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

[Philologus]

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:
.

No I do not think it is a “cop out”!

All the passages you quoted refer to my “individual” responsibilty as a “Christian” and how “I” am to act. Of course if submitting to the government (which as Christians we are required to do) means violating my personal responsibilty before God then we must choose God over men. I am thankful when governments abide by the Word of God but I do not believe they are as bound to obey it as the individual Christian is. Most governments are not Christian even those which are so-called “Christian nations”. God even allows ruthless rulers to rule over us on occasion in His providential will.

**Daniel 4

**16 let his heart be changed from man’s, and let a beast’s heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him.
17 The sentence is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones; to the intent that the living may know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the lowest of men.
18 This dream I, king Nebuchadnezzar, have seen; and thou, O Belteshazzar, declare the interpretation, forasmuch as all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make known unto me the interpretation; but thou art able; for the spirit of the holy gods is in thee.

Other translations use “basest of men” to rule over us.

Kevin

 

[fix]

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

Jesus is not a pacifist. The Church cannot be pacifist. Countries can’t be pacifist because they have an obligation to protect their citizens.

What manner of “scholar” would think Christ would not allow someone to defend themselves or other innocent people if attacked? No scholar at all.

 

[wanerious]

fix:

Jesus is not a pacifist. The Church cannot be pacifist. Countries can’t be pacifist because they have an obligation to protect their citizens.

Your point about countries is well-taken, though it was not Jesus’ intent to become a head of state. How does that square with what we know of Jesus’ teachings, though? There seems to be evidence of His pacifism. What is the evidence of his militarism? Evidence of His Will to establish a Church willing and occasionally needing to kill?

fix:

What manner of “scholar” would think Christ would not allow someone to defend themselves or other innocent people if attacked? No scholar at all.

Right. It seems difficult and ludicrous. Yet there are teachings that extol just that. What are we to make of them?

 

[bengal_fan]

the book of revelations is a prime example that Jesus is not a pacifist. there is a war with the beast and Jesus and His followers must fight in it. we cannot be “diplomatic”. there are fights that need to be fought. the old testament refers to God as a warrior. if Jesus was a pacifist would He have cleared the temple using a whip? yes, war is not the ideal, but neither is capitalism. socialism is the ideal, but we can never have that in an imperfect world. there will always be evil in this world and we must fight against it with love. and when evil resists love (which it will) we must protect others, ourselves, and the faith with force.

 

[fix]

wanerious:

Your point about countries is well-taken, though it was not Jesus’ intent to become a head of state. How does that square with what we know of Jesus’ teachings, though? There seems to be evidence of His pacifism. What is the evidence of his militarism? Evidence of His Will to establish a Church willing and occasionally needing to kill?

Right. It seems difficult and ludicrous. Yet there are teachings that extol just that. What are we to make of them?

Christ fashioned a whip and drove people out of the temple. Hardly a wimpy man and not very Ghandi-like. Look at the parable of the good Samaritan. What if the Smaritan came along while the man was being beaten. Would Christ ask him to watch and pray while he was beaten, or killed?

Killing is not so much an issue. Murder is the sin. Killing may be necessary. Christ told his disciples to buy swords. Christ said He came to cast fire upon the earth.

The Church can’t bind anyone’s conscience, for instance, on the death penealty because God has ordained its use. Our generation has turned Christ into a milquetoast guy who walked around saying pretty things. For all we know He had a thundering voice that shook people.

 

[bengal_fan]

fix:

For all we know He had a thundering voice that shook people.

when the guards came to garden looking for Him, He asked, " ‘who do you seek?’ ‘Jesus of Nazareth,’ they replied. ‘I am He.’ at this they fell backward afraid." Jesus was an imposing figure. He was a carpenter, working with his hands his whole life, He must have been strong. no one dared stand in His way when He cleared the temple. He was God incarnate, pretty intimidating.

 

[wanerious]

bengal_fan:

the book of revelations is a prime example that Jesus is not a pacifist. there is a war with the beast and Jesus and His followers must fight in it.

I dimly remember looking up the fascinating article on the Book of Revelation in the Catholic Encyclopedia some time ago. My memory is not that great, but my impression was that the Book is understood to be largely allegorical and inspirational, referring to times of persecution under Nero. I didn’t think the point was to imagine Jesus as a literal military leader.

 

[fix]

bengal_fan:

when the guards came to garden looking for Him, He asked, " ‘who do you seek?’ ‘Jesus of Nazareth,’ they replied. ‘I am He.’ at this they fell backward afraid." Jesus was an imposing figure. He was a carpenter, working with his hands his whole life, He must have been strong. no one dared stand in His way when He cleared the temple. He was God incarnate, pretty intimidating.

