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

[CathFaith1]

many, many times Jesus dealt with what our response should be to aggressors. it was always pacifism.

Jesus took the opportunity to teach important truths and pacifism wasn’t one of them.

I can see the argument that membership in a Military establishment of Rome, at times, after Jesus death and resurrection could have been a grave offense for a Christian since some of those leaders set themselves up as a god. Thus, many would not have been able to obey in good conscience. But beyond that, upright military service is honorable.

Interestingly enough, Jesus did explain what ‘would’ have happened if his mission on earth was different. Yet, Jesus came to reconcile man with God thus no need for the force of his angels one may see at the Second Coming.

35 Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests handed you over to me. What have you done?”

36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom did belong to this world, my attendants (would) be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not here.”

John 18

Though for many pacifism can be a valid calling - it’s certainly not taught for all. And some Catholic groups unfortunately take pacifism to the extreme. I’d say to the point of erroneous idolism (shrugs) but that’s the way I see it.

There is an appointed time for everything, and a time for every affair under the heavens.

Ecc 3

 

[bengal_fan]

Jesus took the opportunity to teach important truths and pacifism wasn’t one of them. .

are you saying Jesus didn’t teach pacifism??
whenever he talked about enemies he taught pacifism. he taught turning the other cheek. he told peter to sheathe his sword. Jesus’ teaching when it came to violence was pacifism. maybe i misunderstand your statement. if not, please re-read the new testament and see the numerous times Jesus pushed pacifism.

I can see the argument that membership in a Military establishment of Rome, at times, after Jesus death and resurrection could have been a grave offense for a Christian since some of those leaders set themselves up as a god. Thus, many would not have been able to obey in good conscience. But beyond that, upright military service is honorable. .

again, i see the logic, but those are not the reasons given by the ECF’s (2nd and 3rd centuries, so closer to Jesus and the apostles than augustine and his just war theory, ironically coming after church and state unite and Christians seem to find it okay to persecute those who had persecuted them) for their refusal to serve in the military, defend their country, defend their families, or even defend themselves. the reasons given (per my long list of ECF quotes on this thread) were that it was not consistent with Christianity.

Interestingly enough, Jesus did explain what ‘would’ have happened if his mission on earth was different. Yet, Jesus came to reconcile man with God thus no need for the force of his angels one may see at the Second Coming…

again, the only person Jesus gives permission to use force is Himself. He is God and is the only one with the right to take life. we are never given that right in the new testament unless it is given by God.

Though for many pacifism can be a valid calling - it’s certainly not taught for all. And some Catholic groups unfortunately take pacifism to the extreme. I’d say to the point of erroneous idolism (shrugs) but that’s the way I see it.

i would say that it was originally taught for all until church and state got in bed together. i do agree that we can make anything into an idol. but it seems the early church did take pacifism “to the extreme” and that changed when the government began funding the church in many ways.

 

[CathFaith1]

are you saying Jesus didn’t teach pacifism??

That’s precisely what I am saying, correctly so.

If you’re interested in some further points
Absolute pacifism by Fr. William Most is a quick but worthy read.

 

[bengal_fan]

That’s precisely what I am saying, correctly so.

If you’re interested in some further points
Absolute pacifism by Fr. William Most is a quick but worthy read.

i have read it. i really think you should re-read the new testament. Jesus taught on pacifism frequently so you are starting with a false premise.

 

[CathFaith1]

We’ll respectfully disagree on this issue.

I’m quite confident what the valid teaching is, especially since it is grounded with what the Church teaches on this issue. It’s a doctrine that has not ‘changed’ (doctrine doesn’t change) since it wasn’t even doctrine prior to its development.

 

[Ender]

in 300 a.d. (or c.e. depending on where you are coming from) it was an excommunicable offense to:

1. join the military
2. use violence for the purpose of war
3. use violence for the purpose to defend some one else
4. use violence for the purpose to defend yourself

Despite your extensive references you have not demonstrated that your assertion is correct. To prove that these were excommunicable offenses you need to quote an actual Church document, not simply the writings of the early fathers. Your reference to the fourth century synod excluding office holders from the community for their period of service is better … but clearly they were not excommunicated for that service.

This comment from Origen is perhaps a good explanation of the thinking behind the early Christians unwillingness to serve: “And (it is) not (for the sake of) escaping from the public services of life that Christians shun such things, but (because they are) reserving themselves for a diviner and more necessary service.”

As someone else also pointed out, doctrine evolves. It was one thing for a marginalized minority to reject public (not just military) service but quite another for the majority to reject those practical aspects of ruling required to safeguard society itself. When Christians became numerous and powerful they, for the first time, had to deal with the practical realities of ruling.

