Question about armed groups protecting catholics?

[Mar044]

Question

if a group of Catholics created a group that protects churches with firearms etc is that harassy or a grounds for excommunications? I was thinking about it the other night about all the attacks and killings of nuns so on and burning of churches and wondered what would happen if people actually had a group that protected places of worship against attack,

reading up there has been groups in the past…unfortunately they are based on hate, and racisist views and have been excommunicated. but how about groups like the knights templar that protected pilgrums on the road in the holy land from killings that happened then?

the only known group i know of is the swiss guard and that is just for the Vatican.

thanks.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Given that the Church recognizes the legitimacy of defense, I do not think it would frown on the principle of having such groups to protect Churches and the like - so long as such groups behaved morally.

Now, individual pastors or bishops might frown on the idea as something they think is unnecessary or unwise, either because they think that having such a group would send a wrong message, because they do not think they need such a group, or because they think such a group would be likely, in the conditions present at that time in that place, face temptations to devolve into the sort of group that would be bad. (Or they might support it in whatever their climate is).

But I doubt that the Church would say that the idea of such groups is bad in itself.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Question

if a group of Catholics created a group that protects churches with firearms etc is that harassy or a grounds for excommunications?.

I don’t know if it’s heresy, but Jesus told us not to do that. We are not to resit evil, we are to turn the other cheek, go an extra mile, give more than the thief wishes to steal. You may stand in front of the place with arms locked and take whatever is thrown at you and die if necessary, but you may not harm another.

 

[Rich_C]

I don’t know if it’s heresy, but Jesus told us not to do that. We are not to resit evil, we are to turn the other cheek, go an extra mile, give more than the thief wishes to steal. You may stand in front of the place with arms locked and take whatever is thrown at you and die if necessary, but you may not harm another.

Yet the Church, which interprets His Word for us, has approved of legitimate self-defense and defense of the innocent, even by deadly means. I would not put any weight on your interpretation.

 

[RPRPsych]

Exactly!

And the “do not resist an evil person” command had more to do with personal retribution and blood feuds / vendettas, which were commoner in those days than in ours.

However, where the safety and well-being of others is at stake - or even if one’s own life is in danger - self-defence is legitimate, and the Church has always taught that. Extreme pacifism, a la Leo Tolstoy, was never part of Catholic doctrine.

 

[JRKH]

Yet the Church, which interprets His Word for us, has approved of legitimate self-defense and defense of the innocent, even by deadly means. I would not put any weight on your interpretation.

I think not putting any weight on that “interpretation” is going a bit too far. Yes the Church allows legitimate defense of self and others. So - in regards to what the OP is asking about…It needs to be the Church who defines what, when and where constitutes legitimate.

Peaceful resistance is preferable to armed resistance.

Peace
James

 

[Mar044]

I think not putting any weight on that “interpretation” is going a bit too far. Yes the Church allows legitimate defense of self and others. So - in regards to what the OP is asking about…It needs to be the Church who defines what, when and where constitutes legitimate.

Peaceful resistance is preferable to armed resistance.

Peace
James

i was more thinking, the burning of a church in africa if guards are in front to shoot back to prevent that or when in the past priests so on have been attacked so on. i guess a modern knights templar (without reading into all the extra things) but the basic job of protecting of worshipers.

in some places no government will aid you, and your on your own, a building is a building i know, but when nuns are violated or murdered so on…

i believe in peace, i just wished the church had a force that could be sent to protect a location…and again not picture tanks but security…even isreal has that because of events in that area.

 

[GEddie]

In general, it is the civil state that is tO provide security through armed means, according to S. Paul.

For the Church to recruit its own armed guard on a large scale would, in the modern environment, be vigilantism. This is not conducive to the Church’s belief in the rule of law and justice.

However, in places and times where the civil state cannot or will nOt provide protection, it would be acceptable as self defense.

