NonViolence

[DiscernVoc]

I may be of the subject a little, but reading through this thread brings up a question that bothers me. I am a believer in pacifism. My beliefs stem from my Catholicism. I am also pro-life for similar reasons as my pacifism. When I say pro-life this includes just about any situation, whether it be abortion, the death penalty, etc. I understand that the church has a just-war theory, but from the way the last several popes have condemned most wars fought throughout the last fifty years I don’t understand how so many Catholics, especially in the U.S. are so supportive of these wars. I know that the last two popes opposition to the war on terror isn’t an official church teaching, but it bothers me that we are so uneffected by the Holy Fathers’ words of wisdom. I also am bothered that certain politicians are so eager in using the pro-life issue to get our vote. Now I know we need to support an end to abortion and I am excited by the recent supreme court ruling on partial birth abortion, but I think we need to be consistent so that in the future a debacle like the one in Iraq can be avoided. We need to be more discerning in what is a just war. Now I don’t want to debate the war in Iraq. I just want to bring up the point that as Christians we have the duty to turn the other cheek as our Lord did. This is as hard a task as any especially in our age when we don’t even know clear reasons why a war is being fought.

 

[mary_bobo]

I wondered if that might be the case after I left Friday, and thought the situation I mentioned might not be a good example if that were the case. Anyway. I’m having surgery on my elbow Friday, I almost tore my arm off in a car wreck last July, and will be out next week, so I have to get a lot done this week. Because of that, I won’t be able to continue my part of this discussion for a while. It’s been insteresting, until then, God bless.

Best wishes and prayers for a very successful surgery. We await your return.

 

[StevenFrancis]

I may be of the subject a little, but reading through this thread brings up a question that bothers me. I am a believer in pacifism. My beliefs stem from my Catholicism. I am also pro-life for similar reasons as my pacifism. When I say pro-life this includes just about any situation, whether it be abortion, the death penalty, etc. I understand that the church has a just-war theory, but from the way the last several popes have condemned most wars fought throughout the last fifty years I don’t understand how so many Catholics, especially in the U.S. are so supportive of these wars. I know that the last two popes opposition to the war on terror isn’t an official church teaching, but it bothers me that we are so uneffected by the Holy Fathers’ words of wisdom. I also am bothered that certain politicians are so eager in using the pro-life issue to get our vote. Now I know we need to support an end to abortion and I am excited by the recent supreme court ruling on partial birth abortion, but I think we need to be consistent so that in the future a debacle like the one in Iraq can be avoided. We need to be more discerning in what is a just war. Now I don’t want to debate the war in Iraq. I just want to bring up the point that as Christians we have the duty to turn the other cheek as our Lord did. This is as hard a task as any especially in our age when we don’t even know clear reasons why a war is being fought.

Spot on! These are my feelings exactly. I’ll tell you one thing…Sure makes it hard when it comes to voting. I’ve dropped out of both of the major parties (I’ve been both at one time or another), but feel crummy, because now I don’t get a voice in the primaries to decide on candidates. I’ll probably register with one of them, for the primaries, then go back to being an independent.

 

[blessedstar]

Anyway. I’m having surgery on my elbow Friday, I almost tore my arm off in a car wreck last July, and will be out next week, so I have to get a lot done this week. Because of that, I won’t be able to continue my part of this discussion for a while. It’s been insteresting, until then, God bless.

I hope you’re doing ok Steve and I hope that your operation goes well and you have a speedy recovery.

In my prayer for your good health

 

[DiscernVoc]

Spot on! These are my feelings exactly. I’ll tell you one thing…Sure makes it hard when it comes to voting. I’ve dropped out of both of the major parties (I’ve been both at one time or another), but feel crummy, because now I don’t get a voice in the primaries to decide on candidates. I’ll probably register with one of them, for the primaries, then go back to being an independent.

I don’t know who to vote for either anymore. If a candidate is against the war on terror they tend to be pro-abortion and pro-embryonic stem cell and immoral on a host of other issues as well. If they are pro-life, many times they are pro-war, corrupt in matters of economics, pro-death penalty and sometimes creationists on top of it all. Plus these candidates are sometimes lacking in their support of human rights. I know this is a bit general, but I think it is sadly accurate in our “two party” system. Sometimes I wonder how people can support atrocities and crimes such as abortion and wars fought for mainly economic reasons.

I also think that despite the just war clause, Christ calls us to be pacifists. There are times when for the sake of others we must take up the sword, but these situations are seldom the reason for wars that are fought. If we are honest with ourselves we can see little room in Christ’s teaching for war. I think this is evident in the words and actions of the last few Popes.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I think definition of terms should be made here.

