to the Church. But to claim that every solider, every police officer, or even everyone attacked by a rapist would be in error to use force to oppose an attack would be in moral error, would be an error itself.

In light of that, I will repeat my statement (with your highlights). Br, I know that you have studied Moral Theology extensively.

If by ‘pacifist’, one means that it **is never permissible for anyone **to use violent means for defense, then no, for that would be contrary to the Faith

In light of my claifications, do you see me point? Has the Church REALLY condemned any use of violence under any\all circumstances. Would a person, who on their own authority, made a claim on the intrinsicallity of an evil in an area where the Church has not, be on firm theological ground? Such a pacifist would be doing so.

All of this is fine and any good theologian would agree with it all except with calling it a matter of faith. It is not in the area of faith. This falls in the area of justice.

Faith has a very different definition in Catholic theology. Faith is the assent to those truths revealed by God.

The killing and wars discussed in the OT are not statements of faith. They are means through which God reveals truth. Faith is our response to the revelation.

What later councils and popes have said about just war and self defense are conclusions that the Church extrapolates from revealed truths. The statement themselves are not about the revealed truths. They are about justice. From Revelation, we can extrapolate moral laws, since not all moral laws are overtly revealed.

I was trying to correct the statement that the use of force can be justified by faith. It is not faith that justifies it. It is moral justice that justifies it. Moral justice comes from that which we believe to be revealed truth.

One of the goals that I have for my presence on these fora is to help people think and speak like theologians. Because I have noticed that if the average Catholic learns to think and speak like the theologian, there would be less misunderstanding. Much misunderstanding is due to language, not beliefs.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Brendan]

God only commands what is good. Good is not good because God commands it–God commands it because it is good.

I agree completely and that is why a command would be good, because God can only command that which is Good.

The reason this does not lead to the “Euthyphro dilemma” (i.e., posing goodness as something independent of God) is that goodness is identical with God’s nature.

So if God appears to command something that is evil there are three possibilities:

1. God is not really good, and thus not really God at all (obviously we both reject that option);
2. The thing in question is not really evil (which appears to be your solution); or
3. God did not really command it (which is the answer toward which I’d lean).

That is interesting, how do you reconcile that with the inerrency of Scripture as the Church understands it.

For example, Ecclesiastes 3:8, Gen 14:14-17, Jos 8:1 11:23 2 Samuel 10:6 1 Kings 5:4, 2 Chron 20:1,30

They seem to be pretty clear command directly from God. Especially Joshua 8

Then the Lord said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Take the whole army with you, and go up and attack Ai. For I have delivered into your hands the king of Ai, his people, his city and his land. 2 You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king, except that you may carry off their plunder and livestock for yourselves. Set an ambush behind the city.”

That is pretty darn clear.

 

[JReducation]

Let’s have some fun with this. Allow me to be Bob Barker or any of those game show guys.

The question is in two parts.

Is the answer to this question really important to the life of a Catholic?

And if so, why is this not addressed in traditional theology degree programs?

---

My reason for asking this is simple. I would like to help people see why this is a question on which the Church has spent very little time and energy, which may help us spend little time and energy on it as well. Then we can move along to more important and interesting subjects in theology.

No one has to play, but I thought it would be interesting to see what people come up with.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Brendan]

Let’s have some fun with this. Allow me to be Bob Barker or any of those game show guys.

The question is in two parts.

Is the answer to this question really important to the life of a Catholic?

And if so, why is this not addressed in traditional theology degree programs?

---

My reason for asking this is simple. I would like to help people see why this is a question on which the Church has spent very little time and energy, which may help us spend little time and energy on it as well. Then we can move along to more important and interesting subjects in theology.

No one has to play, but I thought it would be interesting to see what people come up with.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I’ll take “Moral Theology” for 100 days Indulgence please Alex

Seriously, for clarification purposes when you state “Is the answer to this question really important to the life of a Catholic?” , what exactly do you mean by “the question”

If you mean the OP question “Can you be catholic and a pacifist ?” I would state that it has the potential to important to an individual, as it is an element of personal discernment

As far as the second question, “And if so, why is this not addressed in traditional theology degree programs?”

