Early Christians did not believe in self-defense?

[Ender]

So she was right then?

No. Her statement about the early church is incorrect: it never held the view that killing in self defense was prohibited. There surely were, however, individuals who believed this.

Christians did change their views on killing???

The church has not changed her views on killing. She has always accepted it in cases of war, self defense, and capital punishment.

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?

He that kills another with a sword, or hurls an axe at his own wife and kills her, is guilty of wilful murder;* not he** who throws a stone at a dog, and undesignedly kills a man, or who corrects one with a rod, or scourge, in order to reform him, or who kills a man in his own defence, when he only designed to hurt him. *(St. Basil the Great, First Epistle, Canon VIII)
Ender

 

[JamesCaruso]

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?

I don’t think the Church ever taught that self defense was sinful. Various leaders may have exhorted against it, but someone will have to show me that the Church held it to be sinful.

 

[ProVobis]

Self-defense is a self-preservation instinct held by plants, animals, and humans. It is not a moral issue. But then neither is “turning the other cheek.”

 

[DavidWJackson]

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.

I think Spider42 has answered the original posted question very well. However, concerning the topic in general, I ponder the point, that maybe we are not to defend Christ or His teachings with violence. To the point that we are to accept all types of pursecution or death as our Holy defense towards our Lords work in this life. But, in defense of our life or our family it is perfectly acceptable to use deadly force, if your life or someone under your care is about to loose their life at the hands of another unjustly outside of any defense of Christ or His church.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I think Spider42 has answered the original posted question very well. However, concerning the topic in general, I ponder the point, that maybe we are not to defend Christ or His teachings with violence. To the point that we are to accept all types of pursecution or death as our Holy defense towards our Lords work in this life. But, in defense of our life or our family it is perfectly acceptable to use deadly force, if your life or someone under your care is about to loose their life at the hands of another unjustly outside of any defense of Christ or His church.

Yes, I believe it is always perfectly acceptable to use deadly force in defense of our life or our family. In the case of family, it may be more than acceptable, it may be obligatory.

For myself alone, I believe I have the choice to defend myself with deadly force or not. I see some benefit in not defending myself. In either case, one life is saved. So by defending myself with deadly force I save one life, my own, and in not defending myself I save one life, my assailant’s. If I save my assailant’s life, does he not then have a further chance to repent and be saved? If I take his life in defense of my own, am I not dispatching him to the likelihood of eternal damnation?

All this may be academic. When faced with life or death, I may instinctively choose to save myself. But my hero is Maximilian Kolbe, who gave his life in the death camps of Germany to save an unknown Jewish man about to be executed by volunteering to take his place. It’s something to think on, anyway.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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?

No, she was not right then. The poster to whom you’re replying is also incorrect.

For a more definitive response, I suggest you read EVANGELIUM VITAE, paragraph 55. I’d suggest backing up and starting at paragraph 53, though.

Here’s the pull quote, though:

Moreover, “legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State”.44 Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.

In other words, yes, sin is involved in self-defense; however, the culpability is the agressor’s.

 

[DavidWJackson]

It only overwhelmingly seems that early Christians did not believe in acts of aggression. For the most part the whole world around them despised, out right hated or wanted them done away with only because they were Christian. They lived secretive lives out of fear of arrest, torture and death. This being the case many times towards the end of their mass martyrdoms for the mere entertainment of others. They vertually had no natural enimies within their ranks. So, virtually no use for justafiable agression. They turned the other cheek and accepted what ever fate was handed them by man because they were Christian for the teachings and sake of our God. Many were converted because of theire actions.

 

[bobbyhillisabro]

I’m at a loss for words. That is ridiculous.

 

[DavidWJackson]

I’m at a loss for words. That is ridiculous.