The Swiss Guard is unique because it serves a sovereign state, the Vatican. No other church presence has that status.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Jane_of_Arc]

Question

if a group of Catholics created a group that protects churches with firearms etc is that harassy or a grounds for excommunications? I was thinking about it the other night about all the attacks and killings of nuns so on and burning of churches and wondered what would happen if people actually had a group that protected places of worship against attack,

reading up there has been groups in the past…unfortunately they are based on hate, and racisist views and have been excommunicated. but how about groups like the knights templar that protected pilgrums on the road in the holy land from killings that happened then?

the only known group i know of is the swiss guard and that is just for the Vatican.

thanks.

This reminds me of the burning of an Ursuline Convent in 1834. A mob burnt it to the ground the first night, then returned the second night to destroy the grounds. the orchards, the fences. Thirteen men were arrested & all set free but one 16 year old boy, who received a pardon after his internment, partly because of pleas by the Mother Superior & the Bishop of the diocese.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Are military orders making a comeback? Dibs on north Africa!

 

[A_G]

Turning the other cheek has to do with not taking vengeance, promoting peace, etc. It does not say that we Christians are to be doormats for others to walk all over us. There are a few other threads here on this topic that I’ve seen that go into greater detail on this.

I see nothing wrong with armed groups protecting Catholics. Remember from the Bible: *“Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” (Matthew 26:52) Notice that Jesus said to put the sword back, not get rid of it. Jesus does not contradict himself from earlier that nights when He said: * “But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword.” (Luke 22:36).

As we know, the brave and noble Knights Templar, Knights Hospitaller and others were armed and protected Christian pilgrims. The Pope also, to this very day, is protected by the Swiss Guards, which according to a few sources are some of the best marksmen in Europe. Whenever the Pope makes a pilgrimage or visit to another place, protection is very present and visible too.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church also allows for self defense, a just war, and protection.

 

[A_G]

Are military orders making a comeback? Dibs on north Africa!

There actually are orders still under the protection of the Holy See. Some of these go back to the Crusades.

chivalricorders.org/vatican/main2.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Orders_of_Chivalry

 

[Julia_Mae]

Yet the Church, which interprets His Word for us, has approved of legitimate self-defense and defense of the innocent, even by deadly means. I would not put any weight on your interpretation.

Has nothing to do with “my interpretation” or what weight you do or do not give it.

This is what Jesus said. When we pass we don’t get to say, “Yeah, I know You said different but I read it in the CCC, so I shot them!” Or, I guess you can say that but I’m not sure you’ll like the result.

 

[Bill_7154]

Hi,
I’m uninformed of any attacks or threats to Nuns (or Catholic Churches or Priests, at least for like the past 100 years or so. Has there been an event or more than one? If so, could you please provide that info or a link?
Thanks and God Bless,
Bill

 

[JRKH]

i was more thinking, the burning of a church in africa if guards are in front to shoot back to prevent that or when in the past priests so on have been attacked so on. i guess a modern knights templar (without reading into all the extra things) but the basic job of protecting of worshipers.

in some places no government will aid you, and your on your own, a building is a building i know, but when nuns are violated or murdered so on…

i believe in peace, i just wished the church had a force that could be sent to protect a location…and again not picture tanks but security…even isreal has that because of events in that area.

Remember that Israel is a civil state. So far as I know She does not send security forces into other countries to protect synagogues.

There is a famous quote by Tertulian that goes “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church”. Are we willing to be martyred for Christ? This is a difficult question and when when I ponder it, I fear my response.
And yet - I cannot bring myself to support the idea that you propose. While certainly such an organization might be able to do some, even much, good It is also likely that there will be abuse.
Deep in my heart there resides a conviction that one cannot defeat the enemy using the enemy’s weapons. At best you can hold him at bay, at worst you become infected with the same evil as the enemy. In which case the enemy wins by default.

Of course if I lived in such an area…If God put me to this test…I don’t know how I would act…So please do not take anything I have said here as being a judgement on anyone. Or that I am speaking against the teaching of the Church.