Ender

 

[bengal_fan]

We’ll respectfully disagree on this issue.

I’m quite confident what the valid teaching is, especially since it is grounded with what the Church teaches on this issue. It’s a doctrine that has not ‘changed’ (doctrine doesn’t change) since it wasn’t even doctrine prior to its development.

it is a doctrine that developed from a complete shift in belief due to a change in the political structure of the world. also, if pacifism wasn’t a doctrine in the early church, how do you explain the multitude of writings about the subject… all in agreement? i only quoted a fraction of the quotes. also, why were there people forced to resign from the military after conversion on threat of excommunication?

i am fine with disagreeing on the issue, but i am not fine i guess with some one saying Jesus didn’t teach pacifism because it is an obvious teaching of the NT and the 2nd and 3rd century leaders of the church.

 

[cfrancis]

in 300 a.d. (or c.e. depending on where you are coming from) it was an excommunicable offense to:

1. join the military
2. use violence for the purpose of war
3. use violence for the purpose to defend some one else
4. use violence for the purpose to defend yourself

in other words, it was never permitted for some one to fight back in any case within Christianity for at least the first 300 years.

by 450 a.d. ONLY Christians were permitted to be in the military (of course we know that this has to do with the influence of the government upon the church… however…).

what theological reasons does the church have for changing its stance on the use of force? how does augustine’s just war doctrine not contradict the 300 years of complete pacifism the church held to (even unto death under penalty of excommunication)?

something i have been wondering lately.

One of the keys - and I just skimmed your ECF references - is that these ECFs wrote during periods of persecution. I don’t believe Christians were permitted to join the Roman army during this time.

 

[bengal_fan]

Despite your extensive references you have not demonstrated that your assertion is correct. To prove that these were excommunicable offenses you need to quote an actual Church document, not simply the writings of the early fathers. Your reference to the fourth century synod excluding office holders from the community for their period of service is better … but clearly they were not excommunicated for that service.

This comment from Origen is perhaps a good explanation of the thinking behind the early Christians unwillingness to serve: “And (it is) not (for the sake of) escaping from the public services of life that Christians shun such things, but (because they are) reserving themselves for a diviner and more necessary service.”

As someone else also pointed out, doctrine evolves. It was one thing for a marginalized minority to reject public (not just military) service but quite another for the majority to reject those practical aspects of ruling required to safeguard society itself. When Christians became numerous and powerful they, for the first time, had to deal with the practical realities of ruling.

Ender

give me example of actual church documents from the 2nd and 3rd centuries please. if the extensive writings of the fathers at the time (all of which are in agreement on the issue) is not enough, give me examples of what would be. do you have specific documents in mind that contradict or don’t support my assertion? just so you know also, this is not just my assertion. nearly every credible historian would say the church completely shunned violence and did not tolerate participation in it by its members. my reference to the synod is dealing with those who are bound to a set time of service. they have converted but cannot leave the service. they were not allowed to kill and they were not allowed to participate in the sacraments until their service had ended. it is one thing to be martyred for your beliefs, but another to seek martyrdom. the church condemned the latter which is why they were permitted to remain in the service (while being denied the sacraments…especially the eucharist). though, some would be martyred when they refused to kill.

i don’t mind the debate on the premise of my question, but realize the opinion that the church didn’t completely refrain from violence even to the point of not defending themselves and family is very much in the minority. (in fact, i have not really heard it until this thread, and as a student of early church history, i would say that is something). i was more looking for justification of the change in practice. some on here have given it. and while i think they are flimsy and politically motivated reasons (not spiritually based), they are reasons and ones to be considered.

lastly, even in augustine’s just war theory, individual self-defense is still not permitted.

 

[bengal_fan]

One of the keys - and I just skimmed your ECF references - is that these ECFs wrote during periods of persecution. I don’t believe Christians were permitted to join the Roman army during this time.

they weren’t permitted to join any army. they were criticized for not defending jerusalem when attacked by rome in 70 a.d. (or c.e. even though i prefer the former). which precipitated the 18 benedictions which formally expelled the Christians from the synagogues.

 

[bengal_fan]

i have to run. i hate leaving in the middle of a discussion (and i do appreciate the discussion and the arguments you are presenting… i hope that comes across in my posts that i hold no animosity) but i have to go right now. if there are a ton of posts when i return, i will try to address them, but it is not always possible to answer numerous posts.

have a great day!

 

[CathFaith1]

i am fine with disagreeing on the issue, but i am not fine i guess with some one saying Jesus didn’t teach pacifism because it is an obvious teaching of the NT and the 2nd and 3rd century leaders of the church.

