Catholic View on Pacificsm?

[FightingFat]

No, God promised the land to the Jews

He also took it away from them, several times. The last time was in 70AD. Jews gradually moved back into the area, but now what they are engaged in is basically genocide, something they should know better than to administer on another people.

 

[FightingFat]

However, I disagree that violence begets violence. The Japanese have been extremely peaceful after the US dropped 2 A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

My thinking on pacifism and the use of violence is best summed up in the words of Robert Heinlein.

If you disagree that violence begets violence, you are at odds with John Paul II & Benedict XVI, two of the greatest thinkers of our time. Personally, I value their opinion, wisdom and experience far greater than Mr. Heinlein, who’s vision future was very frightening and seemed to me a critique of the philosophy you so admire in quoting him.

 

[mdrummer5]

I have a friend here on campus who is a self proclaimed cafeteria catholic, which in a way I respect, he is very honest in his struggles. But he is a very adamant and passionate about non-violence. He is so strongly pacifist that he says he would not even fight with some one who was rapping his wife if that ever happened, God forbid. Which I feel like that is a very strong statement and doesn’t make much sense to me personally thats why I was wondering what the Catholic view on pacifism was? I was just wondering for my own purposes and study, thank you!

I’m sorry… but a man who would sit idly by while his wife is being raped does not truly love her. In fact in that scenario if you ask me he’s basically stating that showing mercy to the rapist was more important to him than showing love towards his wife.

^This is not a view Jesus had…Jesus was all about mercy, respect, and love

God forgive me should it ever happen but if I were married and found myself in that scenario but the last thing in my mind or heart would’ve been WWJD? Heck even if it was a woman I didn’t know I’d be looking for the nearest blunt object to bet the attacker senseless with.

In his divinity God gives mercy to all… I lack that divinity, he’d be lucky to still be walking when I was through.

 

[AHapka]

I’m sorry… but a man who would sit idly by while his wife is being raped does not truly love her. In fact in that scenario if you ask me he’s basically stating that showing mercy to the rapist was more important to him than showing love towards his wife.

I think mercy is being misused here. Below is my opinion.

Mercy as God would use it, would be later on forgiving the rapist after repentance and sparing him from hell.

Using force at the time to stop the act is not only morally right, it’s morally required. The Catechism tells us to use as much force as necessary to stop the assault. The goal is to stop the threat.

 

[hxcCatholic413]

God forgive me should it ever happen but if I were married and found myself in that scenario but the last thing in my mind or heart would’ve been WWJD? Heck even if it was a woman I didn’t know I’d be looking for the nearest blunt object to bet the attacker senseless with.

In his divinity God gives mercy to all… I lack that divinity, he’d be lucky to still be walking when I was through.

bolded: beat the attacker senseless? obviously I would stop someone who tried to rape a woman…but attack senseless? sounds to me that in the end you’d be the one facing a life sentence

 

[StTommyMore]

bolded: beat the attacker senseless? obviously I would stop someone who tried to rape a woman…but attack senseless? sounds to me that in the end you’d be the one facing a life sentence

One does not receive a life sentence in defense of one’s self or the defense of another.

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

It is one thing to be stirred past the point of self-control. It is quite another to plan on beating someone well past the point of defense. There are many here who are rightly outraged that anyone would watch violence and ignore it. It is refreshing, actually, since we all know that much violence is witnessed and ignored. Still, defending someone who needs defense or protecting someone who need protection does not mean taking justice into your hands. It does not mean that you are the hand of the law or the hand of vengeance.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Genesis 13 is the initial promise of land…time to ditch you Protestant Zionism.

What is your point? Abraham did not have any sons at the time that God originally promised the land. If what you are saying is true, that God initially promised the land to ALL of Abraham’s descendants, why would God have tell Abraham that Ishmael would also be the father of a great nation? After all if your interpretation is correct, then God would only be restating the obvious.

Do you also believe that the Eschatalogical Israel is to be identified with the political state?

Obviously, I do. We wouldn’t be having this argument if I didn’t.
"FightingFat:

He also took it away from them, several times. The last time was in 70AD. Jews gradually moved back into the area, but now what they are engaged in is basically genocide, something they should know better than to administer on another people.

If you are going to accuse the Israelis of genocide, I expect you to be able to prove it.

