Thanks to every one who posted, but I think my question may have been unclear. It is my understanding that Christ wants us to defend the innocents and try to preserve as much life as possible. I don’t see how Jesus told us to allow people to abuse each other. I am probably missing something, but I think (and the Catechism confirms this) that we are actually obligated to defend people from unjust aggressors. I asked why the Church did not have a military devoted to this kind of work because I really couldn’t think of any other institution on earth which even tries to be above worldly politics, and therefore solely to moral work. While I understand that we can defend our countries in the armed services, it seems to me that armed forces also attempt to further the interests of their nations (usually in an economic or political regard), which may be incongruent with the Will of the Lord. Thanks again!
Because there are loads of ways we defend innocents and preserve life that don’t involve using the military.
We can do so by by being ‘peacemakers’ - blessed according to Jesus. That is to say that lawyers, politicians, social workers, civil rights activiss, police and political negotiators and others can defend the innocent and preserve life.
They can do so by eliminating the causes and resolving the disputes that lead to people wanting to harm others in the first place. Or at least by instituting non-violent means of doing so, such as courts.
The UN in setting up warcrimes tribunals for former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and other places, and in ACTUALLY prosecuting big fish like Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic (and others similarly in the Rwanda Tribunal) has surely defended innocents and preserved life - by giving the victims a voice, who otherwise would be tempted to violent retaliation, no? Same with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa.
If you can crash tackle someone to avoid them shooting another, great - but what’s wrong with TALKING them out of shooting another if that’s where your skills lie? Or better still working to diffuse the tensions that cause them to take up arms in the first place!
Then there are doctors and nurses - do you think they don’t preserve life simply by doing their jobs? Pro-life supporters certainly fit the bill - they defend the innocent, just not at the point of a gun.
People who volunteer at homeless shelters and soup kitchens and drug rehab centres, or who volunteer with overseas aid organisations, or do things as simple as sponsor children, since poverty is a big cause of a lot of crime (and thus harm to innocents).
I realise none of the above is precisely on point, but I think you’re missing something with your focus on military solutions. I think you have a very limited view of what it means to protect the innocent and defend life!
Now more to the point - firstly most of the non-military options don’t seem to have any particular political agenda behind them. Secondly, what’s wrong with working within worldly political instutions if it achieves your moral purpose? Where, for example, does Jesus tell us that it’s bad or improper to fulfil our duty to feed the hungry and clothe the naked by obtaining the office of President and reforming the welfare system to better help them, or something?
