Would you join a Crusade?

[nsper7]

cont.

1. This isn’t a big deal.
   a) the just war is a theological theory, and never was a doctrine of the Church which has been (at least to my knowledge) promoted as an infallible dogma.
   b) Augustin’s just war theory differs to a notable extent from Aquinas’s, and his teaching on self defense as well (non is permitted unless you are a soldier).
   c) let me ask you this: How do you deal with ALL of the early Christians and fathers up to Augustine being explicitly ant-war and ant-violence? It seems to me, if we should look for authentic Christian living, we should look firstly to the early Christians who were to a much greater extent authentic in living what Christ taught (moral-wise and strictly in terms of practice, of course. I’m not of the apostasy crowd) than the middle age-Christians, with all the nasty stuff going on then.

Let me just give you some of the quotes:
“Nothing is better than peace, by which all war of those in heaven and those on earth is abolished.” Ignatius

“The soldier of the government must be taught not to kill men. If ordered to, he shall not carry out the order, nor shall he take the military oath. If he does not accept this, he must be rejected for baptism. A military commander or civic magistrate must resign or be rejected. The believers who wish to become soldiers shall be cast out, because they have despised God.” Hypollitus

“For what difference is there between provoker and provoked? The only difference is that the former was the first to do evil, but the latter did evil afterwards. Each one stands condemned in the eyes of the Lord for hurting a man. For God both prohibits and condemns every wickedness. In evil doing, there is no account taken of the order… the commandment is absolute: evil is not to be repaid with evil.” Tertulian

My personal favorite:
“I am a Christian, and therefore I cannot fight.” Julian

“We cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly.” Athenagoras

“It can never be lawful for a righteous man to go to war, whose warfare is in righteousness itself.” Lacitanius

“Christians are not allowed to use violence to correct the delinquencies of sins.” Clement of Alexandria

“Man is in reality a pacific instrument.” Clement of Alexandria

“I have led a military life, and am a Roman; and because I am a Christian I have abandoned my profession of a soldier.” Tarachus

“It is not lawful for a Christian to bear arms for any earthly consideration.” Marcellus

“The devil is the author of all war.” Justin Martyr

“[Christians] are not allowed to kill, but they must be ready to be put to death themselves… it is not permitted the guiltless to put even the guilty to death.” Cyprian

“The soldiers of Christ require neither arms nor spears of iron.” Ambrose

“The servants of God do not rely for their protection on material defenses but on the divine Providence.” Ambrose

And there are many more.

Again, please do not take any of my seemingly ironic tones personally, I would never want to offend my brothers in Christ and only wish them the Peace our Blessed Lord came to give us.
I appreciate your kind tone and charitable spirit.

God bless you.

But are any of these men’s words official Church doctrine or merely a theological theory? Certainly, pacifism and ‘just war’ are two competing doctrines that are addressed even to this day and in many sects/denominations of Christianity (certainly, Anglicanism has its share of pacifists as well as ‘just war’ theologians).

And again, the Early Church was in a much different context than we are today, at least in the West. They were a minority and quite powerless (not only did they face persecution, but Rome at this time was not democratic so few people had real authority in policy-making decisions). Look at this way, who was commanding the armies during Christ’s Incarnation, the Apostolic Age and the Early Church Age? Non-Christian Romans with some hostile (to Christians) Jews aiding them (mostly unwillingly, except for a few exception like the Herodian leadership).

Sicne Hrvoje is Catholic, I don’t suppose there’s any way we could have a crusade aginst him, eh?

Don’t be offensive. This is a theological debate, so there is no need to turn it into a personal argument complete with illwll and ire.

 

[Hrvoje]

It is interesting you bring up Jesus’ command to love one’s neighbor. What do you do if one group is attacking another? The Nazi Holocaust, the Sudanese genocide, and there are other examples. Is one just supposed to stand there while others are being murdered?

