Do Church leaders believe that the “Just War Theory” is Jesus will?

[Steven_Merten]

A Catholic scholar was going over the criteria of the Catholic “Just War Theory” with me. I asked him which wars did/does Jesus see it just to kill in. He paused with a look of great surprise. Then he said, “Well, Jesus is a pacifist. He wills us never to kill. The Catholic ‘Just War Theory’ is only a Church doctrine.” Then I had a surprised look on my face. I asked, “How can the Church have a doctrine which they believe is the exact opposite of the will of Jesus?” He did not have an answer.

I think most Catholics, like me, just assumed that if the Church teaches something, they believe their teaching to be the will of Jesus or at least close to the will of Jesus. Is there any truth in what this man says?

Peace in Christ,

Steven Merten

http://www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[Nate]

Steven Merten:

Then he said, “Well, Jesus is a pacifist. He wills us never to kill. The Catholic ‘Just War Theory’ is only a Church doctrine.”
…
I think most Catholics, like me, just assumed that if the Church teaches something, they believe their teaching to be the will of Jesus or at least close to the will of Jesus. Is there any truth in what this man says?

I don’t think Jesus was a pacifist, but a realist.
Lk 22:36 And He said to them, "But now, let him who has a purse take it along, likewise also a bag, and let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one.

There is a recognition that His disciples would be annihilated if at times they did not defend themselves. Jesus said He and the Father were one, and we know that God of the OT was no pacifist. Not only were the Israelites permitted to defend themselves in war, but were commanded to do so. He is called Son of David, and David is a warrior.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

I believe there is also a passage in which Jesus makes a comparison to a general martialing his forces for a battle. While this is only a metaphor, it is important to remember that Our Lord would not lie even in the context of an imaginary comparison. So if Christ were a pacifist in the normal sense of the word, he would not have used this example.

Scott

 

[bengal_fan]

Jesus was not a pacifist. he was against unnecessary violence and the love of violence, but He knew that there are and would be battles that must be fought.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

I think it behooves us all to be very careful in using terms like “Jesus’s will” and “God’s will.”

The will of Jesus is that all men come to God the Father through Him, by the working of God the Holy Spirit. While we are on our way there, he made it very clear (as did his Father to the Hebrews in the Old Testament) that he cares a good deal about right conduct.

I once flew with a pilot who had trained Turkish Air Force students to fly. He had a rather bad one, and was taking him up for a final check before deciding whether or not to cease training him. He recounted that at about 5000 feet, he noticed the jet hadn’t changed heading. He looked, and the student had no hands on the stick, or feet on the rudders. He took control, and asked “Do you want us both to die?” (He was a bit shook up.) The answer ended the check ride, “If Allah wills it.”

We have to be careful to avoid inch Allah fatalism when we start talking about the will of God in reference to decisions taken in a fallen world of fallen (though redeemed) men.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[wanerious]

bengal_fan:

Jesus was not a pacifist. he was against unnecessary violence and the love of violence, but He knew that there are and would be battles that must be fought.

You mean he would condone real killing? I am certainly no biblical expert, but is there any evidence of this through his words or actions? On the contrary, I would use passages like the Sermon on the Mount to exhibit his pacifism.

 

[Steven_Merten]

wanerious:

You mean he would condone real killing? I am certainly no biblical expert, but is there any evidence of this through his words or actions? On the contrary, I would use passages like the Sermon on the Mount to exhibit his pacifism.

Hello wanerious,

Jesus commands His Apostles who do not have swords with them at the Last Supper to sell their coats and buy one. It is my thinking that there are very few uses for a sword other than killing or maiming somone to protect yourself. Even less uses for a sword that would warrant selling your coat to buy one.

**NAB LUKE 22:35 **

“…And the man without a sword must sell his coat and buy one.”
So do you feel that Church leaders should use the Sermon of the Mound, rather than armed Itialian police to protect the Pope and Vatican posessions? Jesus, a victim of violence Himself, certianly would have known and taken into consideration the result of commanding the Vatican to use the Sermon of the Mound to protect themselves and commanding them not to use armed Italian police or any force to protect their soveriegn nation Vatican City. I would certianly hope that the Pope would obey what Jesus willed for him to do to protect himself.

I do believe that Jesus wills us to use force to protect ourselves. I am somewhat supprized to think that Church leaders might believe this to oppose the will of Jesus.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[wanerious]

Steven Merten:

Hello wanerious,

Jesus commands His Apostles who do not have swords with them at the Last Supper to sell their coats and buy one. It is my thinking that there are very few uses for a sword other than killing or maiming somone to protect yourself. Even less uses for a sword that would warrant selling your coat to buy one.

