Killing Enemy Combatants a Sin?

[Madaglan]

I notice that, in the West, it is acceptable for a Christian soldier to kill enemy combatants, especially in cases of Just War or Crusade, where the opposing side is in the wrong and poses a serious threat.

Recently I also re-read the Song of Roland (told/written about the 11th century) and was surprised by the militant fervor against Islam/Muslims. In the poem, even the character Archbishop Turpin engages in lethal combat against the Muslims, and considers the killing of Muslim troops a great boon, even meritorious.

While many Western Christians today may not hold to a crusader mentality against forces which threaten Christianity, I notice that many still consider soldiery noble, and the killing of, say, Islamic jihadists, a thing that is necessary for the protection of America; the killing is not a sin, since it is done in battle, at the risk of self-sacrifice, and is done for the sake of defending others. Catholics who legitimately kill in battle are allowed to receive the Eucharist without a period of penance.

Being more immersed in Eastern Christianity, I notice a somewhat different attitude: soldiers who kill in battle are excluded from the Eucharist for a period of time. If what they did was not a sin, it is at least considered not proper for someone who recently shed blood to approach the Chalice. It seems this difference of belief goes back to the first millenium. In reaction to the charges made against the Eastern Church in Humbert’s excommunication letter, Patriarch Michael of Constantinople charged the Latins with, among other things, allowing soldiers who had shed blood to partake in the Eucharist without a prior period of exclusion. I also read today that at least one Patriarch of Constantinople declared that soldiers who killed in battle could not be considered martyrs.

While I believe that Christians ideally should not be killing other persons who are in the image of God, I also recognize that defending the Faith sometimes means defending against forces which would destroy the passing down of that Faith if they could. I do not want to risk seeing soldiery and bloodshed exalted as a path to salvation; on the other hand, I do not want to see soldiery, which in most cases necessarily implies bloodshed, considered a sinful vocation.

What do Eastern Catholics make of this?

 

[Nimzovik]

Is the war just or not?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I notice that, in the West, it is acceptable for a Christian soldier to kill enemy combatants, especially in cases of Just War or Crusade, where the opposing side is in the wrong and poses a serious threat.

Recently I also re-read the Song of Roland (told/written about the 11th century) and was surprised by the militant fervor against Islam/Muslims. In the poem, even the character Archbishop Turpin engages in lethal combat against the Muslims, and considers the killing of Muslim troops a great boon, even meritorious.

While many Western Christians today may not hold to a crusader mentality against forces which threaten Christianity, I notice that many still consider soldiery noble, and the killing of, say, Islamic jihadists, a thing that is necessary for the protection of America; the killing is not a sin, since it is done in battle, at the risk of self-sacrifice, and is done for the sake of defending others. Catholics who legitimately kill in battle are allowed to receive the Eucharist without a period of penance.

Being more immersed in Eastern Christianity, I notice a somewhat different attitude: soldiers who kill in battle are excluded from the Eucharist for a period of time. If what they did was not a sin, it is at least considered not proper for someone who recently shed blood to approach the Chalice. It seems this difference of belief goes back to the first millenium. In reaction to the charges made against the Eastern Church in Humbert’s excommunication letter, Patriarch Michael of Constantinople charged the Latins with, among other things, allowing soldiers who had shed blood to partake in the Eucharist without a prior period of exclusion. I also read today that at least one Patriarch of Constantinople declared that soldiers who killed in battle could not be considered martyrs.

While I believe that Christians ideally should not be killing other persons who are in the image of God, I also recognize that defending the Faith sometimes means defending against forces which would destroy the passing down of that Faith if they could. I do not want to risk seeing soldiery and bloodshed exalted as a path to salvation; on the other hand, I do not want to see soldiery, which in most cases necessarily implies bloodshed, considered a sinful vocation.

What do Eastern Catholics make of this?

Read the history of the 400 year or so Muslim conquest of Christian countries from Egypt to North Africa to Spain and around up through the Holy Land through Turkey into Italy.

