I just saw the movie "For Greater Glory" with my family, and it was a great movie

[Bartolome_Casas]

I have not been to “For Greater Glory” yet. I am debating. Friends tell me it is very violent and seems to justify violence. That troubles me, if true.

One friend, a student of Latin American history, stated that it is very biased, giving only one side when the circumstances were very confused. The government, he says, was trying to limit the power of the Church in Mexico at that time, as they perceived the Church to be aligned with the rich who were oppressing the poor. I understand that the Knights of Columbus helped finance the film, which suggests that it's intention primarily is to promote the Church. 

 Two other things trouble me.

 Some will jump to the conclusion that it is meant to arouse Catholics now against the Obama Administration in the name of religious freedom. Let's be honest. The record on the Catholic Church on religious freedom is nothing to be proud of. Re-read the "Syllabus of Errors" by Pius IX, available on line. I believe that was issued in 1864? The Church has taught in the past that 'error as no rights'. What is error to one, of course, can appear to be truth to another. I worry if the US Catholic Church gets too embroiled in partisan politics. It will only lose millions more who already have been troubled by the continuing clergy sex scandal, Church criticism of the nuns, attacks on the Girl Scouts, financial malfeasance in the Vatican, the release of many confidential papal documents, etc.

  The Mexican situation then may be compared to the Spanish Civil War later (1936-39) in some ways. Neither side had much to recommend it. The government in Spain - the Loyalists or Republicans in that struggle - did some grossly evil things against the Church, which it felt was allied with the extreme right. It was increasingly influenced by the left, even the Soviet-Communist left. On the other hand, the Nationalists under Franco were fascists, aided by Hitler and Mussolini, and they, too, committed serious war crimes during and following that war. Today Spain seems to be more and more secular - permitting same-sex marriage, for example - and one wonders why this happens when the country is so overwhelmingly Catholic.

Thank you. I think everything you wrote is good sense, common knowledge, common sense, and written in a Christian spirit.

The Catholic Church is not meant to be a political, revolutionary, or military organization.

The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, spotless and pure.

We all well know that many of the original disciples of Jesus Christ wanted and urged Him to become a political, revolutionary, and military leader, so as to drive out the hated Roman oppressors and their Jewish collaborators. I’ve heard people say that one thing that motivated the traitor Judas was his disappointment that Jesus refused to be a political, revolutionary, and military leader.

The movie “For Greater Glory” shows an evil leader, Calles, oppressing the People of God. Jesus Himself faced evil leaders, Pontius Pilate and the Jewish leaders who wanted him dead.

Did Jesus lead an armed rebellion against Pontius Pilate or the Jewish leaders? Listen to what Jesus said to Pontius Pilate about this very possibility:

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting,…But my kingdom is not from the world’.” (John 18:36).

Jesus told Pilate that he could have organized an armed rebellion against the evil government, but choose not to.

What Jesus did, we are to do. He is our role model. The author of the Letter to the Hebrews wrote in chapter 13:

“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings…For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come.”

Once again today, many people want Jesus Christ to be a political, revolutionary, and military leader, and want the Catholic Church to be a political, revolutionary, and military organization. Or, they want the Catholic Church to be in a sort of fusion relationship with a political, revolutionary, or military organization or party.

But “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” Jesus is a spiritual leader, leading willing souls to personal and ecclesiastical holiness and salvation.

Jesus gave no mandate to be freedom fighters for political rights.

Instead, Jesus gave his Church the Great Commission:

“Go, therefore,* and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit.” (Matt. 28:19) usccb.org/bible/mt/28:19

Jesus wants the Church to baptize people, not organize political, revolutionary or military campaigns against people.

The Church does teach that people have a right to self defense, but that it must be exercised in accordance with the Catholic Just War Doctrine. But even when Catholics are engaged in a Just War, such a war is never a Catholic action. It is just a practical, worldly action that Catholics happen to be doing. Plowing a field is likewise not a Catholic action. Catholics are not to love war and love violence. We are not supposed to attempt spread the Kingdom of God by war or violence.

