Dorothy Day's Pacifism

[dmar198]

Do you have a good reason for saying Christ wasn’t a pacifist?

Yes: If I understand the Bible correctly, it teaches that He will wage war and slay His enemies, and He is literally the Author of a Book which, if I understand it correctly, says that waging war is sometimes okay, sometimes even a responsibility. That is anti-pacifist.

Also, it is my understanding that pacifism is a condemned heresy. Therefore, unless I’ve misunderstood the Church’s teachings, if Jesus was a pacifist, then He was a heretic.

 

[christofirst]

I didn’t fault her, if you read earlier in this thread I defended her version of pacifism. But, if I understand the Church’s teaching correctly, there is also a heretical version of pacifism which says that it is never just to wage war. (Dorothy Day, from what I can see, never defended that idea of pacifism, but in fact taught against it.)

It appears to me from Scripture and Tradition that Jesus will wage war and slaughter His enemies, and St. Paul seems to say that the State may do so under the right conditions. Therefore, unless I’ve misunderstood something, it is a heresy to say that it is impossible to wage war justly. The Church has, I think, condemned the heresy of pacifism understood in the sense that the State has no right to armed defense. But it also defends pacifism understood as the belief that aggressive warfare is intrinsically evil.

Do you understand these matters differently, or does that about sum it up for you as well?

We are perhaps like the blind men touching one part of the elephant and describing what we see. I see that peace is the greater good, and I am able to show how Our Lord and the Church supports this. You seem intent on making provision for war, and the Church does indeed make such an allowance. What Our Lord does at the end of the world does not seem to me to be an admonition we should (or could) follow. It is, I suppose, a matter of emphasis.

I wonder about your claim that pacifism is heresy. In the 1991 OSV Catholic Encyclopedia, Fr. Peter Stravinskas (and he is no liberal or heretic) defines pacifism as “A modern doctrine which holds that war in all of its forms is immoral and contrary to the standards of humanity and decency, and that it is also contrary to the dictates of the Sermon on the Mount, especially Matthew 5:39. Pacifism rejects the claim that there can be a “just war,” particularly in modern times because of the destructiveness of modern weapons; it also rejects the possibility of there being a just war in these times. It holds war to be immoral because it cannot be conducted without an evil heart and will.” No mention of heresy, and Fr. Stravinskas is never coy about such things. Pacifism and the Just War Theory do indeed coexist, but pacifism is a legitimate option.

 

[Tbrightson]

news.nationalpost.com/2014/08/13/pope-francis-signals-support-for-iraq-military-action-to-protect-christians-from-brutal-islamic-jihadists/

 

[dmar198]

We are perhaps like the blind men touching one part of the elephant and describing what we see. I see that peace is the greater good, and I am able to show how Our Lord and the Church supports this. You seem intent on making provision for war, and the Church does indeed make such an allowance.

I think that is a pretty fair assessment, with one possible exception: I also think peace is a greater good than war, and I am confident that all just war theologians do the same.

What Our Lord does at the end of the world does not seem to me to be an admonition we should (or could) follow. It is, I suppose, a matter of emphasis.

Perhaps. I quoted it for several reasons. One is to show that Scripture uses the image of Jesus as a warrior, which doesn’t seem to fit with the image that pacifists have of Him.

Another reason I quoted it is because I think the warfare He wages in Revelation fits with the Crusading/Just War tradition: the Antichrist is persecuting the Church, and Jesus rides in with the host of heaven to liberate the Church. Thus, I think we can use those passages to illuminate the Just War doctrine.

Third, I think the Church has used the passages of Revelation in the past to call people to just war. I think first of the papal response to the persecution by Emperor Frederick II. The pope quoted the imagery of the Antichrist in a letter about the Emperor and then called a Crusade against him.

None of this seems to fit with pacifism.

I wonder about your claim that pacifism is heresy.

The Catechism says that the State sometimes has a responsibility to violate pacifist ideals:

CCC 2265 - “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.”

And: “The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.” (Same paragraph.)

Also: CCC 2310 - “Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.”

And: “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.” (same paragraph)

All of these paragraphs seem to teach that there is at least sometimes a duty to use arms for the sake of legitimate defense. That seems to contradict pacifism. Therefore, if I’ve understood these things correctly, pacifism contradicts Church teaching, at least among pacifists who say that armed defense is unjust. I recognize that there are pacifists who don’t go that far, and I have no problem with them.

I think other Church documents contradict pacifism as well. The 9th through 14th Ecumenical Councils called for Crusades, for example. I can’t imagine a pacifist supporting a Crusade. The Bull Quia Maior, which proclaimed the Fifth Crusade, even told the kings of Europe: “[H]ow can a man be said to love his neighbor as himself, in obedience to God’s command, when, knowing that his brothers, who are Christians in faith and in name, are held in the hands of the perfidious Saracens in dire imprisonment and are weighed down by the yoke of most heavy slavery, he does not do something effective to liberate them, thereby transgressing the command of [the] natural law?]” source The Papal bull Exsurge Domine appears to condemn two pacifist principles in paragraphs 33 and 34: 33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

1. To go to war against the Turks is to resist God who punishes our iniquities through them. Since these principles are condemned by Exsurge Domine, it seems to follow that the death penalty for heretics is, in at least some cases, not against the will of the Holy Spirit, and war against “the Turks” is, in at least some cases, not contrary to God.

All this leads me to conclude that Pacifism is contrary to the teaching of the Church, and that is why I think it is a heresy. (But not the pacifism of Dorothy Day. That made allowance for just wars at least in theory.)

