Nonviolence and Pacifism: Your Thoughts

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jamison97
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jamison97

Guest
Being both a social and political activist, a pacifist and a nonviolent direct action leader, I wonder your opinions on nonviolence and how those ideas are influenced by the Holy Catholic Church.
 
Matthew 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God.”

Notice the word “peacemakers” this word would suggest action (make) – actions that result in peace. Peace is not simply the lack of fighting amongst people but also an “inner peace” that results from a union with God and accepting His teachings and the teachings of His Church.
 
Nonviolence definately has its place, as is proven by the effective result it had during the civil rights movement. It is the ideal situation, but there comes a time when we must defend those who cannot defend themselves. I don’t believe fighting in of itself acheives anything, but nor do I believe in standing in the middle and washing your hands of guilt.
 
Is pacifism a moral stance?

Is it moral to avoid violence and killing when your inaction would result in the deaths of family and innocent people?

Consider a thought experiment: A foreign power invades the US and sweeps across Pennsylvania, killing and raping all the way. Do the Amish fight or turn the other cheek and love their enemies? Assume they do nothing, is that moral?
 
How would you serve the Amish as they, too, are God’s creations?
 
Jamison97 said:
Being both a social and political activist, a pacifist and a nonviolent direct action leader, I wonder your opinions on nonviolence and how those ideas are influenced by the Holy Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Peace solution is good solution.
Holy Catholic Church is always for peace, church is also for social justice.
 
Jamison97 said:
Being both a social and political activist, a pacifist and a nonviolent direct action leader, I wonder your opinions on nonviolence and how those ideas are influenced by the Holy Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
  1. I have no fear of death. I see this as a requirement for true pacifism.
  2. I am not a pacifist because my reading of history is that sometimes the only way to stop violence is with opposing deadly force. Hitler is the most notorious modern example.
  3. Non violence is always preferred, if it will work.
I have seen a mass grave, with relatives digging through the anonymous remains of thousands, hoping to find a shred or a garment, or some other indication of the fate of a loved one. I have seen civilians dismembered by an IED. I have seen a young child blown to pieces, still alive with his family all killed. I have walked on ground slippery with blood of innocent people.

We have a long way to go to achieve universal non-violence.

The number one cause of PTSD is domestic violence. Number two is sexual assault.
 
Jamison97 said:
Being both a social and political activist, a pacifist and a nonviolent direct action leader, I wonder your opinions on nonviolence and how those ideas are influenced by the Holy Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
I would pose a question to you Jamison, if I may. What is the non-violent response to Hitler, or someone similar?

May take on it is that his father was the illegitimate child of a Jewish father, and was violent and emotionally abusive to Adolf. Adolf developed into the monster he became as a result of his childhood abuse. The political and socio-economic climate at the time was ripe for a totalitarian leader. Hitler recognized the opportunity, and his murderous persona had the power to inflict his personal nightmare on the world.

The root of Hitler’s pathology was his violent upbringing. But once that has been inflicted on a person, how would you stop him if he comes to power, or he picks up a weapon?
 
cho_pilo said:
Is it moral to avoid violence and killing when your inaction would result in the deaths of family and innocent people?
Click to expand...
No, it is not.

Not to resist evil may be understood in two ways. First, in the sense of forgiving the wrong done to oneself, and thus it may pertain to perfection, when it is expedient to act thus for the spiritual welfare of others. Secondly,* in the sense of tolerating patiently the wrongs done to others: and this pertains to imperfection, or even to vice**, if one be able to resist the wrongdoer in a becoming manner.* (Aquinas, ST II-II, 188, 3 ad 1)

Ender
 
While I respect your views and I applaud the courage that you have, my take on pacifism and non-violence is that they are extremely wishful thinking and poorly placed idealism.

To use an already over used example, WWII. Just like Peepers said, violence was necessary to end WWII. I have even gone as far as to say that the atomic bombs were necessary, but that is a different topic for a different time. The problem is that some people just will not stop until you beat the stuffing out of them, or you kill them. It is the sad, sad truth of this world. I have read enough military history to know that often times, violence is necessary to protect the lives of innocent people. I know it sounds strange, but it is much better than the alternative.
 
nonviolence-MLK pacifism-you ignore to get involved whether a cause is right or not.
 
This is a dead thread which was recently dug up The person who started the thread is banned, and according to his profile.hasn’t visited CAF in the past two years.
 
GodLovesTheSpek said:
Matthew 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God.”

Notice the word “peacemakers” this word would suggest action (make) – actions that result in peace. Peace is not simply the lack of fighting amongst people but also an “inner peace” that results from a union with God and accepting His teachings and the teachings of His Church.
Click to expand...
How did you understand peaceMAKERS as reformation and purification of the soul? Surely, those that MAKE peace and ensure peace and propagate peace, ALREADY are at peace themselves, otherwise how can they spread this message in a convincing and realistic and practical way?

In my view, pacificism on the part of the Catholic church has brought it to its current position. Christians no longer find its teachings practical, appealing or usefull for the current challenges the world faces, and hence are looking elsewhere for answers. This is dangerous and it needs to change its ways quickly, but NOT by legitimizing the status-quo as I keep repeating. This is even more dangerous and damaging to its reputation.

Without a political philosophy of its own based on divine law, there can be no role for the church in society. And this is NOT the philosophy of religion.
 
Dale_M said:
This is a dead thread which was recently dug up The person who started the thread is banned, and according to his profile.hasn’t visited CAF in the past two years.
Click to expand...
Perusing his posts, there didn’t seem to be anything offensive there. I wonder why they ban so many folks?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top