Christ and the Church has always taught, you don’t defend Christ and your personal Christian faith with violance and killing. One of Christ’s last public acts was healing the man that was attacked for His sake. Then Christ accepted His own persecusion, beatings, and death without aggression, but with complete acceptance. This was the attitude of the first Christians and it should also be ours in the defense of the Christian faith.
God and the Church also teaches that there are times when violance in self defense, the preservation of others, and war are a justifiable means to an end. So, are we to believe over the first three hundred years AD, Christians did not engauge others with any aggression? Now that’s ridiculous to believe. Historians will never know about the vast majority of humans assulted and killed last night or this night to come. But, if someone is killed for their belief in the Christian God that will probably make the nightly news. However, Christ really wishes us to avoid acts of aggression and come to know and love Him and harbor only good will and love towards each other. Early Christian history simply drives home the point that you should not kill in defense of your individual life for your belief and representation of the Christian faith. If I’m wrong here, may a Monsignor or Bishop of the Catholic Church correct me.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Christ and the Church has always taught, you don’t defend Christ and your personal Christian faith with violance and killing. One of Christ’s last public acts was healing the man that was attacked for His sake. Then Christ accepted His own persecusion, beatings, and death without aggression, but with complete acceptance. This was the attitude of the first Christians and it should also be ours in the defense of the Christian faith.
God and the Church also teaches that there are times when violance in self defense, the preservation of others, and war are a justifiable means to an end. So, are we to believe over the first three hundred years AD, Christians did not engauge others with any aggression? Now that’s ridiculous to believe. Historians will never know about the vast majority of humans assulted and killed last night or this night to come. But, if someone is killed for their belief in the Christian God that will probably make the nightly news. However, Christ really wishes us to avoid acts of aggression and come to know and love Him and harbor only good will and love towards each other. Early Christian history simply drives home the point that you should not kill in defense of your individual life for your belief and representation of the Christian faith. If I’m wrong here, may a Monsignor or Bishop of the Catholic Church correct me.

I never thought of it in those terms. I would thing, regardless of Christ’s healing of the soldier struck in defense of Himself, and regardless of the behavior of the early Christians, we still have the right to protect ourselves and others even if the threat comes in the form of an assault on our Christian faith. I have always viewed the Christian willingness to die for their faith in the sense that it is allowable not to defend oneself, and IMO it is preferable, but it is not a requirement of the faith. I am neither a Monsignor nor a Bishop.

 

[Ender]

Christ and the Church has always taught, you don’t defend Christ and your personal Christian faith with violance and killing. One of Christ’s last public acts was healing the man that was attacked for His sake.

We should be careful not to invent our own interpretations of incidents in the Bible; it is usually better to see how the Church interprets them.For Our Lord rebuked Peter not because a just defense is unlawful, but because he wished not so much to defend himself or Our Lord, as to avenge the injury done to Our Lord, although he himself had no official authority. (St Robert Bellarmine)
That is, Peter’s attack was unjust because it was not in fact done in defense but in retribution, which is the right of states, not individuals.

Early Christian history simply drives home the point that you should not kill in defense of your individual life for your belief and representation of the Christian faith.

This may be your interpretation but it does not appear to be accurate.*St. Hilary says that it is certainly lawful to kill in two cases, if a man is fulfilling the duty of a judge, or if he is using a weapon in his own defense. *(Bellarmine, De Laicis, ch 13)
Ender

 

[FathersKnowBest]

We should be careful not to invent our own interpretations of incidents in the Bible; it is usually better to see how the Church interprets them.For Our Lord rebuked Peter not because a just defense is unlawful, but because he wished not so much to defend himself or Our Lord, as to avenge the injury done to Our Lord, although he himself had no official authority. (St Robert Bellarmine)
That is, Peter’s attack was unjust because it was not in fact done in defense but in retribution, which is the right of states, not individuals.
This may be your interpretation but it does not appear to be accurate.*St. Hilary says that it is certainly lawful to kill in two cases, if a man is fulfilling the duty of a judge, or if he is using a weapon in his own defense. *(Bellarmine, De Laicis, ch 13)
Ender

My thoughts are a bit different than the good saint’s, but certainly not in opposition to them.
I believe that Jesus was saying to St. Peter that if His intention was to save Himself, He had legions of Angels at His command.

