P
Pope_Noah_I
Guest
…how does this relate to war? I know the Church’s teachings on war, but it seems that Jesus basically condemns killing in any form. I could be wrong, but how is killing not always morally disordered?
- Status
L
LDNCatholic
Guest
I believe that in that time period slapping someone in the face was not a violent act, but an insulting one, like some vulgar people spit at each other. So if that is the case it relates to insults to honour rather than physical attacks.
If there is someone more knowledgeable on the subject please correct me and enlighten the pair of us
God bless
Peter
If there is someone more knowledgeable on the subject please correct me and enlighten the pair of us
God bless
Peter
D
Della
Guest
Jesus did not condemn war with this passage. He was talking about dealing with personal insults. Some people hijack this verse to try to make it fit into their pacifist ideal, but it simply isn’t about organized warfare. It’s about personal behavior and suffering for the sake of righteousness.
P
Pope_Noah_I
Guest
How does this differ in any way? If someone tries to kill me, I am no more justfied in killing him than he is in killing me. Only God has the authority to decide on matters of birth and death. If I am killed because I refuse to kill another, I am a martyr. Would the early Christians have been justified in killing those who persecuted them? Apparently, they thought not. They went to their deaths knowing that they would go into the afterlife without anyone’s blood on their hands. I would do the same.
J
JRKH
Guest
Looking at the entire passage it is pretty apparent that this does not relate to war directly. It does, however, call for an attitude that precludes war-like actions on the part of individuals. Most of what Christ teaches really applies to the individual not to “States or Institutions”
It really becomes a matter of individual conscience to determine how to apply these.
James
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
I think it does apply to war to an extent. We should never wage war for reasons of honor, or to get revenge.
On the other hand, Jesus didn’t say that if someone strikes your wife, to give him your daughter to beat on as well. I think we still have an obligation to protect the innocent, and sometimes war has to be waged to protect the innocent.
D
Della
Guest
If someone tries to kill you, according to the Church, you should try to prevent him from doing so by the least lethal means possible. So, you are over simplifying by saying you’d have to kill him. If you should kill him while defending yourself, however, because it just fell out that way, you would not be guilty of murder nor would it be morally wrong. The Church allows for self-defense since you are not the aggressor and you or others may have been injured or killed by the aggressor.
The martyrs usually didn’t have the option of defending themselves, but even if they did they knew they were dying as witnesses to the faith (which is what the word martyr means). They decided to lay down their lives but if they could have defended themselves and gotten away, they would have been justified in doing so.
J
JoyToBeCatholic
Guest
Should we not, in imitation of our Lord, be defenseless? There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for another. In resisting violence of any kind, we are trying to win the love of the one threatening to do harm. Reacting with violence is not a witness and is not in imitation of our Lord.
I don’t know that I oppose war in the sense that God permits it, but I don’t see how a Christian is justified in participation in acts that directly cause the death of another.
I don’t know that I oppose war in the sense that God permits it, but I don’t see how a Christian is justified in participation in acts that directly cause the death of another.
L
LDNCatholic
Guest
But if someone is in immediate danger, wouldn’t laying down your life, knowing that you could defend them, just be selfish? You have sentenced that defenceless person to death by your own inaction. But that is just my opinion on the matter.
J
JoyToBeCatholic
Guest
Good question. I don’t know if this is pertinent of not, but, I am thinking of St. Gianna Maria Bolla (not sure if that is the correct name) who gave her life for the sake of her unborn child. She had many other children. On a different level, this can be seen as the same. Had she taken the measures suggested to her by her doctor, she could have saved her life and continued to raise her children. She choose, instead of taking a life, to give up her own.
S
SPH1
Guest
LDN got it right, it refers to insults, not war. Afterall, Christ presumes that you will survive to be able to turn the other cheek.
And certainly, if someone were swinging a sword at your cheek, you have the right to duck…right?
Christ isn’t advocating suicide by bullies.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Let’s not forget that the Son of God commanded His followers to go out and purchase a sword if they did not have one – even if they had to sell their outer cloak in order to buy one (Luke 22:36-38; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:26-27).
Jesus, who was a strong supporter of the poor, would not have instructed His followers to buy something if it was not intended to be used and a sword has only one purpose – to be used as a weapon … either offensively or defensively.
A plain reading of Luke 22:36-38 indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense. The “sword” (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler’s equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. Pretty much the equilavent of what a gun is today.
Jesus, who was a strong supporter of the poor, would not have instructed His followers to buy something if it was not intended to be used and a sword has only one purpose – to be used as a weapon … either offensively or defensively.
A plain reading of Luke 22:36-38 indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense. The “sword” (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler’s equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. Pretty much the equilavent of what a gun is today.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I’m not a theologian, but I think if Jesus intended to condemn participation in war carte blanche, He had the perfect opportunity to do it with the centurion whose daughter was dying (wasn’t his name Jairus?). Roman soldiers were pretty rough boys, and I’m sure the centurion had done his share of swordwork. Roman fighting techniques were extremely aggressive and bloody, which is why they were so successful. He didn’t tell the centurion to stop being a soldier or a leader of men into battle. No, He said “greater faith than this I have not found in all Israel”. And that was that.
I do think Jesus would likely encourage us to accept humiliation or even pain if it affected us alone. I do not think He would encourage us to volunteer others for it.
I do think Jesus would likely encourage us to accept humiliation or even pain if it affected us alone. I do not think He would encourage us to volunteer others for it.
P
Pope_Noah_I
Guest
Why would Christ encourage his disciples to buy weapons?
F
fix
Guest
A better example would be of the good Samaritan. If the man came upon the beating in progress, rather than after the fact, would it be Christian to watch the beating without interferring claiming pacifism? I say no.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Because as I originally said, a plain reading of Luke 22:36-38 indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense.
R
robert_ambrose
Guest
the roman officer would carry a rope round his wrist, the rope would have thongs on it. when he would whip someone across the face he was asserting his authority in front of his own men. usually the victim would cower. however if the victim would offer the other cheek the officer would then lose face and the respect of his men. he would be the loser. the story of the cloak and the tunic is similar in Jesus’s teaching
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Please explain.
E
Ender
Guest
No. We may choose to submit rather than defend our own lives but it is wrong not to intervene to protect the lives of others.
(Aquinas): "The good bear with the wicked by enduring patiently, and in due manner, the wrongs they themselves receive from them: but they do not bear with them as to endure the wrongs they inflict on God and their neighbor. For Crysostom says: “It is praiseworthy to be patient under our own wrongs, but to overlook God’s wrongs is most wicked.”
The Church justifies it as a right and a duty by making a distinction between the individual and the state:
(CCC 2267) “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors civil community entrusted to their charge.”
Ender
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
They were persecuted for their faith. War was not mentioned.
Even PaPa Benedict has an army to protect him.
- Status