 

[socialcath101]

It’s called Just War theory…

But Catholics are often at the front of opposing unjust wars… Such as Iraq which Blessed John Paul strongly opposed… And don’t forget Vietnam…

I’m sure Dick Cheney would have wanted to throw him in Guantanamo for doing so … I remember it clearly because a lot of conservatives were mad at the Pope for opposing the war at the time…

 

[grandfather]

I notice that, in the West, it is acceptable for a Christian soldier to kill enemy combatants, especially in cases of Just War or Crusade, where the opposing side is in the wrong and poses a serious threat.

Recently I also re-read the Song of Roland (told/written about the 11th century) and was surprised by the militant fervor against Islam/Muslims. In the poem, even the character Archbishop Turpin engages in lethal combat against the Muslims, and considers the killing of Muslim troops a great boon, even meritorious.

While many Western Christians today may not hold to a crusader mentality against forces which threaten Christianity, I notice that many still consider soldiery noble, and the killing of, say, Islamic jihadists, a thing that is necessary for the protection of America; the killing is not a sin, since it is done in battle, at the risk of self-sacrifice, and is done for the sake of defending others. Catholics who legitimately kill in battle are allowed to receive the Eucharist without a period of penance.

Being more immersed in Eastern Christianity, I notice a somewhat different attitude: soldiers who kill in battle are excluded from the Eucharist for a period of time. If what they did was not a sin, it is at least considered not proper for someone who recently shed blood to approach the Chalice. It seems this difference of belief goes back to the first millenium. In reaction to the charges made against the Eastern Church in Humbert’s excommunication letter, Patriarch Michael of Constantinople charged the Latins with, among other things, allowing soldiers who had shed blood to partake in the Eucharist without a prior period of exclusion. I also read today that at least one Patriarch of Constantinople declared that soldiers who killed in battle could not be considered martyrs.

While I believe that Christians ideally should not be killing other persons who are in the image of God, I also recognize that defending the Faith sometimes means defending against forces which would destroy the passing down of that Faith if they could. I do not want to risk seeing soldiery and bloodshed exalted as a path to salvation; on the other hand, I do not want to see soldiery, which in most cases necessarily implies bloodshed, considered a sinful vocation.

What do Eastern Catholics make of this?

Killing is always evil. Ware is always an evil. It is not always immoral. Sometimes it is immoral to not kill.

Suppose a policeman encounters a scene where a man has a knife and is ready to murder an innocent person or persons. Or a lunatic with weapons takes innocent hostges and threatens to kill them.

The policeman draws his pistol and orders the man to drop the knife. The man instead raises the knife over the intended victim, his hostage or a child. The moral act for the policeman is to stop the murder by shooting the murderer and protecting the innocent.

Nevertheless, the trauma to the hostage, witnessing another person be shot dead, the blood and gore is all evil. The policeman also has to deal with his conscience and an evil memory, but he did the right thing, the only moral thing he could do. His job is to protect the innocent.

There is evil in the world and using lethal force to stop it is not immoral. There is no sin in it.

The barrier preventing a Catholic from receiving the Eucharist is sin. The policeman or soldier acts in justice and commits no sin when defending others. If the Orthodox have a different perspective I would be surprised. Telling a person to do penance for a heroic and moral act and remain away from the sacrament is irrational in the Catholic mind.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

What do Eastern Catholics make of this?

Sorry you haven’t got much in the way of “on-point response” to your rather direct question.

Given that we thankfully have of late many soldiers returning home from deployments, it is a very thoughtful and timely question.

While I am uncertain, I’m going to Liturgy tonight for the feast of the Theophany, and I wil lask our very reliable, well educated pastor this very question. I’ll post his response later this evening.

Peace be with all, and we pray for all our armed forces personnel (we in the Byzantine Rite do so EVERY Divine Liturgy)!

 

[Madaglan]

St. Sergius of Radonezh, highly venerated amongst Orthodox, and sometimes compared with the popularity of St. Francis of Assisi in the West, ordered (I believe) two of his monks into battle against the Tartars. (Interestingly, he also is on the Roman Martyrology, placed there by Pope Pius XII.)

