Catholic pacifism justified or something else in bishop document?

  • Thread starter Thread starter krayzevuze
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

krayzevuze

Guest
1/2

hello all, God bless and stay safe during the pandemic

Catholics are usually not a peace/pacifist Church, but in looking up the document I am wondering if the church does allow them to be a pacifist (just like anabaptist typically are, tolstoyans, etc):

[doc in question: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...atement-the-challenge-of-peace-1983-05-03.pdf]

here is what it says on the topic in bold (all my quotes of it will be in bold for easy discernment)… please read all and understand when it says both it is referring to the two positions of just war and pacifism, self-defense with violence as a last resort and self-defense with nonviolence as the only means, they are comparing the two in the christian tradition :

Non-violence: “In this same spirit we cannot but express our admiration for all who forego the use of violence to vindicate their rights and resort to other means of defense which are available to weaker parties, provided it can be done without harm to the rights and duties of others and of the community.” (Pastoral Constitution, #78.)

**The Christian has no choice but to defend peace, properly understood, against aggression. This is an inalienable obligation. It is the how of defending peace which offers moral options. . . . We see many deeply sincere individuals who, far from being indifferent or apathetic to world evils, believe strongly in conscience that they are best defending true peace by refusing to bear arms. In some cases they are motivated by their understanding of the gospel and the life and death of Jesus as forbidding all violence. In others, their motivation is simply to give personal example of Christian forbearance as a positive, constructive approach toward loving reconciliation with enemies. In still other cases, they propose or engage in “active non-violence” as programmed resistance to thwart aggression, or to render ineffective any oppression attempted by force of arms. No government, and certainly no Christian, may simply assume that such individuals are mere pawns of conspiratorial forces or guilty of cowardice.

Catholic teaching sees these two distinct moral responses as having a complementary relationship, in the sense that both seek to serve the common good. They differ in their perception of how the common good is to be defended most effectively, but both responses testify to the Christian conviction that peace must be pursued and rights defended within moral restraints and in the context of defining other basic human values.

In all of this discussion of distinct choices, of course, we are referring to options open to individuals. The council and the popes have stated clearly that governments threatened by armed, unjust aggression must defend their people. This includes defense by armed force if necessary as a last resort.
 
2/2 ?

Moved by the example of Jesus’ life and by his teaching, some Christians have from the earliest days of the Church committed themselves to a nonviolent lifestyle. Some understood the gospel of Jesus to prohibit all killing. Some affirmed the use of prayer and other spiritual methods as means of responding to enmity and hostility. (ST. JUSTIN MARTYR AND ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE ARE THEN CITED)

The vision of Christian non-violence is not passive about injustice and the defense of the rights of others; it rather affirms and exemplifies what it means to resist injustice through non-violent methods.

wo of the passages which were included in the final version of the Pastoral Constitution gave particular encouragement for Catholics in all walks of life to assess their attitudes toward war and military service in the light of Christian pacifism. In paragraph 79 the council fathers called upon governments to enact laws protecting the rights of those who adopted the position of conscientious objection to all war: “Moreover, it seems right that laws make humane provisions for the case of those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms, provided, however, that they accept some other form of service to the human community.”[49] This was the first time a call for legal protection of conscientious objection had appeared in a document of such prominence. In addition to its own profound meaning this statement took on even more significance in the light of the praise that the council fathers had given in the preceding section “to those who renounce the use of violence and the vindication of their rights.”[50]In Human Life in Our Day (1968) we called for legislative provision to recognize selective conscientious objectors as well."

As Catholic bishops it is incumbent upon us to stress to our own community and to the wider society the significance of this support for a pacifist option for individuals in the teaching of Vatican II and the reaffirmation that the popes have given to nonviolent witness since the time of the council.

Both find their roots in the Christian theological tradition; each contributes to the full moral vision we need in pursuit of a human peace. We believe the two perspectives support and complement one another, each preserving the other from distortion.

Non-violence is not the way of the weak, the cowardly, or the impatient.
 