If this were all just my opinion, it would be worthless. But this is the teaching of the New Testament Scriptures, and of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

 

[EasterJoy]

…The Catholic Church is not meant to be a political, revolutionary, or military organization.

The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, spotless and pure. …Jesus wants the Church to baptize people, not organize political, revolutionary or military campaigns against people.

The Church does teach that people have a right to self defense, but that it must be exercised in accordance with the Catholic Just War Doctrine. But even when Catholics are engaged in a Just War, such a war is never a Catholic action. It is just a practical, worldly action that Catholics happen to be doing. Plowing a field is likewise not a Catholic action. Catholics are not to love war and love violence. We are not supposed to attempt spread the Kingdom of God by war or violence.

If this were all just my opinion, it would be worthless. But this is the teaching of the New Testament Scriptures, and of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Should the Church be waging wars? No. Although the film depicts the laypersons waging the war as disappointed that Rome did not join their cause–which they undoubtedly were–the film doesn’t suggest it should. As you admit, however, there is a time for laypersons to take up arms. There is a time when it is a duty. There is also a time to tell stories that don’t make neat black-and-white morality tales.

There is a priest who is a general, and his presence was depicted as problematic, to say the least. Keep in mind that churches were seized, convents and schools were closed, priests deported, murdered, and driven into hiding, and public worship outlawed before the armed uprising. If they were doing that to synagogues–killing and deporting the rabbis, closing the houses of worship and learning, forbidding public worship–or to mosques, we Catholics would be duty-bound to end the persecution in no uncertain terms, even if it required armed resistance.

The movie is about lay Catholics waging a war. Could the screenplay use some work? Yes, I think it could. Does the film glorify war or imply that priests ought to be out shooting? No. Nor does it depict the priest as having put himself into the battle, though. The laypeople choose him as a trustworthy man of action, in spite of his being a priest more than because of it. Of all the priests in the film, the one who fights himself is also shown as the most morally and practically problematic, without a doubt. The other Cristeros are not totally comfortable with him in that position, he is feels forced to do it and is not totally comfortable with it, and he is not depicted as dispelling those reservations. No one is depicted as wanting to take up arms because he, a priest, was doing it or advocating for it. I thought every mention of his priesthood clearly argued against his participation.

The movie also shows the general who joins the fight–a non-believer married to a devout Catholic who was not crazy to have him agree to help–as being the force that imposes self-control in the service of human dignity on the Cristeros. He fought not in defense of faith, but in defense of freedom to have faith. This isn’t a film that glorifies the Catholics, that says that faith automatically makes all your choices right.

Again, I thought the screenplay could use some work. The filming and acting were top-notch, though, and this is a period of history under-represented in film, particularly considering the knotty moral questions it raises. Perhaps even better efforts will follow, but even this film does not argue in favor of war.

Bl. Jose Sanchez del Rios, after being held as a prisoner of war, was tortured and then martyred shortly before his 15th birthday. This story is far more about what the Mexican government has to be ashamed of, because there is no excess by a rich clergyman that ever drove a government to torture prisoners, let alone teenage boys.

 

[manualman]

Nobody here has claimed that the Cristeros received an imprimatur for their war. But several people here have noted that popes are not often silent on the justice of a particular war unless under some sort of duress. Most recently, JPII offerred his opinions on a pending war between the USA and Iraq and we’d have been better off had we heeded him more. But as far as I know, there was no similar criticism of the Cristeros from Rome at the time. And yet you, a century later, feel qualified to condemn these men in their desperate time for a prudential decision you in your armchair say you would have made differently. The burden of proof falls on you. You’ve made assertions of unrighteousness towards a group that was NOT condemned by the church leadership of its day and who was supported indirectly by a sizable pack of holy men and women who have since been cannonized saints and martyrs. You’ve made a moral equivalence argument between a group of victims that fought back and a brutal and repressive government. When you are this far out on a limb, stop sawing!

 

[LSK]

It’s funny about the one example given ( the General saying he believed in freedom) not being a Catholic answer. In the context of the film, as well as the context of the character and his eventual return to the Church, this answer was perfect. It outlined how those who did not believe in Church Teaching could still resist the government because of the PRINCIPLE involved.

