Early Christians did not believe in self-defense?

[Rence]

What? Sorry I’m really confused by conflicting views and stuff. Opinions aside, were early Christians forbidden to kill even in self defense or in just wars? Was it believed that if a Christian did, they would go to hell?

I would ask my professor for sources but I’m afraid of ticking her off too much and getting a bad grade. I don’t want to challenge her too much

Thanks for the replies everyone btw!

I have never heard ever that Christians were forbidden to kill in self defense. That would seem to be in direct conflict with one’s responsibility to honor their bodies, which were temples. In addition, it would be in direct conflict with one’s responsibility to protect their loved ones. As to fighting in ‘just wars’, they were encouraged to do so, like in the Crusades. Individual Church teachers my have taught against killing even in self defense, but that doesn’t make it a Church teaching. I’ve never heard of the Pope or Magisterium saying that it was forbidden for Catholics to kill in self defense.

 

[Ender]

I have never heard ever that Christians were forbidden to kill in self defense.

This is not surprising as this has never been a tenet of Christianity. I think that the entire book of Judith would be a problem for those who believe killing in self defense is objectionable inasmuch as she beheads King Holofernes who was a threat to her chastity and was about to destroy her city. Surely if her action was un-Christian her story would not have become part of the Biblical canon and she would not be held up as a model of chastity and virtue.

Ender

 

[Spider42]

This is not surprising as this has never been a tenet of Christianity.

Not to be a stickler, but you just quoted a theological assessment that there were two branches of thought in early Christianity. Now you are saying that it was ‘never a tenant’. Those can’t both be true. Are you now disagreeing with your quoted source?

I cited a number early writers, by name, and referenced to a scholarly work from a highly regarded Catholic Theologian that is used for instruction in US Seminaries. Stating the exact opposite, even if forceful terms, does not change reality.

As far as CCC 2265, forgive me, but I’ll continue to take the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, and Pope Benedict XVI’s, etc. explanations over yours. I have to, it goes with an Oath of Fealty. Just a few examples.

“We believe that in the long run and with few exceptions – i.e. police officers, military use – handguns should be eliminated from our society.” - Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration, USCCB 2000

“States will need to be armed for reason of legitimate defense, but justice demands that all individuals of faith disarm both their hands and their hearts… Every Christian is called upon to be a true peacemaker, not an oppressor of violence through mutual threat.” - Pope Benedict XVI April 2008

“Armed defense is something appropriate for nations, not for all individual citizens in a state where rule of law is effective.” - Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, June 2011, responding to inquiries about the 1994 pastoral document “The International Arms Trade”

If I am not mistaken, you aggressively argued that there was some special criteria for religious submission of mind and will that applies to you in another thread. Or perhaps I am confusing you with someone else. In any event, this applies to me:

“When the Magisterium, not intending to act “definitively”, teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.* This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.” - Donum Veritatis, citing Lumen Gentium #25

I cannot engage in a debate over wether or not the Magisterium has an inferior understanding of Church dogma and doctrine to anyone here.

Also, no serious Catholic biblical scholar considers the Judith to be historical. It is wildly inaccurate in that regard. The most mainstream interpretation is that it is a parable of virtues. It wasn’t in the earliest Canons, though Clement of Rome spoke well of it (and seemed to have no problem reconciling it to his non violence position). St. Augustine also considered it Sacred Scripture, but while he created the concept of Just War, he did not accept the idea of violent self defense (again, seemingly in contradiction to your reasoning). It formally entered Canon with Innocent I in the 5th century, and became dogmatically Canon with the Council of Trent in the 16th century.

 

[The_Professor]

Anyway, she has said a number of things that struck me as strange, such as looks to the Gospel of Thomas and Didache to explain early Christian behavoir.

Be careful to mix the Didache in with the apocryphal gospels. The Didache, whose full name is “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” was an early church document that many early Christians considered to be part of the revealed canon of the Bible. It’s a beautiful document that highlights, among other things, early liturgical prayers, ritual practice, and admonitions on several moral issues that continue to plague us to this day, including abortion.