**NAB LUKE 22:35 **

“…And the man without a sword must sell his coat and buy one.”
So do you feel that Church leaders should use the Sermon of the Mound, rather than armed Itialian police to protect the Pope and Vatican posessions? Jesus, a victim of violence Himself, certianly would have known and taken into consideration the result of commanding the Vatican to use the Sermon of the Mound to protect themselves and commanding them not to use armed Italian police or any force to protect their soveriegn nation Vatican City. I would certianly hope that the Pope would obey what Jesus willed for him to do to protect himself.

I do believe that Jesus wills us to use force to protect ourselves. I am somewhat supprized to think that Church leaders might believe this to oppose the will of Jesus.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

Thanks, I was not aware of that verse. In trying to understand the context, I looked it up, but could only find

And He said to them, “When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?” They said, “No, nothing.”

Was Luke 22:35 the right one? In any case, one might also offer that Jesus himself took no physical precautions to protect himself, and indeed stayed the will of Simon (?) who cut off the ear of an arrestor.

 

[francisca]

I don’t believe there is such thing as a “Just War”. All wars are “Unjust”… but I’m not any church leader anyway…

 

[bengal_fan]

wanerious:

You mean he would condone real killing? I am certainly no biblical expert, but is there any evidence of this through his words or actions? On the contrary, I would use passages like the Sermon on the Mount to exhibit his pacifism.

well, considering the Bible refers to Him as the one who sits in judgement (meaning He either opens the gates of heaven or condemns some one to hell) i would say He would condone real killing in certain circumstances since He is willing to sentence people to a fate worse than death…eternal death.

He tells His followers to go out and buy a sword (a weapon of death). in another passage He says, “whoever lives by the sword will die by the sword.” meaning, if you live to kill, you will be killed or sentenced to death. but He definitely advocates protecting and the old testament is clear that God orders the killing of certain people and groups of people.

 

[bengal_fan]

francisca:

I don’t believe there is such thing as a “Just War”. All wars are “Unjust”… but I’m not any church leader anyway…

so WWII was unjust? we should not have stopped hitler? i guess you think that God was punishing the jews. or do you think we should have tried to negotiate with a man who was able to order the slaughter of 6 million humans. there are just wars and that should be obvious. there are also unjust wars and that should be obvious as well. there are also some that aren’t as obvious either way and in those cases i would rather err on the side of protection of people unable to defend themselves than on the side of a dictator/politician.

 

[Steve_M]

This is an issue that’s been really bothering me since I’ve become Catholic. Being Baptist was easy. The Catholic Church has 2000 years of real issues that it’s dealt with. I’ve posed the question to myself several times, and I don’t like the answer I keep getting. Unless I’m mistaken, weren’t virtually of of the early Church Fathers pacifist? The just war doctrine did not get developed until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. It would appear that the whole doctrine was developed for political, rather than spiritual reasons. If I’ve repeated what anyone as already said, it’s because it’s late and I’m tired.

 

[francisca]

There was some killings of “God’s enemy” in “anathema” in the Old Testament books. But then Jesus came and was crusified “in anathema” for oursake.

I guess nowadays there shouldn’t be anything that can justify us to kill nor to condemn anymore.

Romans 8:1
Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Steve M:

This is an issue that’s been really bothering me since I’ve become Catholic. Being Baptist was easy. The Catholic Church has 2000 years of real issues that it’s dealt with. I’ve posed the question to myself several times, and I don’t like the answer I keep getting. Unless I’m mistaken, weren’t virtually of of the early Church Fathers pacifist? The just war doctrine did not get developed until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. It would appear that the whole doctrine was developed for political, rather than spiritual reasons. If I’ve repeated what anyone as already said, it’s because it’s late and I’m tired.

On the other hand, until Christianity became the official religion, there wasn’t much chance to consider much of anything except avoiding persecution.

The process similar to development of doctrine may come into play here, perhaps. Now just war theory isn’t exactly doctrine; it’s more of an application of underlying doctrinal issues. Of late, with nuclear weapons and other weaponry, and their destructive potential at the level it is now, most pronouncements on just war (as distinct from political recourses to it) are becoming more and more restrictive on when it might apply.

There’s also a parallel, it seems with capital punishment. No, it’s not ruled out, but yes, it is to be a last resort when there are no other alternatives, but recent pronouncements state that most modern states have enough alternatives available so as not to have to resort to it.

