In quoting the Word of God do Catholics want it both ways?

[ahimsaman72]

Trelow:

It has to be. If one is to be a pacifist then one would have to never support acts of violence for any reason what so ever. One would be in support of those who by force and might would exterminate any who oppose them, simply because one would be against use of forces of arm to rectify the situation. One would thusly condemn the acts the Israelites commanded by God in the holy scriptures, and the acts of Jesus himself.

Pacifism is contrary to the nature of Christianity, and therefore heresy. Christianity requires the we exercise all the facilities given to us by the Lord our God, including common sense.

I guess the reason I asked was because my understanding of pacifism was different than I perceived the poster’s understanding to be. Here is what I got from the dictionary online:

**pac·i·fism **
NOUN:

1. 
   *]The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.
   1. 
      *]Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
      *]Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.
      
      Now, this is what I considered the definition to be. It seems to be more related to corporate relationships and not individual. For instance, I don’t believe war is the answer in settling all disputes. It is to be avoided at all costs. That’s different than someone trying to harm an innocent person and standing by and doing nothing about it.
      
      I’m not arguing the point - just trying to clear up what is being discussed to make sure we are all on the same page. If we can’t even agree on what “pacifism” is then, we will never be able to intelligently discuss the issue.
      
      Peace…

 

[johnshelby]

and, another thing to keep in mind about Catholic
teaching on this subject…

it’s not saying ‘trying to kill someone to protect someone
or something is alright’… it’s saying, that if in the act of
protecting someone or something, the person you are
trying to stop from commiting the ‘crime’ gets killed, then
that of it’self is not sin…

if you go into it trying to kill the person, such as, if you
pointed a gun dilberately at the other person’s heart so
as to kill them, it no longer becomes as clear cut… no
matter what the circumstances…

like most moral issues, it’s not cut and dried…

 

[Robert_Heibel]

Semper Fi:

He personally told you? When did He return? Are you a new prophet?

I suggest you check out catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp.

No, I am getting quite old. Ask yourself did Jesus have to come back to talk to Paul?

 

[Trelow]

johnshelby:

and, another thing to keep in mind about Catholic
teaching on this subject…

it’s not saying ‘trying to kill someone to protect someone
or something is alright’… it’s saying, that if in the act of
protecting someone or something, the person you are
trying to stop from commiting the ‘crime’ gets killed, then
that of it’self is not sin…

if you go into it trying to kill the person, such as, if you
pointed a gun dilberately at the other person’s heart so
as to kill them, it no longer becomes as clear cut… no
matter what the circumstances…

like most moral issues, it’s not cut and dried…

Where do you propose you point the gun? Two in the chest, standard self defense, and for good reason. You ain’t going to be shooting the gun out of somebody’s hand or shooting their kneecaps. If somebody thinks they are, they have no business owing a gun.

 

[puzzleannie]

(Matthew 16:18-19) “

How come then when Matthew is again quoted it has to be watered down like in the following example. A Catholic director, Religious Education “The Catholic tradition teaches that while all killing is morally wrong, . . . . . … .”

a Catholic RE teacher or director is not a spokesman for the entire Church. he or she is commissioned by their pastor, with the authority of the bishop to teach and transmit the fullness of Catholic teaching on any topic. Like many or most serving the Church, they are capable of error, and not infrequently may teach something wrong or state it incompletely or imperfectly. They are not infallible. We do not use their errors, if they do err, to attack Church teaching on an issue.

If you would like to discuss Catholic teaching on just war, capital punishment or other life issues, there are many active threads on these topics. Your arguments for or against any of these issues will have much more weight, and lead to much more beneficial discussion if you refrain from attacking “the Church” or “all Catholics” on the basis of statements from one or another individual. The DRE is NOT “all Catholics”, so don’t make general statements about “all Catholics” based on one isolated statement or incident. Your topic is much too important to be derailed in this way.

 

[Robert_Heibel]

johnshelby:

and, another thing to keep in mind about Catholic
teaching on this subject…

it’s not saying ‘trying to kill someone to protect someone
or something is alright’… it’s saying, that if in the act of
protecting someone or something, the person you are
trying to stop from commiting the ‘crime’ gets killed, then
that of it’self is not sin…

if you go into it trying to kill the person, such as, if you
pointed a gun dilberately at the other person’s heart so
as to kill them, it no longer becomes as clear cut… no
matter what the circumstances…

like most moral issues, it’s not cut and dried…

Ask Jesus, He will take any confusion out of the question.

 

[Robert_Heibel]

puzzleannie:

a Catholic RE teacher or director is not a spokesman for the entire Church. he or she is commissioned by their pastor, with the authority of the bishop to teach and transmit the fullness of Catholic teaching on any topic. Like many or most serving the Church, they are capable of error, and not infrequently may teach something wrong or state it incompletely or imperfectly. They are not infallible. We do not use their errors, if they do err, to attack Church teaching on an issue.