If you disagree that violence begets violence, you are at odds with John Paul II & Benedict XVI, two of the greatest thinkers of our time.

Someone’s status as a thinker does not guarantee that they are correct all the time, each thought must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Personally, I value their opinion, wisdom and experience far greater than Mr. Heinlein, who’s vision future was very frightening and seemed to me a critique of the philosophy you so admire in quoting him.

I was a little confused by your sentence, do you mean Heinlein’s vision future criticized itself?

 

[StTommyMore]

.Obviously, I do. We wouldn’t be having this argument if I didn’t.

Herein lies the problem. The Escatological Israel is the Church. If you compare the Church and political state of Israel with the Israel of the Old Testament, you will find the Church is the fullness of the Davidic Kingdom. For example:

• The Church is ruled by the Son of David
• The Davidic king appointed twelve officers to administrate the Kingdom
• One of these said officers was a “Chief Steward” whose badge of office was the “Keys of the House of David”
• The Queen-Mother was a powerful intercessor that would intercede on a petitioner’s behalf

Does this sound more like the modern political state or the Church? The identification of the eschatalogical Israel with the modern political state is thoroughly Protestant, borne out of the Fundamentalist movement of the late 19th century.

 

[PPeterson]

I have a friend here on campus

^ that’s probably the explanation right there. you can probably feel comfortable giving him the benefit of the doubt that his thinking will clear up sometime after senior year unless he does postgrad in the social sciences lol.

 

[College_Girl]

I am not going to dive into international politics, capital punishment or abortion.

I was raised by a self-described pacifist. Pacifism, rightly, is not passive. The root is peace. You can defend innocents and be a pacifist. You can protect your wife and be a pacifist.

The question a pacifist ought to ask is not, “what should I avoid doing?” but rather, “How can I act?” Our models for modern pacifism include Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, and many of the early pro-life workers. You cannot look the other way and call yourself peaceful. Neither can you address hate with hate. “Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” When you defend an innocent it cannot be out of hatred for the aggressor, but must instead be out of love for the innocent. And indeed, though it is just to hold the aggressor accountable for his actions, it is also necessary to forgive. By forgive, I certainly do not mean that you should not ensure that he is held accountable to the full extent of the law, I mean rather that you should love him. Want salvation for him.

The problem is that it is difficult to know where the line between necessary defense and peaceful address is. It as a problem that every Christian, whether a self-described pacifist or not, struggles with. There are many issues- some have been raised in this discussion- where an evil cannot be ignored. The question then, is how to act. There is legitimate debate on that question. The true pacifist, however, will not say that he cannot act but that he must act with peace as an end. He will try to stop the rapist with minimal violence. He will see to it that the rapist is held accountable in law. There is nothing peaceful about watching a violence take place and not acting. True pacifism is courageous. Think of the freedom riders who faced terrible violence. Think of Christ, who suffered and died. (Perhaps some will be insulted that I claim Him as a model for pacifists, but hear me out.) The true pacifist always acts. He may suffer violence for his cause, but the cause must be non-violence. He does not, therefore, watch violence silently. He chooses his actions carefully, and he knows that violence begets violence. He must also know that inaction is gravely evil and sometimes non-violence means using less force than you would care to and only enough to stop a violence.

Thank you so much! This answer is great! It explains what I was questioning and wondering about perfectly. I agree, finally some one answered the question! Haha thanks!

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

 

[benidict]

bolded: beat the attacker senseless? obviously I would stop someone who tried to rape a woman…but attack senseless? sounds to me that in the end you’d be the one facing a life sentence

No you would not. I am authorized to shoot such a person to death, if I come upon this situation with no warning given. No civilian would be Charged either, if they used lethal force to stop a rape. At least not in the united states. Nice try though.

 

[benidict]

It certainly is a sad world when one can justify the murder of another and say that Christ inspires them…hmmmmm

Its a pretty sad world when someone has sympathy for a criminal who violates another. Im not packing my bags for your guilt trip, and I think you think your manipulative phrases are actually having an impact. Nope, not here.

 

[benidict]

I have no sympathy for Rachel Corrie. The Israelis are only acting in self-defense. Corrie and her fellow troublemakers were warned. If they didn’t leave, that is their fault. Your article also neglected to mention the fact that the houses the Israelis demolished were being used to smuggle arms to terrorists.

