S
souldiver
Guest
Is that what Jesus and the Apostles teach? Especially, should Catholics be. I always thought that the Crusades may be “just” but is not a pacifist approach.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
Bonnie
Guest
A Catholic may be a pacifist - it’s not required. When soldiers came to Jesus he didn’t tell them to quit their jobs. Luke 3:14:
Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?” He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”
C
ChristianDude
Guest
This is just one person, but if I remember correctly St. Augustine of Hippo said that Christians normally ought to pursue some sort of pacifism, but that violence may be used for the purposes of justice; thus what makes wars wrong is not so much the violence itself, but rather the love for it.
A
Adonia
Guest
No. Had all Christians been pacifists the great evils of Hitler, Hirohito (and now ISIS) would have continued on. God uses good people to defeat the evil that exists here on earth.
M
Micosil
Guest
These sorts of discussions often stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of Matthew 5:39 (But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also;). At face value, it may seem like Jesus is asking people for the ultimate form of pacifism. But we need to understand the time Jesus lived in and His culture.
In the Middle Eastern society of our Lord’s time, the left hand was used for mostly hygienic purposes; for other things (eating, shaking hands, etc.) the right hand was used. Since you can’t use your left hand, the only way to hit someone’s right cheek was to use the back of your right hand.
But hitting someone with the back of the hand was seen as a way to treat slaves, servants and inferiors – if the person then turns the left cheek to their aggressor, they would have no choice but to use the front/palm of their right hand to hit them. But this would be treating them as an equal.
This is, then, a method to demand equality from the aggressor; it is a way to humbly resist their violence without fighting back, and also without acquiescing. It is the third manner which rightly puts a person in their place.
In the Middle Eastern society of our Lord’s time, the left hand was used for mostly hygienic purposes; for other things (eating, shaking hands, etc.) the right hand was used. Since you can’t use your left hand, the only way to hit someone’s right cheek was to use the back of your right hand.
But hitting someone with the back of the hand was seen as a way to treat slaves, servants and inferiors – if the person then turns the left cheek to their aggressor, they would have no choice but to use the front/palm of their right hand to hit them. But this would be treating them as an equal.
This is, then, a method to demand equality from the aggressor; it is a way to humbly resist their violence without fighting back, and also without acquiescing. It is the third manner which rightly puts a person in their place.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
I don’t think it’s 100% necessary but I think it’s a very good way to live out the teachings of Jesus Christ. Many in the early Church seemed to prefer pacifism. I myself am a pacifist.
G
GEddie
Guest
I’m one.
ICXC NIKA
ICXC NIKA
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
I agree. I suppose it’s more a matter of conscience and perhaps personal preference.A Catholic may be a pacifist - it’s not required. When soldiers came to Jesus he didn’t tell them to quit their jobs. Luke 3:14:
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
It would make more sense to interpret this passage in pacifistic ways. Jesus was going up against the societal norms off his time. The Romans could be very brutal at times with their methods. So, many Jews were looking for a political Messiah who would conquer Romans through warfare. But Jesus taught the opposite. He taught his followers to not fight back even when the Romans were using their brutal ways. He taught that instead of fighting back we should try to usher in the Kingdom of God through peace and love. Not through violence or warfare.These sorts of discussions often stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of Matthew 5:39 (But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also;). At face value, it may seem like Jesus is asking people for the ultimate form of pacifism. But we need to understand the time Jesus lived in and His culture.
In the Middle Eastern society of our Lord’s time, the left hand was used for mostly hygienic purposes; for other things (eating, shaking hands, etc.) the right hand was used. Since you can’t use your left hand, the only way to hit someone’s right cheek was to use the back of your right hand.
But hitting someone with the back of the hand was seen as a way to treat slaves, servants and inferiors – if the person then turns the left cheek to their aggressor, they would have no choice but to use the front/palm of their right hand to hit them. But this would be treating them as an equal.
This is, then, a method to demand equality from the aggressor; it is a way to humbly resist their violence without fighting back, and also without acquiescing. It is the third manner which rightly puts a person in their place.
