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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steven_Merten
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
bengal_fan:
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.
Click to expand...
Point well taken. Where you and I possibly diverge is that I see this new covenant as superceding the old one where there is a conflict in spiritual or real direction, and especially when He labors to directly define distinctions between the old and new covenants (Matt. 5). I see that the new teachings imply a clear mandate with respect to how we deal with other people and our disagreements. God still doles out judgement and death simultaneously in the past and future, as He is outside of time, but Jesus teaches and shows our new responsibilities do not include our decisions to be instruments of God’s judgements.
 
40.png
bengal_fan:
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.
Click to expand...
You’re ducking. This discussion is about whether JESUS was a pacifist. You have been unable to provide evidence that he supported war and killing, so now you’re switching to the Old Testament. The Old Testament codes of behaviour - diet, ritual cleanliness, etc. - simply do not apply to Christians today. In that sense, time IS important.

Please provide instances when JESUS ordered his followers to kill or supported killing. Otherwise, you will have failed to show that Jesus supported physical killing.

“When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well” still seems pretty clear to me.
 
40.png
GuibertOfNogent:
You’re ducking. This discussion is about whether JESUS was a pacifist. You have been unable to provide evidence that he supported war and killing, so now you’re switching to the Old Testament. The Old Testament codes of behaviour - diet, ritual cleanliness, etc. - simply do not apply to Christians today. In that sense, time IS important.
.
Click to expand...
i’m not ducking, Jesus was, is and will always be God. therefore, He ordered it in the old testament. not too confusing. yes, many of the old testament codes were done away with (such as food restrictions, cleanliness, etc.) and can be found done away with in the new testament. the idea of war is not dealt with. personal vengeance is dealt with, but not war. show me where he says governments shouldn’t defend themselves. show me where one government shouldn’t help the people of another (unjust) government which is oppressing it’s own people. in fact, you can’t because the new testament still maintains that governments still possess this power and directive.
 
40.png
bengal_fan:
i’m not ducking, Jesus was, is and will always be God. therefore, He ordered it in the old testament. not too confusing. yes, many of the old testament codes were done away with (such as food restrictions, cleanliness, etc.) and can be found done away with in the new testament. the idea of war is not dealt with. personal vengeance is dealt with, but not war. show me where he says governments shouldn’t defend themselves. show me where one government shouldn’t help the people of another (unjust) government which is oppressing it’s own people. in fact, you can’t because the new testament still maintains that governments still possess this power and directive.
Click to expand...
Sure, the New Testament has very little to say regarding the role and duties of government. It is not a political constitution, but simply directs us to “render unto Caesar”. It is much more of a personal set of documents instructing us in a new code of behavior and fealty, not merely limited to cessation of vengeful actions, but to a new understanding of God’s grace and the power of Good. The fact that secular governments may call us to kill for reasons of human justice and judgement does not let us off the hook from personal responsibility and obligation to Christ’s teachings.
 
40.png
GuibertOfNogent:
You’re ducking. This discussion is about whether JESUS was a pacifist. You have been unable to provide evidence that he supported war and killing, so now you’re switching to the Old Testament. The Old Testament codes of behaviour - diet, ritual cleanliness, etc. - simply do not apply to Christians today. In that sense, time IS important.

Please provide instances when JESUS ordered his followers to kill or supported killing. Otherwise, you will have failed to show that Jesus supported physical killing.

“When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well” still seems pretty clear to me.
Click to expand...
Matthew 10
31 Fear not therefore: better are you than many sparrows. 32 Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. 33 But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven. 34 Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. 35 For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

35 “I came to set a man at variance”… Not that this was the end or design of the coming of our Saviour; but that his coming and his doctrine would have this effect, by reason of the obstinate resistance that many would make, and of their persecuting all such as should adhere to him.

Sounds like a realist!
 