If you would like to discuss Catholic teaching on just war, capital punishment or other life issues, there are many active threads on these topics. Your arguments for or against any of these issues will have much more weight, and lead to much more beneficial discussion if you refrain from attacking “the Church” or “all Catholics” on the basis of statements from one or another individual. The DRE is NOT “all Catholics”, so don’t make general statements about “all Catholics” based on one isolated statement or incident. Your topic is much too important to be derailed in this way.

It doesn’t matter which teaching or teacher we listen to, there is no such thing as a just war.

 

[Trelow]

ahimsaman72:

I guess the reason I asked was because my understanding of pacifism was different than I perceived the poster’s understanding to be. Here is what I got from the dictionary online:

**pac·i·fism **
NOUN:

1. 
   *]The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.
   1. 
      *]Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
      *]Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.
      
      Now, this is what I considered the definition to be. It seems to be more related to corporate relationships and not individual. For instance, I don’t believe war is the answer in settling all disputes. It is to be avoided at all costs. That’s different than someone trying to harm an innocent person and standing by and doing nothing about it.
      
      I’m not arguing the point - just trying to clear up what is being discussed to make sure we are all on the same page. If we can’t even agree on what “pacifism” is then, we will never be able to intelligently discuss the issue.
      
      Peace…

1. 1. 
      Here is a more traditional definition. I’m taking in regards to absolute pacifism.
      
      wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=pacifism
      
      S: pacifism, pacificism, passivism (the doctrine that all violence in unjustifiable)
      S: pacifism, pacificism (the belief that all international disputes can be settled by arbitration)

 

[puzzleannie]

Robert Heibel:

]It doesn’t matter which teaching or teacher we listen to, there is no such thing as a just war.

that is a viable position for discussion, so why not discuss it, without beginning your argument with a false statement about “all Catholics” based on the statement of one individual? your points could be made much more strongly if you began with stated Catholic teaching from the catechism and other documents, with the scriptural and doctrinal support in the footnotes, and then brought in your own rebuttals with scriptural citations. No need to add extraneous unhelpful comments.

 

[Robert_Heibel]

Subrosa:

In the Beatitudes, Jesus tells us “blessed are the peacemakers” (Matt. 5:9). Elsewhere in the Sermon on the Mount he tells us “if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matt. 5:39). From such verses some have concluded that Christianity is a pacifist religion and that violence is never permitted.

But the same Jesus elsewhere acknowledges the legitimate use of force, telling the apostles, “let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one” (Luke 22:36). How are these passages to be reconciled?

In broad terms, Christians must not love violence. They must promote peace whenever possible and be slow to resort to the use of arms. But they must not be afraid to do so when it is called for. Evil must not be allowed to remain unchecked.

Added weight is given to this realization when one recognizes that Scripture – all of Scripture – is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). This means that the Old Testament is just as inspired as the New Testament and thus an expression of the will of Christ.

The Old Testament acknowledges frankly that there is “a time to kill” (Eccles. 3:3). At various times in the Old Testament, God commanded the Israelites to defend their nation by force of arms. Yet it was always with the recognition that peace is the goal to be worked for. Thus the psalmist exclaims, “how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!” (Ps. 133:1). Peace is the goal, but when it cannot be achieved without force, force must be used.

In the same way, the New Testament sets forth the goal of peace but acknowledges the legitimate use of force. It does so by John the Baptist’s acknowledgment that Roman soldiers, whose job it was to enforce the Pax Romana, or “Peace of Rome,” could keep their jobs (Luke 3:14) and by Paul’s observation that the state “does not bear the sword in vain” but is “God’s servant for your good” (Rom. 13:4).

John the Baptist was still under the Old Law. Jesus very clearly came to complete the Old Law and Instituted a New Covenant. Jesus is God and what He said is law. How dare anyone disobey the Word of God?

 

[Robert_Heibel]

puzzleannie:

that is a viable position for discussion, so why not discuss it, without beginning your argument with a false statement about “all Catholics” based on the statement of one individual? your points could be made much more strongly if you began with stated Catholic teaching from the catechism and other documents, with the scriptural and doctrinal support in the footnotes, and then brought in your own rebuttals with scriptural citations. No need to add extraneous unhelpful comments.

Wow! You probably are right, but I’m just supposed to get a message to people. It isn’t my place to prove anything. I use what Jesus taught me along with His Word, and give a word. All anyone has to do is ask Jesus if what I say is right.

 

[Trelow]

Robert Heibel:

]It doesn’t matter which teaching or teacher we listen to, there is no such thing as a just war.

Even though God himself has commanded war, you by the power of your own private revelation declare “there is no such thing as a just war”.

Alrighty then…

 

[NotWorthy]

Jesus, himself brought up the act of killing in self defense, and did not condemn it. On the Sabbath, when He was healing the man’s withered hand, Jesus alluded to Maccabees (Oh, the horror - Jesus referring to an “Apochrypha” Book!), when He asked is it better to heal on the Sabbath than to kill.

