Catholic and non violence

[Poisson]

Smack Daddy:

Pacifism is NOT a heresy!!

Based on this is someone started beating on you and you could not escape you would never strike back to defend yourself. You must also believe police should not carry guns or batons. You believe that a counrty should not take up arms against invaders etc…

As Catholics we are also called to defend the defensless and sometimes (unfortunately often as in police work) the only way to do that is with force.
A pacifist by definition is someone who would not use force under any circumstance. How then do we meet this obligation if we are pacificst. Let others do the difficult job of policing? defending the country?

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Well, the Catechism for one thing:

1. Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.

. . .

1. By recalling the commandment, “You shall not kill,” (Matthew 5:21) our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral. Anger is a desire for revenge. To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit, but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution to correct vices and maintain justice. If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. the Lord says, “Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.” (Matthew 5:22)

. . .

1. Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense. Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.

Fulfilling one’s duty, and "contributing to the common good is something quite priaseworhty, wouldn’t you agree?

Note: I did not say that any war, insofar as it is war, is good. All I said was that just participation in said war can be justified, and even praiseworthy. Father Hardon says so explicitly in his Catechism.

As further evidence I would cite the Crusades. While many atrocities were commited during them, the Crusades themselves were a just war, and the Popes, throught them all, offered spiritual benefits for righteous participation in them (i.e. perpetual indulgences).

I would also cite the example of many of the Church’s saints who were soldiers, who served God faithfully as members of their sate’s army.

Lastly, Saint Thomas Aquinas had quite a lot to say about this subject. Note here that he treats this subject, not in the section of justice, but charity. Just war is thus sometimes an exercise of Christian charity.

Here’s an abstract from an article titled “Thomas Aquinas and Virtuous Warfare,” from the Journal of Religious Ethics:

Thomas Aquinas, one of the “founding fathers” of just war theory, offers an account of virtuous warfare in practice. The author argues that Aquinas’s approach to warfare, with its emphasis on justice and charity, is helpful in providing a coherent moral account of war to which Christians can subscribe. Particular attention is given to the role of charity, since this virtue is the distinguishing characteristic of the Christian soldier. Charity compels him to soldier justly, and by fighting justly, he is elevated by God to friendship with God. Notable features of this approach are its emphasis on the criteria for judging whether a war is just and its relativizing of the criteria for proper combat behavior.

 

[Southernrich]

Poisson - no need to resort to a some subjective, emotional argument.

A nation is not permitted to be pacifist, but individuals may be, and they may be opposed to violence as a means of settling disputes. Martin King’s policy of pacifism worked in the face of Southern white trash police and their police dogs. It is a viable position to hold.

 

[Southernrich]

DominvsVobiscvm:

As further evidence I would cite the Crusades. While many atrocities were commited during them, the Crusades themselves were a just war.

No, you are in error. Read what constitutes a just war. During the First Crusade, the Europeans took Jerusalem, and they brutalized and slaughtered thousands of civilian inhabitants of that city. Their conduct absolutely breached the principles of just war ethics, and the massacres STILL color Moslem politics today.

As for the Pope, he kindly forgave IN ADVANCE any and all sins the Crusaders would commit. So murder, fornication, theft, rape, etc. were pre-approved!

 

[Brendan]

Luke 22:36

He (Jesus) said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one

.

Romans. 13:4:

“He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil”;

From Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical EVANGELIUM 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.”

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

No, you are in error. Read what constitutes a just war. During the First Crusade, the Europeans took Jerusalem, and they brutalized and slaughtered thousands of civilian inhabitants of that city. Their conduct absolutely breached the principles of just war ethics, and the massacres STILL color Moslem politics today.

Just because a war itself was just, it does not stand to reason that every act commited by soldiers during said war will necessarily be just. A modern case-in-point is World War II (a just war on the part of the Allies) and the bombings of Dresden, Germany and Hiroshima, Japan (unjust actions).

As for the Pope, he kindly forgave IN ADVANCE any and all sins the Crusaders would commit. So murder, fornication, theft, rape, etc. were pre-approved!

Documentation, please?

The Crusades were a just response to centuries of Musilm agression, no matter what might be said about unjust actions (like the massacred of Jews, women, and children) occurred during them. The Popes, and various other bishops and saints, were quick to address and condemn abuses, even as they praised the Crusades themselves. (A case in point being Saint Bernard).

 

[Brendan]

Southernrich:

No, you are in error. Read what constitutes a just war. !

Southernrich.

Defense of one’s land is included in just war.