Referred to in many early Christian texts, it was lost for hundreds of years until it was rediscovered in 1873. It is an important early work of the Church, likely dating around the year 100 although some scholars place it at and earlier date.

While The Didache is certainly not part of the canon of scripture, it is a fascinating read and gives great insight into the early Church. I highly recommend a read. I discovered it in college, and it had a profound effect on me. The fact that Christians have faced some evils from the very start (e.g. abortion) can make it seem like we’re facing a losing battle, but I find that it speaks to the consistency of our moral teaching and gives me strength because it shows that Christians from all eras are fighting the same battle.

 

[Ender]

Not to be a stickler, but you just quoted a theological assessment that there were two branches of thought in early Christianity. Now you are saying that it was ‘never a tenant’. Those can’t both be true. Are you now disagreeing with your quoted source?

What I said was that Tertullian (and Lanctantius) took a pacifist position but that “his position was never that of the Church.” “Never a position of the Church” and “never a tenant” seem to be exactly the same thing so clearly they can both be true.

I cited a number early writers, by name, …

Then cite the particular documents so we can all read exactly what was said. You also cited Tertullian yet his position was rejected by the Church.

As far as CCC 2265, forgive me, but I’ll continue to take the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, and Pope Benedict XVI’s, etc. explanations over yours.

Whether you can cite other sources supporting your position doesn’t mean that 2265 does. There is in fact nothing in that section that touches on the issue of the private ownership of guns in particular or weapons in general … unless you include the end note that references Aquinas’ comment on the right of an individual to kill in self defense (if necessary).

Regarding the USCCB, nothing needs to be said. As for BXVI’s comments, what I found was this:* In this sense, disarmament does not only refer to State armaments but involves every person who is called to disarm his own heart and be a peacemaker everywhere. *
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20080410_pc-justice-peace_en.html
This is from a letter he wrote in April, 2008. If you have another source in mind please include the link because I couldn’t find the comment you cited. Beyond that, however, I dispute the appropriateness of discovering doctrine in every word the Pontiff utters. Are you claiming that it is now Church doctrine that it is immoral for an individual to defend himself with any weapon whatever?

If I am not mistaken, you aggressively argued that there was some special criteria for religious submission of mind and will that applies to you in another thread.

We had a discussion on this topic but you seem to have missed my point. LG 25 and CCC 891-892 specify when our assent is required but neither of them includes anything on the question of prudential judgment. For that I cited Cardinal Dulles explaining that such are “not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.”

I cannot engage in a debate over wether or not the Magisterium has an inferior understanding of Church dogma and doctrine to anyone here.

We are not debating whether the Magisterium has an inferior understanding, we are debating about your understanding.

Also, no serious Catholic biblical scholar considers the Judith to be historical.

Whether it is historical or not is irrelevant. She is cited as a model of chastity and virtue which would seem unlikely if her act was immoral.

It wasn’t in the earliest Canons…

It is in there now; surely you aren’t suggesting that we should ignore it?

St. Augustine also considered it Sacred Scripture, but while he created the concept of Just War, he did not accept the idea of violent self defense (again, seemingly in contradiction to your reasoning).

If you have a citation where St. Augustine condemns violent self defense please provide it.

Ender

 

[Spider42]

What I said was that Tertullian (and Lanctantius) took a pacifist position but that “his position was never that of the Church.” “Never a position of the Church” and “never a tenant” seem to be exactly the same thing so clearly they can both be true.

Actually, you stated that his position was singular and at odds with other early Christian writings. I can find no basis of that in reality. The earliest surviving writings and external historical accounts are overwhelmingly pacifist leaning. The earliest evidence of an alternate tradition, like Christians serving in the army, dates from the 2nd century. The pacifist tradition was strongly reinforced by saints and doctors of the Church in later centuries (including St. Augustine, who actually gave us Just War theology).