As St Paul writing affirms. There’s no truth that Jesus taught. pacifism Jesus taught accountability and that true peace is from God, not man.

“If you do wrong, be afraid, for he [the civil authority] does not carry the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute His wrath on the evildoer.”

Rom 13:4

 

[Ender]

are you saying Jesus didn’t teach pacifism??

Correct. He did not teach pacifism.

maybe i misunderstand your statement. if not, please re-read the new testament and see the numerous times Jesus pushed pacifism.

It is not my understanding versus yours, it is yours versus the Church’s. If you are correct then the Church is wrong today and has been for the last 1600 years and if that is true then one can have little confidence that the Church is what she claims to be. “… sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others.” (Dei verbum 10) If the teaching authority of the Church is not to be trusted then everything collapses together, including the New Testament.

again, i see the logic, but those are not the reasons given by the ECF’s (2nd and 3rd centuries, so closer to Jesus and the apostles than augustine and his just war theory

You imply a time dependent morality with our understanding of Christ decaying with age when in fact the reverse is true. It is only with time that the fullness of Christ’s teachings can be developed. The early Church didn’t recognize the seven sacraments. Even though all of them have been developed directly from the gospels this was something the early Church did not understand … despite being “closer to Jesus and the apostles.” Surely you don’t recommend eliminating the sacraments not identified by the early Church?

i would say that it was originally taught for all until church and state got in bed together

I wouldn’t have phrased it quite that way, but it was only when Christians assumed the responsibility for the management of society that they had to deal with these issues and they had to develop doctrine dealing with the common good. That doctrine today states that: “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the 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 against the civil community entrusted to their charge” (2265)

Ender

 

[Orionthehunter]

the problem here is the bolded. that’s not exactly what happened. rome granted freedom but made Christianity the official religion. Christianity, within just a few years, used that power to persecute the other religions.

i am not here to argue per se. i really was asking the question. historically speaking, the church changed its view on violence, war, and self-defense. i am wondering why. orion provided one answer and i appreciate it.

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.

 

[chrisb]

I find this a wonderfully interesting and challenging topic for discussion.

Ultimately, I would offer that Christ came to reestablish the 12 tribes of Israel as the 12 Apostles symbolized under the New Covenant. I understand that there are historians which attempt to portray Christ as an apocalyptic character completely devoid of any interest in social norms. I’m not sure I buy this view.

 

[Genesis315]

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

By observing these admonitions the first Christians, even during the persecutions, deserved well of the Roman emperors themselves and of the security of the state. “Christian soldiers,” says St. Augustine, "served an infidel emperor: when it came to the subject of Christ, they recognized no one except Him who is in heaven. They distinguished between the eternal Lord and the temporal lord, but also were subject to the temporal lord because of the eternal Lord" (St. Aug. On Ps 124).

1. The holy Fathers have always taught this doctrine. The Catholic Church has taught it and continues to teach it. Having been taught it, the first Christians lived and acted in such a manner that, although the crime of cowardice and desertion had contaminated the pagan army, it never contaminated the Christians. On this point Tertullian reports: "Concerning the majesty of the emperor, we Christians are brought into ill repute. Nevertheless, no Christians will be found among men like Albinus or Niger or Cassius. But among these very peoples, who recently had sworn by their gods, who had offered sacrifices for the safety of emperor and state, and who frequently condemned the Christians, enemies of the state have been found. No Christian is an enemy, certainly not of the emperor.

 

[Swan]

it is a doctrine that developed from a complete shift in belief due to a change in the political structure of the world. also, if pacifism wasn’t a doctrine in the early church, how do you explain the multitude of writings about the subject… all in agreement? i only quoted a fraction of the quotes. also, why were there people forced to resign from the military after conversion on threat of excommunication?

i am fine with disagreeing on the issue, but i am not fine i guess with some one saying Jesus didn’t teach pacifism because it is an obvious teaching of the NT and the 2nd and 3rd century leaders of the church.

I realize that we are in the minority here, but I agree with you completely. Jesus was pretty clear on this subject, nothing he said was ambiguous or requires a doctorate in theoloogy to understand. But pacifism doesn’t work if you’re defending wordly power, which is what started to happen when the chruch became one.

 

[Hrvoje]

I realize that we are in the minority here, but I agree with you completely. Jesus was pretty clear on this subject, nothing he said was ambiguous or requires a doctorate in theoloogy to understand. But pacifism doesn’t work if you’re defending wordly power, which is what started to happen when the chruch became one.

Hey, glad to see I’m not the only forum dweller who holds to no violence.
Great discourse here.

 

[pprimeau1976]

This is an interesting thread.

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

 

[CHCatholic]

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.