"No War Is Ever Holy"

[Ani_Ibi]

Writer:

For those who point to Gandhi as an instance of successful pacifism, for example, it should be noted that Gandhi’s techniques only could work with a country such as England, a country that respected the value of human life.

In my opinion, Gandhi’s techniques worked because, while he fasted, millions took up violent means and because Mountbatten was preoccupied with his dalliances. As for England being a country that respected the value of human life, perhaps this may have been true some of the time, but as concerns the Irish experience, I will beg to differ.

 

[Matt25]

Steven Merten:

Hello Jay,

**NAB LUK 22:35 **

“…And the man without a sword must sell his coat and buy one.”

wasn’t about duck hunting.

He said that prior to setting out for Gethsemane. And what did he say a few hours later?

51 Suddenly, one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
52 Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

Matthew 26

 

[Steven_Merten]

Ani Ibi:
In my opinion, Gandhi’s techniques worked because, while he fasted, millions took up violent means and because Mountbatten was preoccupied with his dalliances. As for England being a country that respected the value of human life, perhaps this may have been true some of the time, but as concerns the Irish experience, I will beg to differ.

I think it is true that the English did use troops to oppress people. They did use deadly force to do this.

I believe that the difference, as to where Gandi’s technics will work and will not work, lies in whether or not there is a ruthless dictator like Hitler, Saddam or Bin Laden who puts to death any of his own troops, military officers or advisers who do not carry out his ruthless atrocities. I have heard that it was quite often Jews themselves who gased Jews at Nazi consentration camps. Why? Because if they did so they were kept alive (to do it some more). The desire to live, in face of a rutheless dictator who will kill you if you do not kill, is really what would have made Gandis techniques fail. This is the difference between the English in India and the Germans in WWII.

Have you ever wondered why you never hear of the pacifists who used fasting and peaceful protests to stand up against Hitler or Saddam? They were mowed over by the Nazis and Republican guard war machine and secret police, driven by ruthless dictators who put to death anyone who would not kill for them or opposed them.

There actually were some priests and individuals who did refuse to kill for Hitler, they were executed by the Nazis for sedition. You don’t hear any raving honors for heroics, as there should be, because their actions, did not stop the war. If pacifists giving their lives in order not to kill for a rutheless dictator has no effect on stopping war, what good is such information for the pacifist propaganda machine? Thus you will only hear of Gandi in the mass media propaganda for the pacifist cause.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Matt25:

He said that prior to setting out for Gethsemane. And what did he say a few hours later?

51 Suddenly, one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
52 Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

Matthew 26

Hello Matt,

After three years of walking with Christ, why were the Apostles carrying swords?

There is a difference between not fighting to allow Christ to go to his death for the redemption of mankinds sins and Jesus not allowing the Apostles to draw swords to protect His mother Mary.

Please confirm that you believe Jesus would have had the Apostles sit by idle, with their swords in their sheaths, while Mary was beaten, tortured and her body torn to peices.

**NAB LUK 22:35 **"…And the man without a sword must sell his coat and buy one."

 

[Writer]

Ani Ibi:
In my opinion, Gandhi’s techniques worked because, while he fasted, millions took up violent means and because Mountbatten was preoccupied with his dalliances. As for England being a country that respected the value of human life, perhaps this may have been true some of the time, but as concerns the Irish experience, I will beg to differ.

I understand…my wife is Irish, as well.

 

[Jay74]

Steven Merten:

**NAB LUK 22:35 **

“…And the man without a sword must sell his coat and buy one.”

Matt25:

He said that prior to setting out for Gethsemane. And what did he say a few hours later?

51 Suddenly, one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
52 Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

Matthew 26

You’re both right. Since we know Jesus and God can’t contradict Themselves or Each Other, He must be demostrating that there is a time and place for drawing the sword and layin down the sword.

This verse says both well:
“For everything there is a season and a time for every matter under heaven… a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.” – Ecclesiastes 3
Blessings to you both.

 

[Writer]

Matt25:

These are not the only two options.

What did Jesus do when they came to torture and murder him?

