Why did the church change its stand on the use of force?

[bengal_fan]

I think it was not declared the official religion until later but I could be wrong. However, making Christianity acceptable in society would change one’s capacity, in fact could make it an obligation, to work more directly for the protection of society as a more organized society is more conducive to prosletyzing/evangalizing/worship. Christianity significantly become more pervasive at this time.

yeah, you aren’t right. constantine made it legal and he made it the official religion (although he did not ban the traditional roman religion).

so your take (and it seems many on here share your view) is that when Christianity was legitimized by the government (an extremely aggressive government known for it’s cruelty), Christianity then had a responsibility to defend that government? a government that was still hated by most of the world? it seems that is when the church lost its prophetic nature (the ability to transform society) and adopted a strict priestly nature (the desire to perpetuate society). i mean these terms in the religious studies sense.

 

[bengal_fan]

St. Sebastian was a soldier. Like Gregory XVI in his encyclical on civil obedience, quotes St. Augustine on Christian soldiers:

i am not debating that after the roman empire legitimized Christianity that the church then allowed its members to use violence when they hadn’t before. that is the precise question. why the change in policy?

 

[bengal_fan]

This is an interesting thread.

I doubt though that the Church would consider *all *uses of force sinful

they did consider all uses of force sinful. they changes their view.

because such a restriction would make Jesus look like a sinner when he cleansed the temple. Jesus didn’t just politely ask the money changers to leave, he fashioned a whip and overturned their tables. Given Jesus’ actions, one cannot conclude that all use of force is sinful. One has to conclude that there are some times when it is justified.

the only person Jesus ever suggests is allowed to use force is God. Jesus is God. Jesus is allowed to use force. notice this doesn’t talk about him attacking the people, just the tables of money. i don’t think this is a good support that Jesus gives us permission to use force and i would say that one cannot conclude there are times when force is justified (at least not by us… God is permitted to use force for he is God).

The church gives guidance for when individual use of force or national use of force is justified, but in my opinion it’s practically impossible for any human person to be certain as to whether the use of force is just. Consider the four conditions for a just war:

1. 
   *]the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
   *]all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
   *]there must be serious prospects of success;
   *]the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
   It seems to me that one has to have divine prophetic knowledge in order for their use of force to be considered justified. Conditions 2 and 4 seem to be impossible for any human to determine. How can any nation determine whether all means of dilomacy have been eliminated? How can a nation know whether the evils resulting from their military intervention will be graver than what was eliminated?

1. 
   exactly! only God can know if all 4 are satisfied, which is why God alone may use force. we are supposed to trust God. “Vengeance is mine says the Lord.” God is our “shield”, our “warrior”, our “defender”. it is why the early church forbade violence and even defense because God would defend them. and if He didn’t, they went to heaven as a martyr and their death would serve as an inspiration to the church.
   
   brother lawrence said, “the persecuted church is the growing church.” this is exactly what he was talking about.

 

[bengal_fan]

Is everyone forgetting the great war between good and evil that occurred in the spiritual realm between the devil and God (Whose army of angels was led by St. Michael). Surely if there was an archangel as a general of an army, man can be one.

really? man can do what angels can do? we are on the level of discernment as heavenly beings? i think that is quite a jump to make. michael was, is, and continues to be the “hand of God” in those matters. He is ordered directly by God. i have never said that God doesn’t have the right to use force. just that we are not given the right to choose when force is necessary. only God is given that right.

 

[CathFaith1]

they did consider all uses of force sinful. they changes their view.

Some early followers were pacifists. As the articles presented explained; some where even heretics at the time of their pacifist writings. Later becoming Saints after martyrdom. They were not Saints from their writings. The Church itself did not teach pacifism as Christ didn’t.

Violence is different than legitimate defense. Violence and revenge has always been condemned. Even from the time of Abraham.

 

[bengal_fan]

Some early followers were pacifists. As the articles presented explained; some where even heretics at the time of their pacifist writings. Later becoming Saints after martyrdom. They were not Saints from their writings. The Church itself did not teach pacifism as Christ didn’t.