It easy to idealize and turn it into: if someone was attacking me, I’d let them kill me. But it usually isn’t that simple. Suppose there are children that are being threatened, suppose one country is inflicting grievous harm on another. If you do nothing and allow ‘innocent’ (obviously, we are all sinners) people to be murdered, is that truly loving your neighbor? As we saw in Munich in 1938 with Hitler, attempts to peacefully resolve an issue do not always work. What then?

I’m not proposing a sort of passive observer role; no. Like I said, if one is in a situation where say a child killer was about to kill a child in front of you, you should very much interfere with his plan. Several scenarios come to my mind:
-You pray. You trust the Lord. A miracle will come. This is the scenario I love the most. And, like some people have objected to me, it’s not wishful thinking. I was in a life/death situation and nothing short of a miracle saved me - I should be dead now, but I’m not.
-You block the way with your body, perhaps tackle the assailant and scream to the child: “Run, get your parents!” or something similar, and buy the child enough time for it to escape, while you most likely die.
-You have a tazor-weapon or something similar, which allows you to stun you opponent, gaining enough time both for you and the child to escape.
-You have a gun. You try to bluff. If you succeed, great. If you don’t, you don’t shoot him, since he still is, even then, a child of God. Hopefully, you will have gained enough time in the bluff to allow the child to escape.

I know these are all very specific scenarios and probably do not work the same in war.
With the Nazis, well, the only answer I can give you is a pacifistic one, and a path of trusting God. That doesn’t however mean staying home, safe. Not at all - you have a chance to do some good even there, like, if you have medical training, you could join the red cross or you could volunteer as at least some kind of charity-helper.
Even the Nazi is your brother. He kills a man. He has killed your brother. I kill him. I have killed another one of my brethren. I don’t think that justifiable enough cause to kill, to violate the principle of absolute value of human life - even if that Nazi you had a chance to take down is going to kill again tomorrow. It’s a matter of principle, and I don’t think we are in a position to calculate whose life is to be left and whose is to be destroyed, be it a Nazi or a Saints life.
I understand that these views are hardly global, and do not seem very convincing when the need to fight in an armed conflict for the good arises, so all I can say is trust in the Lord.

 

[Hrvoje]

But are any of these men’s words official Church doctrine or merely a theological theory? Certainly, pacifism and ‘just war’ are two competing doctrines that are addressed even to this day and in many sects/denominations of Christianity (certainly, Anglicanism has its share of pacifists as well as ‘just war’ theologians).

And again, the Early Church was in a much different context than we are today, at least in the West. They were a minority and quite powerless (not only did they face persecution, but Rome at this time was not democratic so few people had real authority in policy-making decisions). Look at this way, who was commanding the armies during Christ’s Incarnation, the Apostolic Age and the Early Church Age? Non-Christian Romans with some hostile (to Christians) Jews aiding them (mostly unwillingly, except for a few exception like the Herodian leadership).

Sure. This is all very valid.

But, the question still remains, no matter what the context. One might argue, also, that Christianity in the west became tolerant of militant actions because of the circumstances - like the state/Church relationship - opposed to those in the time of the early Church.
It gives us no data on what stance is correct, since all of the theological positions on war were developed in some circumstances which have affected it’s course of growth.

However, with it being highly unlikely that the world is going to become pacifistic, it boils down to a personal level.
What wold I do?
I could never kill my brother.
I would still side with the early Christians in saying: I am a Christian, therefore I cannot fight.

Thanks for the exchange.
Pax Christi.

 

[whiteknite]

I would go if the Pope went too…
I get sick of the high up men (president/mp’s/primeministers)
Ordering war knowing full well that they dont have to fight with there bare hands like the little people.

 

[Jerome_Jackson]

In response to Hrjove, It must be remembered that the standards for a Crusade would have to be extreme, after all violence in the name of the holy faith is a serious issue and is ALWAYS a last resort. Furthermore Charlamane and St. Mercury were both warriors. It must also be remembered that St. Hippolytus spent most of his theological carrer as a schismatic anti Pope. