Violent fight to keep faith legal?

[tafan]

JRKH, thanks for the thoughtful reply. No need for a big debate, I agree. It was the lines:

The most difficult and yet the most effective resistance is often “passive resistance”, or perhaps more accurately, “non-violent resistance”. To me, it is also the most Christian

and

One cannot defeat evil with the tools of evil

that I took exception to in your original post.

They just came across to me as way to absolute, and as such not in line with Catholic teaching. Pacifism, when it is certainly possible to defeat the evil, is not Christian. That was all.
OTH, adopting a violent approach to evil should be very carefully considered (all other means have been exhausted).

And you are correct in one result: even good and great men, since we are a fallen people, will become damaged by the evil. WWII is a great example of this. Many of the allied leaders were truly good people and great men (by no means always the same), and they had taken up what Warren Caroll referred to as “The Great Just Cause”; yet they utilized measures in the war that can in no way be justified.

 

[Warrenton]

Violence was done to them if caught but they did not return violence for violence…

Something to consider…

I think there was an armed struggle of the shogun’s forces and Japanese Christians in the 1600s. The Christians were crushed. Subsequent Christians did not continue an insurrection because there were insufficient numbers to make success feasible.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

I recently saw a program on EWTN about Christianity in Japan and it appears that for some 200 years the faithful were cut off from any outside contact. No Priests, no mass - nothing…Yet when Priests were finally permitted back in they found native Japanese Catholics living there covertly. The faith had survived this 200 year “blackout” with little violence on their part. Violence was done to them if caught but they did not return violence for violence…

Something to consider…

Peace
James

Oooh, yes, the Japanese crypto-Catholics or Kirishitan, as they called themselves. I remember reading about them in a comparative religion course in my last year of high school: there was one village which was almost one hundred percent Catholic, when Admiral Matthew Perry visited it in the 1850s; their one request was to have a Catholic priest brought to them so they could have a real Mass and so they all could be baptized. One family had kept a set of Mass books and vessels hidden in their home and had passed it down from one generation to the next. They refrained from working on Sundays and in place of the Mass, they read the prayers from the Mass text. They couldn’t baptize their kids, but when a family member was about to die, they would baptize them then.

I also learned – in an odd way, since it was featured in a Japanese animated series – that during the persecutions, the Kirishitan would carve crucifixes on the backs of Buddha statues and would use statues of the goddess Guan Yin in place of statues of the Virgin Mary, That way, if soldiers came to search their houses, all they had to do was turn the Buddha statue around and hide the crucifix.

That, I think, is the best way to fight back against persecution, by going about your business under the authorities’ noses.

 

[Warrenton]

That, I think, is the best way to fight back against persecution, by going about your business under the authorities’ noses.

There is a distinction between a country, like Japan, which has never been majority Catholic, and one like Spain or Mexico, which were thouroughly Catholic.

If the state decides that it is unpatriotic to speak, must the people consent to have their tongues torn out?

 

[JRKH]

There is a distinction between a country, like Japan, which has never been majority Catholic, and one like Spain or Mexico, which were thouroughly Catholic.

If the state decides that it is unpatriotic to speak, must the people consent to have their tongues torn out?

I understand the concern and certainly do not pretend to have the kind of faith or strength that would stand up under persecution (God forgive me) but we must also separate what is “consented to” from what is “done to”…
The Civil rights activists in the U.S. south in the 50’s and 60’s allowed themselves to be blasted with water cannons, and bit by dogs, and hit with batons and hauled off to jail…did they “consent” to these things?
If a nation persecutes it’s citizens it does not mean that the people “consent” to it. One might say that since they are powerless to prevent it that they “allow it” for some greater good…Sort of like God allows suffering for a greater good.

There are a lot of factors that need to be considered in these things…
For one thing one needs to ask “Is there a free press”? With a free press, foreign journalists etc…the opportunity is there to make powerful statements through non-violent civil disobedience. If the press is not free - if the country is cut off from the outside world, it becomes much more difficult or impossible to effect real change without some violence.