Pacifism, according to Mark Kurlansky and I agree with, is non-action, when it comes to violence. A pacifist doesn’t participate in violence, but also does nothing to oppose it. Quakers during WWII, were pacifist. They didn’t participate in combat, but did do non-combat related jobs, which in effect, supported the war.

Nonviolence, on the other hand, is not only living in the spirit of nonviolence, but being active in it. War protesters are practicing nonviolence. Jesus was practicing nonviolence, when he was being arrested, but defended the Apostles from being arrested.
When Jesus was struck by the temple guard, because of his answer to the high-priest, Jesus retaliated verbally, “why do you strike me?” This is nonviolence, not pacifism. If Jesus were a pacifist, he would not have gotten involved with any of the issues of his day. However, that is not the case. Expelling the money changers from the Temple, is activism.

So, when we’re talking about nonviolence or pacifism, take a look at how you approach this issue. Do you remain silent in the face of unjust wars or do you speak out against them, whether here or in the public square? If you don’t take some level of action against violence, then you’re a pacifist by definition. If on the other hand, you take action against violence, then you are following the spirit of nonviolence.

I think these definitions fit, but I’m open to other opinions, who are probably wiser than I am.

Currently, I’m just a student of nonviolence.

I don’t believe that I’ve reached a level of love were I could actually do more than just speak about it.

Jim

 

[Contarini]

I’ve been studying the concept of on non-violence, I recently read a book by Mark Kuralansky, Non-Violence, which was very interesting, but Mark takes it on more of a political social issue and at times seems a little anti-religious. He goes so far as to blame St. Augustine’s “Just War” doctrine, in that many have have abused the doctrine or stretched it to fit their own ends.

That’s not necessarily anti-religious. Lots of religious people don’t like Augustine.

Are you familiar with the writings of either John Howard Yoder or Stanley Hauerwas? I think you would enjoy both of these writers (Yoder was a Mennonite, BTW; Hauerwas is a Methodist who most recently attends an Episcopal church; but both of them taught at Notre Dame at one point and Hauerwas is very pro-Catholic).

Edwin

 

[JimR-OCDS]

That’s not necessarily anti-religious. Lots of religious people don’t like Augustine.

Are you familiar with the writings of either John Howard Yoder or Stanley Hauerwas? I think you would enjoy both of these writers (Yoder was a Mennonite, BTW; Hauerwas is a Methodist who most recently attends an Episcopal church; but both of them taught at Notre Dame at one point and Hauerwas is very pro-Catholic).

Edwin

Edwin,
I haven’t read those, but thanks for the info.

Jim

 

[DiscernVoc]

I think definition of terms should be made here.

Pacifism, according to Mark Kurlansky and I agree with, is non-action, when it comes to violence. A pacifist doesn’t participate in violence, but also does nothing to oppose it. Quakers during WWII, were pacifist. They didn’t participate in combat, but did do non-combat related jobs, which in effect, supported the war.

Nonviolence, on the other hand, is not only living in the spirit of nonviolence, but being active in it. War protesters are practicing nonviolence. Jesus was practicing nonviolence, when he was being arrested, but defended the Apostles from being arrested.
When Jesus was struck by the temple guard, because of his answer to the high-priest, Jesus retaliated verbally, “why do you strike me?” This is nonviolence, not pacifism. If Jesus were a pacifist, he would not have gotten involved with any of the issues of his day. However, that is not the case. Expelling the money changers from the Temple, is activism.

So, when we’re talking about nonviolence or pacifism, take a look at how you approach this issue. Do you remain silent in the face of unjust wars or do you speak out against them, whether here or in the public square? If you don’t take some level of action against violence, then you’re a pacifist by definition. If on the other hand, you take action against violence, then you are following the spirit of nonviolence.

I think these definitions fit, but I’m open to other opinions, who are probably wiser than I am.

Currently, I’m just a student of nonviolence.

I don’t believe that I’ve reached a level of love were I could actually do more than just speak about it.

Jim

Fine, we’ll call it non-violence. Either way I think Christ was calling us to be non-violent and many Catholics, especially in this country are way to liberal in using the just war clause to justify wars that are fought for reasons other than self defense or for the sake of someone else. I also see this mentality when supporting the death penalty.