Violence is different than legitimate defense. Violence and revenge has always been condemned. Even from the time of Abraham.

and i think you are mistaken. Jesus taught pacifism. the church originally taught pacifism. name one dissenting voice to the writings i posted before the 4th century. you are in the minority (as i’ve only come across people on this forum who hold to the view) when you say Jesus didn’t teach pacifism. it makes me think you have never read the NT.
i have never said the early church defined pacifism as doctrine, i am saying that it was a universally held standard within the church until the 4th century. no one has shown me otherwise. give me examples of the folks who thought the use of force was warranted.
you can say Christ didn’t teach pacifism until you are blue in the face, but i’ve studied the NT and church history so i know you are mistaken. and i’ve also provided texts to prove my point. where are your texts to show that the early followers understood Jesus teaching something other than pacifism when he said to turn the other cheek or to put our swords away. even the prophecies of the messiah said He would be the Prince of Peace and that men would beat their swords into plowshares and war no more.
maybe it was never a defined doctrine, and therefore your belief in infallibility is not challenged. i have never said this challenges belief in infallibility, but the church did change its practice on this issue.

 

[CathFaith1]

You sound quite *proud * of your own understanding of the NT. It’s simply not inline w/ the wealth of Church teaching.

As we’ve seen time and time again the Church holds there are times legitimate defense is not only a right but a duty. Thus pacifism could NOT have been taught by Jesus or the Church WOULD teach that.

1. On prudential matters that affect the common good, Catholics of goodwill can disagree. Though there are Catholic principles such as compassion, justice and charity that we should share, there is no single “Catholic” policy on issues like taxes, education, foreign policy and immigration reform.

A similar distinction was made by the then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, His Emminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, to the American Bishops when he stated: “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

Statements

A simple lesson I taught my sons regarding self-defense vs. violence, when the threat is stopped the use of force stops with it. If you find yourself striking out AGAIN in rage, anger and pride you’ve crossed the line. Distinctions and clarity is very important in morality.

If for some reason you feel ‘called’ to a pacifist type spirituality there may be a reason for it. I wouldn’t want to steer you aware from that. But I would warn you not to project your spirituality on another or to blur important distinctions.

Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us exercise them

Romans 12:6

 

[Orionthehunter]

yeah, you aren’t right. constantine made it legal and he made it the official religion (although he did not ban the traditional roman religion).

so your take (and it seems many on here share your view) is that when Christianity was legitimized by the government (an extremely aggressive government known for it’s cruelty), Christianity then had a responsibility to defend that government? a government that was still hated by most of the world? it seems that is when the church lost its prophetic nature (the ability to transform society) and adopted a strict priestly nature (the desire to perpetuate society). i mean these terms in the religious studies sense.

No, I’m saying that the matter entered into the realm of prudential judgment for the flock. If a regime is inherently evil, it is one’s obligation to oppose the regime. When the regime lessens its evil, people then have an obligation to discern what they can do to to make it better. In some cases, by being involved can be an influence for change. I appreciate your commitment to pacificism but I don’t think your commitment and views automatically extend to all people.

Some early followers were pacifists. As the articles presented explained; some where even heretics at the time of their pacifist writings. Later becoming Saints after martyrdom. They were not Saints from their writings. The Church itself did not teach pacifism as Christ didn’t.

Violence is different than legitimate defense. Violence and revenge has always been condemned. Even from the time of Abraham.

Bengal, this is a distinction that you need to understand.

You sound quite *proud * of your own understanding of the NT.

Bengal, Cath Faith is correct. You have a very solid position that precludes any other and disrespect the prudential judgment of others. As “pacificist” as you believe Christ was, you are neglecting the other components for Scripture where Christ called us to be a part of the community to make it better. Also, Christ never condemned ordered society which requires common defense from both internal and external threats. My brother is involved in law enforcement. By nature, he is a pacificist. However, he is trained to use force if necessary and has used it.

But, he has never used violence. There is a distinction that Cath Faith refers to. I urge you to study the Double Effect Theory which allows one to discern the difference from condemned violence and legitimate force. This will also help you understand how this can extend to societal defense against external threats in the Just War Theory.

 

[Ender]

Jesus taught pacifism. the church originally taught pacifism. name one dissenting voice to the writings i posted before the 4th century. you are in the minority (as i’ve only come across people on this forum who hold to the view) when you say Jesus didn’t teach pacifism. it makes me think you have never read the NT.

Do you also wonder if the Church has read the NT? Your disagreement is not so much with us as it is with the Church. It would help me understand your perspective if I knew whether or not you were Catholic. A non-Catholic would certainly have no problem dismissing what the Catholic Church teaches.

