Killing in the military...quick question

[Anim8]

I know that there is an exception to “Thou shalt not kill” when you are in the military fighting in war and so on, and I’m pretty sure that it flows from the self defence type of thing “If I don’t kill him he will kill me”. Anyways I am planning on joining the military (the USMC to be exact) and I was wondering if someone could kind of lay out exactly what the reasoning behind this is. I have no problem with it I’m just looking for clarification.

 

[Unfinished]

I am in the Marines, and it really comes down to a just war.

How many times in the Old Testement did God send his people to kill others? I don’t know the answer, but it was quite a few times.

Someone else might be able to present the whole arguement for a “just war”, I don’t know it.

It also deals with submitting to authority, including the secular authority. My Baptist Chaplin did a Bible study on this while I was in Iraq, and it made sense. I don’t remember all the details though. (Basicly, God still put them in a position of authority or something along those lines)

Perhaps another poster could fill those in, but those are the two things it deals with.

Adam

 

[Servant1]

We often say the command is “Thou shalt not kill.” In that kind of English, it actually reads “Thou shalt do no murder.”

It’s more than a subtle difference in wording. It’s a significant difference in impact and meaning.

 

[Brendan]

Here is the Council of Trent on the Subject

Killing In A Just War

In like manner, the soldier is guiltless who, actuated not by motives of ambition or cruelty, but by a pure desire of serving the interests of his country, takes away the life of an enemy in a just war.

Furthermore, there are on record instances of carnage executed by the special command of God. The sons of Levi, who put to death so many thousands in one day, were guilty of no sin; when the slaughter had ceased, they were addressed by Moses in these words: You have consecrated your hands this day to the Lord.

 

[tjmiller]

Takking the life of another justifiably - whether in war or otherwise - has traditionally been understood to apply not only in circumstances of self-defense, but also in defense of others, in view of the commandment to love one’s neighbor as oneself. While those committing genocide in Rwanda may have posed no threat to the national security of the USA, for example, we nonetheless would have been justified in the use of military force in such a situation, in view of these Catholic moral theological principles. Likewise, a soldier may rightly kill an enemy combatant who presents no immediate threat to himself, but will do so to his fellows or to innocent civilians.

 

[Anim8]

Thanks guys! I just needed to get everyting strait in my head.

 

[krokal]

Unfinished:

I am in the Marines, and it really comes down to a just war.

How many times in the Old Testement did God send his people to kill others? I don’t know the answer, but it was quite a few times.

You’re correct Sir. But answer me this, how many times did Jesus use violence against other people? You are probably going to say that Jesus was violent at the temple when he overthrew the tables, and that may very well be, but there is a vast difference between property destruction and violence towards other humans.

Anim8,

We’re probably the same age, and up until about a year ago, I had been dead-set on joining the United States Marines as well. After all, I had been involved in Marine Corps JROTC for 3 years and was quite successful in that program. So I completely understand your yearning to join the Marines; you want to serve your country, you want a challenge, but most of all, you want the comraderie of the USMC, right?

I could show you plenty of verses where Jesus talks about peace and love, but I doubt those would do much good. I think what it comes down to, is that, are you sincerely comfortable killing another human being (possibly a Christian) with Jesus Christ standing next to you? Jesus commanded to love and pray for your enemies, and I would like to know what distorted form of love allows you to kill one of God’s creatures?

By you making this thread in the first place, it shows that you have qualms about joining the military, correct? Do you think the need to ask for permission came from nowhere, or do you think your conscience is guiding you? You don’t need someone to affirm your decision unless you think it could be wrong.

 

[tjmiller]

Jesus said that He came to bring, not peace, but a sword…

 

[krokal]

Let me quote several verses are get them out of the way:

1. (Matthew 10:34) - “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35"For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.”
2. (Luke 12:51) - “Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three…”
3. (Luke 22:36) - "And He said to them, “But now, let him who has a purse take it along, likewise also a bag, and let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one.”

1 and 2 refer to Jesus fulfilling the prophecy of bringing division into this world. Context is really the key to understanding these verses. And even if we take what you said out of context, how does that justify supporting the military complex?

Part 3 is Jesus telling the disciples what to do when He departs from the Earth, so that they may defend themselves. Self-defense is vastly different from an entire military.

And what of

Mat 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

?

I’d rather not get into this contest of out-scripture-quoting the other person. We need to look at the Gospel as a whole and ask if military service is appropriate.

 

[PROUD_2_B_RC]

+JMJ+

Here’s what the Catechism has to say on the subject of self defense…2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not. "2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than the necessary violence, it will be unlawful:whereas if he repels force with moderation,his defense will be lawful…Nor is it necessary for salvation that man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man ,since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66

 2265Legitimate 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.For this reason,those who legitimatley hold authority also have a RIGHT to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility."

You can find this and much more on the subject of self defense,war,and other such life issues and the commandment “You shall not kill” in the CCC paragraphs 2258-2330.You see I to am getting ready to leave for basic.I am in the process of joing the army.So again when in doubt go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church!
God bless you and Mary keep you!