Also, if you really want to malign the Israeli armed forces, get a better link next time. Those before and after photos are of 2 different bulldozers at 2 different times. If you want more information about what really happened, check out the link below.

peacewithrealism.org/corrie.htm

As for capital punishment, it is not immoral and never will be. The Catechism of the Council of Trent called a just execution, “An act of paramount obedience to the 5th Commandment.”

 

[benidict]

Greetings and peace be with you starshiptrooper;

It appears that your idea of self defence is Israelis with a tank on one side, and unarmed Palestinians trying to defend the homes they live in, on the other side.
It does not appear to be Israelis acting in self defence, were the Palestinians trying to shot at the tanks or bulldozers at the time? It appears that only unarmed peace activists were trying to stand between the bulldozers and the homes.

I cannot judge the rights and wrongs, but Jews have displaced the Palestinian people over the last 60 years or so. Most of the Palestinians in Gaza are living below the poverty line according to UNICEF. Israel has blockaded Gaza, the tunnels are a major supply route for food as well as guns, people living in poverty are often pushed to take desperate measures.
unicef.org/infobycountry/oPt_50318.html

Blessings,

Eric

B.S. this is a bald face lie! In 1948, the surrounding arab nations, told the palestinians to leave, so they could wipe out Israel. the palistinians left willinginly, thinking they were going to come home to a land Cleansed of the Jewish people. the Jews were outnumbered 10 to 1. No one, unless they have divine aid, wins such a lopsided war. After the Jews kicked the Arabs butts, the arabs refused to assimilate the palestinians into their territories. Instead using them to as an agitant against Israel. The surrounding arab nations dont give two. beans about the palestinians’. the blame for the plight of the palestinians can be laid directly on their own Arab cousins. Lets get our facts straight. Shall we?

 

[PPeterson]

The true pacifist, however, will not say that he cannot act but that he must act with peace as an end. He will try to stop the rapist with minimal violence. He will see to it that the rapist is held accountable in law. There is nothing peaceful about watching a violence take place and not acting. True pacifism is courageous.

I think it’s important to understand that successfully restraining a violent criminal with “minimal violence” requires that you possess a huge amount of skill, and that all the following are true:

-the criminal is unarmed
-he is significantly weaker/worse at fighting than you
-someone is available to notify police
-police can be there within 1-5 minutes

If all of the following are not in place, then your approach is unlikely to work. Personally,
if you got yourself and my wife/child killed by trying to apprehend their attacker with some goofy mcninja aikido moves i would not be very understanding. nor would i see you as a model of Christian virtue.

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

I think it’s important to understand that successfully restraining a violent criminal with “minimal violence” requires that you possess a huge amount of skill, and that all the following are true:

-the criminal is unarmed
-he is significantly weaker/worse at fighting than you
-someone is available to notify police
-police can be there within 1-5 minutes

If all of the following are not in place, then your approach is unlikely to work. Personally,
if you got yourself and my wife/child killed by trying to apprehend their attacker with some goofy mcninja aikido moves i would not be very understanding. nor would i see you as a model of Christian virtue.

You are reading more into my words that I wrote. If you can stop such a violence with impressive physical technique that I cannot even name, more power to you. I cannot. Minimal violence obviously is different depending on the situation. There are too many factors to list even for this relatively specific situation. The strength and skill of the attacker versus my own strength and skill. Is anyone armed with anything? Are there others around? Etc… I am not very strong and not at all trained in any martial arts. I grew up with five siblings, so I can hold my own in a fight, but in this situation I would call the police and then do the best I could with the nearest hard object. I would not, I hope, beat the attacker past what was necessary.

I would certainly not plan on acting out of a vengeful anger, rather than necessary defense. I will not venture to say what is necessary. The line I tried to draw is that between defense and vengeance.

 

[starshiptrooper]

You do realize that when trouble happens, you will have literally seconds to respond. In all honesty, I would rather use excessive force to stope some psycho, rather than risk him harming my loved ones. :nunchuk: :stretcher:

 

[hxcCatholic413]

No you would not. I am authorized to shoot such a person to death, if I come upon this situation with no warning given. No civilian would be Charged either, if they used lethal force to stop a rape. At least not in the united states. Nice try though.

your an M.P. as well? Hopefully US Military doesn’t teach that, but then again (Insert: ridiculously funny joke ) God Bless!