Turn the other cheek

  • Thread starter Thread starter ronhmason
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ronhmason

Guest
Over the week-end my wife and I got into a discussion about “turn the other cheek” and we realized that we don’t really understand the Church’s teaching on this subject. Could someone please help us with this?
Thanks,
Ron and Michele
 
Hello,

I read this passage this morning. In my Vulgate/Douay-Rheims Bible, Bishop Challoner’s note for this line is:
St. Matthew, Ch. 5, Ver. 39: *Not to resist evil, *&c. What is here commanded, is a Christian patience under injuries and affronts, and to be willing even to suffer still more, rather than to indulge the desire of revenge: but what is further added does not strictly oblige according to the letter, for neither did Christ nor St. Paul turn the other cheek. St. John 18., and Acts 23.

Hope this helps!
amsjj 🙂

+++
Jesus, God and man,
imprisoned by love in Thy most holy Sacrament,
have mercy upon us.
– Blessed John Henry Newman, December 22, 1851

Tú y yo sabemos por la fe que oculto en las especies sacramentales está Cristo,
ese Cristo con su Cuerpo, con su Sangre, con su Alma, y con su Divinidad,
prisonero de amor.
– San Josemaria Escriva, 1 junio 1974
 
I think it’s important to understand what it is not. Turning the other cheek does not mean becoming a doormat for everyone that would do you harm.
 
Hi,

I will post what the CCC has to say on this later, but for not please let it suffice to say this. There is nothing more poignant on this then the following.

Look to Jesus on the Cross. “Father forgive them, they know not what they do.” And he offered everything for us. Offer the wrongs up and unite them with the powerful sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross.

God bless.
 
I think it’s important to understand what it is not. Turning the other cheek does not mean becoming a doormat for everyone that would do you harm.
Many years ago I heard a Protestant minister say the same thing. I was actually going to post that comment before I saw you already did!
 
Saint Augustine says the following, which strikes me as very true:
This law, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, was enacted to repress the flames of mutual hate, and to be a check on their undisciplined spirits. For who when he would take revenge, was ever content to return just so much harm as he had received? Do we not see men who have suffered some trifling hurt, straightway plot murder, thirst for blood, and hardly find evil enough that they can do to their enemies for the satisfying of their rage? To this immeasured and cruel fury the Law puts bounds when it enacts a lex talionis; that is, that whatever wrong or hurt any man has done to another, he should suffer just the same in return. This is not to encourage but to check rage; for it does not rekindle what was extinguished, but hinders the flames already kindled from further spread. It enacts a just retaliation, properly due to him who has suffered the wrong. But that mercy forgives any debt, does not make it unjust that payment had been sought. Since then he sins who seeks an unmeasured vengeance, but he does not sin who desires only a just one; he is therefore further from sin who seeks no retribution at all. I might state it yet thus: It was said to them of old time, You shall not take unequal retaliation; But I say to you, You shall not retaliate; this is a completion of the Law, if in these words something is added to the Law which was wanting to it; yea, rather that which the Law sought to do, namely, to put an end to unequal revenge, is more safely secured when there is no revenge at all.
. . .
For the righteousness of the Pharisees is a less righteousness, not to transgress the measure of equal retribution; and this is the beginning of peace; but perfect peace is to refuse all such retribution. Between that first manner then, which was not according to the Law, to wit, that a greater evil should be returned for a less, and this which the Lord enjoins to make His disciples perfect, to wit, that no evil should be returned for evil, a middle place is held by this, that an equal evil should be returned, which was thus the passage from extremist discord to extremist peace. Whoso then first does evil to another departs furthest from righteousness; and who does not first do any wrong, but when wronged repays with a heavier wrong, has departed somewhat from extreme injustice; he who repays only what he has received, gives up yet something more, for it were but strict right that he whom is the first aggressor should receive a greater hurt than he inflicted. This righteousness thus partly begun, He perfects, who is come to fulfill the Law.
 
Hi,

As promised here’s the paragraph from the Cathechism of the Catholic Church.

Paragraph 2302 - By recalling the commandment, “You shall not kill,”, our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.

Anger is a desire for revenge [definetly not turning the other cheek]. “To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someon who should be punished is illicit,” but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution “to correct vices and maintain justice.” If anger reached the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor [and it does not have to be physically wound them either, can be in other forms], it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, “Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.”

God bless.
 
I think that it means “no revenge.” If somebody does something evil to you, then the evil needs to stop there. If somebody does evil to you and then you do evil (revenge) back to them… then they will do evil back to you again (their revenge) and then you do it back. So much evil. The evil has to stop somewhere and I think that the Church teaches that the evil should stop with us.

An eye for an eye leaves us both blind.
 
I agree with the above post. But I think it depends who’s doing the slapping. Most times turning the other cheek stops further attacks but sometimes it doesn’t. Like you wouldn’t turn the other cheek with a hitler type person.
 
I agree with the above post. But I think it depends who’s doing the slapping. Most times turning the other cheek stops further attacks but sometimes it doesn’t. Like you wouldn’t turn the other cheek with a hitler type person.
I agree. No revenge is not the same as “stop a crazy world dictator ie. Hitler.” I think that turn the other cheek does not mean that we are doormats and does not mean that we should sit by and let horrible things happen in front of our faces. It means that once the problem is dealt with, then that is it. No seeking revenge.

For example: (NOT TO GET INTO A POLITICAL DEBATE… just an example). We needed to stop terrorists. We were looking for Osama. We got him. We killed him. We got and are still looking for the other terrorists on the list. Once we get them all, we should be done. Deciding that we are THEN going to go after the citizens of a certain country or bomb another country off the face of the Earth because of something that their citizens have done would be revenge. When it’s over–it’s over.
 
Over the week-end my wife and I got into a discussion about “turn the other cheek” and we realized that we don’t really understand the Church’s teaching on this subject. Could someone please help us with this?
Thanks,
Ron and Michele
A while back, my RCIA sponsor gave me an interesting take on the teaching of “turning the other cheek”. It went something like this:

Notice that the verse specifically mentions the right cheek. There are only two ways that someone can strike you on the right cheek. Either with their left hand, or with the back of their right hand. Per Jewish social customs of the time, the left hand was reserved for “unclean” uses. This implies that the back of the right hand was probably used to do the striking. A backhanded slap was considered a great insult and the way that a superior would hit an inferior. So, turning your cheek would require that the person strike you as a social equal. In this interpretation, the teaching is more about making a statement and protesting oppression or social injustice. It’s about refusing to be humiliated.

The other parts of the passage about “going the second mile” after being forced to go one mile and “giving your cloak as well” to someone who had sued for your coat could also be considered similar responses in light of Roman and civil law.

By Roman law, a soldier could force someone to carry his things, but only up to one mile. Voluntarily going the second mile would be making a point. If someone sued you and took your coat (something that you needed to stay warm), then giving them your cloak also could be making the point that the system is unfair.

I enjoy hearing these different insights. Considering the context and customs of the time sometimes reveals more depth to a passage than what initially meets our modern day eye. I suppose that these interpretations could make sense, considering the Roman oppression and social injustices of the time. Also, it doesn’t conflict with the normal take. Non-violence if possible. Do not seek revenge and retailiate in an “eye for an eye” manner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top