F
FightingFat
Guest
I’m sorry mosher but you are mistaken. Even in the early church the topic was moot between two schools of thought; those that felt the battle should be purely spiritual, and waged in the monastaries and convents and Churches and those who thought that physical action was the answer justified as has been mentioned here by ‘laying down your life for your Christian brother’ but also, by another piece of Scripture no one has yet cited, that of Jesus and the Roman Soldier (Matthew 8:5-15)To pose the question is not a denial of the same. Rather such moral principles need to be constantly reviewed for their validity.
Love is the impetus to fight a just war. The position that you advocate is contrary to the view of the Church when it took up this issue formally in the Early Church. Upon reflection it was determined that the command to love has within itself the command to fight even in combat if necessary for the sake of love. Hence to separate love and the defense of others is to distort love at its very foundation.
I can see that war is a tremendous sacrifice for those who fight- those who don’t want to, but feel it is necessary to protect their families, their families freedoms and indeed in many cases their lives. But war is always a defeat for humanity. It represents a failure; and this is how the Church clearly represents it. There is no ambiguity in Church teaching in this regard.