The Crusades were a counter attack to a Moslem invasion of Christian land.

Antioch, Alexandria, Egypt and Syria were all Christian lands till the Moslems came.

I suppose you object to the Spanish reconquista as well.

 

[Southernrich]

Just because one or two of the conditions for a just war were met during a particular Crusade, doesn’t make the Crusade a just war.

The mass slaughter of civilians in the First Crusade negated consideration of that Crusade as a just one. One would have to study each Crusade to see how closely each one came to being “just.”

I suspect that few, if any, were truly “just wars.” Study will help decide.

 

[Southernrich]

The Fourth Crusade, where the Crusaders were persuaded to turn aside and attack Constantinople, sacking the city, murdering thousands of Christians, and guaranteeing that the Eastern Church would not be reconciled with Rome (to Innocent III’s great sorrow) was no just war either.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Just because one or two of the conditions for a just war were met during a particular Crusade, doesn’t make the Crusade a just war.

The Crusades, in and of themselves, met all the conditions of a just war, and the Church acknowledged and blessed them for centuries.

Whether or not a war is just has nothing whatsoever to do with actions commited dyring said war.

Once again, do you deny that World War II was a just war on the part of the Allies? Of course not. And yet there were injustifiable atrocities commited during this just war. An example is the atomic bombing of Japan, which killed untold millions of innocent people.

Patrick J. Buchanan gives another example. From his “Is America Ashamed of Its Christian Past?”:

A little history. In 600 A.D., the Mediterranean basin was largely Christian. But within a century of the death of Mohammed in 632, armies of Islam had conquered Syria and Palestine, swept over North Africa, and overrun Spain, only to be defeated at Poitiers by Charles Martel. Had they triumphed, Christianity might have died in Europe, as it would in the cities of Augustine and Athanasius.

“The common assumption that the Crusades were an act of unprovoked Christian aggression” is false, writes Warren Carroll, the historian of Christendom. Before 1095, “all the aggression had been Muslim. The Muslims were the original and continuing attackers and conquerors of Christian territory.” Only after centuries living in fear of the hosts of Islam did Urban II preach the First Crusade.

The goal that animated the Crusaders was Jerusalem. “Those who deride this as a Christian objective have lived too long in books and under lamps,” writes Carroll. “Real men and women, as distinct from scholarly abstractions, have homes which they love. Jesus Christ was a real man. He had a home. He loved it. His followers [and] worshipers who came after Him loved the land and places He had loved and trod, simply because He had loved and trodden them. Utterly convinced that He is God, they could not believe it right that any people not recognizing Him as God should rule His homeland.”

A majority in Palestine was probably still Christian in 1095, writes Carroll, “They had … as much right to their land as the Muslim conquerors.” If Mecca were overrun by heathen armies, would not Muslim peoples be justified in launching a “jihad” to liberate their holy city? Would they apologize or be ashamed of having done so?

The Crusader armies, led by Godfrey of Bouillon and Raymond of Toulouse, captured Jerusalem in 1099, where a massacre did occur. But that same evil befell the knights, and their wives and children, when the last Crusader castle, Acre, fell to the Mameluks in 1291. Have we heard any apologies for the slaughter at Acre?

Offered the title King of Jerusalem, Raymond and Godfrey both refused to wear a crown of gold in the city where Christ had worn a crown of thorns. It was an age of faith. **The First Crusade, writes Carroll, was “a just war conducted for a deeply spiritual purpose, though often seriously flawed in its execution.” As was World War II.

After that Good War in which British Air Marshal “Bomber” Harris incinerated thousands of refugee women and children in Dresden, Dwight Eisenhower titled his memoir “Crusade in Europe.”**

You also write:

The Fourth Crusade, where the Crusaders were persuaded to turn aside and attack Constantinople, sacking the city, murdering thousands of Christians, and guaranteeing that the Eastern Church would not be reconciled with Rome (to Innocent III’s great sorrow) was no just war either.

You’re absolutely right about this one. The Fourth Crusade is a perfect example of an unjust war, and good Catholics of the day knew it as such, including Pope Innocent III, who excommunicated the Crusaders who took part in the massacre.

 

[gomer_tree]

James1_27:

Is it possible to be a catholic - in full communion - and yet believe that violence is never justified? That Jesus commanded us never to use violence for any reason.

Rather than debate whether or not “pacifism is heresy” and what is meant by that, let’s look at the original question.

As stated, it is heretical. A belief that it is “never justified” is a direct contradiction to the Catechism, and since the Church teaches what Christ taught, we cannot belief that Jesus ever commanded us to never use violence for any reason.

