Love thy neighbor, does this include thy enemy?

[Della]

When you drop napalm on a soldier or a child, what do you think happens?
How did America show love toward the Vietnamese, when it dropped napalm on children?
If you are supposed to love your enemy, it seems like it is a strange type of love when you drop an atomic bomb on a whole city?

It’s an even stranger kind of love that would have sent hundreds of thousands if not a million men into battle to fight the last Japanese man, woman and child who were determined not to give up until the end. You forget that they had no Christian ethic behind their actions and had been responsible for the murder of thousands of peoples throughout Southeast Asia.

Again, and for the last time, Jesus was not addressing warfare, but PERSONAL enemies–pettiness and grudges and unforgiveness of those we find annonying. He was NOT addressing soldiers in battle or the bombing of cities in wartime. We have given you the Church’s understanding of this issue. It’s up to you to decide if you accept what the Church teaches or if you are determined to stick to your own ideas. We are not here to convince anyone, but to inform. The question has been answered.

 

[JoeBowen7]

It’s an even stranger kind of love that would have sent hundreds of thousands if not a million men into battle to fight the last Japanese man, woman and child who were determined not to give up until the end. You forget that they had no Christian ethic behind their actions and had been responsible for the murder of thousands of peoples throughout Southeast Asia.

Again, and for the last time, Jesus was not addressing warfare, but PERSONAL enemies–pettiness and grudges and unforgiveness of those we find annonying. He was NOT addressing soldiers in battle or the bombing of cities in wartime. We have given you the Church’s understanding of this issue. It’s up to you to decide if you accept what the Church teaches or if you are determined to stick to your own ideas. We are not here to convince anyone, but to inform. The question has been answered.

I do not forget that they had no Christian ethic. They were the enemy. The enemy we were fighting had no Christian ethic. However, we have the commandment to love your enemy. This is supposed to be whether the enemy is Christian or not. You are supposed to love him. Now how is it loving a person, especially a child,when you drop napalm on him and inflict horrific pain and damage and possibly a long painful and suffering death on the person. He is a person and it doesn’t seem like you are loving that person in such a case.

 

[Evan]

I do not forget that they had no Christian ethic. They were the enemy. The enemy we were fighting had no Christian ethic. However, we have the commandment to love your enemy. This is supposed to be whether the enemy is Christian or not. You are supposed to love him. Now how is it loving a person, especially a child,when you drop napalm on him and inflict horrific pain and damage and possibly a long painful and suffering death on the person. He is a person and it doesn’t seem like you are loving that person in such a case.

Joe, as I recall, our discussion was WWII, German soldiers. I don’t think we were fighting the Germans in Vietnam. I prefer to discuss a single incident and explain the situational ethics in that location. If you move to another war, the situation is different, as would be the ethical considerations.

I don’t treat a drug Lord the same way I treat and Burglar. I don’t treat a serial killer the same way I treat a shoplifter.

If we are discussing how we are loving in one situation and you then skip to another time and place, do I assume you understood what I was saying about that situation or are you just throwing spagetti against the wall and hoping something sticks?

Since we have shown you some situations and the ethics behind them, how would you explain the use of napalm in the time of war, using the ideas we presented? AFTER that you may want to ask if your interpretation is correct, offer an better way to achieve the desired end in that conflict and see if we can proceed with a discussion of tactics to love a neighbor while protecting your God given right to life.

 

[sw85]

My interpretation of all of this is that we should hope and pray for every single soul to enter Heaven, even the ones who appear to be the most evil. Our commandment is to pray for them and to love them and it is Jesus’ role to judge them when the time comes.

That is exactly what is meant by the commandment to “love.” i.e., exhibit caritas – the ordering of the will toward the good of another, simply for that other’s sake. Jesus wasn’t telling us to have sentimental affection for our enemies (that would be impossible, no?) but to will what is best for them.

 

[JoeBowen7]

Joe, as I recall, our discussion was WWII, German soldiers. I don’t think we were fighting the Germans in Vietnam. I prefer to discuss a single incident and explain the situational ethics in that location. If you move to another war, the situation is different, as would be the ethical considerations.

I don’t treat a drug Lord the same way I treat and Burglar. I don’t treat a serial killer the same way I treat a shoplifter.

If we are discussing how we are loving in one situation and you then skip to another time and place, do I assume you understood what I was saying about that situation or are you just throwing spagetti against the wall and hoping something sticks?

Since we have shown you some situations and the ethics behind them, how would you explain the use of napalm in the time of war, using the ideas we presented? AFTER that you may want to ask if your interpretation is correct, offer an better way to achieve the desired end in that conflict and see if we can proceed with a discussion of tactics to love a neighbor while protecting your God given right to life.

I am speaking about an enemy in the case of war. We have the commandment to love your enemy, which does not seem to be operative in the case of war as I have pointed out above.

 

[JoeBowen7]

That is exactly what is meant by the commandment to “love.” i.e., exhibit caritas – the ordering of the will toward the good of another, simply for that other’s sake. Jesus wasn’t telling us to have sentimental affection for our enemies (that would be impossible, no?) but to will what is best for them.