Eastern Christians more directly involved in battle and canonized (for their war efforts?) are St. Dimitry Donskoy and St. Alexander Nevsky–the former given a blessing by St. Sergius to fight the Tartars, and the latter who fought invading Teutonic Knights and Swedes.

 

[Madaglan]

I read it in a Timeline of Eastern Christian History: The First Millenium, Kathryn Tsai. The comment, on p. 173, is for the year 963, and mentions a Patriarch Polyeuctus of Constant(name removed by moderator)ole who rejects a Nicephorus II Phocas’ proposal to consider as martyrs Christians who die in combating Muslims. The comment goes on to say that Patriarch Polyeuctus upholds the teaching that a soldier who kills an enemy soldier must do penance.

 

[Madaglan]

Sorry you haven’t got much in the way of “on-point response” to your rather direct question.

Given that we thankfully have of late many soldiers returning home from deployments, it is a very thoughtful and timely question.

While I am uncertain, I’m going to Liturgy tonight for the feast of the Theophany, and I wil lask our very reliable, well educated pastor this very question. I’ll post his response later this evening.

Peace be with all, and we pray for all our armed forces personnel (we in the Byzantine Rite do so EVERY Divine Liturgy)!

Thank you! I look forward to your pastor’s response!

 

[Madaglan]

Ware is always an evil.

I actually find Bishop Kallistos Ware a good man!

Regarding the rest of your post, I follow your logic and do not object.

 

[5Loaves]

There was a very good discussion yesterday on Catholic Radio about under what circumstances it would be acceptable, and when not acceptable, to kill a tyrant. I’m sure the program would be archived. I just don’t remember what it was… probably Catholic Answers Live. Did anyone else hear it? “Tyrannicide” was a new word for my vocabulary, BTW…

 

[hosemonkey]

I am a three-tour Vietnam U.S. Navy combat veteran. Many times before an operation we would attend mass and receive Holy Communion, and again when we returned. We departed each time knowing that we had every possibility of administering death to the enemy. While it was stressful, I had no sense of sin. Our Chaplain always blessed us and prayed for us.

 

[Milk_And_Honey]

A Military Chaplain Repents
by Rev. Emmanuel Charles McCarthy

This article planted a seed in me that continues to grow. I posted about it on this forum in August. Pacifism and the East

As I said in that post, Fr. Emmanuel Charles McCarthy is a priest of the Eastern Rite (Byzantine-Melkite) of the Catholic Church. Formerly a lawyer and a university educator, he is the founder and the original director of The Program for the Study and Practice of Nonviolent Conflict Resolution at the University of Notre Dame. He is also co-founder, along with Dorothy Day and others of Pax Christi-USA. Fr. Emmanuel’s daughter, Teresa Benedicta McCarthy, was the cause for the canonization of Edith Stein (Saint Teresia Benedicta of the Cross).

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I am a three-tour Vietnam U.S. Navy combat veteran. Many times before an operation we would attend mass and receive Holy Communion, and again when we returned. We departed each time knowing that we had every possibility of administering death to the enemy. While it was stressful, I had no sense of sin. Our Chaplain always blessed us and prayed for us.

Thank you for your post, and we thank you for your service to our country!

My youngest uncle and I were very close. He was of your generation and also fought in Vietnam (Army). The experience forever changed him. While he returned home largely uninjured and was able to remain faithful to Church and family, he was riddled with guilt for the rest of his life. He died tragically while on the job (highway road construction), and we still wonder whether the circumstances were truly accidental …

We’re glad you made it through, and pray for you and your family!

We also pray for the brave Chaplains who sustained you throughout!

 

[hosemonkey]

Thank you for your post, and we thank you for your service to our country!

My youngest uncle and I were very close. He was of your generation and also fought in Vietnam (Army). The experience forever changed him. While he returned home largely uninjured and was able to remain faithful to Church and family, he was riddled with guilt for the rest of his life. He died tragically while on the job (highway road construction), and we still wonder whether the circumstances were truly accidental …

Thank you for the kind words, it was my honor and privilege to serve. For many years after the war I had a great sense of anger, which ruined my first marriage. I later discovered that it was caused by PTSD, of which little was known at the time. I finally lost that anger, and forgave myself, long after at a Retrouvaille weekend, counseled by a very compassionate priest. I had long since confessed my anger and had been absolved, but could not forgive myself. The killing still haunts me though.
After the war, I sought a career in the Fire Service, partly because I had become an adrenaline junkie and partly because I wanted to be saving lives instead of taking them. That led to a twenty-year career as a Firefighter/Paramedic. Life has been good.