I would say that Aquinas’ teachings on Just War is covered in most theology programs ( it was in mine). And the fact that the Church spends significant time and effort in military chaplaincies would seem to indicate that the role of the solider in Catholic life is of significant importance to the Church.

Besides, you mentioned “One of the goals that I have for my presence on these fora is to help people think and speak like theologians.”

In other words, you desire us to discuss and debate esoteric theological points for days on end, which is exactly what we are doing

 

[Contarini]

That is interesting, how do you reconcile that with the inerrency of Scripture as the Church understands it.

I accept the interpretation of Dei Verbum held by the majority of Catholic scholars and theologians, not the stricter minority interpretation favored on this forum. That is to say, I understand the Catholic position on inerrancy to be that Scripture is without error in its salvific, theological sense, interpreted in such a way as to point toward the full revelation of God in Jesus Christ.

The problem with the “classical” view of inerrancy (the view championed among Protestants by the “Old Princeton” theologians, and also taught in the Catholic Church of that era, as far as I can tell) is that it is based on the intention of the original human author. But this “original human author” is a rather hypothetical, shadowy figure in many cases. Catholics, far more than Protestants, have room to recognize that the inspiration of Scripture involves far more than one guy in a room putting quill to paper. So a view of inerrancy that requires us to figure out what the original human author believed and then accept that as being without error is a hopelessly unsatisfactory one. It also doesn’t rule out as much as most people think. For instance, what if I were to argue that the book of Joshua is actually a critique of religious warfare, assuming a pre-existing belief that God had commanded the slaughter of large populations, but undermining this belief by highlighting the places where people who were supposed to be killed were in fact accepted as part of God’s people–most notably Rahab and the Gibeonites?

You may think that this is a far-out interpretation, but it wouldn’t be theologically ruled out by inerrancy. However, I’m not interested in playing that game. I’m interested in determining the sense of Scripture intended by God–that is, the sense that points toward Jesus Christ and is in keeping with the entirety of the Sacred Tradition entrusted by God to the Church.

Edwin

 

[Crescentinus]

I’m a Catholic, and I do not believe in pacifism.

 

[Contarini]

You might have a point if cowardice were reducible to a fear of death, but it isn’t. Cowardice includes a fear of violence and a fear of causing others pain.

A fear of causing others pain is cowardice?

May God send the world more such cowards:shrug:

That’s one of the most outrageous redefinitions of terms I’ve ever heard.

It includes a fear of failure.

Agreed. For instance, the fear that if you use nonviolent methods, you will fail to defend the innocent as effectively as you could have done using violence

It is impotence and paralysis.

And if you’d ever actually known any Christian pacifists, you would know that more active, committed, zealous defenders of justice cannot be found anywhere.

Like I said, I don’t quite have the guts to be one.

I find it morally reprehensible for a man to refuse to do violence to defend his wife or kids. It isn’t bravery that keeps him from defending them, it is cowardice and indifference. He should have a certain passion that drives him to defend them.

Indeed. By sacrificing his life for them. It does indeed take a lot of courage to take up a weapon to defend those you love. But it takes far more to defend them without having a weapon. And that’s my point–the point you keep missing. You make the standard assumption of folks who glorify violence–that if you don’t use violence you just passively acquiesce in evil. How anyone who participates in the Mass on a regular basis could think such a thing is beyond me.

There is an assumption that violence is always evil. You have to wonder about the OT then. There are passages where God tells the Jews to bash the heads of pagans into stones. Maybe it could be allegorized to refer to sin in some way, but that doesn’t change the historical context.

Well, it has been allegorized traditionally–indeed, Augustine routinely allegorizes references to destroying the wicked to mean “destroying their wickedness by making them good.” Actually, the passage you have in mind isn’t a divine command–it’s Psalm 137 and it’s a prayer asking God to do this, which is rather different. But more to the point, what you omit is that the pagans in question were children–and the commands to slaughter the wicked that do occur in the OT sometimes include children. So unless you’re advocating violence *against children, *you can’t use the OT for your argument, it seems to me. You have to read these passages through the lens of Jesus, which is precisely what I’m arguing regarding references to violence in general.