That is my question. How is it ordering of your will toward the good of a child, when you are dropping napalm on him and causing terrible damage, pain and suffering. There are pictures of children screaming in agony in Vietnam when this was done by American soldiers. How do you love your enemy if you are at war with him?

 

[Evan]

That is my question. How is it ordering of your will toward the good of a child, when you are dropping napalm on him and causing terrible damage, pain and suffering. There are pictures of children screaming in agony in Vietnam when this was done by American soldiers. How do you love your enemy if you are at war with him?

This question comes under the heading of Just War theory. Much has been written on the subject (see eg firstthings.com/article/2007/01/just-waras-it-was-and-is-2). I doubt all the thinking along these lines can be summed up in a forum thread.

Since my enemy may not be just one person, but an entire country of people, how can I protect the innocent, protect myself and my people, and act within the dictates of love simulaneously. This is why one must constantly review the attributes of a just war before AND during the war.

I don’t think there is justification for dropping napalm on a child, but I also don’t think any particular child is targeted during the napalm drops. Of course, Vietnam was before my time so I have never looked at that conflict. Nor WWI, WWII, the Civil War, or the Revolutionary War, though my family fought in all 4 of the latter (though not Catholic til WWII).

But to discuss the ethics of a particular battle in a particular war, is much easier that some generic ‘this is bad’ declaration where some hypothetical person was injured by some hypothetical other person in a generic conflict. Too easy to change the situation every time a justification is given.

For example: above, the child was entering my house with 10 lb of TNT about to destroy my family, so I dropped napalm on him from above. I was saving him from the sin of murder after which, I immediately called for an ambulance to get him aid.

But you say, he was just standing in a field. So I respond, napalm was used in jungled areas, not in open fields. So you change it again: he was walking on a jungle path. So maybe he was going to help in making bombs. So you change it again… This goes on forever. Best just to look a just war and try to find a way to achieve both: love the child, and the adult, and carry out a just war.

BTW, I don’t think the Church has ever used napalm to defend itself. Even against heretics!!

 

[sw85]

That is my question. How is it ordering of your will toward the good of a child, when you are dropping napalm on him and causing terrible damage, pain and suffering. There are pictures of children screaming in agony in Vietnam when this was done by American soldiers. How do you love your enemy if you are at war with him?

Does war prevent you from praying for the souls of your enemies? Praying for an end to war and the restoration of peace? Etc.

I think it’s strange you chose this particular example. You could just as easily have asked if it’s love for the state to execute a violent murderer. The answer is “of course it is.” I cannot will what’s best for someone without dealing with them as they are. A murderer is a person with moral agency and thus is responsible for their actions, so punishing them for their crimes is perfectly consistent with the duty to love.

Because “loving your enemy” doesn’t mean “pretending they aren’t your enemy.” It might, however, mean “wishing they aren’t your enemy.”

 

[JoeBowen7]

Does war prevent you from praying for the souls of your enemies? Praying for an end to war and the restoration of peace? Etc.

I think it’s strange you chose this particular example. You could just as easily have asked if it’s love for the state to execute a violent murderer. The answer is “of course it is.” I cannot will what’s best for someone without dealing with them as they are. A murderer is a person with moral agency and thus is responsible for their actions, so punishing them for their crimes is perfectly consistent with the duty to love.

Because “loving your enemy” doesn’t mean “pretending they aren’t your enemy.” It might, however, mean “wishing they aren’t your enemy.”

In the local Catholic newspaper, a priest has written an article saying that Christians must reject the death penalty. And Jesus Christ says to love your enemy. How come the Church tells us to reject the death penalty and the Bible says to love our enemy, but you are in favor or executing some enemies? I don’t see how all of this makes consistent sense.
It just doesn’t make sense to the ordinary person to say that you show your love to your enemy by killing him or by dropping napalm on his children. Perhaps a highly paid New York City lawyer could argue such, but a simple Christian peasant, such as myself, would have a difficult time with such a convoluted discussion.

 

[yellow8yellowM]

I get the feeling that some people on this thread have not read the Catechism paragraphs 2307-2317 linked below. I would strongly consider reading it before continuing, and then continue the discussion. I, for example, used to believe the A-bomb on Hiroshima was justified. After my conversion to Catholicism, I realized that this was an immoral act, even though it saved many American lives.

If you disagree with this, take it up with the Pope and the Mageristerium.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm

 

[JoeBowen7]

I get the feeling that some people on this thread have not read the Catechism paragraphs 2307-2317 linked below. I would strongly consider reading it before continuing, and then continue the discussion. I, for example, used to believe the A-bomb on Hiroshima was justified. After my conversion to Catholicism, I realized that this was an immoral act, even though it saved many American lives.

If you disagree with this, take it up with the Pope and the Mageristerium.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm

thank you. I certainly agree with you on that.

 

[Pitcharan]

“If you come across your enemy’s ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to take it back to him. If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help him with it. (Ex 23:4-5)

Love your enemy means do not hate him / her, i.e. do the needful when he / she is badly in need of love. Eg. You may shoot an enemy soldier in battle but ensure you treat your injured POWs with the same love you would show to your own.

