The Total Pacifist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DarinHamel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Iambic Pen:
Here’s a question on this subject. If the state turned against Christianity (as the Roman Empire did for some time), would Christians be justified in using violence in their own defense? Or, as it seems many did, should we peacefully march to the lions? I’ve often wondered about this.
Click to expand...
I’d say take the martyrdom, it’s the easy way to heaven. And it will bring many more generations to Christ.

That said there is a world of difference from being persecuted because you are Christian, and allowing your brother to be.
 
40.png
DarinHamel:
Personally I would hope and pray I had the strength to march peacefully to the lions. I cant remember a single account of the early saints fighting back. They died or fled.

Does anybody have any evidence of them fighting back in Christs name?
Click to expand...
For them to fight back would have been futile and so not meet the third qualification “there must be serious prospects of success”
 
The Iambic Pen:
Here’s a question on this subject. If the state turned against Christianity (as the Roman Empire did for some time), would Christians be justified in using violence in their own defense? Or, as it seems many did, should we peacefully march to the lions? I’ve often wondered about this.
Click to expand...
If you’re being persecuted by your state solely on the basis of your faith in Christ, I think it brings the discussion into a different arena and the standards of conduct may require adjustment to take this into account… It affords the Christian a powerful means to witness.
 
To continue from my previous post, I’ll give a more specific example. Let’s say that sometime in the future, America outlaws Christianity. Police come to a man’s house to arrest him and his family, intending to have them executed. The man knows that if he uses force, he can defend his family and then flee with them to safety in Mexico. In this case, he would have a reasonable chance of success. All of this being so, would the man be justified in using force (even deadly force) to defend himself and his family?

I’ve thought about this often, because it seems like people will cheer for those who will fight for their country, even when defeat is certain, but when it comes to people fighting for their Christian faith, no one seems to support this. Is it okay to fight for one’s country, a man-made political institution, but not okay to fight for one’s faith, something of far greater importance than one’s nation? I’m actually not trying to defend either view, as I’m really not sure what the right course of action is in this case.
 
I would defend my family with extreme violence if I had one. But I think that goes along with the vocation of a family. How could you possible blame a man for defending and then fleeing with his family to safety even under the strictest christian values.

An ealier poster said that pacifism might be a vocation and I am inclined to believe that. Its not for everybody and it might even be irresponsible for some such as those with families.

If he gave his life in a non-violent way to let his family escape even, who then supports his wife and children? I am curious what the earliest christians did, if whole familys died voluntarily for christ.
 
The Iambic Pen:
To continue from my previous post, I’ll give a more specific example. Let’s say that sometime in the future, America outlaws Christianity. Police come to a man’s house to arrest him and his family, intending to have them executed. The man knows that if he uses force, he can defend his family and then flee with them to safety in Mexico. In this case, he would have a reasonable chance of success. All of this being so, would the man be justified in using force (even deadly force) to defend himself and his family?
Click to expand...
Yes, he would, and would be morally obligated to do so. The resonable chance for success exists, and he should take it.

The olden Christians were another story. They were powerless to fight back, and the only way out was to apostasize. They chose death instead. Actually, this isn’t pacifism. It’s the finest kind of warfare.
 
40.png
porthos11:
They were powerless to fight back, and the only way out was to apostasize. They chose death instead. Actually, this isn’t pacifism. It’s the finest kind of warfare.
Click to expand...
You hit the nail on the head without knowing it, Pacifism isn’t about letting someone harm you, it’s about bringing change and making your enemy your brother. After all how do you minister with a gun in your hand?
 
Let say some group was going out and invading everyone else, sacking all the towns.

So more to the point would you say that battles agains the Ottomans and the Nazis for a few where unjustified?
 
To be honest I don’t know about the Ottomans but the Nazis could have been stopped before they started had the church (not just the Catholic, I mean Protestant, Anababtist, all of us) stood up for what was right.
 
I think a little Pattonism is in call for here.

“Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.” – General George S. Patton Jr.
 
40.png
Shlemele:
To be honest I don’t know about the Ottomans but the Nazis could have been stopped before they started had the church (not just the Catholic, I mean Protestant, Anababtist, all of us) stood up for what was right.
Click to expand...
Don’t run about repeating the lie taught you by our anti-Christian secular education system. Look into the history for yourself.
 
Excuse me, could you be more spacific. All I was saying was that had the church (all of them, I put that in there for a reason) stood up early on and not been complacent the Nazi party would never have gotten off the ground.
 