It seems you are making two claims: the Church was pacifist (until the time of Constantine) but has since then changed her position, and that her current non-pacifist position is wrong. Is this correct?

Ender

 

[pprimeau1976]

they did consider all uses of force sinful. they changes their view.

As others have said beforehand, there was no absolute defined view. Individual bishops may have had their own opinions, but no ecumenical council or any papal teachings forbid the use of force.

the only person Jesus ever suggests is allowed to use force is God. Jesus is God. Jesus is allowed to use force. notice this doesn’t talk about him attacking the people, just the tables of money. i don’t think this is a good support that Jesus gives us permission to use force and i would say that one cannot conclude there are times when force is justified (at least not by us… God is permitted to use force for he is God).

So Jesus forbade the use of force for all people except himself because he was God? I could accept that if Jesus had only a divine nature, but he was also had a human nature. He subjected himself to the laws that were applied to all of mankind. For example, prohibitions against murder were applicable to him because he took on a human nature. Therefore, if he prohibited the use of force in all cases, he would have applied that to himself as well. And even though the bible didn’t say whether anyone was hurt or struck by the whip he fashioned, he was not attacking the tables. The tables were not profiteering, the money changers were.

exactly! only God can know if all 4 are satisfied, which is why God alone may use force. we are supposed to trust God. “Vengeance is mine says the Lord.” God is our “shield”, our “warrior”, our “defender”. it is why the early church forbade violence and even defense because God would defend them. and if He didn’t, they went to heaven as a martyr and their death would serve as an inspiration to the church.

If you agree with me, then essentially the Church’s opinion is not that much different from some of the ECF’s. They see that the use of force is justifiable only if one satisfies all four conditions. Since it’s practically impossible to satisfy this list, it’s really not any different than totally banning the use of force. If they claimed that all uses of force were sinful, it would give credence to the gnostics who thought that the Old Testament God was evil.

 

[bengal_fan]

As others have said beforehand, there was no absolute defined view. Individual bishops may have had their own opinions, but no ecumenical council or any papal teachings forbid the use of force.

i have maintained the entire time that the church did not define their view until later. but they defined it after they had partnered with the government. before that, the ECF’s were unanimous (as far as i can tell and no one has yet shown me anything contrary) that force, even self-defense or the defense of the defenseless by force, was completely forbidden.

So Jesus forbade the use of force for all people except himself because he was God? I could accept that if Jesus had only a divine nature, but he was also had a human nature. He subjected himself to the laws that were applied to all of mankind. For example, prohibitions against murder were applicable to him because he took on a human nature. Therefore, if he prohibited the use of force in all cases, he would have applied that to himself as well. And even though the bible didn’t say whether anyone was hurt or struck by the whip he fashioned, he was not attacking the tables. The tables were not profiteering, the money changers were.

the bolded sounds a bit like the teachings of Arius. the two natured Christ. He was both God and man fused together. we don’t separate the two. He did not subject Himself to the laws. it was against the law to heal on the sabbath, or for His disciples to pick wheat on the sabbath. He disobeyed unjust laws.
it only says He overturned the tables. i agree that He was attacking what was going on in “His Father’s house” but it has no mention of Him striking anyone.

If you agree with me, then essentially the Church’s opinion is not that much different from some of the ECF’s. They see that the use of force is justifiable only if one satisfies all four conditions. Since it’s practically impossible to satisfy this list, it’s really not any different than totally banning the use of force. If they claimed that all uses of force were sinful, it would give credence to the gnostics who thought that the Old Testament God was evil.

the church’s position today is different from the 2nd and 3rd and some of the 4th century ECF’s. my question is why? i think i have established that (because no one has taken the challenge to produce writings from anyone before 310 a.d. which take the opposite view) the church was completely pacifist and then changed. again, (as i’ve said a couple of times) this doesn’t contradict infallibility because there is no official papal statement ex cathedra, but the practice of pacifism seemed to be unanimous. why did it change? the only thing i’ve been offered is that it is because the Christians came to power and were thus charged with keeping order and sometimes we need to use force to keep order. if that is the only reason that is offered, that is fine. i would disagree that that was a right thing for the church to do, but all i was asking was why they changed their view.

many on here then have challenged that it was never the view of the church but have offered no evidence. they have said Jesus didn’t teach pacifism but have offered no counter-argument to the statements that Jesus made to His disciples. also, the ECF’s closest to the time of Jesus seemed to have believed He taught pacifism. i am simply defending that the ECF’s did teach it, and that Jesus taught it. other than that, i am simply looking for other explanations of why the practice was changed.

