Why did church teaching change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lucky4075
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lucky4075

Guest
Hello again everyone. Ive been trying to discern wether or not military service is what I want/should do for a vocation. I know that the Church today teaches that it is not forbidden/ morally ok, but this article that was online seems to raise alot of questions for me. The early Christians all seemed to be very pacifistic and forbid military service not only because of the pagan rituals but because of the violence. Why then did the Churchs teachings change? The article says this change came when Christianity became legal and the Church became corrupted by Constantine/ government power?

heraldmag.org/olb/contents/doctrine/ecvowams.htm

I want to join the Coast Guard someday but this moral issue always seems to come back and bother me. Should i just not join if this will keep happening?
 
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT

You shall not kill.54 You have heard that it was said to the men of old, “You shall not kill: and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.” But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.55
2258 "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."56
I. RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE
The witness of sacred history
2259
In the account of Abel’s murder by his brother Cain,57 Scripture reveals the presence of anger and envy in man, consequences of original sin, from the beginning of human history. Man has become the enemy of his fellow man. God declares the wickedness of this fratricide: "What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand."58
2260 The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence:

For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning. . . . Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.59 The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life.60 This teaching remains necessary for all time.
2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous."61 The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.
2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, "You shall not kill,"62 and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies.63 He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.64
Legitimate defense
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."65
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.66 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68
 
I served in the military for six years. When I joined, my faith was not as strong, and I did not have any moral concerns. Plus, there was little to worry about in 1999. Eventually, my faith began to grow, and I started to have questions and doubts about what to do. I decided to complete my contract anyway. Well, then September 11th happened. I was deployed twice, but never saw any “real” action - thankfully. My job was more in the rear, but it was always a possibility. I truly struggled with this.

In the Army, being a conscientious objector is not a laughing matter. You would actually get discharged for it. I openly told my superiors prior to deploying that I would not kill anyone. They simply shrugged it off, but I don’t think they understood how serious I was.

In today’s world, with multiple wars/peace-keeping efforts going on, a situation like this is more common. If you do not feel that you could kill someone, do not join. Period. The only position free from this is Chaplain… and maybe Chaplain’s assistant. But even they are put in charge of keeping the Chaplain safe.

If you feel a call to the military, but you don’t want to kill anyone, become a Chaplain. Otherwise, heed my advice, look for a different vocation.
 
Hello again everyone. Ive been trying to discern whether or not military service is what I want/should do for a vocation. I know that the Church today teaches that it is not forbidden/ morally ok, but this article that was online seems to raise a lot of questions for me. The early Christians all seemed to be very pacifistic and forbid military service not only because of the pagan rituals but because of the violence. Why then did the Church’s teachings change? The article says this change came when Christianity became legal and the Church became corrupted by Constantine/ government power?

heraldmag.org/olb/contents/doctrine/ecvowams.htm

I want to join the Coast Guard someday but this moral issue always seems to come back and bother me. Should i just not join if this will keep happening?
I don’t have time to read the article, but it is my belief that if you have any doubts about the matter, you should avoid military service, unless you are able to serve in the capacity of either a chaplain or a medic…(Quakers have served as medics in many wars).

That said, the Coast Guard might be a good alternative, since much of it’s function is safety, search and rescue etc. Of course there is the aspect of drug interdiction etc… but overall the Coast Guard’s primary function is to try and save lives rather than take them.

Good luck with your discernment.

Peace
James
 
Hello again everyone. Ive been trying to discern wether or not military service is what I want/should do for a vocation. I know that the Church today teaches that it is not forbidden/ morally ok, but this article that was online seems to raise alot of questions for me. The early Christians all seemed to be very pacifistic and forbid military service not only because of the pagan rituals but because of the violence. Why then did the Churchs teachings change? The article says this change came when Christianity became legal and the Church became corrupted by Constantine/ government power?

heraldmag.org/olb/contents/doctrine/ecvowams.htm

I want to join the Coast Guard someday but this moral issue always seems to come back and bother me. Should i just not join if this will keep happening?
First time I have heard the things mentioned in the article. A cursory look however makes it very suspect.
The articles footnotes are pathetic. I tried to follow their annotation and it was not possible.
Christian pacifism
Here is another view that disputes some of what is claimed.
CHURCH TEACHING has not changed. Nowhere in the article is a reference to a church teaching. it is only an opinion piece.
 
Hello again everyone. Ive been trying to discern wether or not military service is what I want/should do for a vocation. I know that the Church today teaches that it is not forbidden/ morally ok, but this article that was online seems to raise alot of questions for me. The early Christians all seemed to be very pacifistic and forbid military service not only because of the pagan rituals but because of the violence. Why then did the Churchs teachings change? **The article says this change came when Christianity became legal and the Church became corrupted by Constantine/ government power? **

heraldmag.org/olb/contents/doctrine/ecvowams.htm

I want to join the Coast Guard someday but this moral issue always seems to come back and bother me. Should i just not join if this will keep happening?
See the part I bolded? That leaps out as a Protestant statement. I would read that document with a heavy grain of salt!

Being a soldier has never been a problem for Catholics. In the Bible, it is recounted that Christ cured the daughter of the Centurion, and in no way condemned his profession. Catholic nations have had armies, and many Catholics have served in the military over the centuries, that is why we have a tradition of military chaplains and even an Archdiocese of the military here in the US. I have trouble linking, but if you run a search for the words Catholic and military, there is a wealth of information just on the first page of results.

I wouldn’t worry about this aspect at all, esp if you are joining the Coast Guard, which is not so military in nature. If you have more questions about this,
 
I think Christians may be allowed to be military in good armies. I mean military practices have changed themselves. So this could appear as Church teaching changing, but it is more about military practice changing. Now, some armies may be up to the Christian standard of war ethics.

God bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top