But then again - time passes, situations change and perhaps a repressive regime is replaced by a more moderate one…Happened all the time in the Roman days…The persecutions were not resisted but still they were sporadic with periods of tolerance interspersed with periods of persecution.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

JRKH, thanks for the thoughtful reply. No need for a big debate, I agree. It was the lines:

Quote:
The most difficult and yet the most effective resistance is often “passive resistance”, or perhaps more accurately, “non-violent resistance”. To me, it is also the most Christian

Well - I don’t agree that my statements are not in line with Church teaching, but then perhaps I understand them a bit differently than I have been able to express to you.
Please understand that I do not advocate pacifism. I don’t understand why the idea of “non-violent resistance” be equated to pacifism?

My point about not being able to defeat evil with the tools of evil is based on the observance of history. Yes evil regimes have been defeated, but evil regimes still persist. Some are defeated on the battlefield like the Nazi’s - while others collapse from their own internal corruption like the Soviet Union.
After WW I the peace treaty foisted on Germany was a travesty cobbled together out of hate, greed, pride and politics. It virtually guaranteed another war. After WW II the peace was handled differently. Our enemies were helped instead of punished and as a result we wound up with good friends and allies against the threat of Bolshevism.

Sorry I’m rambling again…

OTH, adopting a violent approach to evil should be very carefully considered (all other means have been exhausted).

Agreed…And even then it needs to be carefully measured so that it does not create more problems than it intends to solve.

And you are correct in one result: even good and great men, since we are a fallen people, will become damaged by the evil. WWII is a great example of this. Many of the allied leaders were truly good people and great men (by no means always the same), and they had taken up what Warren Caroll referred to as “The Great Just Cause”; yet they utilized measures in the war that can in no way be justified.

Agreed.

Peace
James

 

[Warrenton]

The Civil rights activists in the U.S. south in the 50’s and 60’s allowed themselves to be blasted with water cannons, and bit by dogs, and hit with batons and hauled off to jail…did they “consent” to these things?

The did consent to them, indeed, they willingly provoked those acts to illustrate the disproportionality of the punishments inflicted by the state.

Fighting for the freedom of the Church is not like the civil rights movement, because the state forces the believer either to abjure the faith or suffer martyrdom or endure the loss of souls by various means.

That is why it was moral to fight against the Vikings when they attacked Christian lands.

 

[Contarini]

They just came across to me as way to absolute, and as such not in line with Catholic teaching. Pacifism, when it is certainly possible to defeat the evil, is not Christian.

How would you support this astonishing claim? There have certainly been many Christian pacifists who supported their views on Christian grounds.

The view that you can defeat evil with the tools of evil, on the other hand, is clearly not Christian.

Just war rests on the belief that war is not intrinsically evil. Once you grant that armed force is a tool of evil, which you seem to, you are morally obligated to become a pacifist.

I hover on the border with regard to this issue, which is why I am not quite a pacifist.

yet they utilized measures in the war that can in no way be justified.

I’m glad we agree on that–that’s one of my major concerns about most defenders of “just war.” In practice, once you declare a war just, there’s a tendency to justify any means necessary to win it.

Edwin

 

[Warrenton]

I hover on the border with regard to this issue, which is why I am not quite a pacifist.

I would say it this way: A Christian may always be pacifist. A Christian sometimes may be violent.

 

[JRKH]

How would you support this astonishing claim? There have certainly been many Christian pacifists who supported their views on Christian grounds.

The view that you can defeat evil with the tools of evil, on the other hand, is clearly not Christian.

Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by “tools”. These are not guns or tanks or any of the “tools” in the “hardware” sense. The Tools of evil are, as we should all know, are much more insidious. The tools of evil are hatred, greed, pride and the other vices.
Given these evil “tools”, and souls willing to yield to them, the evil one can use ANY sort of hardware - even something as “neutral” as the written word to foment greater and greater evil - and by that cause teh loss of many souls.

Just war rests on the belief that war is not intrinsically evil. Once you grant that armed force is a tool of evil, which you seem to, you are morally obligated to become a pacifist.

When it comes to Armed forces I understand the need and am grateful for their existence in our troubled world. An armed force is a “tool” and I agree it is not “intrinsically evil”. That said though it is perhaps the most dangerous of all occupations for a Christian due to what it inherently exposes the Christian to.
For this reason I am glad that the Armed forces of the U.S. have so often been trained and exposed to, not only combat, but to humanitarian missions.