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree about the distinctions between the Old and New Testament. I’m still interested in Jesus’ commandments to Christians, not God’s commandments to the Israelites. I’m not an Israelite living in Old Testament times, so I won’t presume I have the right to kill the enemies of God. I will presume, however, to follow Jesus’ commandment to love my enemies and to turn the other cheek.
40.png
bengal_fan:
the new testament still maintains that governments still possess this power and directive.
Click to expand...
Where?

You are quite correct - Jesus did not talk about governments defending themselves or about war. Jesus did not talk about freeing oppressed peoples from their governments. Such ideas were entirely foreign in that time period and wouldn’t even BEGIN to be developed by political theorists until the 12th century. The very idea that an abstract “government” rather than a specific ruler or group of elite has a “right” to rule over people is a fairly new idea. I don’t think Jesus cared a whit about governments. He told his followers not to be anarchists, but he never discusses the soveriegn rights of nations because they didn’t exist yet. In Jesus’ time, rulers had the right to rule for three reasons - 1) they claimed that their ancestors were gods, 2) they were rich/nobles, 3) they were excellent generals who had won the loyalty of their armies. Our ideas about the “rights” of governments are fleeting - they came into being at a specific time in history and they will eventually fade. Human government is not some universal aspect of “good” whose rights God is concerned about maintaining.

It is undeniable that war kills innocents. Killing an innocent person is ALWAYS wrong. ALWAYS. Abortion. Euthenasia. War. All take innocent lives. No matter how much we argue about an abortion being “for the best,”, no matter how much we argue that euthenasia is actually kind, no matter how much we argue that droppinb bombs on civilians is for the greater good, killing innocents is ALWAYS wrong.

In order to convince me that Jesus would support modern state warfare, you need to show me that JESUS supported killing innocents for the greater good. I don’t think you can do it.

I must admit - whenever an argument on a MAJOR moral issue rests solely on examples from the Old Testament, I feel a bit wary.
 
Exodus 12:12
"On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn-both men and animals-and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt, for I am the LORD . "
Click to expand...
Exodus 12:29
At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well.
Click to expand...
What one can determine from this is:
  1. God really didn’t strike down the firstborn of Egypt
    or
  2. Jesus really isn’t God (Arianism)
    or
  3. God the Father did this against the Will of his Pacifist Son, Jesus (a denial of the hypostatic union)
Which one is it?
 
40.png
buffalo:
Sounds like a realist!
Click to expand...
Yes, Jesus is certainly a realist.

But family tension is hardly warfare. Jesus never said we were allowed to kill innocents for the greater good. All this talk of “governments” fighting each other is bogus. War is mostly young men of college age killing each other. You don’t kill a government. You rarely even kill the rulers. You kill young boys and civilians who had little choice in the matter.

Besides, with all this talk of “defense.” What ever happened to MARTYRDOM? That’s the REAL roots of the Church. According to the just warfare crowd, the martyrs of the early Church should have been forming militias.
 
40.png
Brendan:
Which one is it?
Click to expand...
Your options are silly. God is judge. He grants and gives life as He pleases. You’ll note, however, in your examples, that GOD is the judge over life and death. He isn’t ordering Christians (or even Israelites) to run out in the night and butcher the first born.
 
It is undeniable that war kills innocents. Killing an innocent person is ALWAYS wrong. ALWAYS. Abortion. Euthenasia. War. All take innocent lives. No matter how much we argue about an abortion being “for the best,”, no matter how much we argue that euthenasia is actually kind, no matter how much we argue that droppinb bombs on civilians is for the greater good, killing innocents is ALWAYS wrong.
Click to expand...
You’ve pretty much hit on the core point to “Just War”

The minimization of the loss of innocent life.

God desires the innocent to live. It is the duty of the Church to protect innocent life to the greatest extent possible.

Pacifism is the preffered method, but when it proven, or appears to be, ineffective, the greatest amount of innocent life must be protected.