3/2

45.Representative authors in the tradition of Christian pacifism and non-violence include: R. Bainton,Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace (Abington: 1960), chs. 4, 5, 10; J. Yoder, The Politics of Jesus (Grand Rapids: 1972), Nevertheless: Varieties of Religious Pacifism (Scottsdale: 1971); T. Merton, Faith andViolence: Christian Teaching and Christian Practice (Notre Dame: 1968); G. Zahn, War, Conscience and Dissent (New York: 1967); E. Egan, “The Beatitudes: Works of Mercy and Pacifism,” in T. Shannon, ed., War or Peace: The Search for New Answers (New York: 1980), pp. 169-187; J. Fahey, “The Catholic Church and the Arms Race,” Worldview 22 ( 1979):3841; J. Douglass, The Nonviolent Cross: A Theology of Revolution and Peace (New York: 1966).

BASED on all of this, would it be fair to say that a Catholic could be a radical pacifist to the point of never using violence to defend themselves or others, but only to defend themselves and others with nonviolent means even just prayer? especially since they cite people like Yoder, as the kind of pacifism they are talking about. the full implications of this kind of life are stated here: https://teachingamericanhistory.org...f-sentiments-adopted-by-the-peace-convention/

in that declaration if you read, the implications of being pacifistic is: 1. no voting 2. no running for office 3. no joining the military 4. no glorifying the military 5. no rash patriotism 6. no giving allegiance to governments 7. no opposing governments by violents 8. no helping your country prepare for war (weapons manufacturing, etc) 9. no sueing others at law 10. no violent defense of self (like using a gun) 11. no non-submission to goverment (in a martyrs sense)

the declaration has things that a Catholic pacifist cant accept, like thinking a government has no right to violently defend itself as a last resort, but these are 11 things they could based on this bishops document

what do you think?

thank you all
 
You’re using generalizations like “they” and “Catholics”, but the document that you’re citing refers to an individual’s conscience. There is somewhat of a disconnect there.

Aside from that, the eleven statements taken together seem a bit extreme, especially considering that they are blanket statements with no caveat for a ‘just war’ or even self defense or defense of people who you may be responsible for protecting such as a family.
 
Last edited:
that is true, I do not mean to generalize and yes this is all for an individual or group of individuals. the statements are also for them, and that is the thing I was wondering. they (the USCCB) say that defense is obligatory, defense of peace and others, but how is the question. So if someone was a pacifist and was defending their family, according to this, it seems they would be allowed to never use violence for it, but are even allowed to simply use prayer. so there are two options for an individual in the Church, and also they would of course never be required to join the army for a just war or support their country in violence (they have paragraphs on this in the doc too)

so I was wondering if this conclusion is really what they are saying, that one is allowed to be either violent or non-violent, as long as you both recognize the need for defense, in either way, and if their interpretation of the V2 documents was right OR it was something else
 
That gives conditions for when to use Force, that’s not pacifism, or at least not a total one. That is saying that peace is preferable to violence, which I happen to agree with.
 
There is a difference between a conscientious objector and a person who will not defend himself or others. While the first has a long history of support from the church, the latter not so much. In fact the position that one may legitimately not defend even himself or his family seems more than a little suspect.

2265 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.

That which is a “grave duty” or which “requires” us to act doesn’t seem optional. Nor does such a position seem to have support from historical teaching.

Wherefore Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 36) that “whoever does not ward off a blow from a fellow man when he can, is as much in fault as the striker”; and he quotes the example of Moses. (Aquinas, ST II-II 60, 6 ad 2)
 
I agree, and the document says this also, but it differs in how, it seems that they would say that one may ward off a blow physically (the violence position) or with nonviolence, but that it must be warded off is a christian duty:

The Christian has no choice but to defend peace, properly understood, against aggression. This is an inalienable obligation. It is the how of defending peace which offers moral options

In all of this discussion of distinct choices, of course, we are referring to options open to individuals.

Some affirmed the use of prayer and other spiritual methods as means of responding to enmity and hostility.

this is what I wanted more clarification on, if this is what they meant or something else (also maybe it is confusing but these uotes are from all over the doc)
 
krayzevuze said:
The Christian has no choice but to defend peace, properly understood, against aggression. This is an inalienable obligation. It is the how of defending peace which offers moral options
Click to expand...
If defense against violence is an inalienable obligation then the completely pacifist position is not tenable. It is, for example, not possible to stop an assault on another person by “the use of prayer or other spiritual methods”. Sometimes physical force is the only viable option however much one may oppose it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top