If you believe that the ultimate defeat of evil was the Cross of Jesus, then that has to affect how you think you should fight evil. And getting crucified is, again, hardly the act of a coward!

Violence is sometimes necessary

It’s fundamentally immoral to start out an ethical discussion by declaring what is “necessary.” That’s how people wind up justifying abortion, for instance. Violence is only necessary once you have set certain other priorities that make it necessary.

and to avoid it is cowardice

You just have no case here. You aren’t making sense.

So let’s imagine a scenario in which an armed assailant is threatening an innocent person. There are three different sets of priorities with which one might approach the task of protecting the innocent person.

A (this would be a non-pacifist position with no regard for the life of the assailant)

1. Protect the life of the innocent person.
2. Protect your own life as much as possible subordinate to priority 1

That is certainly brave, because you’re putting the life of the innocent person above your own. But if you have a way to kill the assailant, you’ll do it–no questions asked. So you have lots of options for keeping yourself safe.

B (still non-pacifist, but now trying to take care not to kill the assailant unless necessary)

1. Protect the innocent person
2. Protect yourself as in A
3. Try not to kill the assailant unless necessary to do 1 or 2

That makes it a little harder to keep yourself safe. Hence, it requires more courage.

C (not allowing for killing in self-defense, but still allowing for killing if necessary to defend the innocent):

1. Protect the innocent person
2. Refrain from killing the attacker unless necessary for 1
3. Protect your own life if you can do so while stopping the attacker without killing him

This requires even more courage, obviously, because now if you can save the victim by either sacrificing your own life or by killing the attacker, you must do the former.

D (a pacifist position):

1. Do not take human life
2. Protect the innocent person if possible without violating 1
3. Defend your own life if possible subordinate to priorities 1 and 2

Now this position is subject to criticism, because it subordinates the life of the innocent person to the moral imperative not to kill. It does not subordinate the life of the innocent person to the life of the guilty person, any more than choosing not to commit an abortion to save the life of the mother subordinates the life of the mother to the life of the child. Acting and refraining from action are not morally equivalent, contrary to a commonly held belief in our culture. (If, for instance, both the victim and the assailant were hanging off a ledge as in so many movies, obviously you’d save the victim first.) But it’s still a tough argument to make. It’s only the correct position if taking human life is intrinsically evil. I’m not convinced it is (so my reason for not being a pacifist isn’t just that I’m not brave enough).

But what is clear is that this position requires the most bravery. Even though C and D both put your own life at the bottom of the priorities, D rules out a situation in which you could save both yourself and the innocent person by killing the attacker.

The point of this tedious analysis is that each step toward pacifism increases the number of likely outcomes in which you (the heroic intervener) will end up dead. The more highly you place the priority of not killing the attacker, the harder it will be to protect yourself. Outright pacifism is indeed subject to the criticism that it makes it harder to protect the innocent person, but it also makes it harder to protect yourself. So even if it’s a morally erroneous position, its error certainly does not consist in cowardice.

Q.E.D.

Now I grant that you’re trying to redefine cowardice in what I find a highly questionable way. I take your point about the importance of passion and the willingness to act. But I don’t think you can take “fear of death” out of the center of the definition of cowardice. A person who lays down his or her life in order to save another is not a coward, period. And that’s what Christian pacifism requires.

You and other opponents of pacifism repeatedly speak as if pacifism were passive. Well, you’re just wrong. As I said, I find it hard to believe that you actually know any pacifists.

In fact, in our cultural context a case could be made that not being a pacifist is most conducive to a passive attitude toward evil. Most of the “violence to save innocent people” done in our culture is delegated to the military and police. A pacifist, who does not want this violence to be done on his/her behalf, has more responsibility to take action against the evil in the world. Americans who are not pacifists can sit back, say “thank you for your service,” and let the military/police do the hard work. It seems to me that the anger many Americans feel toward pacifists is seriously misplaced, and ought to be directed against the people who aren’t pacifists but happily allow others to do the dangerous, heroic jobs for them.

Edwin