Let’s hope we have many in America who will join Catholics in their fight to maintain our religious freedom even if they themselves do not believe.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

War, war, and more war is the way of the world.

One can almost study world history by just studying the succession of wars. Some people do study it that way.

We Christians are supposed to be different from the heathen of the world.

We Christians stopped the bloody gladiator games in the Roman Coliseum.

We Christians are not supposed to love war and have ready recourse to war as the heathens do.

In this vein, what the Vatican II Council said about war and peace in “Gaudium et Spes” seems relevant. Blessed John Paul II said “Gaudium et Spes” was the blueprint for his entire papacy. vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01051997_p-28_en.html

Here is part of “Gaudium et Spes”:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

Vatican II Council
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes)
1965

Chapter V: The Fostering of Peace and Setting Up an International Community

1. In our generation when men continue to be afflicted by acute hardships and anxieties arising from the ravages of war or the threat of it, the whole human family faces an hour of supreme crisis …

78…That earthly peace which arises from love of neighbor symbolizes and results from the peace of Christ which radiates from God the Father. For by the cross the incarnate Son, the prince of peace reconciled all men with God. By thus restoring all men to the unity of one people and one body, He slew hatred in His own flesh; and, after being lifted on high by His resurrection, He poured forth the spirit of love into the hearts of men.

For this reason, all Christians are urgently summoned to do in love what the truth requires, and to join with all true peacemakers in pleading for peace and bringing it about.

Motivated by this same spirit, we cannot fail to praise those who renounce the use of violence in the vindication of their rights and who resort to methods of defense which are otherwise available to weaker parties too, provided this can be done without injury to the rights and duties of others or of the community itself.

Insofar as men are sinful, the threat of war hangs over them, and hang over them it will until the return of Christ. But insofar as men vanquish sin by a union of love, they will vanquish violence as well and make these words come true: “They shall turn their swords into plough-shares, and their spears into sickles. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (Isaiah 2:4).

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Let’s hope we have many in America who will join Catholics in their fight to maintain our religious freedom even if they themselves do not believe.

Jesus and his apostles did not fight anyone, nor did they lead or teach anyone else to fight anyone.

Jesus and his apostles had plenty of reasons to fight. Their rights were constantly being violated. Jesus was false accused, tortured and murdered. The same thing happened to the apostles and many early disciples of the Way of Christ.

They did not do nothing, however, regarding the evils of the lost world. They preached, they taught, they loved their enemies, they healed, they did exorcisms, they baptized.

Does their example mean nothing to us today?

 

[EasterJoy]

War, war, and more war is the way of the world…
We Christians stopped the bloody gladiator games in the Roman Coliseum…

How was it that “Christians stopped the bloody gladiator games in the Roman Coliseum”? By economic boycott? No, by converting the Emperor Constantine, after which the Chi Rho was put onto the standards of the Roman legions. I don’t think that’s exactly what you meant by a non-violent solution, is it? Yet Christians continued to be persecuted to death periodically until that time. They did not stop their persecutors by the pressure of non-violence, and the Gospels do not say that the pressures of non-violence will stop persecutions. That’s not to say that it is not better to turn the other cheek than to fall down when you’re struck. It is to say that you over-simplify history a great deal, to the point of wishful falsification.

As for the choice of early Christians not to resort to armed rebellion, remember that this is how the historian Joseph reports that the Jewish rebellion at Jerusalem worked out for the Jews:
So now Titus’s banks were advanced a great way, notwithstanding his soldiers had been very much distressed from the wall. He then sent a party of horsemen, and ordered they should lay ambushes for those that went out into the valleys to gather food. Some of these were indeed fighting men, who were not contented with what they got by rapine; but the greater part of them were poor people, who were deterred from deserting by the concern they were under for their own relations; for they could not hope to escape away, together with their wives and children, without the knowledge of the seditious; nor could they think of leaving these relations to be slain by the robbers on their account; nay, the severity of the famine made them bold in thus going out; so nothing remained but that, when they were concealed from the robbers, they should be taken by the enemy; and when they were going to be taken, they were forced to defend themselves for fear of being punished; as after they had fought, they thought it too late to make any supplications for mercy; so they were first whipped, and then tormented with all sorts of tortures, before they died, and were then crucified before the wall of the city. This miserable procedure made Titus greatly to pity them, while they caught every day five hundred Jews; nay, some days they caught more: yet it did not appear to be safe for him to let those that were taken by force go their way, and to set a guard over so many he saw would be to make such as great deal them useless to him. ** The main reason why he did not forbid that cruelty was this, that he hoped the Jews might perhaps yield at that sight, out of fear lest they might themselves afterwards be liable to the same cruel treatment. So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies.* Jewish War 5. 11. 1 [5:446-451]*