 

[Southernrich]

DominvsVobiscvm:

The Crusades, in and of themselves, met all the conditions of a just war, and the Church acknowledged and blessed them for centuries.

Whether or not a war is just has nothing whatsoever to do with actions commited dyring said war.

You are in error. Just read about the conduct of the Fourth Crusade, where Christians slaughtered other Christians and western Christians utterly sacked that holy city.

So what about a Church blessing? The crusade against the heretical Albegensians was also blessed in advance and it turned out to be no more than a bloody murder of civilians.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

You are in error. Just read about the conduct of the Fourth Crusade, where Christians slaughtered other Christians and western Christians utterly sacked that holy city.

:banghead:

Anyone but me feel like a broken-record?!?!?!?!

Are you even reading my posts? I’ve addressed every single objection you’ve brought up, and seen no rebuttal on your part, just “You’re in error.” The Crusades, save for the 4th, were just wars, though flawed in execution.

So, you believe that World War II wasn’t a just war?

So what about a Church blessing? The crusade against the heretical Albegensians was also blessed in advance and it turned out to be no more than a bloody murder of civilians.

Again, I don’t know what you mean “by advance”. I’ve asked you to document where any Pope forgave sins “in advance,” and you have failed to do so.

The Albigensian Crusade was likewise a just war against what was by all accounts a Death Cult (Do you know what the Cathars believed, and what they did?!), akin to Jim Jones’s “Peoples Temple.” Again, this was a just war flawed in its execution, as was World War II.

 

[Southernrich]

DominvsVobiscvm:

Again, this was a just war flawed in its execution

Ah, yes, how very delicately you put it. I like that. It’s most unfortunate that so many things just turn out “flawed in their execution.” What can one do? Just kill them all, I suppose, and let God sort them out.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Answer my question, wise-guy. Was World War II justified, or wasn’t it?

In fact, can you name me a single just war where unjustifiable atoricites did not occur during them? In fact, forget war; can you name a single human endeavor that isn’t to some extent flawed in its execution?

I could draw a million different parallels, from ecclesiastical and civil life. A war can be just, and still have awful things, sinful things, occur within it. Just like we can have a justifiable jusifical system that can be abused, or a police force. And etc.

To label the Crusade an “unjust war” because of abuses commited by the Crusaders is to proverbially cast the baby out with the bath water.

Don’t forget, most of the Crusaders were not evil men; they did not all take part in abuses (just like not all the Allies took part in abuses that occurred during World War II). One of them, King Louis IX of France, is a canonized saint, who died while Crusading. And guess what? Saint Louis’s participation in the Crusades has merited his being named patron saint of soldiers!

 

[Smack_Daddy]

Southernrich:

Sorry, the Catholic Worker movement is committed to non-violence, voluntary poverty, prayer, hospitality for the homeless, the exiled, the hungry and foresaken. And they protest injustice, war, racism, and violence of all forms.

And your sorry about this?

No red-blooded Catholic who admires George Bush and what he’s done would have anything to do with those wimps.

Wimps? :banghead: It’s takes more courage to live out the non-violent message of Jesus than the “bring 'em on” message of GW.

Catholic Workers even marched with the - gasp! - Communists in the 1930s to protest racism.

I guess they should have marched with the capitalist to promote racism.

Dorothy Day was a socialist who had a bastard child by her common law marriage with an anarchist.

This was before her conversion to the Catholic Church. Giving birth to her “bastard child” was a major turning point in her life and a catalyst for her conversion. And her “anarchist” husband left her and their child after she joined the body of Christ.

No, nice Catholics wouldn’t have anything to do with the likes of her and her kind. Nor with Peter Maurin, her anarchist buddy.

Just a guess…but I guess you’ve never read any of her writings. She was one of the most influential, courageous Catholics of the 20th century. Never once (that I’m aware of) was she condemned or silenced by the Church. I suggest you take that big picture of George Bush you got hanging on your wall down and replace it with a picture of Jesus. Also grab the gospels, paying close attention to the Sermon on the Mount, grab your rosary, read, pray, and then maybe you’ll understand.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Smack:

Southernrich was being sarcastic.

 

[Smack_Daddy]

DominvsVobiscvm:

Smack:

Southernrich was being sarcastic.

I’ve been punked.

 

[Michael_J_Lord]

The Cathechism clearly allows one to defend themselves.Of course this is limited to using only that amount of force neccesary to stop the unjust aggressor.Lets submit Our intellectual pride to the teachings of the Church which is The teachings of Christ.