Also, when there are competing traditions, they are ultimately settled by the Magisterium. That’s why God gave it to us. Pope Benedict XVI specifically pointed to Tertullian’s writings on non violence in May 2007 as an example of the apologists great gifts to the Church.

I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be rude, but you are in open dissent with the Magisterium’s position on a number of life issues on this forum (i.e. death penalty) and you repeatedly state your positions as absolutes, both areas of potential moral peril for me.

More importantly, take the remainder of you last post. I quoted a Doctrinal Note from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. That is, the Magisterium’s understanding of Lumen Gentium #25. In response, you have altered your own interpretation of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church. As tempting as it would be to examine your arguments (after all, you are openly in disagreement with Cardinal Dulles’ position from the document you quote), I simply cannot. I am prohibited from arguing over certain types of dissent, as defined in Canon Law.

This is no reflection on you and I would never presume to judge your spiritual grace or question your faith. I simply cannot debate this issue. I take LG #25 exactly as written, and I accept the CDF’s interpretation verbatim. But I am blessed, my moral conscience does not currently compel me to be in any significant disagreement with the Vicar of Christ or local Princes.

Pax Christi

 

[Ender]

The earliest surviving writings and external historical accounts are overwhelmingly pacifist leaning.

I don’t know myself, I was referring to the statements of others who have investigated the point. I cited Fr. Harmon on the subject before and here is a similar opinion expressed by Stephen Long (professor, Univ of St. Thomas): It is the nearly unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church(1) that the death penalty is morally licit, and the teaching of past popes (and numerous catechisms) that this penalty is essentially just (and even that its validity is not subject to cultural variation).
(1) The two exceptions are Tertullian, who died outside the Church, and Lactantius.

Also, when there are competing traditions, they are ultimately settled by the Magisterium.

And on this point there can be no doubt about the position that was settled on: the church has acknowledged the right and duty of public authority to punish criminals by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, including the death penalty.

I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be rude, but you are in open dissent with the Magisterium’s position on a number of life issues on this forum (i.e. death penalty) and you repeatedly state your positions as absolutes, both areas of potential moral peril for me.

I am in open dissent with you; nothing more.

I am prohibited from arguing over certain types of dissent, as defined in Canon Law.

Then stop bringing this up and stick to what you are willing to debate.

I am blessed, my moral conscience does not currently compel me to be in any significant disagreement with the Vicar of Christ or local Princes.

A blessing we share equally.

Ender

 

[Spider42]

that the death penalty is morally licit, and the teaching of past popes (and numerous catechisms) that this penalty is essentially just (and even that its validity is not subject to cultural variation).

But the subject at hand isn’t the death penalty, but self defense (see the subject heading). Perhaps this confusion explains your admonishing me about staying on topic?

I am in open dissent with you; nothing more.

As I noted in another thread, I must accept the Church’s definition of dissent, not yours:

“Dissent has different aspects. In its most radical form, it aims at changing the Church following a model of protest which takes its inspiration from political society. More frequently, it is asserted that the theologian is not bound to adhere to any Magisterial teaching unless it is infallible.” - Donum Veristatis #33

My brother, why your rage? I extensively quote Church documents and point people to approved texts. I strive to include caveats and proper context whenever I present any summarization or opinion on my part. I apologize when someone points out a mistake, and have never questioned your, or anyone else’s, character or spiritual state on these forums - just the opposite.

Yes, you disagree with something the Church teaches with Encyclical emphasis and in the Universal and Local Catechisms. And I have used the word “dissent”. This is not an insult, it is the correct theological and Canonist term for the situation at hand. The Church teaches something with considerable emphasis, you disagree. We refer to it as ‘dissent’ because the Magisterium has special status. You and I can ‘disagree’, but individual Catholics have ‘dissent’ with the Church. Folks like me are encouraged to use the exact term because it reinforces the apostolic authority of the Church. Downplaying disagreement, even on none doctrinal matters, potentially undermines the Church’s rightful authority (again, see Donum Veritatis).