 

[5Loaves]

We also pray for the brave Chaplains who sustained you throughout!

Gospodi pomilui!

 

[grandfather]

A Military Chaplain Repents
by Rev. Emmanuel Charles McCarthy

This article planted a seed in me that continues to grow. I posted about it on this forum in August. Pacifism and the East

The response or reaction of the chaplain who witnessed the horrors of WWII as the priest in the interview did, especially having involvement, albeit indirectly, with the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is very understandable.

There are some theological problems with his claim that the Church for 1700 years has abandoned the teaching of Christ. If he is correct then it would also be true that the Church has essentially apostacized after 300 years of being faithful.

If that is true then Christ’s promise to send the Holy Spirit to lead His Church into all truth until the end of time, is false.

If there is any serious moral issue that the Church is wrong about, or has failed to speak on then Christ’s promises are false.

The same is true of any moral issue, not only war. If it is immoral that the civil state execute criminals and the Church has failed to condemn it, has at best been silent and possibly sanctioned such great evil, the Christ’s promise to the Church is false.

Morality and truth do not change. Recent popes have spoken against capital punishment. If they were to say it is sinful, always intrinsically immoral, they would be saying their predecessors in failing to condemn it for so many centuries, essentially being silent on it, were wrong.

If those who claimed the authority to teach in Christ’s name were wrong then, because their teaching was not protected by the Holy Spirit as guaranteed by Christ, then there is no guarantee that those currently in that same office are right either.

The day that a pope proclaims a dogmatic truth that contradicts the teaching of a past pope is the end of the papacy. Recent popes have expressed their personal opinions on the matter, but that will never become dogma.

The same is true of warfare. If there is never a legitimate reason to fight a war then it is true that the Church has abandoned the truth for 1700 years. If that is true there is no reason to listen to anything the Church says. It does not know or has failed to proclaim truth. The sole means by which we know truth in faith is through the teaching of the Church as guaranteed by Christ in His promises to the apostles and their successors.

If it is sinful to use violence to halt or prevent violence then it is sinful for a policeman to shoot someone who is on a murderous binge to halt the carnage. This is absurd.

 

[Milk_And_Honey]

If that is true then Christ’s promise to send the Holy Spirit to lead His Church into all truth until the end of time, is false.

If there is any serious moral issue that the Church is wrong about, or has failed to speak on then Christ’s promises are false.

The same is true of any moral issue, not only war. If it is immoral that the civil state execute criminals and the Church has failed to condemn it, has at best been silent and possibly sanctioned such great evil, the Christ’s promise to the Church is false.

Your understanding of the inerrancy of the church and her clerics is not the church’s understanding.

Canon #2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

I actually find Bishop Kallistos Ware a good man!

Regarding the rest of your post, I follow your logic and do not object.

Hooray Kallistos!

 

[twf]

Is it possible that this is simply a difference in discipline rather than in doctrine? The Byzantine Empire certainly waged war when necessary (and sometimes when not) and the Orthodox Church certainly never declared the soldier profession to be sinful - quite the contrary as demonstrated by the soldier saints already referenced in this forum. This is just a guess, but perhaps while not sinful in this particular context, the very act of shedding blood, of destroying an image of God, is considered unclean in and of itself, even if the individual does not incur sin, and thus the individual is not considered properly disposed to receive the Lord in holy communion. For example, in both the West and East, if we do not fast prior to the liturgy, we are asked to refrain from holy communion - not because we have sinned, but because we are not properly disposed to receive the awesome life-giving mysteries - an event that requires spiritual preparation. The Lord did not allow King David to build his temple because he had blood on his hands - even though David had already been forgiven of any sins he had committed.
Just a thought.