Peace
James

 

[Julia_Mae]

Hi,
I’m uninformed of any attacks or threats to Nuns (or Catholic Churches or Priests, at least for like the past 100 years or so. Has there been an event or more than one? If so, could you please provide that info or a link?
Thanks and God Bless,
Bill

Really?

Nationalists also murdered Catholic clerics. In one particular incident, following the capture of Bilbao, hundreds of people, including 16 priests who had served as chaplains for the Republican forces, were taken to the countryside or graveyards to be murdered.[214][215]

That’s the Spanish Civil War, of course, Franco killed Protestant ministers but still. I think by the end of the war the Nationalists had killed about 1500 religious and priests. Stalin killed priests, the Soviet block countries killed priests, I think in Yugoslavia there were hundreds of Jesuits killed.

Plenty of priests have been murdered for being priests in the last 100 years. Use Google for more info.

 

[JRKH]

Hi,
I’m uninformed of any attacks or threats to Nuns (or Catholic Churches or Priests, at least for like the past 100 years or so. Has there been an event or more than one? If so, could you please provide that info or a link?
Thanks and God Bless,
Bill

Three nuns were killed in El Salvador in 1980…LINK

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Three nuns were killed in El Salvador in 1980…LINK

Why are we reaching back decades? Well?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Has nothing to do with “my interpretation” or what weight you do or do not give it.

This is what Jesus said. When we pass we don’t get to say, “Yeah, I know You said different but I read it in the CCC, so I shot them!” Or, I guess you can say that but I’m not sure you’ll like the result.

Except that the bible does not say that Jesus said that. Nowhere does in the bible does Jesus say “if someone is trying to kill you, you may not use force to try to stop them.” The bible said that Jesus says something which you think means what you say, and which some of us think means something else. But what you, or I, think it means is secondary to what the Church says it means. And the Church says that nothing Jesus said means that we cannot kill in self defense or defense of others.

Granted, from what I understand, the Church does recognize that in some cases it may be better not to use such force in self defense even if it costs us our lives. But it does not claim that this is always true, or that blanket pacifism is the way to go.

 

[St_Francis]

Has nothing to do with “my interpretation” or what weight you do or do not give it.

This is what Jesus said. When we pass we don’t get to say, “Yeah, I know You said different but I read it in the CCC, so I shot them!” Or, I guess you can say that but I’m not sure you’ll like the result.

St Thomas Aquinas: On whether a religious order can be directed to soldiering: I answer that, As stated above (Article 2), a religious order may be established not only for the works of the contemplative life, but also for the works of the active life, in so far as they are concerned in helping our neighbor and in the service of God, but not in so far as they are directed to a worldly object. Now the occupation of soldiering may be directed to the assistance of our neighbor, not only as regards private individuals, but also as regards the defense of the whole commonwealth. Hence it is said of Judas Machabeus (1 Maccabees 3:2-3) that “he [Vulgate: ‘they’] fought with cheerfulness the battle of Israel, and he got his people great honor.” It can also be directed to the upkeep of divine worship, wherefore (1 Maccabees 3:21) Judas is stated to have said: “We will fight for our lives and our laws,” and further on (1 Maccabees 13:3) Simon said: “You know what great battles I and my brethren, and the house of my father, have fought for the laws and the sanctuary.”

Hence a religious order may be fittingly established for soldiering, not indeed for any worldly purpose, but for the defense of divine worship and public safety, or also of the poor and oppressed, according to Psalm 81:4: “Rescue the poor, and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner.”

Reply to Objection 1. 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.*** Hence Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 27): “The courage whereby a man in battle defends his country against barbarians, or protects the weak at home, or his friends against robbers is full of justice”: even so our Lord says in the passage quoted [Luke 6:30 “Of him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again”; Cf. Matthew 5:40, " . . . thy goods, ask them not again." If, however, a man were not to demand the return of that which belongs to another, he would sin if it were his business to do so: for it is praiseworthy to give away one’s own, but not another’s property. And much less should the things of God be neglected, for as Chrysostom [Hom. v in Matth. in the Opus Imperfectum, falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom] says, “it is most wicked to overlook the wrongs done to God.”