Great point. For too long the culture has hijacked Christianity and morhped into some kinda swishy, feel good, never challenge or judge anyone or anything, PC philosophy. There is one truth. Truth is a person. He is not a pacificist.

 

[wanerious]

fix:

Christ fashioned a whip and drove people out of the temple. Hardly a wimpy man and not very Ghandi-like. Look at the parable of the good Samaritan. What if the Smaritan came along while the man was being beaten. Would Christ ask him to watch and pray while he was beaten, or killed?

Yes, if the temple story in John is to be taken as historical truth, he must have been very intimidating, but the story does not specify that Jesus beat or whipped the people involved. As for the Samaritan, the point of the parable is to show mercy to those who suffer. We don’t have the luxury of hearing how to deal with those that cause it. I would never argue that the Christ was ‘wimpy’. Indeed, the triumph over Satan’s temptation was in the strength to resist ruling by force.

Killing is not so much an issue. Murder is the sin. Killing may be necessary. Christ told his disciples to buy swords. Christ said He came to cast fire upon the earth.

Again, and perhaps it’s due to my limited knowledge of the NT, but where is the reference to buying swords?

The Church can’t bind anyone’s conscience, for instance, on the death penealty because God has ordained its use. Our generation has turned Christ into a milquetoast guy who walked around saying pretty things. For all we know He had a thundering voice that shook people.

Undoubtedly. What he said and did was not merely ‘pretty’, but profoundly difficult.

 

[wanerious]

fix:

Great point. For too long the culture has hijacked Christianity and morhped into some kinda swishy, feel good, never challenge or judge anyone or anything PC philosophy,

Obviously this attitude is wrong.

There is one truth.

Yes.

Truth is a person.

There was one Person who was Truth and capable of acting out this Truth, yes.

He is not a pacificist.

I still believe this can be debated. I am reading in your posts that pacifism is equivalent to weakness.

 

[fix]

wanerious:

Yes, if the temple story in John is to be taken as historical truth, he must have been very intimidating, but the story does not specify that Jesus beat or whipped the people involved. As for the Samaritan, the point of the parable is to show mercy to those who suffer. We don’t have the luxury of hearing how to deal with those that cause it. I would never argue that the Christ was ‘wimpy’. Indeed, the triumph over Satan’s temptation was in the strength to resist ruling by force.

Again, and perhaps it’s due to my limited knowledge of the NT, but where is the reference to buying swords?

Undoubtedly. What he said and did was not merely ‘pretty’, but profoundly difficult.

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.

As for the Smaritan can you state that Christ would approve of a beating that could lead to death should not be stopped? What would lead you to such a conclusion?

He did make a whip. Whether He hit anyone we do not know, but driving people out with a whip hardly counts as pacifism. What if one stumbled and bashed their head? What if they were trampled? Again,. not an argument for pacifism.

Lastly, Christ founded a Church, not a book. The Church does not endorse pacifism, or require it of Catholics. They can’t require it because it is not biblical or in accord with Sacred Tradition.

 

[fix]

wanerious:

Obviously this attitude is wrong.

Yes.

There was one Person who was Truth and capable of acting out this Truth, yes.

I still believe this can be debated. I am reading in your posts that pacifism is equivalent to weakness.

Yes, it is weakness and wrong. For anyone to not act when innocent people are tortured or killed is weak and not Christian.

 

[bengal_fan]

wanerious:

I dimly remember looking up the fascinating article on the Book of Revelation in the Catholic Encyclopedia some time ago. My memory is not that great, but my impression was that the Book is understood to be largely allegorical and inspirational, referring to times of persecution under Nero. I didn’t think the point was to imagine Jesus as a literal military leader.

that is one interpretation. there are many other catholic exegetes, theologians, and apologists who have a differing interpretation. either way, Jesus is the priest, prophet, and king . a king by definition is a military leader, just like our president is the commander in chief of our military. in the story of david and bathsheba, david’s first sin in that story is that he didn’t go out to battle. it was the season when the kings led their armies into battle and, for the first time, david stayed home and wandered about his castle. one day while walking along the roof (interesting place for a king to be walking) he saw bathsheba bathing. he was supposed to be leading his army but he stayed back and became a peeping tom. Jesus is the king to restore the davidic kingdom and thus makes Him a military leader. He is the one who leads us in battle.

 

[francisca]

bengal_fan:

when the guards came to garden looking for Him, He asked, " ‘who do you seek?’ ‘Jesus of Nazareth,’ they replied. ‘I am He.’ at this they fell backward afraid." Jesus was an imposing figure. He was a carpenter, working with his hands his whole life, He must have been strong. no one dared stand in His way when He cleared the temple. He was God incarnate, pretty intimidating.

This has nothing to do with the thread, but I’m always interested to this passage, 'that the people fell when Jesus proclaim Himself “I AM HE”.