During the 1999 ‘Kargil conflict’ between India and Pakistan, we (India) took upon ourselves huge casualties and lost hundreds of men ONLY because we did not want the situation to escalate into a full fledged war and destroy peace in the entire region. For the larger sake of peace, we avoided air strikes and crossing of the LoC (border) and our soldiers climbed the mountain on foot braving continuous firing and died in hundreds. But we succeeded in winning the war, evicting the enemy and also ensuring long-term peace at the cost of many lives of our men. During the battle we gave the best medical treatment to injured POWs. We buried the dead of the enemy wrapped in their own flag, with utmost honour and respect .

In another older (1971) war with Pakistan, the POWs were simply amazed with our Army Chief - Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw. Read this news item: The honourable treatment of 90,000 Pakistani prisoners of war added to Manekshaw’s glory. “The 11th man took out his pagri (headgear) and put it on my feet. He said, "Huzoor aap hain toh huma zinda hain. Mere paanch ladke aapki qaid mein hain. Unki chitthi aati hai. Aapne sabko Quran-e-Sharif di. Wo log charpoy par sote hain, aapke jawaan zameen par sote hain (Sir, we are alive because of you. Five of my men are with you. I heard you give them Quran to read and they sleep on charpoys, while your soldiers sleep on hard ground) ibnlive.in.com/news/sam-bahadur-gallant-in-war-flamboyant-in-peace/67900-19.html

 

[sw85]

In the local Catholic newspaper, a priest has written an article saying that Christians must reject the death penalty. And Jesus Christ says to love your enemy. How come the Church tells us to reject the death penalty and the Bible says to love our enemy, but you are in favor or executing some enemies? I don’t see how all of this makes consistent sense.
It just doesn’t make sense to the ordinary person to say that you show your love to your enemy by killing him or by dropping napalm on his children. Perhaps a highly paid New York City lawyer could argue such, but a simple Christian peasant, such as myself, would have a difficult time with such a convoluted discussion.

The example of executing a criminal I cited is just that, an example. You can replace it with any other form of punishment and it doesn’t change the principle, namely that “loving your enemy” is perfectly consistent, at times, with causing him pain and suffering. (FYI, either your priest is wrong or you are misapprehending him. Catholics are not obliged to oppose the death penalty as a matter of moral principle, and the Church has taught that it is licit in principle for centuries).

There is a reason I said that the example of unintended casualties in a war is a very strange one. Normally, when asking how a moral principle applies, you start with the clearest possible case. If the moral principle applies in the clearest possible case, then clearly the moral principle applies in some way to all of them, we just have to adjust to account for the unusual circumstances. Actually, the clearest example would not be the punishment of a criminal (which no one imagines is contrary to love): it would be God, who is love itself, sending people to Hell. God sends people to Hell all the time. If the stories are true, the proportion of people sent to Hell vastly exceeds that admitted to Heaven, perhaps by a 100:1 margin or worse; yet God’s love is unlimited both in scope and in character. He loves everyone perfectly, more than anything. Clearly this doesn’t stop Him from intentionally sending people to eternal, unimaginable torment.

So clearly love itself is not, in principle, incompatible with inflicting even unimaginable tortures on people. Because, again, you cannot love someone without dealing with them as they are, and that includes recognizing that they may well need to die – either because your own life depends on it, or because the lives of those you love depends on it, or because justice demands it.

Where you seem to be caught up is conflating “love” with “niceness,” i.e., not hurting people. That’s a false, modern, understanding of love. It’s not a Biblical or a Christian one. Again, the clearest case-in-point of this is that God, who is love itself, damns lots and lots of people to eternal Hell, yet no one imagines God is not all-loving.

 

[JoeBowen7]

So clearly love itself is not, in principle, incompatible with inflicting even unimaginable tortures on people.

No. Torture is not love for the person. Torture is against the moral law, and as such, anyone who uses torture does not love, does not respect the victim. This is no way to show love to anyone.

“In this regard, I reiterate that the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened der any circumstances”” Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 404, Pope Benedict.

"The deliberate torture of one human being by another is a sin against our Creator, in whose image we all have been created. This practice should not be condoned or allowed by any government. It must be condemned by all people of faith, wherever it exists, without exception."Archbishop Demetrios
Primate, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

Article from America magazine:
Torture is fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person, and its practice is absolutely prohibited in all circumstances.
In Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the statement on political responsibility that the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued in November 2007 in preparation for the 2008 national elections, the bishops referred to the issue of torture five times. Echoing the catechism, they declared plainly that torture is “intrinsically evil” and “can never be justified” and stated categorically: “The use of torture must be rejected as fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person and ultimately counterproductive in the effort to combat terrorism.”
No Excuses for Torture, America magazine:
Stephen M. Colecchi | JANUARY 18, 2010

Torture is no way to show love to your enemy. Christ said to love your enemy. Someone who tortures is violating this commandment. Plain and simple. It is easy for a Christian peasant to understand this.