 

[bengal_fan]

You sound quite *proud * of your own understanding of the NT. It’s simply not inline w/ the wealth of Church teaching.

not proud, confident. it is in line with the earliest church. it then changed after the church came to power.

As we’ve seen time and time again the Church holds there are times legitimate defense is not only a right but a duty. Thus pacifism could NOT have been taught by Jesus or the Church WOULD teach that.

that is a circular argument. “because the church is infallible, and they don’t teach pacifism, Jesus did not teach pacifism.” that logic doesn’t hold up, and i’ve shown where Jesus taught pacifism as well as all of the ECF writings prior to the ascension of the church to power.

A simple lesson I taught my sons regarding self-defense vs. violence, when the threat is stopped the use of force stops with it. If you find yourself striking out AGAIN in rage, anger and pride you’ve crossed the line. Distinctions and clarity is very important in morality.

If for some reason you feel ‘called’ to a pacifist type spirituality there may be a reason for it. I wouldn’t want to steer you aware from that. But I would warn you not to project your spirituality on another or to blur important distinctions.

i have no problem with your distinction you teach your sons. it is in line with what the church teaches TODAY. it is not what the ECF’s prior to c.310 a.d. taught, nor Jesus, but you go with what the church says today and that is fine. i am not trying to force my view on anyone, i am simply defending the attacks that pacifism is not what was taught and practiced by the earliest Christians as well as Jesus Himself.

 

[bengal_fan]

Bengal, Cath Faith is correct. You have a very solid position that precludes any other and disrespect the prudential judgment of others. As “pacificist” as you believe Christ was, you are neglecting the other components for Scripture where Christ called us to be a part of the community to make it better. Also, Christ never condemned ordered society which requires common defense from both internal and external threats. My brother is involved in law enforcement. By nature, he is a pacificist. However, he is trained to use force if necessary and has used it.

But, he has never used violence. There is a distinction that Cath Faith refers to. I urge you to study the Double Effect Theory which allows one to discern the difference from condemned violence and legitimate force. This will also help you understand how this can extend to societal defense against external threats in the Just War Theory.

i have not disrespected anyone’s views, just their erroneous arguments. i have never once said we must all be pacifists. i have actually never said whether or not i am pacifist. i have simply shown that it was the universal practice of the earliest Christians and that it eventually changed.

i am thankful for what your brother does.

 

[bengal_fan]

Do you also wonder if the Church has read the NT? Your disagreement is not so much with us as it is with the Church. It would help me understand your perspective if I knew whether or not you were Catholic. A non-Catholic would certainly have no problem dismissing what the Catholic Church teaches.

i am not roman catholic but i am a Christian and a member of the universal catholic church. that being said, my argument is not with the church, but i have shown (i believe) that the practice of strict pacifism was abandoned and that it seemed to happen when the church took over the government.

It seems you are making two claims: the Church was pacifist (until the time of Constantine) but has since then changed her position, and that her current non-pacifist position is wrong. Is this correct?

Ender

first claim is correct. the second claim is wrong.

 

[bengal_fan]

No, I’m saying that the matter entered into the realm of prudential judgment for the flock. If a regime is inherently evil, it is one’s obligation to oppose the regime. When the regime lessens its evil, people then have an obligation to discern what they can do to to make it better. In some cases, by being involved can be an influence for change. I appreciate your commitment to pacificism but I don’t think your commitment and views automatically extend to all people.

if that is the case (the bolded part) then why did the Christians not fight the evil regime of Rome when it attacked and destroyed Jerusalem? Rome was evil. the fact that the Christians abandoned the city (most of them anyway) is one of the reasons they were expelled from the synagogues by the Jews and lost their “exempt” status as a protected religion under the rule of Rome. Judaism was allowed to be practiced and the Jews were exempt from the traditional Roman sacrifices. after the Christians were declared no longer a Jewish sect, they became an outlawed religion.

so why did the Christians (if it is our duty to oppose an evil regime by force) not defend Jerusalem?

i believe it is because they did not believe in the use of force ever. instead they opposed the practices of Rome by loving God and loving others. they were known to take care of the poor and widows better than anyone. they saved babies that were abandoned in the forests by their unwanting parents. they were subversive and non-violent (until they partnered with Rome).