 

[holly_potter]

I notice some people’s resistance (not all, just some) to pacifists of other religions. True, they’re not Catholic, or even Christian. And true, I beleive that Catholicism is the only true religion, but you can appreciate the points of the other religions, for often times they take the points from our religion. Does that make sense? So, you shouldn’t feel unease with people like Gandhi or Chopra, or etc; that’s based off the “slippery slope” argument. Or rather, the slippery slope fallacy. Just because a person has one good point and ten bad ones doesn’t mean you can’t listen to him. Just listen to the one good point.

The Catholic religion has been violent in history, too, just FYI.

Peace will only come when we focus on the similarities among all men, and not the chasms. We created the chasms. We can also create a bridge among all cultures, races, and religions. It’s our choice. The more people who chose to build bridges instead of chasms, the more peaceful the world will be. The violence between Jews, Christians, and Muslims is pointless with this view, for look how similar our religions are! We’ve just split off at different points.

Now, I’m not saying we have to stop evangelizing. But if we engage in constructive dialogue, perhaps the more others learn of the Catholic religion, the more they’ll see the truth and beauty in it, and the more they’ll decide to become a part of it.

 

[ncjohn]

I wanted my 4000th post to be on something meaningful, and I can think of few things more meaningful than the pursuit of a peaceful world.

Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars… Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.
Martin Luther King Jr.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I don’t know who to vote for either anymore. If a candidate is against the war on terror they tend to be pro-abortion and pro-embryonic stem cell and immoral on a host of other issues as well. If they are pro-life, many times they are pro-war, corrupt in matters of economics, pro-death penalty and sometimes creationists on top of it all. Plus these candidates are sometimes lacking in their support of human rights. I know this is a bit general, but I think it is sadly accurate in our “two party” system. Sometimes I wonder how people can support atrocities and crimes such as abortion and wars fought for mainly economic reasons.

I also think that despite the just war clause, Christ calls us to be pacifists. There are times when for the sake of others we must take up the sword, but these situations are seldom the reason for wars that are fought. If we are honest with ourselves we can see little room in Christ’s teaching for war. I think this is evident in the words and actions of the last few Popes.

In my mind, the people who are against the war were for it when we went. The rush to war was overwhelming. Their new-found opposition to the war is nothing more than 20-20 hindsight and cynical political opportunism.

While I opposed going to war, I feel that we have an obligation to see this surge through and reassess its effectiveness. As a nation, we have made a mess with the best of intentions and have an obligation to not just run and hide in the safety of our borders. If it is determined that the surge is not making it better, we can then more properly determine that we aren’t part of the solution.

P.S. While I reject your prudential judgment that we are called to be pacifists and embrace the just war theory when properly discerned, I respect your obligation to find and follow your prudential judgment.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

In my mind, the people who are against the war were for it when we went. The rush to war was overwhelming. Their new-found opposition to the war is nothing more than 20-20 hindsight and cynical political opportunism.

Not necessarily so.

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars."
Barack Obama, back in 2002, before we went to war.

So far, he’s the only Candidate running, who had a clear understanding and judgement on the consequences of going into Iraq.

Jim

 

[DiscernVoc]

In my mind, the people who are against the war were for it when we went. The rush to war was overwhelming. Their new-found opposition to the war is nothing more than 20-20 hindsight and cynical political opportunism.

While I opposed going to war, I feel that we have an obligation to see this surge through and reassess its effectiveness. As a nation, we have made a mess with the best of intentions and have an obligation to not just run and hide in the safety of our borders. If it is determined that the surge is not making it better, we can then more properly determine that we aren’t part of the solution.

P.S. While I reject your prudential judgment that we are called to be pacifists and embrace the just war theory when properly discerned, I respect your obligation to find and follow your prudential judgment.

I disagree that this war was fought for the best of intentions. In fact, the American public still is confused as why we went into Iraq. We have been given a host of reasons by the administration and they tended to change as their convenience and factuality ran its course. The common excuse I hear now for supporters of the administration is the liberation of the people and the protection of our people from a nation that may have ties to terrorists (there has yet to have been a shred of evidence supporting this and there are now terrorists all over Iraq due to the chaotic state of the nation and the power vacuum left over from Saddam). There are a multitude of dictatorships in Africa, Asia, and South America. Why have we not liberated those nations? This has rarely been our policy. Iraq just happens to sit atop the second largest oil reserve in the world. Iraq also happened to be one of the few dictatorships we had no trade relationship with. So all that precious oil was going to nations such as Russia, China, and France. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict both opposed this war. They felt that this war would cause more evil than it stopped. This is one of the criteria for a war being unjust. It is estimated that there have been between 40,000 to 250,000 casualties directly from this war. Most of these were civilians. Now I’m not saying that we shouldn’t clean up our mess. But we have to be careful in the future when we throw our support behind a candidate. I vote pro-life before any other issue. I feel that unjust war is not far behind abortion in terms of priorities for someone who supports life. I am disturbed by the Catholics who seem to support a war that the last two popes have opposed. I do not know if I am correct in assuming this, but I feel that many Catholics who supported this administration are afraid to admit that this war was an atrocity and the motives behind it were lies from the start. I have read there are 30 million Catholics in this country. We could be a force for positive change in this country. We need to speak out against this war so the “pro-life” candidates we vote for know we will not stand for anything less. And yes, I don’t think we can interpret Christ’s message as being anything less than a mandate for non-violence.