Many early Christians also seem to lean towards pacifism. Tertullian and Origen were the loudest proponents of pacifism in the early Church. Tertullian even wrote a whole treatise on why Christians should not be allowed to join the military. We also have quotes by other fathers such as Hippolytus of Rome who says, *“A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath. If he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected for baptism. A military commander or civic magistrate must resign or be rejected. If a believer seeks to become a soldier, he must be rejected, for he has despised God.” *
Of course, since it is not dogma, Christians do not have to be pacifist. But I think it should be preferred. It was heavily preferred in the early Church. Even in the 12th canon of the Council of Nicaea military service is harshly spoken of.
T
tamedlion
Guest
A Christian should be a pacifist but a pacifist should not be a coward.
T
TheDoctor
Guest
Yes, if by “pacifist” we mean someone who is “strongly and actively opposed to conflict and especially war”. We are called to be peacemakers and love our neighbors as ourselves.
This does not preclude however, our right to self defense of ourselves or our country - remember that the Church does allow for “just war”. Where to draw that line between doing nothing and necessary violence (e.g. the crusades) will always be a major moral issue.
This does not preclude however, our right to self defense of ourselves or our country - remember that the Church does allow for “just war”. Where to draw that line between doing nothing and necessary violence (e.g. the crusades) will always be a major moral issue.
M
Micosil
Guest
It is correct that pacifism is the central message, but perhaps not “doormat, walk-all-over-me” kind of pacifism that many people seem to think, but a third way, which doesn’t involve acquiescence/doormat pacifism, nor violently fighting back. This third way doesn’t involve violence, but mirrors back the aggressor’s unjust violence in an attempt to show them the error of their ways.It would make more sense to interpret this passage in pacifistic ways. Jesus was going up against the societal norms off his time. The Romans could be very brutal at times with their methods. So, many Jews were looking for a political Messiah who would conquer Romans through warfare. But Jesus taught the opposite. He taught his followers to not fight back even when the Romans were using their brutal ways. He taught that instead of fighting back we should try to usher in the Kingdom of God through peace and love. Not through violence or warfare.
Many early Christians also seem to lean towards pacifism. Tertullian and Origen were the loudest proponents of pacifism in the early Church. Tertullian even wrote a whole treatise on why Christians should not be allowed to join the military. We also have quotes by other fathers such as Hippolytus of Rome who says, *“A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath. If he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected for baptism. A military commander or civic magistrate must resign or be rejected. If a believer seeks to become a soldier, he must be rejected, for he has despised God.” *
Of course, since it is not dogma, Christians do not have to be pacifist. But I think it should be preferred. It was heavily preferred in the early Church. Even in the 12th canon of the Council of Nicaea military service is harshly spoken of.
As far as early figures in the Church are concerned, other Fathers seem to embrace a bellicose attitude (which is one of the places where the Church gets it Just War doctrine from). St. Agustine, for example, says the following in City of God:
As far as the specific interpretation of Matthew 5:39 is concerned, St. Augustine also pondered it, and gave an explanation which deviates from total, submissive pacifism. Fr. Stephen F. Torraco of EWTN sheds light on the issue here.They who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.”
You’ll note the part I bolded in Fr. Torraco’s answer is precisely what I explained before; by mirroring back the aggressor’s unjust attack, we seek to make him submit to divine love and to repent.Augustine finally unveiled the fuller meaning of Christ’s command to turn the cheek. The command certainly includes prohibiting revenge: you should not imitate the behavior of your assailant. However, the command includes more: not only should you forgive your assailant, but also, out of joy, out of Love, out of Holy Spirit, and without fear of any kind or for any reason, seek to make your assailant good. Seek to draw him into repentance and into receiving the ultimate Good, the Holy Spirit.
D
dmar198
Guest
Here is a summary of Catholic military history from 30 A.D. to 900 A.D.Is that what Jesus and the Apostles teach? Especially, should Catholics be. I always thought that the Crusades may be “just” but is not a pacifist approach.