I’m glad we agree on that–that’s one of my major concerns about most defenders of “just war.” In practice, once you declare a war just, there’s a tendency to justify any means necessary to win it.

Edwin - you bring up a very valid point here. One may see a war as “Just” when it starts, but once the battles begin…when, how often and how is it reevaluated to determine if it is still just and if the means being used are just…
As you say above…once a “just war” is declared, there is a tendency to justify any means necessary to win it.

Peace
James

 

[Arizona_Mike]

If you seek protection pick up your nearest rosary and know that Christ is with you. You can’t ask for more

Would St. Joan of Arc and St. John of Capistrano agree with this view?

 

[Holly3278]

If there ever comes a day when Catholicism is made illegal in the United States and we are heavily persecuted, I will simply pray. I will not take up arms and fight. If someone comes to my door and tells me that I either abandon the faith or they kill me, I will not fight them, I will pray. In other words, I am not going to fight against a government that is oppressing me due to my faith with weapons. No, I am will fight against them with prayer and with any legal means possible. However, if it ever becomes a life or death situation where I am either forced to give up my faith or die, I will die.

 

[JimG]

If there ever comes a day when Catholicism is made illegal in the United States and we are heavily persecuted, I will simply pray. I will not take up arms and fight. If someone comes to my door and tells me that I either abandon the faith or they kill me, I will not fight them, I will pray. In other words, I am not going to fight against a government that is oppressing me due to my faith with weapons. No, I am will fight against them with prayer and with any legal means possible. However, if it ever becomes a life or death situation where I am either forced to give up my faith or die, I will die.

But would you fight when they come to line up all the nuns agains the wall and shoot them? When they come to haul off the children from Catholic schools to be sent to re-education camps? When they close seminaries and shoot seminarians and priests as enemies of the state?

 

[JRKH]

These are difficult questions and I don’t think any of us really knows how we might react - depending on the circumstances.

My problem - what I struggle with - Is how to balance the idea of violent resistance with the core principle of peace and Love that are hallmarks of the Christian Church.

I am instructed to Love my enemy and do good to those who revile and spitefully use me. I do I do this through violence?
I’ve heard a lot of explanations on this and perhaps others are able to reconcile this, but so far I have not.

One thing that I will say - is that this discussion speaks strongly to the need for vigilance early and active participation in governance in order to head off such extremes before the question of violent response becomes necessary.
The things that JimG mentions above are rarely the result of quick action but rather come about only after a long and carefully orchestrated erosion of civil liberties.

Let us all work peacefully to protect our civil and religious liberties so that the necessity of “Just War” does not come to pass.

Peace
James

 

[Arizona_Mike]

One should consider the effects on one’s children, for whose religious upbringing one is morally responsible, and future generations, if one does not defend the Faith.

The Ottoman Empire forcibly converted Christians to Islam. The women and girls were sold into slavery and prostitution, and forbidden to practice their religion. Priests were executed. Churches were demolished or converted to mosques. The young boys were given new Islamic names, raised as Muslims, and made soldiers (“Janissaries”) devoted to the spread of Islam and the Empire. Women use to tattoo Crucifixes onto their daughter’s arms so they would have some memory of Christianity if they were forced into another faith.

If the forces of Christendom did not violently resist with all the military skill-at-arms they possessed, Christianity could have been erased from Europe.

I believe as St. Ignatius of Loyola (himself a former soldier) did: Act as if everything depended on you. Pray as if everything depended on God.

 

[JimG]

I have recently finished reading a little book called “For Altar and Throne–The Rising in the Vendee.” It concerns a rebellion instigated by the peasants of the Vendee region of France against the anti-clerical atrocities of the French Revolution.

Those regions were far removed from the shocking violence and unthinking bloodthirstyness of the Paris mobs, but when the Estates General tried to rob them of their religion, their churches, and turn their priests into agents of an atheist state, they determined to fight back, in my view, justifiably so.