 

[DiscernVoc]

I notice some people’s resistance (not all, just some) to pacifists of other religions. True, they’re not Catholic, or even Christian. And true, I beleive that Catholicism is the only true religion, but you can appreciate the points of the other religions, for often times they take the points from our religion. Does that make sense? So, you shouldn’t feel unease with people like Gandhi or Chopra, or etc; that’s based off the “slippery slope” argument. Or rather, the slippery slope fallacy. Just because a person has one good point and ten bad ones doesn’t mean you can’t listen to him. Just listen to the one good point.

The Catholic religion has been violent in history, too, just FYI.

Peace will only come when we focus on the similarities among all men, and not the chasms. We created the chasms. We can also create a bridge among all cultures, races, and religions. It’s our choice. The more people who chose to build bridges instead of chasms, the more peaceful the world will be. The violence between Jews, Christians, and Muslims is pointless with this view, for look how similar our religions are! We’ve just split off at different points.

Now, I’m not saying we have to stop evangelizing. But if we engage in constructive dialogue, perhaps the more others learn of the Catholic religion, the more they’ll see the truth and beauty in it, and the more they’ll decide to become a part of it.

I agree 100 percent.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Part 2

From Discern Voc: There are a multitude of dictatorships in Africa, Asia, and South America. Why have we not liberated those nations?

I ask that question myself. While not invited into Iraq by neighbors, we have been invited into Africa where the carnage is rampant. In my mind this is the second criticism I have of GWB- he allowed the prevailing political thought that the Middle East is the central threat to world peace to mean that American might was the solution. He failed to learn the lesson of Reagan, Thatcher and JPII with regard to the Soviet Union and proved to be more a disciple of his father than Reagan.

From DiscernVoc: Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict both opposed this war. They felt that this war would cause more evil than it stopped. This is one of the criteria for a war being unjust.

And I agreed with them. However, they didn’t speak on the issue except as an expression of their prudential judgment. It is important that on such matters, while Catholics should take quite seriously such expressions of leadership, we are not bound by them.

From DiscernVoc: I am disturbed by the Catholics who seem to support a war that the last two popes have opposed.

We should not invoke the Pope in non-ex cathedra statements such that we imply that those who disagree with us are somehow less “Catholic”. Our ability to reason and conscience is our individual gift from God. If you read the Catechism on moral conscience, it is clear we must follow our conscience on those matters not directly contrary to Church Doctrine. While I disagree with Catholics who wanted to go to war, I must respect their prudential judgment.

From Discern Voc: I do not know if I am correct in assuming this, but I feel that many Catholics who supported this administration are afraid to admit that this war was an atrocity and the motives behind it were lies from the start.

I suggest you read the section of the Catechism on “Offense agaist the Truth”, particularly 2477 and 2478. You appear to have reached judgments about the interior state of fellow Catholics you don’t know personally. My best Catholic friend of whose interior state I respect greatly is more committed to this war than he was the day it started. Additionally, my experience with Catholics is that our theology and practice gives us great gift to admit our errors.

From DiscernVoc: I have read there are 30 million Catholics in this country. We could be a force for positive change in this country. .

I think that the number is closer to 75 million Catholics but your number probably is closer to those who are actively practicing. I absolutely agree that we can be a positive voice for change and that we are.

From DiscernVoc: We need to speak out against this war so the “pro-life” candidates we vote for know we will not stand for anything less. And yes, I don’t think we can interpret Christ’s message as being anything less than a mandate for non-violence.

IMO, I’m not sure that your interpretation of Christ’s message should usurp Church Teaching with regard to prudential judgment on the issue of just war or any other issue.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From DiscernVoc: I disagree that this war was fought for the best of intentions.