An example, Pacifism in 1939 would not have resulted in the greatest protection of innocent life. A war was required, not by God, but by the prevalance of sin introduced into the world by Adam.

Is this God’s preferred course of action, No.(heck there is no doubt that God would have preferred the apple stay on the tree). But in those cases where to do nothing would result in greater loss of innocent life than war, it acceptable to Him and His Church.

We can talk ‘ideal situations’ as much as we want, but it is only wishful thinking and a denial of the existance of sin.
 
III. SAFEGUARDING PEACE

Peace

[2302](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2302.htm’)😉 By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill,"94 our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.

*Anger *is a desire for revenge. “To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit,” but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice."95 If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment."96

[2303](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2303.htm’)😉 Deliberate *hatred *is contrary to charity. Hatred of the neighbor is a sin when one deliberately wishes him evil. Hatred of the neighbor is a grave sin when one deliberately desires him grave harm. "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven."97

[2304](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2304.htm’)😉 Respect for and development of human life require peace. Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is "the tranquillity of order."98 Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity.99

[2305](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2305.htm’)😉 Earthly peace is the image and fruit of the peace of Christ, the messianic "Prince of Peace."100 By the blood of his Cross, "in his own person he killed the hostility,"101 he reconciled men with God and made his Church the sacrament of the unity of the human race and of its union with God. "He is our peace."102 He has declared: "Blessed are the peacemakers."103

[2306](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2306.htm’)😉 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death.104
 
40.png
GuibertOfNogent:
Where?
Click to expand...
here:

Romans 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.
 
Avoiding war

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.105

[2308](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2308.htm’)😉 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."106

[2309](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2309.htm’)😉 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
  • the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
  • all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
  • there must be serious prospects of success;
  • the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

[2310](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2310.htm’)😉 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.107

[2311](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/2311.htm’)😉 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.108
 
Thanks for posting the Church’s stance (no sarcasm — it is interesting to actually read it). Of course, that the Church has such a stance is not in dispute, but whether or not it has a New Testament origin in Jesus’ teachings. I also note that it is not at all clear that the Just War doctrine applies to those nations wanting to protect another, as was posited above; a cursory reading indicates that it applies only to a gravely and imminently threatened nation.
 
40.png
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… 🙂
Click to expand...
How about the Crusades? Were they unjust in your opinion? Well if you think they were… you and the Holy Ghost have a disagreement.
 
The Dead Bishop:
How about the Crusades? Were they unjust in your opinion? Well if you think they were… you and the Holy Ghost have a disagreement.
Click to expand...
Definitely.

See, we are supposed to spread “the good news”. Before Jesus coming, we did not know about this “good news”. But now we know.

These people we are at war with doesn’t know about LOVE. But we know, and we supposed to spread this message.

What is the outcome of the Crusade? After Jesus coming, is there anything that can justify us to “Hang a man on the tree” in “anathema” ? Wasn’t Jesus hung on the “tree” in “anathema” for all mankind ?

So is crusade is not justified.
 
40.png
GuibertOfNogent:
Besides, with all this talk of “defense.” What ever happened to MARTYRDOM? That’s the REAL roots of the Church. According to the just warfare crowd, the martyrs of the early Church should have been forming militias.
Click to expand...
Hello GuibertOfNogent,

Interesting! Do you believe that it is Jesus will for Vatican City to take a “martyrdom” stance over having 200+ armed Italian police to use force, or in some people’s terms “violence”, to protect themselves and Vatican treasures?

200+ armed Italian police, to some people, does not seem like following Christ’s command to “turn the other cheek” or pasifism. What about Christ’s command to “give your shirt to the man who demands your coat”? Should the Vatican hand over St. Peter’s bones to a man who has just destroyed the Shroud of Turin?

Should Apostolic Successors use the sword (a killing weapon) that Christ commanded them to sell their coat and buy or should they follow Christ’s command to “turn the other cheek” and accept martyrdom? Is it within Jesus’ will for Italian Police to kill to protect the Pope’s life?

