WHY DONT WE FIGHT BACK??

[Palamite]

While I can understand why people may argue that assistance (for persecuted Christians in Muslim lands) may not be forthcoming from western powers (which are, despite the pretenses, essentially godless), I’m somewhat at a loss as to how Christians could argue that it ought not to be forthcoming. This shocks me, especially when it comes from boosters for the Bush White House and their escapades in Iraq, which the late Pope clearly condemned as not meeting the criteria of the “Just War” doctrine.

It’s not a question of putting a sword to the Mohammedans and saying “be baptized or else!” - rather it’s a matter of, first, letting them know that they’re on notice to shape (with regard to their treatment of their Christian populations) up or face consequences. Second, for the west to put it’s money where it’s mouth is regarding human rights, and fiscally punish Mohammedan controlled nations should they not shape up. And lastly, if they will not listen, offer financial/military aid to Christian minorities in Mohammedan lands, and where needed, outright military assistance.

As an Orthodox Christian, my fundamental problem with the Crusades of old was not their stated goal to restore freedom to Christian pilgrims seeking to visit the Holy Land, or even to restore their control to Christian hands; my problem (and that of Orthodox in general) is that they ended up being an assault not simply upon Mohammedan oppression, but upon the native Christian populations of the East themselves. A “Christian nation” using it’s influence, and need be, it’s armies, to assist suffering Christians abroad is hardly objectionable. The problem is, for all of the chest pounding of some, none of the contemporary western nations are in fact “Christian nations”, so expecting this kind of assistance is (sadly) vain.

 

[Duchofb]

I was just watching EWTN and the Bishop on the program was talking about Jesus and Peter’ conversation about forgiveness.
You know, the one about forgiving those who wrong us 70(7x7). Would that not apply to this thread?

 

[Black_Jaque]

Duch,

No, not necessarily. To a certain extent the thread is about aiding our brethren.

It would be like me forgiving the guy who is beating the snot out of you.

Or maybe I should stop you assaillant?

 

[Duchofb]

I once heard a story of a missionary sent to a remote African tribe by the missions supported by the Baptist church in my town. He went in and was only there for about a week before he made contact with some members of the tribe. They gestured and seemed interested in further attempts at communication so when they left and came back later with more men, the missionaries thought nothing of it. Within an hour, the missionaries were all dead except for the guide who had brought them in. He had left to get some more supplies and arrived just in time to witness the last of the executions. He remained hidden and managed to retrieve the stuff the tribe hadn’t taken away with them including diaries and journals. Two years later the son of the missionary who first spearheaded the trip into Africa returned to where his father had been killed. He made contact with the same tribe and this time they accepted him. Another two years went by as he lived and shared the Bible with the tribe. All had accepted including the men who had massacred his father and friends. The leaders of the tribe went on to make contact with other remote tribes and converted them as well. What purpose would have been served by revenge in this case?
If it is God’s will to allow the deaths of hundreds to save thousands, is that not in the service of the greater purpose?
If it is God’s will to take up arms and begin the fight to save the hundreds, don’t you think we would know by now? His voice can be heard by all who would close their mortal ears and open their soul’s ears. Don’t you think that there are many in a position of great authority who are listening and would call for war if that was what God wanted?

 

[tilis]

SojournerOf78:

EXACTLY my point, when you find out your brothers and sisters are being slaughtered wholesale by some evil little tyrant in a 3rd world country, you come bring the sword to help Gods people. Not out of an evil motive, but a motive of love for God’s Church.

Is sitting on your fanny and doing nothing loving your neighbor??

Somebody is dying either way, why should it be us always?

I like your approach. And I agree with you.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Duchofb:

I was just watching EWTN and the Bishop on the program was talking about Jesus and Peter’ conversation about forgiveness.
You know, the one about forgiving those who wrong us 70(7x7). Would that not apply to this thread?

Hello Duchofb,

Are you saying that St. Peter (the Succession of Popes) should not have Armed Swiss Guard to protect them due to Christ’s command to forgive? Do you believe that Church leaders are in direct unrepentant defiance to Christ by having Swiss Guards rather than choosing to ‘offer no resistance to injury’?

I believe Jesus wills St. Peter to have a “sword” (armed Swiss Guards) to protect himself. I believe that also Jesus wills us to draw the “sword” and protect our fellow man from attrocities.

NAB MAT 5:39
You have heard the commandment, ‘An ey for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.’ But what I say to you is: offer no resistance to injury. When a person strikes you on the right cheek, turn and offer him the other.
**NAB LUK 22:35 **

“…And the man without a sword must sell his coat and buy one.”

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello All,

I just saw, on NBC nightly news, the attrocities happening in Sudan. An estimated 400,000 slaughtered. A woman, her family and her village on the run in Chad with Sudanies gurrilas making strikes across the boarder to eniolate them. The woman was in tears begging the world to come with military force and protect them. The president of Chad begging the international community to come with military force and protect them.

Are these Christian Sudanies being persecuted for the faith as the OP suggests?