Similarly, I would be prohibited from a quip like yours. Elevating our communication to ‘dissent’ would fail to properly show the special status of the apostles.

But, in any event, long before I used the word “dissent”, you have reacted to my comments with clear anger. Again, I do not question your spiritual grace of faith, but I cannot help but be reminded of the words of a very special priest:

“Whenever we react in anger we are no longer teaching the faith or carrying the light of Christ. We are simply telling the world that we have turmoil within.”

I only mean that, if something is troubling you, perhaps your pastor could help.

Pax Christi

 

[Bookcat]

Confused she is…

Did some Christians refuse to serve in the army? Yes. But the Church has never had women Priests…and the Gospel of Thomas was more of the Gnostic sort.

‘’’…early Christians believed that once you are baptized if you commit murder or kill at all you are done for. The people would be damned to hell forever, no exceptions."

…did someone think that? Sure some early Christians could have thought that…as even today 21st century Christians could think all sort of things.

There was in various points and various places more serious penance for the likes of murder and adultery and idolatry …but it was not one is damed forever no exceptions…

As to class – I once took a course long ago (prior to going to Steubenville) and the Professor had misunderstandings regarding Christianity – I would correct such in class even – and later he pulled me aside and asked “do you not like me?” I said no I actually do like you but your were wrong" --and on the exam I said "the answer you are looking for is X " then in the margin – however in reality such is not the case --it was such and such. He gave me an A.

I do not know though what to advise YOU regarding your situation. Such can be tricky.

 

[Spider42]

There was in various points and various places more serious penance for the likes of murder and adultery and idolatry …but it was not one is damed forever no exceptions…

To be fair, I don’t think that the original point was redemption, but that all killing was viewed as mortal sin. Forgivable sin, but always sin.

As far as the Gospel of Thomas, it must always be stressed that it is non-Canonical, but it is also not clearly Gnostic. It never discusses Jesus’ divinity, so it never clearly expresses any Gnostic beliefs. Some of the collecting ‘sayings’ can be construed as ‘proto-gnostic’, but many relate clearly to the Canonical Gospels as well. It might give some glimpses into early oral traditions, but it is probably most interesting as evidence supporting ‘Q-Source theory’.

Pax Christi

 

[TimeEntrance]

Hey everyone,

I’m a college student and my Early Christianity professor said something that did not sit right with me. Let me start by saying I go to a VERY liberal, public school and I’m not even sure my professor is even Christian. Anyway, she has said a number of things that struck me as strange, such as looks to the Gospel of Thomas and Didache to explain early Christian behavoir. She also said women used to be priests…

But she said today that early Christians believed that once you are baptized if you commit murder or kill at all you are done for. The people would be damned to hell forever, no exceptions. To me this is illogical because Jesus can forgive our sins no matter how bad they are.

I then raised my hand and asked her “what about just killing and self defense?” She said no exceptions, they could not even do self defense. That’s why there were so many martyrs back then, was her answer.

To me this does not seem right at all…does anyone know of any writings about Early Christian views on self defense and violence? Thanks!

Doesn’t it strike you interesting that professors at public universities that teach about Christianity often seem not to be Christian and teach with a total disregard for the teachings passed down through the Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

I’m mean think about that. It would be like me teaching about Tibet without any regard whatsoever for the Tibetans. Rather, I’d look for a few odd opinions and interpretations in Baltimore, United States on the Tibetans.

 

[TimeEntrance]

I then raised my hand and asked her “what about just killing and self defense?” She said no exceptions, they could not even do self defense. That’s why there were so many martyrs back then, was her answer.

This is fundamentally correct. Take for example, Tertullian…

You may be right, Spider, for all I know. This is not some area I’m real knowledgeable about.

