Christian submission vs. self-defense

  • Thread starter Thread starter codefro
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

codefro

Guest
I saw a AAA answer by Michelle Arnold explaining why Christians should not organize defense groups to protect Christians in hostile areas.

I wanted some other dialogue about this. Now I agree with Arnold’s use of the text in explaining Christ’s submission to death. Yet, I do not think that this completely takes away a Christian’s right to defend themselves. A Christian may submit their life to death if the Lord wills it, yet Christians are not merely cattle who march towards the cliff.

Historically, the Church called Christians to arms for the preservation and protection of the Church. I am not against the Crusades. I agree that the Church needed to protect herself. Also, the Pope has soldiers (Swiss Guard) to protect him-- why can’t other Christians have guards for the means of self defense and not offensive action?
 
Actually, the Swiss Guard serve a purely ceremonial role now, as I understand.
 
SonCatcher said:
Actually, the Swiss Guard serve a purely ceremonial role now, as I understand.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s true, but-

Whether it be Swiss Guard or Vatican Secret Service- I would like someone to offer some words on what I’m asking.
 
The OP asked why the Church herself does not have a fighting force and relies on states to fight. To that answer I agree with the apologist; it’s sort of unbecoming for spiritual leaders to be military commanders (some saints excepted, it was their vocation).

But I don’t think the apologist’s answer was referring to laymen. In certain cases the Church has sanctioned the use of military force by secular powers on her behalf. The Crusades are an obvious example. The rallying of Irish and French volunteer soldiers to Rome to defend the pope during the 1870s is a modern one. The Church was more wary of popular resistance like the Vendeans and Cristeros because it traditionally held that wars should be waged by recognized authorities, but it didn’t condemn them either.

Catholics have long been fighters. Sometimes, unfortunately we have to. When the just war conditions are met the Church may sanction it.
 
codefro said:
I saw a AAA answer by Michelle Arnold explaining why Christians should not organize defense groups to protect Christians in hostile areas.

I wanted some other dialogue about this. Now I agree with Arnold’s use of the text in explaining Christ’s submission to death. Yet, I do not think that this completely takes away a Christian’s right to defend themselves. A Christian may submit their life to death if the Lord wills it, yet Christians are not merely cattle who march towards the cliff.

Historically, the Church called Christians to arms for the preservation and protection of the Church. I am not against the Crusades. I agree that the Church needed to protect herself. Also, the Pope has soldiers (Swiss Guard) to protect him-- why can’t other Christians have guards for the means of self defense and not offensive action?
Click to expand...
According to the natural law, each human being has the natural right to protect himself against the unfair attacks. It is a natural right from the natural law that is coming from the natural reason wanted by God.

Sometimes, the self-defense against the unfair attacks is also a right and a duty or an obligation.
 
The issue addressed by Michelle Arnold was whether or not Christians should have an army under the auspices of the Church.
 
SonCatcher said:
Actually, the Swiss Guard serve a purely ceremonial role now, as I understand.
Click to expand...
The Swiss Guard are ‘on loan’ to the Vatican from the Swiss Army (from Swissland). They have to Catholic and be a certain age (don’t remember what). There are more requirments but I can’t think of them not.👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top