This is a good question by the OP. How many people believe that the Church (2 billion Christians) are doing what Christ commands by abandoning the woman and her people to attorcities? Should Christians feel comfortable with police and military protecting themselves if they deny protection to this woman and her people?

 

[wcknight]

The folks who have a responsibility to “fight back” are the countries in the UN and for the most part that means the US gov’t and its allies.

After the genocide of the Cambodian government, the UN passed a resolution that ALL geneocide should be stopped by UN actions.

During the Rwandan civil war, the Clinton administration and the UN reneged on this requirement by claiming that the atrocities were “Acts of Genocide” and not genocide itself.

It is NOT the responsibilitie of Churches to handle military actions. Only civilian governments or the UN can impose martial law. They are the only ones authorized to carry and use weapons.

 

[Steven_Merten]

wcknight:

The folks who have a responsibility to “fight back” are the countries in the UN and for the most part that means the US gov’t and its allies.

After the genocide of the Cambodian government, the UN passed a resolution that ALL geneocide should be stopped by UN actions.

During the Rwandan civil war, the Clinton administration and the UN reneged on this requirement by claiming that the atrocities were “Acts of Genocide” and not genocide itself.

It is NOT the responsibilitie of Churches to handle military actions. Only civilian governments or the UN can impose martial law. They are the only ones authorized to carry and use weapons.

Hello wcknight,

So you believe that it is very appropriate that the Church ignor this poor woman in Sudan? She is running for her life and the lives of her children. Her people are being slaughtered. 400,000 murdered! Why cannot the Church, at least try, to lead the world as to what would be moral for her defense? Why cannot the Church teach the world God’s will on when to kill to protect this woman? Why must they remain silent? Does the Church believe it is the will of Jesus that they remain silent? Do you have any Church documents saying that the Church can only oppose wars and never instruct Catholics to push their governments to go to war to protect the oppressed like the Sudaneis people?

Can you see how this can be very confusing to young teenage Catholics trying to discern Jesus and the Father’s will on when to kill to protect the innocent? If the Church only condemns wars and never supports just wars, young Catholics can become very mislead into believing that now all wars are evil regardless of what is written in Church documents on just war. The Church can be leading young Catholics into the sin and imorality of not protecting their fellow human being.

 

[dhgray]

Flopfoot:

Abortion - It’s much more the secular dudes rather than the Catholics in America doing it.

Sexual dressing - What has that got to do with anything?

Defending the Faith - What do you think we’re doing here? How do you know Muslims fight with each other less often than we do while defending faith?

Support the faith with $ - Muslims are required to give 2.5%, Christians who follow tithing rule give 10%. 10% > 2.5% (bleeding obvious I know)

Take time to pray - Fair enough, but one thing they don’t have is Adoration… could 1hr per week at Adoration maybe ‘work’ better than 5 times a day facing Mecca?

Evangelise - We’ve got RCIA, CCD, etc., and lots of Protestants are out there evangelising 24/7.

Unity in faith - Muslims in different countries all believe different things. They may not have official ‘denominations’, but Muslims are nowhere near as united the CC… in fact, Muslims tell me that they think Catholics and Protestants are more similar to one another than Muslims in diff countries.

You have got to be kidding. Get your head out of the sand and take a real good look at America. The people you mentioned above are the minority (and I’m glad to be in the minority). America use to be the moral compus, and we used to be respected and feared. But because liberals who say, “live and let live. I don’t have to follow your rules, they are too restrictive.” The US no longer has the moral advantage.

 

[luvmykids]

wcknight:

Not sure what you mean, was this thread closed at some point ???

The OP seems to be advocating for all Christians and Catholics to rise up and fight off Muslims and other non-Christian threats with violence. Everyone knows that this is NOT what Jesus taught. HE never advocated a militant response to our enemies.

Such a response is contrary to everything that Jesus and His Church has always stood for.

Take a look at post number 40.

 

[wcknight]

luvmykids:

Take a look at post number 40.

thanks, but it still seems to be going strong.

 

[M-Dent]

E.E.N.S.:

Because we are the Mystical Body of Christ…he was persecuted in this world, so shall we…and Christ said to rejoice if we are persecuted for his sake.

That does seem consistent with the CCC.

675 Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.

676 The Antichrist’s deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the “intrinsically perverse” political form of a secular messianism.

677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection. The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God’s victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven . God’s triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a7.htm

 

[M-Dent]

luvmykids:

Take a look at post number 40.

Opps!

 

[luvmykids]

M-Dent:

Opps!

They must have somehow reopened it, or you wouldn’t be able to post.

 

[wcknight]

Steven Merten:

Hello wcknight,

So you believe that it is very appropriate that the Church ignor this poor woman in Sudan? She is running for her life and the lives of her children. Her people are being slaughtered. 400,000 murdered! Why cannot the Church, at least try, to lead the world as to what would be moral for her defense? Why cannot the Church teach the world God’s will on when to kill to protect this woman? Why must they remain silent? Does the Church believe it is the will of Jesus that they remain silent? Do you have any Church documents saying that the Church can only oppose wars and never instruct Catholics to push their governments to go to war to protect the oppressed like the Sudaneis people?