Vatican City is a soverign nation. Vatican City’s leader has the full support of the UN should he decide to ask Italy to pull its police forces out of Vatican City. The Pope can rely totally on prayer and fasting to protect himself and Vatican treasures if he thinks this would be more in line with Jesus’ will.

Possibly if we determine wether or not Jesus wills us to use weapons and deadly force to protect individuals, then we can move back to the bigger issue of protecting whole nations with war. What is Jesus’ will?

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com
 
The Church’s Just War doctrine was formulated to describe relations between nations. Jesus was not a revolutionary and I don’t think he would have advocatted violently overthrowing a government.

It seems to me that individuals can use violence to protect themselves from other individuals…and nations can use violence to defend themselves against other nations, but I’m not sure he advocated invididuals using violence to defy the nation…this explains how martyrs were possible.
 
40.png
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.”

Sounds straightforward to me. I wasn’t aware that Jesus’ words in Matthew weren’t “biblical or in accord with Sacred Tradition.”
Click to expand...
For clarity it would be good to define pacifism. My understanding is that pacifism and those who support it would never resort to violence for any reason. I have seen no proof that the Church teaches this as binding on one’s conscience. I have seen no proof that Christ desires such a belief.

We can all agree that violence against innocent people is morally wrong. Are some claiming that the Church teaches that pacifism is preferred? I think that is not at all what the Church has taught for 2000 or so years.

Defense of innocent life is just whether it is at a national level or personal level. That defense may mean using violence at times. Are some claiming that is unjust?
 
40.png
GuibertOfNogent:
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree about the distinctions between the Old and New Testament. I’m still interested in Jesus’ commandments to Christians, not God’s commandments to the Israelites. I’m not an Israelite living in Old Testament times, so I won’t presume I have the right to kill the enemies of God. I will presume, however, to follow Jesus’ commandment to love my enemies and to turn the other cheek.

Where?

You are quite correct - Jesus did not talk about governments defending themselves or about war. Jesus did not talk about freeing oppressed peoples from their governments. Such ideas were entirely foreign in that time period and wouldn’t even BEGIN to be developed by political theorists until the 12th century. The very idea that an abstract “government” rather than a specific ruler or group of elite has a “right” to rule over people is a fairly new idea. I don’t think Jesus cared a whit about governments. He told his followers not to be anarchists, but he never discusses the soveriegn rights of nations because they didn’t exist yet. In Jesus’ time, rulers had the right to rule for three reasons - 1) they claimed that their ancestors were gods, 2) they were rich/nobles, 3) they were excellent generals who had won the loyalty of their armies. Our ideas about the “rights” of governments are fleeting - they came into being at a specific time in history and they will eventually fade. Human government is not some universal aspect of “good” whose rights God is concerned about maintaining.

It is undeniable that war kills innocents. Killing an innocent person is ALWAYS wrong. ALWAYS. Abortion. Euthenasia. War. All take innocent lives. No matter how much we argue about an abortion being “for the best,”, no matter how much we argue that euthenasia is actually kind, no matter how much we argue that droppinb bombs on civilians is for the greater good, killing innocents is ALWAYS wrong.

In order to convince me that Jesus would support modern state warfare, you need to show me that JESUS supported killing innocents for the greater good. I don’t think you can do it.

I must admit - whenever an argument on a MAJOR moral issue rests solely on examples from the Old Testament, I feel a bit wary.
Click to expand...
In order to convince me that Jesus would support modern state warfare, you need to show me that JESUS supported killing innocents for the greater good. I don’t think you can do it.

Not for me. I accept what Mother Church teaches. We may disagree with a prudential judgment of a Pope, but can you cite where the Church has said all of modern warefare is unjust? I agree that intentionall killing civilians is unjust. The USA has been guilty of this in the past. That does not mean every action of the modern military is unjust or Christ does not approve.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top