IOW, military rebellion against Rome was such a hopeless prospect that it essentially says nothing about the early Christian willingness to wage war that it was not tried. It is obvious that they would have been even more viciously persecuted than they already were, if they had.

I found it interesting how you highlighted that one sentence. Let’s look at it another way:
Motivated by this same spirit, we cannot fail to praise those who renounce the use of violence in the vindication of their rights and who resort to methods of defense which are otherwise available to weaker parties too, provided this can be done without injury to the rights and duties of others or of the community itself. Were the Cristeros not by far the weaker party? Is it possible that Gaudium et Spes was primarily referring to what the Mexican government was doing? Is it possible that you are cherry-picking the document to make your point?

Your quotes from Gaudium et Spes are selective, to say the least. The Church does not say that the answer to religious persecution is for the persecuted to lay down and be killed. The Church says that the answer is for the international community to refuse to tolerate religious persecutions.

Nobody, but nobody is saying that the story of the Cristeros is some kind of a paragon. We are saying that this is a story that has not been told, and even this movie tells only a fraction of the story, both the good and the bad. It is time that the story be told and talked about, that is what we are saying. It is a violent story, and yet it does not glorify violence to tell it.

The glory in the movie was not in the violence the Cristeros wrought, after all, but in the violence they were willing to hazard, rather than renounce their faith. Bl. Jose Sanchez del Rio was not a great fighter, but a boy martyr who would not let any amount of torture deter him. That willingness to suffer and perhaps die rather than accept having the priests killed and the churches desecrated and the practice of the faith wiped out and the Holy Name wiped from the mouths of all Mexicans is what the film is about.

 

[EasterJoy]

Jesus and his apostles did not fight anyone, nor did they lead or teach anyone else to fight anyone.

Jesus and his apostles had plenty of reasons to fight. Their rights were constantly being violated. Jesus was false accused, tortured and murdered. The same thing happened to the apostles and many early disciples of the Way of Christ.

They did not do nothing, however, regarding the evils of the lost world. They preached, they taught, they loved their enemies, they healed, they did exorcisms, they baptized.

Does their example mean nothing to us today?

So in your opinion, the early Christians
a) had a chance of defeating Rome or preventing Roman persecutions by mounting a military confrontation, but decided to stop the bloodshed by preaching, instead, and
b) decided not to mount and armed resistance against Rome because it would have been wrong of them to kill those who were killing them.

Is that correct?

 

[JimG]

Archbishop Chaput highly recommends the movie:

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Archbishop Chaput highly recommends the movie:

Archbishop Chaput ends his review by saying:

*We Americans in 2012 live in a different land in a different time. We’re blessed with freedoms the Cristeros could only imagine. But those freedoms depend on our willingness to defend them. Religious liberty is never guaranteed by anything but our own vigilance. Even in this country, contempt for religious faith, and especially the Catholic faith, is alive and well.

“For Greater Glory” captures with memorable power and grace where that bigotry can lead — and the cost of resisting it.*

Thus, like many, Archbishop Chaput relates the Cristeros War to the current HHS Mandate situation in the USA.

I can’t be comfortable with any such connection, since many people will draw the conclusion that taking up arms against the federal government of the USA over this HHS Mandate could be acceptable or justifiable. To me, such an idea is just insane!

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

So in your opinion, the early Christians
a) had a chance of defeating Rome or preventing Roman persecutions by mounting a military confrontation, but decided to stop the bloodshed by preaching, instead, and
b) decided not to mount and armed resistance against Rome because it would have been wrong of them to kill those who were killing them.