Can you see how this can be very confusing to young teenage Catholics trying to discern Jesus and the Father’s will on when to kill to protect the innocent? If the Church only condemns wars and never supports just wars, young Catholics can become very mislead into believing that now all wars are evil regardless of what is written in Church documents on just war. The Church can be leading young Catholics into the sin and imorality of not protecting their fellow human being.

On the contrary, I believe the Church should be asking for civilized countries to step in to stop the violence. The Church itself should not be the entity to try to stop this. It has no military power and it does not have the weapons to stop an armed conflict.

It is not the role of the Church to police the world. It is the job of the UN. The whole purpose for establishing the UN was precisely to settle disputes among nations.

I don’t think it is confusing even to young kids. They understand when folks need to protect themselves, and when folks need someone else to step in. Fair play is a universal concept. And killing is not the only solution.

I think the Church already knows that sometimes killing may be the only way to make some folks stop, but as a matter of policy, it should never direct killing as the first alternative.

For the most part the Church does try to tell the world when it should step in. It’s role should be an advisory one, and I think it already does that…

As far as remaining silent, that’s one you have to ask the Vatican or the bishops. It may be that they are not aware of the problems, or it may be that they have already made their complaints known and they are either ignored or not publicized or both.

IF you read about the Pope and the Nazis, the Pope made numerous complaints to both sides and consulted with the US and its allies but most correspondence was never publicized. Not everything that comes out of the Vatican makes the news.

 

[Steven_Merten]

wcknight:

It is not the role of the Church to police the world. It is the job of the UN. The whole purpose for establishing the UN was precisely to settle disputes among nations.

I don’t think it is confusing even to young kids. They understand when folks need to protect themselves, and when folks need someone else to step in. Fair play is a universal concept. And killing is not the only solution.

I think the Church already knows that sometimes killing may be the only way to make some folks stop, but as a matter of policy, it should never direct killing as the first alternative.

Hello wcknight,

Can we agree that the Church uses violence and/or the threat of violence as its first and pretty much only line of defense at the Vatican? Swiss Guard snippers ready to kill any threat to the Pope. There are few people in the world with a greater amount of violence at the ready to protect them than the Pope. To say the the Pope does not use violence as a first alternative to threats to his life would be a lie. No negociations, No show of pasifism as a deterant, No turning the other cheek, no opposition to using violence to protect himself like Gandie, but a pure and simple show of deadly force capabilities deterring Vatican foes.

The Pope does not send Swiss Guards home and simply rely on the UN to spend months or years to decide to send foreign Swiss protectors to sovereign nation Vatican City to protect him should terrorist storm his boarders as he teaches should be how the masses should be treated. Freely elected Iraqie leaders want the US there to protect them in the same way the Pope wants foreign Swiss Guards there to protect him. The president of Chad has asked for international forces to protect the Sudaneis refugees. The Albainias wanted NATO to protect them from the atrocities of the Serbs. Let us rid the Church of its double standard on the protection of human life.

The Pope would never treat his life, by opposing the use of violence at the Vatican to protect himself, the way Popes oppose the use of force to protect the masses from atrocity.

You yourself would never sit down and ponder a non-violent alternative to your first and formost reaction of calling the police if it was your families lives on the line.

We simply want the same respect for human life and the protection of the innocent through the use of force that the Pope bestowes upon himself.

 

[Dlramount]

It looks like it was closed for 6 months… a big gap from Sep 4th to March.

 

[wcknight]

Sorry Steve,

you’re still stretching the violence bit. The Swiss guard do have some weapons and the THREAT of violence is the deterent to anyone attacking the Vatican. They could use violence if needed but it is rare that they do.

Violence is NOT its normal mode of operation. It does not go out of its way to attack folks,

It’s very coincidental that I went to a local confirmation this past weekend, and part of the topic in the homily was on avoiding the use of violence. This coming from a bishop is consistent with every other sermon I’ve ever heard on the topic. The Church says it’s okay to protect yourself in self defense but it never approves the use of violence as a pre-emptive measure.

You can not justify attacking homosexuals or non-believers or even Satanists in a pre-emptive strike no matter how evil you think they may be or what potential danger they may pose. You have every right to stop them from harming you or innocent others ONLY IF they are attacking you, BUT you do not have the right to pre-emptively attack them.

Coincidently the person I lent my book to also returned it this weekend, the name of the book is Dungeon, Fire and Sword ( A History of the Knights Templar) by John Robinson.

 

[wcknight]

What’s apparent here, is that you are trying to justify use of PRE-EMPTIVE measures because folks have every right to use PREVENTIVE measures.

You may dream up situations where a pre-emptive measure may be justified. But for the most part the Church clearly teaches that violence as a aggressor is almost always wrong. Your moral and legal rights are fairly clear. IF your neighbor threatens you with a weapon in your house (or even in his house), you might legally and morally defend yourself with violence at the moment.

BUT if he threatens you and then you go home and come back with a gun and shoot him(or he goes home, and you go to his house with a gun), then you very likely will be charged with murder.

Self defense is justified IF the threat is immediate and imminent.