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

**Pope Francis calls for urgent military action to stop the ‘systematic violence’ against minorities in Iraq
**

Pope Francis has backed international military intervention to protect Christians driven from their homes by the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq.

The pope, who is visiting Korea this week, has written to the United Nations in an ‘urgent appeal to the international community to take action to end the humanitarian tragedy now underway’.

This marks a departure from last year when he spoke against intervention in Syria saying ‘You cannot end violence with violence’.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2725880/Pope-Francis-calls-urgent-military-action-stop-systematic-violence-against-minorities-Iraq.html#ixzz3AUAYP8FP

Well…so much for Pacifism. Let’s reinstate the Knights Templar and begin another Holy Crusade.

 

[dmar198]

**Pope Francis calls for urgent military action to stop the ‘systematic violence’ against minorities in Iraq
**

Well…so much for Pacifism. Let’s reinstate the Knights Templar and begin another Holy Crusade.

I don’t think the latest calls for military action, which are by several Vatican officials and other high-ranking bishops, contradict the statement “You cannot end violence by violence.” I don’t think the use of force in defense of yourself or others always counts as violence. At least, I don’t think that’s the way the Church uses the word violence.

 

[christofirst]

All this leads me to conclude that Pacifism is contrary to the teaching of the Church, and that is why I think it is a heresy. (But not the pacifism of Dorothy Day. That made allowance for just wars at least in theory.)

It seems to me that the crux of your argument (edited to save space), is that it would be wrong for me to insist that you must be a pacifist. In this case, I agree. However, it would be just as wrong for you to insist that I must not be a pacifist, or if I was, to label me a heretic, you not knowing the circumstances of my life (such as my level of responsibility for others), and for the clear reason that the Church makes provisions for pacifism (CCC # 2311).

 

[dmar198]

It seems to me that the crux of your argument (edited to save space), is that it would be wrong for me to insist that you must be a pacifist.

Me or other people, especially those in positions of authority.

In this case, I agree. However, it would be just as wrong for you to insist that I must not be a pacifist, or if I was, to label me a heretic, you not knowing the circumstances of my life (such as my level of responsibility for others), and for the clear reason that the Church makes provisions for pacifism (CCC # 2311).

I can’t call you a heretic for having conscientious objections to any particular war, and I wouldn’t want to call you a heretic even if I could. But from the authorities I quoted earlier, it appears to me that if anyone says that any use of arms or force is inherently immoral, that kind of pacifism contradicts the Church’s teachings, and is therefore a heresy. Do you see why I come to that conclusion?

 

[Exiled_Child]

Yes: If I understand the Bible correctly, it teaches that He will wage war and slay His enemies, and He is literally the Author of a Book which, if I understand it correctly, says that waging war is sometimes okay, sometimes even a responsibility. That is anti-pacifist.

Also, it is my understanding that pacifism is a condemned heresy. Therefore, unless I’ve misunderstood the Church’s teachings, if Jesus was a pacifist, then He was a heretic.

 

[christofirst]

Me or other people, especially those in positions of authority. I can’t call you a heretic for having conscientious objections to any particular war, and I wouldn’t want to call you a heretic even if I could. But from the authorities I quoted earlier, it appears to me that if anyone says that any use of arms or force is inherently immoral, that kind of pacifism contradicts the Church’s teachings, and is therefore a heresy. Do you see why I come to that conclusion?

Yes, I see how you reach your conclusion. However, if our goal is to truly rule our lives by the Peace of Christ, then it seems to me you are justifying your position with the exceptions rather than the rule. Peace should always be the goal, and if one is called and able to embrace non-violence, and they are convinced that this is the ultimate good, can you blame them for trying to convince you as well?

You have chosen “hawkish” sources to defend your position. I can also find many sources defending peace and non-violence:

St. Francis of Assisi, no heretic he, preached non-violence and would not allow the members of his order, lay or professed, to use lethal weapons.

The Second Vatican Council praised “all who forgo the use of violence to vindicate their rights and resort to those other means of defense which are available to weaker parties.”

“Christians are not allowed to use violence to correct the delinquencies of sin.” Clement of Alexandria

“He commanded (His followers)… not only not to strike others, but even, when they themselves are struck, to present the other cheek… (He commanded them) not only not to injure their neighbors, nor to do them any evil, but also, when they are dealt with wickedly, to be long-suffering.” St. Irenaeus, writing about the command of our Lord

“The Christian does injury to no one. He does not desire the property of others. In fact, he does not even defend his own property if it is taken from him by violence. For he knows how to patiently bear an injury inflicted upon him.” and “We do not resist those who injure us, for we must yield to them.” and “Religion is to be defended - not by putting to death - but by dying.” and “When provoked by injury, if he returns violence to his assailant, he is defeated.” Lactantius

“Do not willingly use force, and do not use force when it is used against you.” St. Cyprian

Can you see how pacifism could be taken to be the better, more Christian path, even if violence and war seem inevitable due to our fallen nature?

 

[zaida]

Hey everyone - I belong to a Catholic Worker group and we are (obviously) huge Dorothy Day fans. Dorothy was a very strong and committed Catholic - Mass every day when she could, confession, the Eucharist, and when she converted she had to choose to leave the man she was in love with, because he would not marry her. It was an anguished choice, but she said she had to choose her faith. I would encourage anyone interested in her to read her diaries, and/or the letters of Dorothy Day. She was not perfect, and what I love about her diaries is that she could see her own imperfections, repent of them, ask for Gods help, and keep trying to do better.

She will be declared a Saint in God’s good time! (I believe she is one already!)