 

[KnightErrantJR]

Jesus was here to take OUR just punishment onto himself. He was also here to provide us an example by showing us that he truly understood us as one of us. If he was here to submit himself to authority, it wouldn’t really fulfill this mission if he picked up halberd and started laying the smack down on the Romans, would it now? Jesus does want us to strive for peace, and he wants us to abhor war and killing, but he did not tell the centurian that wanted to follow him that he should give up being a soldier. He told him not to kill wantonly and take advantage of those he had power over.

 

[krokal]

but he did not tell the centurian that wanted to follow him that he should give up being a soldier.

Did he ever tell the prostitutes he met to stop selling themselves?

And you have to understand that a Roman soldier in the 1st century is vastly different from say, an American one today. They were in the business of policing the Jews, repairing roads, and other civil service type affairs. It’s not like every soldier was engaged in violent activity for the state.

 

[grotto]

What was the soldiers answer when asked "what did you feel when you shot that terrorist? Answer: “Recoil”!

 

[PROUD_2_B_RC]

+JMJ+

The the Catechism has SPOKEN!

 

[krokal]

+JMJ+

The the Catechism has SPOKEN!

I fail you find the humor in such a serious matter. I don’t really understand how you can joke about violence.

Can you not distinguish between self-defense and joining the military? The two are vastly different. Violence isn’t some how justified by purposely throwing yourself into a dangerous situation.

.2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing.

Where does the CCC say that all actions by the United States Military are legimate?

If a man in self-defense uses more than the necessary violence, it will be unlawful:

So the question is, since when have cluster-bombs and depleted uranium been completely necessary?

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
-George Orwell

Extreme pacifism is a belief system held by people who depend on those they believe to be wrong for their own continued existence. While a world of pacifists would be a wonderful thing, the lifespan of a single nation of pacifists would be determined primarily by the speed of other nations’ armies.

Just my own thoughts, though I must admit that I’m in the military, so I’m a bit biased…

God bless!

 

[Ortho]

If you have any doubt about your ability to kill the enemy, don’t join the Marines. The rest of your unit will be depending on you.

 

[krokal]

The Iambic Pen:

Extreme pacifism is a belief system held by people who depend on those they believe to be wrong for their own continued existence. While a world of pacifists would be a wonderful thing, the lifespan of a single nation of pacifists would be determined primarily by the speed of other nations’ armies.

Just my own thoughts, though I must admit that I’m in the military, so I’m a bit biased…

God bless!

With all due respect Sir, I was in no way trying to sound like a pacifist. A pacifist, in my mind, is someone who does nothing to stop violence. I don’t consider Jesus a pacifist, nor do I think it is the right path for a Christian.

However, nonviolent resistance is another story. I think that is the right way to counter violence, and I also believe that is what Jesus Christ advocates. It’s very different from the two other ways of dealing with problems; fight or flight.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Kaleb Kroger:

With all due respect Sir, I was in no way trying to sound like a pacifist. A pacifist, in my mind, is someone who does nothing to stop violence. I don’t consider Jesus a pacifist, nor do I think it is the right path for a Christian.

However, nonviolent resistance is another story. I think that is the right way to counter violence, and I also believe that is what Jesus Christ advocates. It’s very different from the two other ways of dealing with problems; fight or flight.

I apologize for misunderstanding your view. While I can’t say I believe non-violent resistance is always the right way, as I will explain, I do believe it is the preferred way. It is also usually the most effective (for example, compare the results of the non-violent methods of the civil rights movement in the U.S. with the often violent methods of certain violent Palestinian groups).

However, the reason I can’t say non-violent resistance is always the right way to counter violence is that the option is not always given. If a foreign army (or any group or individual, for that matter) starts shooting at my friends and family, I have a far greater chance of saving them by taking up arms against the enemy, than I would if I just kneeled down in front of them and took a bullet along with everyone else.

I believe that individuals and nations should settle their differences peacefully. However, since many are unwilling to do so, and will readily take advantage of another’s weakness, I do believe a military is necessary to defend against threats. As I do not believe an institution can be necessary and evil at the same time, I must determine that a military is not evil, and those who serve in the military are not committing evil when rightfully carrying out their duties.

God bless!

 

[KnightErrantJR]

Kaleb Kroger:

Did he ever tell the prostitutes he met to stop selling themselves?

And you have to understand that a Roman soldier in the 1st century is vastly different from say, an American one today. They were in the business of policing the Jews, repairing roads, and other civil service type affairs. It’s not like every soldier was engaged in violent activity for the state.

He did say go forth and sin no more . . . which he did not say to the centurion. And are you saying that our soldiers are only involved in violent acts for the state? That Roman Centurions did less evil in their roles than our soldiers? Also, he told the centurion not to abuse his power. He never told the protitutes not to overcharge . . .