Theological thinkers don’t run the world. They seek to equip those who do. Sometimes I wish they were in a position to give us unequivocal “yes you can” or “no you can’t” answers to more difficult questions. But things are seldom as clear cut as, say, abortion.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[laywoman]

I believe that the just war theory was made before nuclear weapons were invented. Any war these days uses nuclear weapons, or threatens the use of them, therefore it cannot be in line with God’s will because a nuclear holocaust might result and in any case one city suffering like Hiroshima or Nagasaki cannot possibly be in line with God’s will. I think the just war theory doesn’t apply. War these days should be avoided at all costs. Terrorists can be caught through tracking them down individually, through better intelligence. Through more imaginative methods than vapourizing innocent citizens. The 37,000 civilian deaths in the Iraqi war were not in line with our Holy Father’s will, and he speaks for God.

 

[francisca]

bengal_fan:

so WWII was unjust? we should not have stopped hitler? i guess you think that God was punishing the jews. or do you think we should have tried to negotiate with a man who was able to order the slaughter of 6 million humans. there are just wars and that should be obvious. there are also unjust wars and that should be obvious as well. there are also some that aren’t as obvious either way and in those cases i would rather err on the side of protection of people unable to defend themselves than on the side of a dictator/politician.

Well, maybe you are right… war for “just” reasons, yet, even if it is for “just” reasons, there always be some victims fall unjustly even for the “just-war”… so all in all, no war is “just”.

 

[wanerious]

bengal_fan:

He tells His followers to go out and buy a sword (a weapon of death).

Yes, I was trying to find this passage. Do you have the citation?

bengal_fan:

but He definitely advocates protecting and the old testament is clear that God orders the killing of certain people and groups of people.

That much is certain, though I was thinking specifically of Jesus’ words and actions.

 

[wanerious]

bengal_fan:

so WWII was unjust? we should not have stopped hitler? i guess you think that God was punishing the jews. or do you think we should have tried to negotiate with a man who was able to order the slaughter of 6 million humans. there are just wars and that should be obvious. there are also unjust wars and that should be obvious as well. there are also some that aren’t as obvious either way and in those cases i would rather err on the side of protection of people unable to defend themselves than on the side of a dictator/politician.

WWII was something I struggle with. No, to be honest, I have a feeling that it was a just cause, however I’d like to explore the possibility that I’m wrong and Jesus would have advocated some other course of action. Gandhi, for example, still insisted on non-cooperation even when dealing with Hitler. He agreed that millions would have died (of course, millions died anyway), but that the ultimate victory would be complete with a clear moral conscience. It is a crafty trap to assume that in a conflict between two peoples that one must be either with one side or against them. Perhaps they’re both wrong.

 

[Philologus]

I think the confusion on this issue lies in the difference between “individual” and “national” responsibility. The “Sermon on the Mount” does not apply to nations and how nations are to act towards other nations but it does apply to me as an individual and how I am to behave toward my fellow man. The Lord takes into account the fact that we live in a fallen world and He has given nations authority. Romans 13:4 says that the “higher powers” and “rulers” (referring to government and those in ruling authority within government) do not “bear the sword in vain”.

Chapter 13

1Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is no power but of God; and the [powers] that be are ordained of God. 2Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment. 3For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same: 4for he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil. 5Wherefore [ye] must needs be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 6For this cause ye pay tribute also; for they are ministers of God’s service, attending continually upon this very thing.

We cannot expect that the responsibilty of nations is the same as the responsibilty of the individual. In the Old Testament God used the nation of Israel to chastise other nations and He also used other nations to chastise Israel. Hitler and his regime were ones doing evil and God was not going to just stand by and allow it to continue. He used many nations to chastise and bring His wrath on Germany. God desires that the progress of evil be restrained in this world and He has provided for that restraint first of all by sending the Holy Spirit, forming the Church which is His body, family units, and local and national governing bodies. Without these the world would be full of anarchy and only the strongest and most wicked would survive.

Kevin

 

[wanerious]

Could national vs. individual responsibility be a cop-out? Ultimately, we are all responsible for our own actions, even if prescribed by others. The above passage from Romans seems to admonish those who would do evil from within a given system, and probably the system he was writing of was the existing Roman government. Surely we would not hold blameless those within the Nazi regime who would claim to be simply following Romans 13 prescriptions. Consider the preceding book:

*Rom 12:14
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them.

Rom 12:15
Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.

Rom 12:16
Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; never be conceited.

Rom 12:17
Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all.

Rom 12:18
If possible, so far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all.

Rom 12:19
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

Rom 12:20
No, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.”

Rom 12:21
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.*