If our Lord washed the feet of Judas knowing that he was about to betray him does or does that not set an example for all of us?

As I said before, to extend the intended scope of Christ’s words concerning “turning the other cheek” to entire nations is to apply them to where they were never intended. Your view is also not supported by the fathers of the church–such as Saint Thomas Aquinas or the experiences of Saint Joan of Arc.

Have you heard of Dietrich Bonhoeffer? He was also a pacifist (and a Lutheran minister) until such time that he came face to face with the Nazi evil.

Pacifist such as Martin Niemoller can still come up with some thought-provoking observations. Here are a few lines from Niemoller.

When the Nazis arrested the Communists, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist.

When they locked up the Social Democrats,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat.

---

When they arrested the trade unionists,
I said nothing; afterall, I was not a trade unionist.

---

When they arrested the Jews, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Jew.

---

***When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest. ***

What strikes me about your stance, Matt25, is that you are saying to never raise a hand in defense of one’s nation. I can only imagine, then, that you would not take to violence to save those targeted by an unholy regime or dictatorship. What would you do on Flight 93, or what would you do when the soldiers came to take your neighbors away? Does Christ want us to be cowards, or to protect those we love and treasure? Do we value life so little that we treat it as a joke, which we should not take seriously? Instead of taking verses out of context to be twisted to your purposes, why can’t you come up with some arguments that work in the real world for nations in conflict?

 

[Prometheum_x]

“For he [the governing authority] is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” Romans 13:4 (NIV – see surrounding verses for context)

 

[Matt25]

Steven Merten:

Please confirm that you believe Jesus would have had the Apostles sit by idle, with their swords in their sheaths, while Mary was beaten, tortured and her body torn to peices.

I confirm my belief that these were not the only two options in this non-existent hypothetical situation.

 

[Matt25]

“For he [the governing authority]
is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” Romans 13:4 (NIV – see surrounding verses for context)

Does this mean that Catholic Iraqi’s were bound to obey their governing authority and kill invading British and American soldiers?

 

[Matt25]

gilliam:

I thought the purpose of the thread was to discuss if war was ever holy.

To me Just war == Holy war. At least that is the way I read Cathlolic history on the use of the term ‘holy war’. (see my previous post on the Council of Lyons).

Since the CCC allows for a just war, then it allows for a holy war.

What is the basis for your belief that Just War= Holy War? Was the USSR prosecuting a Holy War against Nazi Germany?

Do these words of JPII not suggest that “No War Is Ever Holy”?

zenit.org/english/war/visualizza.phtml?sid=15609

“Peace! Humanity is always in need of peace, but now more than ever, after the tragic events that have undermined its confidence, and in the face of persistent flashpoints of cruel conflict that create anxiety throughout the world,” the Holy Father said.

Given the situation, John Paul II continued, it “is essential, therefore, that religious people and communities should in the clearest and most radical way repudiate violence, all violence, starting with the violence that seeks to clothe itself in religion, appealing even to the most holy name of God in order to offend man.”

“To offend against man is, most certainly, to offend against God,” he said. “There is no religious goal that can possibly justify the use of violence by man against man.”

 

[Writer]

Matt25:

Does this mean that Catholic Iraqi’s were bound to obey their governing authority and kill invading British and American soldiers?

Of course not, Matt… That’s a silly observation. Have you ever read Antigone by Sophocles? When the state behaves in a cruel or evil way, it can be opposed. This is common sense, and we certainly see Pope John Paul II’s work to tirelessly oppose Communism. Western tradition makes it clear when a regime crosses that line of morality and justice, it can be opposed–hopefully without bloodshed, but bloodshed, if it is the only choice. Citizens must determine based on their own religion and morality whether a nation is just, or not. Citizens have no obligation to obey evil commands–such as opposing their liberators by force.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Matt25:

I confirm my belief that these were not the only two options in this non-existent hypothetical situation.

Hello Matt,

Do you confirm that the Pope should send his sword, Vatican Swiss Guards, back to Switzerland and rely on one of your non-violent options?

