Comparing Catholicism and Zoroastrianism's ways of dealing with evil? On the pacifist vs non-pacifist thing in particular

[Investigate12]

So I heard the Church became pacifist in the way it dealt with evil after Vatican II which was supposed to reform the religion to follow the original theology more strongly? Is this true that its what the theology says? I don’t mean to offend but I’m asking like how does this help us in achieving victory over evil in the world? I’ve liked and acknowledged the teachings but there is this like thing I want to enquire about.

I also heard somebody discussing Catholic ethics in an example of how it was preferable to sacrifice yourself to save an entire room rather than try to trick the evil person, set a trap for them or fight back and eliminate them to save both yourself and others.

So in a nutshell Zoroastrianism (Including the one that is spreading now) comes off as being like a ‘not strictly pacifist’ version of Catholicism but does not have these beliefs: Requirement of belief to be saved (Because only good is necessary), obligation to convert to the religion (Although maybe its morals should be followed in areas it rules), full recognition of Jesus as the messiah and radical pacifism when dealing with evil. It also holds belief in saints and angels like the Church does but which Islam rejects.

Here is where Zoroastrianism should differ from the Catholic religion in the way it handles evil

*It espouses good thoughts, words, righteousness and deeds, but does not oppose people using force to remove evil within reasonably necessary grounds or amounts. For example: If a terrorist tried to do to Zoroastrians what one did to the priest in France he would likely have been quickly mowed down on sight if the religion was still at its peak.

*It does not teach you to ‘turn the other cheek’ and tolerate evil in life, but rather to fight back if you can defeat it. It is preferable to fight back to try to defend goodness rather than be martyred or allowing evil to harm/remove you.

*In theory you can lie if its required to save lives according to answers by certain people who know the religion but it should be a last resort if no other option is available.

On Death Penalty

Some modern followers support life sentence and rehabilitation instead, but historically capital punishment has not been strictly opposed as a method if its proven to be necessary to bring justice and remove evil. There are people who still support it for the most grave and evil crimes of absolute darkness.

Details: Once upon a time putting to death an evildoer who committed a sin like murder (Deliberate killing of a human or dog/puppy) and other really bad sins was believed to not only lift society from the darkness they cause in the world, but could have merciful effects on their soul in reducing their Hell time if they agreed to it. According to the Persian or Sassanian Magi, the penalty of a sin considered serious like one that resulted in the murder of an innocent human or dog was death. It could not be atoned for in life.

Context here: Damnation is not indefinitely eternal in the Zoroastrian theology and eventually all souls will be saved, reunited with God.

 

[Stephen_says]

The Catholic Church is not pacifist, but official doctrine is pretty specific about when violence can be used to repel an unjust aggressor. It is also not principally our job to “achieve victory over evil” in this world. That was accomplished by the dying and rising of Jesus.

Also, I don’t think you can say Zoroastrianism is like a “not strictly pacifist” version of Catholicism because Catholicism is not Dualistic, and the most important teaching of the Catholic Church has nothing to do with pacifism, but that God came to Earth as the man Jesus in order to die to take away our sins. I’m not a Zoroastrian expert, but from what I do know, they are only superficially similar if you judge them based solely on some moral standards.

 

[EndTimes]

So I heard the Church became pacifist in the way it dealt with evil after Vatican II which was supposed to reform the religion to follow the original theology more strongly?

So I never heard that… Solid Sources Please?

 

[Investigate12]

One of which was mainly the official stance to oppose capital punishment on all grounds.

 

[EndTimes]

That

One of which was mainly the official stance to oppose capital punishment on all grounds.

That ‘change’ went from 'rare to practically non-existent" … to non-existent …

In other words a practically non-existent change…

 

[Investigate12]

Well the idea is supposed to be that people fight off evil the best they can or hold out and make a stand until the messiah comes to achieve the final victory over it, presiding over the resurrection. Then we will have a new world without evil or suffering.

Is the analogy example I mentioned in the doctrine by any chance or just likely a take from a learned person outside of the clergy of the church? Do you have any links that could be looked at on this specific position?

Interestingly the religion has an actual position called Pontiff, although nobody is in that office right now so their office is vacant. And also the belief in a Holy Spirit?

 

[EndTimes]

Well the idea is supposed to be that people fight the bad until the messiah comes to achieve the final or full victory over it. Then we will have a new world without evil or suffering.

Yes… That’s one way of saying it…

 

[Stephen_says]

Is the analogy example I mentioned in the doctrine by any chance

I may be able to point you in the right direction if you are looking for answers. Can you restate your analogy example specifically in a few sentences, your original post has a lot of detail and I am not quite sure what you are referring to.

 

[EricPH]

So I heard the Church became pacifist in the way it dealt with evil

I prefer the term peace maker rather than pacifist. In order to be a peace maker, you have to be in the middle of conflict.

I have been a Street Pastor for twelve years, we wonder around out town until around 4 am, listening, caring and helping when we can. I can remember the first big fight we witnessed with about a dozen drunks. We walked in the middle trying to keep people apart, gradually the fight came to a stop and we stayed with these angry people for some time.

When it came time to part company, they shook our hands and gave us all a hug. I was with two ladies, we were all in our sixties and seventies, all I can say is I experienced a profound sense of peace that surpasses all my understanding.