Catholic Military History
historyandapologetics.com/p/catholic-military-history.html
Believe it or not, Catholics have been in the military since the time of Jesus. That link gives summary descriptions of many important battles where Catholics and/or Catholic states were influential, along with what the Church Fathers said about war during each age. I hope you find it helpful. Please let me know.
C
Cider
Guest
From the CCC
Avoiding war
2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.104
2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."105
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. the gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.
Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.106
2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.107
2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."108
2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.
Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.
2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."109 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.
2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. the arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;110 it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.
2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. the short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.
2317 Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:
Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."111
Avoiding war
2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.104
2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."105
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. the gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. the power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.
Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.106
2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.107
2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."108
2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.
Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.
2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."109 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.
2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. the arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;110 it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.
2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. the short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.
2317 Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:
Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."111
P
PolarGuy
Guest
One problem I have with pacifists is that they often will allow the use of violence by others, but not by themselves, i.e., it’s OK to use violence to combat ISIS, Nazis, etc., so long as it’s done by others. They won’t putt a gun to stop a mugging, but they have no problem with a policeman doing so. I see that as rank cowardice: “I want others to do the dirty work that I won’t, or am afraid to, do myself.”
Further, I’ve had heated discussions on this board as to whether, for example, there is any behavior that would “get a pacifist to use violence.” The example I’ve offered – which has occasionally gotten me excoriated – is the personal observation of one’s own daughter being raped. Show me someone who wouldn’t use violence in that situation, to end or prevent the rape, and I’ll show you someone who isn’t a human being, and no amount of their Scripture quoting or discussion will change my view on that. Some things are just so heinous that violence is not only allowable to combat, it’s required.
Further, I’ve had heated discussions on this board as to whether, for example, there is any behavior that would “get a pacifist to use violence.” The example I’ve offered – which has occasionally gotten me excoriated – is the personal observation of one’s own daughter being raped. Show me someone who wouldn’t use violence in that situation, to end or prevent the rape, and I’ll show you someone who isn’t a human being, and no amount of their Scripture quoting or discussion will change my view on that. Some things are just so heinous that violence is not only allowable to combat, it’s required.
R
rose_kelly
Guest
I am in principle, but when war and conflict continues to brutally inflict suffering,disaster and death on innocent lives and peaceful initiatives are failing I’m not always against military action as a last resort.I don’t think it’s 100% necessary but I think it’s a very good way to live out the teachings of Jesus Christ. Many in the early Church seemed to prefer pacifism.I myself am a pacifist.
But I always have an inner dilemma knowing that past conflicts in history have often ended up causing more suffering in the long term.
P
Peccavi
Guest
Blessed are he peacemakers All my family are military I am a pacifist It’s a choice we make when we accept the teachings of Yeshua (Jesus).
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Or to protect the weak and vulnerable, wherever they may be.This does not preclude however, our right to self defense of ourselves or our country
T
TheDoctor
Guest
Of course. Well said.Or to protect the weak and vulnerable, wherever they may be.
T
TK421
Guest
Yes and no. Some people’s callings in life may lead them towards a sort of personal pacifism. For example: priests and religious don’t personally engage in combat… and yet there are military chaplain who work directly with the spiritual needs (and to a lesser extent, the psychological needs) of soldiers. For that matter, the overwhelming majority of us - in the circumstances of our lives - are going to live and die without ever engaging in serious physical combat. So we end up living out a pacifistic life.A Catholic may be a pacifist - it’s not required. When soldiers came to Jesus he didn’t tell them to quit their jobs. Luke 3:14:
On the other hand, there are canonized saints that were warriors, and we know from many accounts in history of Mary (and by extension all saints) actively interceding in an armed conflict. So, while in the circumstances of an individual’s life they may live out a pacifistic life, I cannot see them being pacifist as a matter of ideology without it being - at the very least - problematic. Because if you’re ideologically pacifist (what I mean by that is: you’re not just pacifist in your individual life calling, but rather expect everybody to live such a way as a matter of universal moral law) than you’re in essence antagonizing Heaven, because Heaven has been militaristic (and not just in the spiritual sense) on many occasions. There are patrons saints specifically for warriors/soldiers/police.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.