 

[JimG]

Here is an article about Blessed Miguel Pro, one of the more famous martyrs of the Mexican persecution of Catholics.

patrickmadrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Blessed-Miguel-Pro.pdf

 

[ZhaneAugustine]

After reading the posts quoting the Catechsim, I think that the only way good Catholics could take up arms, is if there were a larger force, other than just the Catholics, or if a large minority, who were up in arms, not necessiarly Catholic, but not opposed to the faith either, was ALSO up in arms against the corrupt government, and no other situation would resolve the war…

Then, and ONLY then do I think it would be legitimate, and okay for Catholics to take up arms to defend their faith.

 

[JRKH]

Within this argument - I’d like to mention that there are more ways than one to actively and effectively resist oppression. In fact it is usually a combination of methods that is most effective - one acting in concert with the other, each effecting the other to some extent and contributing to a functional and effective whole.

For instance. One of the things that contributed greatly to the demise of the old Soviet Union was the printed word and the fact that the Government found it more and more difficult to prevent the population from seeing how much more successful the “decadent west” was than they were
Technological advances, computers, fax machines etc along with the need for trade (meaning contact with the west) meant that more and more people were exposed to the lies being told.

I recall a story I read along ago about the Russian Jet Pilot who flew his fighter to Japan and defected. He was flown back to DC for debriefing and along the way he had been shown around various stores shops etc…Anyway as he and his “handler” were stopped at a traffic light near a grocery, he suddenly jumped out of the car and ran inside…
Not knowing what was happening, the handler jumped out and followed him. He was simply wandering the aisles. The handler asked why he bolted like that and his response was…to the effect, “I wanted to see a real American grocery”. The assumption was that everything they had shown him was “staged”, and that the “real” stores would be like - or worse than the ones in the USSR. Meaning that there would be little in them.

Our late Great Pope JP II was active in the resistance to the Nazis in Poland - not with a gun but equally as dangerous. He was a member of an underground theater group keeping alive the Great Polish stories of literature. Likewise he attended an underground seminary as he studied for the priesthood.

These kinds of things - propaganda and counter propaganda - fighting lies with truth and injustice with justice are just as powerful and perhaps more important than any armed aspect of a struggle.
When properly applied in a just cause, the Truth becomes more and more apparent to the general (and usually neutral to liberal) populace. Likewise, keeping the Moral Truths front and center aids in keeping the Armed aspects under control - preventing or at least minimizing the “evil effects” of using violence against ones neighbor.

So - one can resist, effectively and non-violently even within a situation where a Justly violent struggle is taking place.

Just some thoughts.

Peace
James

 

[JimG]

After reading the posts quoting the Catechsim, I think that the only way good Catholics could take up arms, is if there were a larger force, other than just the Catholics, or if a large minority, who were up in arms, not necessiarly Catholic, but not opposed to the faith either, was ALSO up in arms against the corrupt government, and no other situation would resolve the war…

Then, and ONLY then do I think it would be legitimate, and okay for Catholics to take up arms to defend their faith.

And this has often been the case throughout history. But even a minority of people up in arms against an oppressive government is no guarantee of success. That does not mean that resistance is futile. The Vendee resisters did not turn back the French revolution but they did manage to turn back the worst of the anti-Church laws.

And oppressive regimes often come to power when good people are unwilling to take up arms against them. The oppressors win by default and proceed to kill the opposition.

When Castro took over Cuba he was initially hailed as a freedom fighter against Batista. Then he began to line up his opponents against the wall to be shot by firing squads. Often their only crime was that they were busiinessmen or middle class, or had opposed the revolution. Week after week such firing squads were reported. Our Sunday Visitor reported them and changed its editorial view of Castro.

When Fr. Miguel Pro was executed by firing squad in Mexico, basically for continuing to bring the sacraments to the Faithful, the regime wanted to publicize his killing in order to discourage the Cristeros. It had the opposite effect. His martyrdom increased the determination of the Cristeros to fight back.

Ghandi succeeded against the British occupation by non-violent resistance. He would not have so succeeded against the Nazi’s who would simply have mowed down the non-violent resisters.

I am a little worried at a trend which would seem to make Catholicism into a pacifist religion. It is not. When the Faith is prohibited and the Faithful are subject to killing, will anyone fight back?