Is that correct?

Jesus was God and so had all the power of God. Jesus could wipe the Roman Empire off the face of the earth at any time, but, for a reason, chose not to.

Jesus is still God, and could still wipe all evildoers off the face of the earth in an instant, but for a reason, chooses not to.

Jesus’ reason is this: Jesus came to the earth to teach and practice and demonstrate “Love thy enemies,” not “Kill thy enemies.”

Before Jesus came, humans were already big believers in “Kill thy enemies,” and they were very good at it.

But starting with the coming of Jesus, God had a different idea.

Even so, most people favor the pre-Christian way of handling things.

Even so, the Church stands as a witness to the Way of Christ, and urge and invites us to walk in the footsteps of Christ.

 

[EasterJoy]

Jesus was God and so had all the power of God. Jesus could wipe the Roman Empire off the face of the earth at any time, but, for a reason, chose not to.

Jesus is still God, and could still wipe all evildoers off the face of the earth in an instant, but for a reason, chooses not to.

Jesus’ reason is this: Jesus came to the earth to teach and practice and demonstrate “Love thy enemies,” not “Kill thy enemies.”

Before Jesus came, humans were already big believers in “Kill thy enemies,” and they were very good at it.

But starting with the coming of Jesus, God had a different idea.

Even so, most people favor the pre-Christian way of handling things.

Even so, the Church stands as a witness to the Way of Christ, and urge and invites us to walk in the footsteps of Christ.

Again, you do know that nobody here is gung-ho to go start any “holy wars”, right? I don’t think anyone is saying this was a paragon of an armed conflict, either. Again: Stories of imperfect people still need to be told; it isn’t wrong to tell a story that includes violence, is it?. No one here is saying the heirarchy should have been running it or even that priests ought to carry guns in war.

We are wondering, however, if you think it ever legitimate for Christians to act in self-defense in an organized way.

You are saying that the early Christians could have defeated the Romans militarily, because they had divine power at their disposal, yet chose not to do that, because since the Resurrection it is has always been an offense against love to take a human life. Is that correct?

In other words, every war waged by a Christian has been an offense against the Gospel. Is that correct?

Is military action inherently un-Christian? If not, in what specific example of Catholics that have fought in a war in the last 2,000 years was fighting the duty of the laypeople to take up arms? When it has been allowable, has it been their duty only because of earlier failures to properly employ non-violent means?

If the Cristeros were wrong not in their specific excesses, but in taking up arms at all, when has it been the duty of a Christian to take up arms? Forget theory; give us an example. Truly, you seem to be saying that war is always wrong and movies about Christians waging a war is a bad example. Please clarify where I’m getting you wrong on that point.

By the way, if there is no such thing as a Christian soldier, then why did John the Baptist give this instruction to soldiers coming to him? *Soldiers also asked him, “And what is it that we should do?” He told them, “Do not practice extortion, do not falsely accuse anyone, and be satisfied with your wages.” * Luke 3:14 Did his advice not go far enough?

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Again, you do know that nobody here is gung-ho to go start any “holy wars”, right? I don’t think anyone is saying this was a paragon of an armed conflict, either. Again: Stories of imperfect people still need to be told; it isn’t wrong to tell a story that includes violence, is it?. No one here is saying the heirarchy should have been running it or even that priests ought to carry guns in war.

We are wondering, however, if you think it ever legitimate for Christians to act in self-defense in an organized way.

You are saying that the early Christians could have defeated the Romans militarily, because they had divine power at their disposal, yet chose not to do that, because since the Resurrection it is has always been an offense against love to take a human life. Is that correct?

In other words, every war waged by a Christian has been an offense against the Gospel. Is that correct?

Is military action inherently un-Christian? If not, in what specific example of Catholics that have fought in a war in the last 2,000 years was fighting the duty of the laypeople to take up arms? When it has been allowable, has it been their duty only because of earlier failures to properly employ non-violent means?

If the Cristeros were wrong not in their specific excesses, but in taking up arms at all, when has it been the duty of a Christian to take up arms? Forget theory; give us an example. Truly, you seem to be saying that war is always wrong and movies about Christians waging a war is a bad example. Please clarify where I’m getting you wrong on that point.