My setting would be (suppose we are making a movie ), and this scene is not there in The Passion—> that the people fell when Jesus said “I AM HE”, I would say that the people fell because they remembered (or maybe because of Jesus charisma when He proclaim) the teaching about YHWH (means HE IS) which relate to God who reveal Himself to Moses saying “I AM WHO AM”.

Only my imaginery movie…

God bless.

 

[Brendan]

fix:

Yes, it is weakness and wrong. For anyone to not act when innocent people are tortured or killed is weak and not Christian.

Exactly!

Rm. 13:4: “He bears not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil”;

 

[GuibertOfNogent]

fix:

What manner of “scholar” would think Christ would not allow someone to defend themselves or other innocent people if attacked? No scholar at all.

fix:

The Church does not endorse pacifism, or require it of Catholics. They can’t require it because it is not biblical or in accord with Sacred Tradition.

Matthew 5:39:

“But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.”

Sounds straightforward to me. I wasn’t aware that Jesus’ words in Matthew weren’t “biblical or in accord with Sacred Tradition.”

 

[bengal_fan]

GuibertOfNogent:

Matthew 5:39:

“But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.”

Jesus is speaking on a personal level not a national level. he also commands his followers to sell their cloaks and buy a sword. He says he didn’t come to bring peace but a sword. yes, we as individuals must not repay evil with evil, but it is not evil to fight against evil for good.

 

[GuibertOfNogent]

bengal_fan:

Jesus is speaking on a personal level not a national level. he also commands his followers to sell their cloaks and buy a sword. He says he didn’t come to bring peace but a sword. yes, we as individuals must not repay evil with evil, but it is not evil to fight against evil for good.

1. You’ll note Fix wasn’t talking about the difference between nations and individuals. He said “someone” not “a nation.”
2. How do you know Jesus isn’t speaking on a national level?
3. You give Jesus’ quote about coming with a sword. Did he kill anyone with it? Or was he speaking with a metaphor?
4. As for Jesus telling people to buy swords … read the entire passage.

"35
He said to them, “When I sent you forth without a money bag or a sack or sandals, were you in need of anything?” “No, nothing,” they replied.
36
He said to them, “But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one.
37
For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, namely, ‘He was counted among the wicked’; and indeed what is written about me is coming to fulfillment.”
38
Then they said, “Lord, look, there are two swords here.” But he replied, “It is enough!”

The footnote in the NAB, usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke22.htm#foot13
notes that Jesus is not here speaking of REAL swords.

 

[wanerious]

bengal_fan:

Jesus is speaking on a personal level not a national level. he also commands his followers to sell their cloaks and buy a sword. He says he didn’t come to bring peace but a sword. yes, we as individuals must not repay evil with evil, but it is not evil to fight against evil for good.

The command to sell the cloaks and buy swords can be understood in the general context as something more spiritual. Jesus is attempting to align himself with the prophetic Isaiah 52 verses, and at the same time warning his disciples that harder times are ahead. They must now be functional members of society — carry money and traveling bags — and then he invokes the common (at the time) idiom of bravery, the mental image of the courageous man casting off his outer cloak to exhibit his symbol of self-sufficiency. The word used for sword is not the large and sometimes two-handed one used in combat, but a shorter dagger typically used by commoners to cut meat, and usually carried by most men in society. He seems to be instructing them that they must assume the roles of normal worldly men. Indeed, when they again completely misunderstand him and eagerly produce 2 swords, he finishes the conversation in exasperation and goes to the garden. Further, when Peter uses a sword against the authorities, Jesus goes so far as to stop him and heal the wounded.

And again, saying that he brings not peace but a sword is not meant to imply that it is Jesus or his followers that should wield it; instead, this is an ordination speech, in which he is cautioning the disciples against what is to come. The “sword” refers to the forces arrayed against them, and they ought to expect to be martyred — Jesus does not bring a peaceful movement, but a new and dangerous one fraught with peril for his people.

We must be cautious about singling out verses with the word “sword” in them without recognizing their proper context. His direct teachings and actions with regard to violence are clear.

 

[bengal_fan]

wanerious:

We must be cautious about singling out verses with the word “sword” in them without recognizing their proper context. His direct teachings and actions with regard to violence are clear.

yes, we must be careful not to single anything out, including Jesus’ earthly ministry. He came for a specific purpose. to bring in the new covenant through His death (freely giving up His life) and resurrection. if we look at the scriptures as a whole (this would include all of God’s nature throughout the old and new testaments) we see that God does order His followers into battle. He orders them to kill (sometimes without mercy). so you are right that we must not single out verses, but we also must not single out a specific time either. or a specific set of books. we must look at all of scripture and then we discover that God is a warrior as well as the prince of peace.