 

[Prometheum_x]

Matt25:

Does this mean that Catholic Iraqi’s were bound to obey their governing authority and kill invading British and American soldiers?

That would be a red herring.

And a different issue.

 

[Writer]

The title of this thread is annoying, because it is leading and betrays a spirit of intellectuall dishonesty. What is the definition of “holy”?

1 : exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness
2 : DIVINE for the Lord our God is holy — Psalms 99:9(Authorized Version)
3 : devoted entirely to the deity or the work of the deity a holy temple holy prophets
**4 a : having a divine quality holy love b : venerated as or as if sacred **

My own opinion, then, is that I would have a hard time describing war as holy, but so what? (If it were holy, for example, we would have reason to expect to see it in heaven, which is not the case.) War is something we should avoid as best we can and not glorify, but this does not change one bit its required existence due to the Fall of Man.

How much of our required daily lives has us doing things which are not wrong, but are also not holy in nature? For example, when I shower or use the ol’ restroom, it would be rather strange to describe my morning routine as holy…now, maybe my coffee is, but that’s another thread entirely.

There is a world of difference between holy and just. I even have a problem calling the Old Testament battles holy in nature, but I suppose they were. Just war is simply an option which must remain available to nations to defend themselves from threats originating outside their borders.

I reject Matt 25’s leading thread title, then, and view this thread as a discussion of the larger issue of pacifism.

 

[Jay74]

I think attributing Jesus commanding His disciples not to protect Him from crucifixion is not quite applicable. In one of Paul’s letters, we husbands are commanded to protect their wives, upto and including sacrificing their own lives. The analogy was “as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself to her.” So, Jesus new He had to die to save the church, that is, his people, from sin. To act in His own defense would undermine that. Jesus wasn’t just submitting to evil, He was defeating evil for Our sake.

What Jesus did was beautiful. But it isn’t applicable to us in the face of evil that seeks mass murder.

Blessings.

 

[Jay74]

Writer:

it would be rather strange to describe my morning routine as holy…now, maybe my coffee is, but that’s another thread entirely.

At 6 am :yawn: , coffee does seem worthy of praise. :bowdown:

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Steven Merten:

I think it is true that the English did use troops to oppress people. They did use deadly force to do this.

It was not the English who rioted in the cities or slaughtered people on the road to Pakistan. It was the Indians.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Ani Ibi:

It was not the English who rioted in the cities or slaughtered people on the road to Pakistan. It was the Indians.

Hello Ani lbi,

I do not know of nor did I comment on people slaughtered on the road to Pakistan.

I was reffering more to British, French and Spanish Imperialism. Obviously the British were not in India, or America for that matter, to dole out foreign aid. They were there for the gold, slaves and resources. They used troops and deadly force to get these resources and take them back to their kings and queens.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Writer:

As I said before, to extend the intended scope of Christ’s words concerning “turning the other cheek” to entire nations is to apply them to where they were never intended.

Let’s settle this matter of turning the other cheek. I am going to walk through this.

I am facing a person who, with her left hand strikes me on my right cheek. My head then turns to my left (and her right) with the force of her blow. The impact of her blow on my head is to jar my brain in its casing. Her left hand has now followed through to be on my left hand side, poised for a backhand strike.

If I were not to turn my cheek, she is now in a position to backhand me with her left hand, thus causing my head to turn back toward my right. Again my brain would be jarred inside my unbraced head.

But if I were to turn my cheek, my head would be turned to my right and braced against my right shoulder. Not only that, but the movement toward my right would cause any backhand from her to give only a glancing blow. Any glancing blow would not jar my brain because my head is braced against my right shoulder.

A glancing blow inflicted by an attacker can cause the attacker to lose balance. Moreover, it takes a great deal more energy to deliver a glancing blow than a direct blow.

Thus, by turning my cheek, I am preventing my attacker from doing further damage.

Turning the other cheek is about recognizing that you can be caught unawares or overpowered the first time, but the second time you can act to minimize the damage inflicted upon you by your attacker.

If the attacker continues and you continue to turn the other cheek, the attacker will soon tire herself out.