By the way, if there is no such thing as a Christian soldier, then why did John the Baptist give this instruction to soldiers coming to him? *Soldiers also asked him, “And what is it that we should do?” He told them, “Do not practice extortion, do not falsely accuse anyone, and be satisfied with your wages.” * Luke 3:14 Did his advice not go far enough?

What little I know about all this I have stated in my previous posts in this threat.

Beyond that, I think all the answers are there in the New Testament, in the Vatican II Council documents, and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

My only claim is just if any reasonable person becomes really familiar with the facts of the Cristeros War and the events immediately preceding it, and becomes really familiar with the Catholic Just War Doctrine as it is taught by the Church today, I think he or she will reach the conclusion that the Mexican Catholics would have given Greater Glory to God and would have brought more salvation to souls if they’d never shot a single bullet at the Mexican government policemen and army officers. Shooting guns at government offices is a very serious matter.

But, of course, probably every adult alive in Mexico in the late 1920s is dead and gone now.

The question is what shall we in 2012 do? Are we to speak as if it is an option for Catholics to take up arms against the U.S. government if the HHS Mandate is not revoked by political or judicial means? I hope not! To me, that would be just plain nuts, insane, not to mention wicked!

 

[EasterJoy]

What little I know about all this I have stated in my previous posts in this threat.

Beyond that, I think all the answers are there in the New Testament, in the Vatican II Council documents, and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

My only claim is just if any reasonable person becomes really familiar with the facts of the Cristeros War and the events immediately preceding it, and becomes really familiar with the Catholic Just War Doctrine as it is taught by the Church today, I think he or she will reach the conclusion that the Mexican Catholics would have given Greater Glory to God and would have brought more salvation to souls if they’d never shot a single bullet at the Mexican government policemen and army officers. Shooting guns at government offices is a very serious matter.

But, of course, probably every adult alive in Mexico in the late 1920s is dead and gone now.

The question is what shall we in 2012 do? Are we to speak as if it is an option for Catholics to take up arms against the U.S. government if the HHS Mandate is not revoked by political or judicial means? I hope not! To me, that would be just plain nuts, insane, not to mention wicked!

Nobody has suggested that we ought to start shooting at anyone in the US government!!! Good grief, we aren’t at Ruby Ridge, here! Is that why you think people think this is a good movie, because they want to take up arms against the US Government? Do you think we’re all insane?

Rather, we are saying that it cannot be taken for granted that religious liberty is a given. Governments who say that they are on the side of right do it. Governments use rhetoric that paints the Catholic Church as a oppressive hater of human rights, even as that very government is oppressing the Church.

Sir, if anything, I think most Catholics here realize that taking up arms against the US government would be only slightly more likely to succeed that taking up arms against one of the Caesars. Of course the means to oppose the US government are non-violent! Against the US government, that actually works! Our government has done some awful things, but so far shooting clerics hasn’t been one of them. One other thing is sure: No one is going to mount a civil insurrection against Uncle Sam. He’s not Caesar, but he’d find it in his ethics to unfortunately have to squash you like a bug. As for our priests, the Catholics who know the best who not to shoot at and why are in the US military. Even the military people who despise Catholics aren’t going to go out and start shooting civilians. We don’t have soldiers taught to just do whatever they’re ordered to do, and undoubtedly one of the best-disciplined military and police force in history. They are not loose cannons.

The movie is getting the reception that it is not because people want to shoot anyone, but because they realize that being a martyr in modern times isn’t an impossibility. Having your religious freedom taken away on the pretext that Catholicism is opposed to personal liberty isn’t an impossibility. Targetting priests as a way to attack our faith isn’t an impossibility.

Note that the Mexican Constitution had anti-religious laws written into it in 1917, years before the laws were ever enforced. It is worth taking note that these things happen gradually.

It is like saying, of the Holocaust: Never Again. Do we mean give all the Jews guns, so they won’t be put into a ghetto this time? No! We mean to be vigililant about assaults on freedom, because they start at the edges, they start small, they start with laws that “aren’t enforced”, and before you know it, you are in a situation where violence is used against you, and this kind of decision-making becomes necessary. That is what this film has to do with the HHS mandate, not some idea that Catholics want to wage war on the US government. Heaven forbid!

