Would Jesus Use Violence to Defend His Flock?

[JOHNYJ]

Do we remember Chamberlain. He turned the other cheek. He sacrificed the.

Rhinelanders
Austrians
Czechs
All not to fight. His averson to fighting at the end caused the death of 20,000,000 people.
Stalin murdered even more 30,000,000 .
Weve had Bosnia,rwanda, and now Darfur.Turning the other cheek hasn’t worked so well in these places.

 

[wcknight]

cheeto1:

But isn’t there ever a time when it’s an emergency, and
admonishing isn’t enough?

Yes, we are certainly allowed to defend ourselves and even to defend innocent bystanders. And we may have to main or injure IF the situation calls for it and we may even have a moral responsibility to use violence if necessary. It is NOT murder to kill in self defense or defense of someone else. In the latter case it may even be a heroic and praise worthy act.

BUT that is far different from making a judgement call and maiming or murdering someone to prevent them from committing a sin. Paricularly if that sin does NOT immedately and seriously imperil anyone other than themselves.

 

[KBarn]

Jesus was not a military leader. He was not a political ruler. He was not a family man. He was not a number of things. Yet men are military leaders, political rulers, and family men. The question is not “What would Jesus do?” Rather, it is “What would Jesus have me do?” This distinction should not be lost.

 

[cheeto1]

KBarn:

Jesus was not a military leader. He was not a political ruler. He was not a family man. He was not a number of things. Yet men are military leaders, political rulers, and family men. The question is not “What would Jesus do?” Rather, it is “What would Jesus have me do?” This distinction should not be lost.

Of course you are right but this doesn’t help at all. If we could
figure out the answer to question #1, it might help with question #2.
What would He do if He had the flu? What would He do if He had
abusive parents instead of Joseph and Mary? What would He
do if He were president of the United States?(or another country)
How would He live His carpenter years in this present age of
technology? What kind of clothes would He choose to wear
today? How would He live His life if He were a woman? How
would He live His life as a senior citizen?

Yes there is a difference between What would Jesus do? and
What would Jesus have me do? But can you think of another
way to come up with the answer to a difficult question like this?

By examining the life of Jesus, someone should be able to come
up with the answer to acceptable violence. If it’s o.k. for us, then
it would be o.k. for Him also. It would be good to have it all figured
out ahead of time before being faced with an emergency.

 

[KBarn]

With respect to the previous poster, that is absurd. Jesus had no family. Does that mean that we men who do have a family can look to no one and nothing as an exemplar of what to do if our homes are ever invaded? You can raise any number of absurd questions by asking what would Jesus do in such-and-such a case. The fact of the matter is that we have the instruction not only of Holy Writ but also of Natural Law. According to the dictates of Natural Law, violence in righteous self-defense is compatible with virtue. Just because Jesus never took up a gun to defend a family does not mean that He would not do it if He did in fact have a family. Neither does it mean that we are not to do the same. God has given us the instruction of the Natural Law and of a teaching Church. My answer is this. Jesus would not have used violence to defend his flock. But that does not mean that we cannot use violence to defend ours should it absolutely come to that.

 

[cheeto1]

KBarn:

With respect to the previous poster, that is absurd. Jesus had no family. Does that mean that we men who do have a family can look to no one and nothing as an exemplar of what to do if our homes are ever invaded? You can raise any number of absurd questions by asking what would Jesus do in such-and-such a case. The fact of the matter is that we have the instruction not only of Holy Writ but also of Natural Law. According to the dictates of Natural Law, violence in righteous self-defense is compatible with virtue. Just because Jesus never took up a gun to defend a family does not mean that He would not do it if He did in fact have a family. Neither does it mean that we are not to do the same. God has given us the instruction of the Natural Law and of a teaching Church. My answer is this. Jesus would not have used violence to defend his flock. But that does not mean that we cannot use violence to defend ours should it absolutely come to that.

I have gone a long time not knowing the answer one way or another and I truly appreciate someone attempting to answer this. So you do believe we should use violence to defend our
family if we can’t think of another way and it’s an emergency,
regardless of what Jesus would do. I consider this a sensible
and valid argument but I still don’t feel convinced. It’s because
of the way Jesus made His followers put away their sword and
saying “it is enough” and healing the injured man. Surely this
situation would have been grounds for violence. It was a mob
with weapons coming at an innocent man. I know He had to
fulfill what He came for, but why did He have to say, “the one
who lives by the sword dies by the sword?”

 

[KBarn]

cheeto1:

I have gone a long time not knowing the answer one way or another and I truly appreciate someone attempting to answer this. So you do believe we should use violence to defend our family if we can’t think of another way and it’s an emergency, regardless of what Jesus would do. I consider this a sensible and valid argument but I still don’t feel convinced. It’s because of the way Jesus made His followers put away their sword and saying “it is enough” and healing the injured man. Surely this situation would have been grounds for violence. It was a mob with weapons coming at an innocent man. I know He had to fulfill what He came for, but why did He have to say, “the one who lives by the sword dies by the sword?”

Those are thoughtful considerations. Think of it this way first. If Jesus intended that these answers would be readily found in Scripture, He would not have founded the Church. The Church is His Body and carries on His mission. The Church has spoken on self-defense in the most recently issued Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Church says this in Paragraph 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.

I think that paragraph speaks rather well on its own. A man who can use “the sword” without living “by the sword.” The fact is, my moderate defense of my physical integrity (or that of others) is compatible with the sacred inviolable dignity of the human person, even if such an act of self-defense may result in the death of the unjust aggressor. We are to live according to the model of Christ, certainly. But God has called us to a multitude of vocations and gifts, and while Christ’s life encompasses that multitude, we cannot look to individual events in Christ’s life with a one-to-one relationship for events in ours. We can, however, attempt to put on Christ, that is, through a relationship of prayer and the sacraments, be true disciples who are light to the world. Discipleship takes on a variety of forms. However, if we have been adequately formed by gospel values, we have no need to consider what Jesus would have done in that we will be able to act how Jesus wants us to act. If we inculcate the virtues, we will be habitually good so that when we encounter dilemmas that we cannot relate immediately to an event in the life of Christ, we will nonetheless have the capacity to do what Jesus would have us do.

The fact is, the Bible does not record what Jesus would have done if His mission were other than what it was. That is why when we ask, WWJD in this circumstance, we have to wonder whether or not that circumstance is compatible with His mission. Jesus was not a married man with a family. So it is hardly fair to expect that the Bible would give us the answer to “What would Jesus do if He were a married man.” That is truly why we cannot ask “WWJD?” But through the instruction of the Church, the consideration of the Natural Law and the rest of Divine Writ, and through a life of prayer and reception of the sacraments, we can be reasonably assured that what we do will be what Jesus would want us to do.

 

[Liberalsaved]

Jesus renounced the old ways of doing things. I don’t think He would, as His flock refers to all the children of the earth.

 

[mlchance]

Please see Revelation 19:11-19, if memory serves.

– Mark L. Chance.