What St. Peter was attempting to do was really an extention of his (St. Peter’s) reply to Jesus in Matthew 16:21-23, where Peter rebuked Jesus (see Mark 8) for allowing Himself to be turned over and killed.
“God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you.”

 

[JamesCaruso]

My thoughts are a bit different than the good saint’s, but certainly not in opposition to them.
I believe that Jesus was saying to St. Peter that if His intention was to save Himself, He had legions of Angels at His command.

What St. Peter was attempting to do was really an extention of his (St. Peter’s) reply to Jesus in Matthew 16:21-23, where Peter** rebuked **Jesus (see Mark 8) for allowing Himself to be turned over and killed.
“God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you.”

“Rebuke” seems a little strong. Expressed confusion or disbelief, maybe.

Whether Christ was setting an example for us to follow is debatable, but the more we see ourselves as His Mystical Body I think the more plausible this view seems to become. I understand if others differ with me.

 

[Michael_Allen]

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!

Certainly it appears that early Christians embraced martyrdom rather than any struggle based on violence. St. Francis, of course, was also an ardent pacifist, so it is not a tradition limited to the early Church. Today many Christians also embrace pacifism, which enables Christianity to be seen as a faith not embracing a violent struggle for supremacy.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Certainly it appears that early Christians embraced martyrdom rather than any struggle based on violence. St. Francis, of course, was also an ardent pacifist, so it is not a tradition limited to the early Church. Today many Christians also embrace pacifism, which enables Christianity to be seen as a faith not embracing a violent struggle for supremacy.

But Michael, was St. Francis a pacifist in a personal sense, or did he believe that pacifism should extend also to the state? In Catholic teaching it may even rise to the level of obligation to defend one’s country in a just war.

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

I remember the story or legend, whichever, that Saint Francis was observed during the Crusades working his way back and forth across the enemy lines ministering aid to soldiers on both sides. That seems more like a statement of personal pacifism, than a belief that a nation should unilaterally lay down its arms.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

“Rebuke” seems a little strong. Expressed confusion or disbelief, maybe.

Whether Christ was setting an example for us to follow is debatable, but the more we see ourselves as His Mystical Body I think the more plausible this view seems to become. I understand if others differ with me.

Yeah, rebuke does seem strong. But it’s the word that St. Mark put in his gospel.

Mr 8:32 And he said this plainly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.
33 But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter, and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men.”

The greek word is “epitimao” and rebuke seems to be a good translation.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Why no discussion of the actual Catholic teaching in EVANGELIUM VITAE? (Again, paragraph 55, but suggest reading at 53).

 

[JamesCaruso]

Yeah, rebuke does seem strong. But it’s the word that St. Mark put in his gospel.

The greek word is “epitimao” and rebuke seems to be a good translation.

Saint Peter had a lot of nerve! You have to love Saint Peter. He’s so much like us.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Why no discussion of the actual Catholic teaching in EVANGELIUM VITAE? (Again, paragraph 55, but suggest reading at 53).

If you want to include Evangelium Vitae, one should scan down to 55, which directly addresses self-defense, which is the subject of this thread:

There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God’s Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one’s own life and the duty not to harm someone else’s life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself " (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self. This can only be done in virtue of a heroic love which deepens and transfigures the love of self into a radical self-offering, according to the spirit of the Gospel Beatitudes (cf. Mt 5:38-40). The sublime example of this self-offering is the Lord Jesus himself.

**Moreover, “legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State”.**44 Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason. [Boldface added]

It turns out, unsurprisingly, it is the same position as the Catholic Catechism, only with some additional discussion. And I don’t mean to dismiss what precedes these paragraphs, and which make it crystal clear just how sacred human life is and how grave the taking of human life is.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

If you want to include Evangelium Vitae, one should scan down to 55, which directly addresses self-defense, which is the subject of this thread:

It turns out, unsurprisingly, it is the same position as the Catholic Catechism, only with some additional discussion. And I don’t mean to dismiss what precedes these paragraphs, and which make it crystal clear just how sacred human life is and how grave the taking of human life is.

That’s my point, precisely.