 

[manualman]

Thus, like many, Archbishop Chaput relates the Cristeros War to the current HHS Mandate situation in the USA.

I can’t be comfortable with any such connection, since many people will draw the conclusion that taking up arms against the federal government of the USA over this HHS Mandate could be acceptable or justifiable. To me, such an idea is just insane!

I thought so. You’re upset at the parallels that some draw between the extreme religious persecution commited by the Calles Mexican government and the early warning signs suggesting movement in that direction in the US government today under Obama.

Do you really think catholics are unable to discern the difference in magnitude between oppressive economic and legal manuevers versus targeted mass murder? Monsters like Calles don’t spring whole from the ground. They are formed in a subculture of hatred that takes time and simmering. Catholics who point out the parallels between Calles and Obama do so not to incite violence, but to call people to wake up and use their votes to end religious oppression before it becomes virulent enough to foment that violence and killing.

How sadly ironic that someone who decries violence would be upset at people for raising early warning alarms in an attempt to head off that violence before it gets started. What people here at CAF are calling people to is precisely what you said the Cristeros “should” have done: non-violent resistance and appeals to conscience and conversion. That won’t change until / unless the evil metastasizes and the government begins to seize children of ‘unfit’ parents who teach kids that gay marriage is immoral, unless bishops are assassinated by men jumping out of black helicopters, until professing and obedient catholics are banned from the medical profession and prosecuted if they continue to care for the sick, until they seize our schools and churches and park their tanks there and bunk their soldiers.

Thankfully, this is still hard to imagine. But it was for Mexicans before the revolution too. Anything can happen, even here. That’s a major lesson of history. Vigilence and early political action are the best hopes of prevention. But once true despots rise, armed resistance is NOT prohibited by catholicism. It got to that level for the Cristeros. God forbid it ever happen here. We can help by voting against those who introduce religious oppression into government policy and law.

 

[livingwordunity]

Jesus told Pilate that he could have organized an armed rebellion against the evil government, but choose not to.

The context was Jesus didn’t think the time was right for fighting back since he wanted to fulfill his mission for our redemption. In the Bible it teaches that there’s a time for peace and a time for war.

Jesus gave all of his authority to the Catholic Church and sent the Holy Spirit to to guarantee that what the Church teaches in regards to faith and morals will always be the truth. So here are two points to consider:

1. The Catholic Church teaches that there are times when it is right and just to fight in a war. And the Catholic Church has never had an absolute prohibition on war. Throughout the Bible there are wars with people who fight on the side of God. There was even a war in Heaven when Satan rebelled against God and began rallying the bad angels to come to his side. In this war in Heaven, Michael the archangel was rewarded for fighting the good fight against Satan, and Satan was punished for being on the wrong side of the battle.
2. The Cristeros rebellion resulted in freedom for the Catholic Church to open her doors for worship in Mexico.

The Catholic Church is not meant to be a political, revolutionary, or military organization.

The Catholic Church here on earth is called the Church militant. It’s because there’s a constant spiritual battle going on in the world between good and evil.

 

[livingwordunity]

Part of the mission of the Church Militant is to be involved with politics just as Jesus got involved in it. In a world of sin, the Catholic Church is considered counter-cultural or revolutionary because the gospel itself is revolutionary.

 

[Hacksaw_Jim]

I loved this movie. I cried a few times during it. Actually, my wife and I sat through the entire ending credits to give ourselves time to “dry up” before we went out into the lobby! Go see it! It was terrific!
And as much as some here in the forums might take issue with this inspiring movie (isn’t there always someone who does take issue with EVERY topic here?), I’d say the bigger issue was the 6 previews we watched before the movie started, which showed nothing but deceit, drugs, sex, theft, crime, gratuitous violence, etc, etc, etc all being glorified for entertainment’s sake. We were aghast! I felt like I needed to shower before I could watch the inspiring story of the Cristeros to wash the filth of those previews off of me. Honestly, I could actually hear others in the theater commenting sadly about the horrid crud that was being previewed before “For Greater Glory” was screened. The contrast between the previews and the valiant struggle of the Cristeros shown in the feature was startling and rather embarrassing. Had to get that off my chest…sorry if I strayed from the topic…anyway…
Go see this film. It will strengthen your faith. And Andy Garcia is splendid in it. What a performance!
Peace,
Jim

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

The movie is getting the reception that it is not because people want to shoot anyone, but because they realize that being a martyr in modern times isn’t an impossibility.