But I would say–and you might agree with this–that religious teaching and what one can do ought be distinguished by scholars or professors.

For example, it might be that Catholicism teaches Catholic men are not to punch their wives in the face. But what a Catholic man can and possibly will do is something entirely different.

In that sense Tertullian and Augustin or Early Christians that gained enough reputation that Christians held their writings in high regard can’t be taken as proof of actions of the majority of Early lay Christians.

Or for example, writings of Oprah Winfrey can’t be taken as proof of how all American men and women in the U.S. physically and emotionally treat one another in marriages.

That’s not to say writings of Oprah or Tertullian can’t be used as supporting evidence of some proposition about Americans and Early Christians respectively.

 

[TimeEntrance]

What? Sorry I’m really confused by conflicting views and stuff. Opinions aside, were early Christians forbidden to kill even in self defense or in just wars? Was it believed that if a Christian did, they would go to hell?

I would ask my professor for sources but I’m afraid of ticking her off too much and getting a bad grade. I don’t want to challenge her too much

Thanks for the replies everyone btw!

Here’s something to consider. Supposedly, the black Roman soldier that was an Early Christian.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Maurice

Saint Maurice (also Moritz, Morris, or Mauritius) was the leader of the legendary Roman Theban Legion in the 3rd century, and one of the favorite and most widely venerated saints of that group. He was the patron saint of several professions, locales, and kingdoms. He is also a highly revered saint in the Coptic Orthodox Church.

According to the hagiographical material, the legion, entirely composed of Christians, had been called from Thebes in Egypt to Gaul to assist Maximian to defeat a revolt by the bagaudae.[4] However, when Maximian ordered them to harass some local Christians, they refused and Maximian ordered the unit to be punished. Every tenth soldier was killed, a military punishment known as decimation. More orders followed, they still refused, partly because of Maurice’s encouragement, and a second decimation was ordered. In response to their refusal to use violence against fellow Christians, Maximian ordered all the remaining members of the 6,666 unit to be executed. The place in Switzerland where this occurred, known as Agaunum, is now Saint Maurice-en-Valais, site of the Abbey of Saint Maurice-en-Valais.

He seems to have died before St. Augustine was baptized into the Catholic Church.

 

[Ender]

But the subject at hand isn’t the death penalty, but self defense (see the subject heading).

I suppose I could have made the same objection to the reference you made to Tertullian, which included only his position on war and nothing about self defense, but it seems the relevance of both citations is that they go to the question of whether the early Church was pacifist. War, capital punishment, and killing in self defense pretty much went together. They were generally all three accepted or all three rejected. The scholarly view seems to be that the Early Fathers were “nearly unanimous” in rejecting the pacifist view.

My brother, why your rage?

Don’t confuse my rather total rejection of your assertions with rage.

Yes, you disagree with something the Church teaches with Encyclical emphasis and in the Universal and Local Catechisms.

I agree with Cardinal Dulles. I agree with Pius XII, Pius X, Leo XIII, Pius IV, Innocent III, and Innocent I. I also agree with every catechism produced prior to 1995 as well as the Doctors of the Church and most of the Early Fathers.

I disagree with you.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Anyway, she has said a number of things that struck me as strange, such as looks to the Gospel of Thomas and Didache to explain early Christian behavoir.

Here is a different perspective on the Gospel of Thomas (assuming there is only one).

• Let none read the Gospel according to Thomas: for it is the work not of one of the twelve Apostles, but of one of the three wicked disciples of Manes.* (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture VI, c 350)
  This work also contains this comment about killing addressed to Manes:
• If thou findest fault with Him who saith, The Lord killeth, and maketh alive, why dost thou honour Peter, who raised up Tabitha, but struck Sapphira dead?*
  This raises the obvious point: if Peter killed Sapphira on what grounds is all killing condemned?