40.png
Shlemele:
You hit the nail on the head without knowing it, Pacifism isn’t about letting someone harm you, it’s about bringing change and making your enemy your brother. After all how do you minister with a gun in your hand?
Click to expand...
How do you minister when you’re stone, cold dead?

We each have a right to defend ourselves and under certain circumstances a duty – not only to defend ourselves, but also our fellow citizens.
 
vern humphrey:
How do you minister when you’re stone, cold dead?
Click to expand...
Sometimes giving your life for a cause is the ultimate witness. Think of all the saints. Does the fact that they are dead (many dies for their faith by the way) detract from their witness? No, of course not. Many of these are saints because they laid down their lives.

For me I have one quote that takes care of my beliefson pacifism; “There are many causes that I would gladly give my life for, there are however no causes for which I would take a life”. on the subject of killing to preserve life, I am still working through that. In all honesty though such cases are rare in modern society.
 
40.png
Shlemele:
Sometimes giving your life for a cause is the ultimate witness. Think of all the saints. Does the fact that they are dead (many dies for their faith by the way) detract from their witness? No, of course not. Many of these are saints because they laid down their lives.
Click to expand...
No one suggests the martyrs could have successfully defended themselves – impossibility is a good defense against any accusation of failing in one’s duty.

Sometimes death is your only choice – in which case, one should die bravely in witness to the faith.

But not all of us are in the position of the saints. A husband and father, for example, cannot choose to submit to martyrdom if there is a reasonable change he can sucessfully defend his wife and children.
40.png
Shlemele:
For me I have one quote that takes care of my beliefson pacifism; “There are many causes that I would gladly give my life for, there are however no causes for which I would take a life”. on the subject of killing to preserve life, I am still working through that. In all honesty though such cases are rare in modern society.
Click to expand...
You may well find that such cases are not all that rare. Would you have allowed the Holocaust to continue if attempting to stop it would require you to take a life?
 
I think you’re right Darin. Here’s a good website

catholicpeacefellowship.org/

I think the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II’s teachings on this subject were absolutely clear.

Social justice cannot be attained by violence. Violence kills what it intends to create.
 
In addition to Jesus’ own use of force in the temple, and the lack of a call to Cornelius to abondon his profession, here’s some other things:

Not only does Peter have a sword in the garden, which Jesus presumably knows he is carrying, but in all the years of Jesus’ ministry it apparently has not been made clear to the Apostle’s that the use of force/the sword is always wrong. Otherwise Peter would have been a little more careful about concealing his sword from Jesus (instead of telling him they had two).

John the Baptist gave instructions for repentance to different groups of people. His instructions told them to fulfill their duties honestly and justly, but never to quit their jobs.

Paul, in Romans 13, asserts that the state does not “wield the sword in vain” but does so with authority granted by God.
 
40.png
FightingFat:
I think you’re right Darin. Here’s a good website

catholicpeacefellowship.org/

I think the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II’s teachings on this subject were absolutely clear.

Social justice cannot be attained by violence. Violence kills what it intends to create.
Click to expand...
So explain why the Catechism says:
**2263 **The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”
Click to expand...
and
**2264 **Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.
Click to expand...
and
**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.”
Click to expand...
 
H.E. Francis Cdl. George once said to a group I was in that pacifism was something one could choose for oneself, but was not a universal standard to be expected of others.

He didn’t go on to clarify his exact meaning, but that’s basically the traditional teaching of the Church. Clergy or vowed religious renounce the use of violence as a part of their ministry, since the Gospel is not spread by the sword. At the same time, it is regarded as a duty of civil officials and, really, all citizens whose state in life does not prevent them, to use force when necessary to “punish the wicked.” So pacifism is acceptable in certain cases (religious) but is not a universal norm, nor can it be considered such.
 
Andreas Hofer:
H.E. Francis Cdl. George once said to a group I was in that pacifism was something one could choose for oneself, but was not a universal standard to be expected of others.
Click to expand...
And he was completely in accord with Catholic teaching. In fact, he could have gone on to say that there are circumstances in which you can be obliged to fight.
Andreas Hofer:
He didn’t go on to clarify his exact meaning, but that’s basically the traditional teaching of the Church. Clergy or vowed religious renounce the use of violence as a part of their ministry, since the Gospel is not spread by the sword. At the same time, it is regarded as a duty of civil officials and, really, all citizens whose state in life does not prevent them, to use force when necessary to “punish the wicked.” So pacifism is acceptable in certain cases (religious) but is not a universal norm, nor can it be considered such.
Click to expand...
At one time, bishops were forbidden to use the sword. So some bishops went into battle armed with hammers and axes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top