That willingness to suffer and perhaps die rather than accept having the priests killed and the churches desecrated and the practice of the faith wiped out and the Holy Name wiped from the mouths of all Mexicans is what the film is about.

If, in the course of an armed rebellion by Catholics to overthrown a government that is denying the rights of religious liberty to Catholics, an armed Catholic, who is part of that rebellion and who is trying to kill enemy soldiers, is himself killed in battle, does that Catholic qualify to be considered a martyr?

I thought a Catholic martyr was a Catholic willing to die for the True Faith, not someone willing to kill for the True Faith.

In Islam, we all know that any Muslim who dies while fighting Infidels (that includes Catholics) in battle is deemed a martyr and automatically goes straight to paradise and there enjoys exquisite joys.

We also know that at the time of the Crusades, the popes granted indulgences to knights fighting the Infidels (Muslim) such that any knight who died in such fighting was assured that his sins would be wiped clean, thus virtually assuring him immediate entrance into Heaven.

Be that as it may, I believe it is still the case that one cannot be declared a martyr in the eyes of the Catholic Church if one is killed while engaged in the enterprise of attempting to kill other people.

A martyr must be a man or women of peace, like Jesus Christ, who had the power to annihilate the Roman Empire’s army and rulers, and the wicked Jewish rulers, but chose not to do so. In fact, right now, Jesus Christ has the power to annihilate all sinners and oppressors on the earth, but chooses not to do so.

Even when a war is justified, as far as I know, no Catholic can be canonized a martyr if he dies while carrying out his soldier duties on the battlefield.

The Church is not supposed to promote the Faith by the sword. It has done that in the past, without a doubt, such as when the pope ordered the annihilation of the Cathars, and when the pope authorized anyone to assassinate Queen Elizabeth the First of England.

War is not always wrong, but it is never a holy or saintly business.

Is there a single canonized Catholic saint who was soldier who died in battle?

I sense, in the U.S. at the present time, a huge lust for war–real, actual, bloody war–against the Infidels (Liberals) of our time. After 40 years of wrangling with these Infidels and getting nowhere, and watching these Infidels get more and more of what they want (gay marriage, and so on), I sense, and hear in the rhetoric, a lust for violence that is akin to what developed in Germany following the the First World War and the Great Depression. This lust is being justified on holy grounds. But there are not holy grounds for a lust for violence.

Maybe we can eventually get Liberals out of power by education, the new evangelization, elections, Supreme Court nominations. But if we can’t do it peacefully, then, I say, it isn’t meant by God to happen. God never promised that Christians would rule in this world prior to the return of Christ.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

I loved this movie. I cried a few times during it. Actually, my wife and I sat through the entire ending credits to give ourselves time to “dry up” before we went out into the lobby! Go see it! It was terrific!.
Go see this film. It will strengthen your faith. And Andy Garcia is splendid in it. What a performance!
Peace,
Jim

Thanks for your comment. Glad you liked the movie “For Greater Glory.” It is a well made movie with a cast of great actors.

Yet, compare the Cristeros War to what Jesus and his apostles and early disciples did as described in the New Testament. Anything like the Cristeros War carried out by Christ or the Christians in the New Testament?

In the period when the Church was wed to the State, the Church was heavily involved in lots of violence that could rightly be called religious violence. But the Church is no longer wed to the State. The Vatican II Council constituted a divorce of the Church and the State. That is made clear in its Decree on Religious Liberty, and in other Vatican II documents as well. That Council put the Church back into its pre-Constantinism state.

Today, some have a new solution. They want to have the Church marry a Party, and then have the Party take over the State. The result I see is that in the U.S. many Catholics can hardly distinguish between Party and Church.