Ender

 

[sandomenico]

Perhaps, also, God was warning us against spreading the faith through violence.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I don’t pretend to be a scholar, but I do have a view on self-defense that is a result of many years of struggling with this subject and looking to the Church for guidance.

It seems to me that the ideal raised by early Christian martyrs, and even Christ Himself, was to forgo self-defense. This is the ideal to which I strive. On the other hand, I do believe it is clear from Church teaching that self-defense is not in and of itself immoral when its object is to save oneself from injury or death. Just as the ideal is to give oneself entirely to God, one who gives generously but not entirely is not thereby considered immoral, although you can make a case for his being unwise.

Defense of one’s family or country is another thing, but a bit off topic. My conscience would be troubled if I declined to do either, assuming in the case of war that the cause was just.

In summary, I do believe the Church recognizes our right to self-defense, but I also believe that it is a right that we would do better not to exercise. As a practical matter, it is academic to me whether most or only some early Christians believed in this right.

 

[Ender]

In summary, I do believe the Church recognizes our right to self-defense, but I also believe that it is a right that we would do better not to exercise.

You are certainly free to believe you should not defend yourself but it is inaccurate to suggest this is the position the church would prefer we all take. There is nothing in her teaching to suggest this.*“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” *(Catechism of Pius X)
There are no caveats attached to this instruction.

As a practical matter, it is academic to me whether most or only some early Christians believed in this right.

True; it is what the church teaches that matters; not what some of the early Christians believed at the time.

Ender

 

[JamesCaruso]

You are certainly free to believe you should not defend yourself but it is inaccurate to suggest this is the position the church would prefer we all take. There is nothing in her teaching to suggest this.

I do not believe that I suggested the church would prefer we not avail ourselves of the right to defend ourselves. I thought I clearly stated that this is my belief, and that it derives from my observation of what Christ did, bolstered in turn by what some early Christians martyrs did. If I did not make this clear, let this serve to make it clear now. The Church does not teach that it is better that we do not defend ourselves. Whether it will ever explicitly declare that it is better not to avail oneself of the right to self defense, or that not defending oneself is a higher ideal, is purely speculative. I believe I am accurate in saying that it could if it wanted to, as such a position is not at odds with any other teaching of Christ or His Church.

I am not a pacifist. I do believe in the right, maybe even duty, of a person to defend their family and their country. Only in the area of personal self defense do I lean, without Church guidance one way or the other, toward what I consider the higher ideal of not defending oneself, and especially so when it comes to threatened harm for speaking the Word of God. If I am wrong, my mind and heart are open to learn a better way.

I might add, thank you for taking the time to engage me in this dialogue. We both appear to be here for the same reason, to pursue truth, which is to say, to follow more closely Our Lord who invites us to come and follow after Him, both through the guidance and tradition of the Church and through the reading of Holy Scriptures.

 

[Marie1234]

Short answer. Yes. Just War didn’t exist as a concept until St. Augustine, 4th century. At that time killing in self defense was still rejected. Killing as double effect in self defense was not concretely defined until the 12th century (St. Thomas Aquinas).

If you want early Church fathers who strenously objected to killing, even in self defense, try:

Ignatius bishop of Antioch
Clement of Rome
Papius bishop of Hierapolis

Tertullain, who I mentioned above, came later. He was the first great Latin apologist at the beginning of the 3rd century. A lot of his works survived intact, where some of the writers above we get indirect, through people they taught, like Irenaeus, Tatian, Origen, Athenagoras, etc. who quote works we have no surviving copies of.

Edit: Just an example:

That’s not to say that every single Christian was a pacifist, but it seems most were. In the 3rd century Emperor Diocletian tried to purge Christians from the Roman army because they would not fight or ransack and “corrupted” other soldiers by converting them.

So she was right then? Christians did change their views on killing??? So why was self defense sinful back then and not now? I thought that God’s Law is consistent and does not change with time or public opinion…so what does God believe about self-defense? What is the Truth?