This comes from the Revolt of the Maccabees, and the Jews decided it was better to fight on the Sabbath, then to be slaughtered by the Gentiles without lifting a finger.

Jesus brings this up to antagonize the Pharisees, but he does not condemn it. Yes, we understand healing is better, but that doesn’t negate the legitimacy of self defense.

Notworthy

 

[Robert_Heibel]

Trelow:

That is why he came. I am here to protect and serve my family, I can’t do that very well if I run about giving stickers and fresh baked cookies to those trying to murder and rape them.

Let me tell you a little story. My wife and I were praying when Jesus told me that we were not to hurt anyone for any reason. I shared this with my wife. She became very angry and asked me “You mean if someone was to come in our house to rape me, you would let him?” My answer was: “I would get in his way, but I wouldn’t hurt him.” My wife angrily left the room, and I never spoke to her again about not hurting anyone. I knew she had a close relationship with God and He would convince her in His own way. A short time latter she came to me and said: “I wouldn’t want you to.” Jesus taught her also that we are not to hurt anyone.

 

[Trelow]

Robert Heibel:

Let me tell you a little story. My wife and I were praying when Jesus told me that we were not to hurt anyone for any reason. I shared this with my wife. She became very angry and asked me “You mean if someone was to come in our house to rape me, you would let him?” My answer was: “I would get in his way, but I wouldn’t hurt him.” My wife angrily left the room, and I never spoke to her again about not hurting anyone. I knew she had a close relationship with God and He would convince her in His own way. A short time latter she came to me and said: “I wouldn’t want you to.” Jesus taught her also that we are not to hurt anyone.

Not all voices are from God.

The Serpent only bent the truth when speaking to Eve as well.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Robert Heibel:

Let me tell you a little story. My wife and I were praying when Jesus told me that we were not to hurt anyone for any reason. I shared this with my wife. She became very angry and asked me “You mean if someone was to come in our house to rape me, you would let him?” My answer was: “I would get in his way, but I wouldn’t hurt him.” My wife angrily left the room, and I never spoke to her again about not hurting anyone. I knew she had a close relationship with God and He would convince her in His own way. A short time latter she came to me and said: “I wouldn’t want you to.” Jesus taught her also that we are not to hurt anyone.

You are contradicting Sacred Scripture as well as Sacred Tradition, thus it isn’t Jesus that’s coming from…

 

[johnshelby]

Robert Heibel:

Ask Jesus, He will take any confusion out of the question.

11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

there is such thing as just war, and yes, i know this is speaking of
spiritual warfare, but isn’t spiritual combat much more deadly and
much more permanent than physical combat… if you can have a
‘just’ spitirual war, then why is it so difficult to imagine a just
physical war?

 

[Della]

Robert Heibel:

Let me tell you a little story. My wife and I were praying when Jesus told me that we were not to hurt anyone for any reason. I shared this with my wife. She became very angry and asked me “You mean if someone was to come in our house to rape me, you would let him?” My answer was: “I would get in his way, but I wouldn’t hurt him.” My wife angrily left the room, and I never spoke to her again about not hurting anyone. I knew she had a close relationship with God and He would convince her in His own way. A short time latter she came to me and said: “I wouldn’t want you to.” Jesus taught her also that we are not to hurt anyone.

If I were your wife I’d had have told you that you are a poor protector. Then, I’d take lessons in self-defense so that when you stepped in front of a criminal and got your butt kicked, I could step in, disable him and save not only my life but yours, as well.

You know, self-defense doesn’t have to mean owning a gun. You can learn methods of self-defense that only render the perpetrator unable to do any more harm until the police arrive or you can scare him off. Killing anyone is a last resort–one that most of us will never be called to do. And maybe Jesus doesn’t want you in particular to kill anyone, but unless he comes to me and tells me the same thing in my case, I will follow what Christ’s Church teaches me on the subject.

Also, when Jesus healed the centurion’s servant, it would have been the perfect opportunity for him to tell this soldier to cast aside his sword and live as a pacifist, but he didn’t do that, did he? Jesus never told those in positions of authority to give up their weapons or not go to war anymore. Paul too told us that the police officer carries his weapon for good cause, so we’d better behave ourselves because he has the authority to use his weapon to enforce the law.

If you don’t want to do anything to protect your family except some futile gesture, that’s your call, but it wouldn’t be mine. Not when I could do something to protect them short of killing anyone.

 

[johnshelby]

and what about the war in Heaven… ?

surely that was a just war…

 

[Della]

Addendum: If you don’t want to accept the Catholic Church’s teaching on this topic go to your Protestant pastor to see if he endorses your radical views. Unless you belong to a denom that is pacifist, which it doesn’t sound like you do, I’m sure he will tell you just what we’ve been telling you here–that he interprets Scripture on this subject in much the same way we do. Or, wouldn’t your pastor’s word be any better than ours?