I will stress that I opposed this war from the beginning. I was not only a rare person among my Republican friends, but I was rare among my Democrat friends. I don’t claim to be smarter than others in my opposition. I didn’t oppose it because I thought there weren’t WMD’s or I forecast what we are currently experiencing. I just believed and my belief has been reinforced by this experience that as the world’s policeman, we have unique obligations to defend the defenseless. However, we need to be invited by people more directly involved (either the citizenry themself or their neighbors). There was no invitation.

This being said, I believe that the Bush administration and members of Congress (including Senator Clinton) sincerely believed that there were WMD’s, that Saddam was a genocidal, cruel dictator denying the Iraqi people basic human dignity, that Saddam was a destabalizing force in an unstable region of the world, and that his removal would make the region more safe.

I suggest you read CCC2478 in light of your judgment that they had sinister intentions.

From DiscernVoc: In fact, the American public still is confused as why we went into Iraq. We have been given a host of reasons by the administration and they tended to change as their convenience and factuality ran its course.

Well, I’ve been paying pretty close attention as I was an original opponent. I am not confused and I see no evidence that the rationale has changed. Yes, at different times different aspects are emphasized but that is the nature of political leadership and not unique to President Bush. While WWII was essentially about a combination of various issues of human liberty and national defense, FDR adeptly changes emphasis throughout the war (and especially in the year prior to formal declaration) as events developed.

My greatest criticism of GWB post “mission accomplished” is that he ceased to speak to the American public directly regarding the war. This led him to lose a connection w/ the American people (vs. FDR) with regard to the war. War has ups and downs. Because this connection was lost, the American public became less “committed” to their original clamor for war and Bush became more stubborn to “stay the course”. We are suffering the consequences and history will rightly judge GWB harshly for this.

From DiscernVoc: The common excuse I hear now for supporters of the administration is the liberation of the people and the protection of our people from a nation that may have ties to terrorists (**there has yet to have been a shred of evidence **supporting this and there are now terrorists all over Iraq due to the chaotic state of the nation and the power vacuum left over from Saddam).

I agree there is no smoking gun. But there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence. You get a strong indication that both Senator Clinton, President Clinton and people who were in the Clinton intelligence and defense leadership who agree w/ the circumstantial evidence. This is the one politically popular criticism that has never been uttered by anyone in leadership in the Clinton administration. You can sometimes discern the truth by what is not said.

See Part 2 below

 

[DiscernVoc]

I don’t want to make this a debate on the Iraq war. I think we are probably both familiar wih each other’s side of the debate. I am not saying that we are bound to agree with a pope’s criticism’s on an issue. As Catholics, we should sure as heck listen when the Holy Father speaks on an issue. Obviously. we do have to make our own prudential judgement, but the Pope is the vicar of Christ. I don’t think American politicians or the media are as reliable as a voice of reason in this insane world as the vicar of Christ. I don’t think non-violence is an interpretation of Christ’s message. I think it IS part of His message. I also think it is the Church’s teaching. The Church lays out pretty strict guidelines for what a just war is. The conflicts that fit these guidelines are few and far between. This was my original point. We are to liberal in applying the label of just war.

 

[DiscernVoc]

Part 2

I suggest you read the section of the Catechism on “Offense agaist the Truth”, particularly 2477 and 2478. You appear to have reached judgments about the interior state of fellow Catholics you don’t know personally. My best Catholic friend of whose interior state I respect greatly is more committed to this war than he was the day it started. Additionally, my experience with Catholics is that our theology and practice gives us great gift to admit ou

Maybe I am making a judgement and a generalization about other Catholics. I apologize. I just have trouble understanding how people can be so adamantly supportive of something that has led to so much suffering.

 

[Orionthehunter]

We are to liberal in applying the label of just war.

Personally, I agree. I reached a conclusion that this war was not warranted and thus it didn’t pass my prudential judgment of a just war. I pray that more people would have a higher standard (based on how I interpret it using my prudential judgment) of a just war. I will even go so far as to assert that many (not all) reached an errant prudential judgment because of a faulty or undeveloped conscience.

But so long as I don’t have any evidence that their intent was to do evil, I have to stop short of condemning them or even their conclusion (sin requires knowledge and intent- stupidity is not inherently sinful). We need to respect the prudential judgment of other Catholics. Our capacity to judge is restricted to a narrow admonishment of objective sin (adultery, theft, etc. or direct incontrovertable evidence of intent to deny others human dignity).

I have no reason to believe that a single elected political leader supporting the war was motivated by desires of hegemony or control of economic assets of another (specifically oil). And I have no reason to believe that those in opposition were insensitive to the terror of living under an evil despot.