 

[bengal_fan]

i want to say something else. i am not only saying that the RCC adopted an allowance for the use of force. luther’s main problem (and he had many) was that he got “in bed” with government as well. he never wanted to split from the RCC, but his funding and protection came from the german princes who did. calvin also became a high ranking official in government (in geneva) and allowed the use of violence. Christians have found reasons to kill other Christians as well as killing those who disagree with us.

i will state some of what i believe at this point. i believe there will come a day when God commands all out battle. it is hinted in revelation. but until that day when God commands it (as we see through scripture that only when God commands it is it okay), we are to use other, better methods to reach and to love our enemies. non-violence will cause a longer lasting change than force. it is scary (as it involves approaching armed enemies completely unarmed except with the weapons of our love for them, the word of God, and each other) and people will be tortured and killed because of it. but it will win out. it requires an enormous amount of trust in God.

i do not know, if faced with the situation, if i would have the courage not to defend myself or others without force. i hope i would.

 

[pprimeau1976]

i have maintained the entire time that the church did not define their view until later. but they defined it after they had partnered with the government. before that, the ECF’s were unanimous (as far as i can tell and no one has yet shown me anything contrary) that force, even self-defense or the defense of the defenseless by force, was completely forbidden.

You say they defined it *after *they partnered with the government, but many will dispute that they were even partnered with the government. In the Western church, the government essentially became non-existant. Only the Byzantine empire in the East continued to thrive.

the bolded sounds a bit like the teachings of Arius. the two natured Christ. He was both God and man fused together. we don’t separate the two. He did not subject Himself to the laws. it was against the law to heal on the sabbath, or for His disciples to pick wheat on the sabbath. He disobeyed unjust laws.

Actually no. In the Catechism of the Catholic church, it says the following:

At the time appointed by God, the only Son of the Father, the eternal Word, that is, the Word and substantial Image of the Father, became incarnate; without losing his divine nature he has assumed human nature. CCC Para 479

For more reading, I recommend this section of the Catechism.

 

[Ender]

{this} claim is wrong.

[/quote]

bengal_fan:

i do not know, if faced with the situation, if i would have the courage not to defend myself or others without force. i hope i would.

Now I’m confused. When I asked if you thought the current non-pacifist position of the Church was wrong you said no, it is not wrong, but in a later post you said that you hoped you would have the courage to respond as a pacifist if ever thrust into a threatening position. Are you saying that the pacifist and the non-pacifist positions are both correct but the non-pacifist is preferable?

I assume you base your preference on your personal interpretation of scripture so what argument is available to you if I make the same claim? Is there no right answer here but only personal preferences with each of us claiming the better understanding of scripture? Is there any possible way to determine which position is correct?

Ender

 

[bengal_fan]

Now I’m confused. When I asked if you thought the current non-pacifist position of the Church was wrong you said no, it is not wrong, but in a later post you said that you hoped you would have the courage to respond as a pacifist if ever thrust into a threatening position. Are you saying that the pacifist and the non-pacifist positions are both correct but the non-pacifist is preferable?

i actually just said, that i never maid the claim that it was wrong. i never said i thought the church is wrong. that is not my claim. i believe that pacifism was the earliest practice of the church and that it is the best way, they way Jesus taught. i never made the statement the church is wrong. you asked if that was one of my claims and i said no to your question. if you want to take my argument further than i am willing to go, that is fine, but then it becomes your argument, not mine.

I assume you base your preference on your personal interpretation of scripture so what argument is available to you if I make the same claim? Is there no right answer here but only personal preferences with each of us claiming the better understanding of scripture? Is there any possible way to determine which position is correct?

if you read my earliest posts on here you will see that i actually base my argument on scripture and the unanimous writings of the earliest church fathers on the subject. so i do not base it on my personal interpretation of the scriptures, but upon the scriptures AND the practices of the earliest church.

 

[bengal_fan]

You say they defined it *after *they partnered with the government, but many will dispute that they were even partnered with the government. In the Western church, the government essentially became non-existant. Only the Byzantine empire in the East continued to thrive.

who disputes it? constantine was the emperor and he issued decrees for the church to have a council. he and the pope (while they did butt heads on certain things) were definitely partnered. so i’m wondering who the ones disputing it are? are they credible historians? what is their evidence? primary sources?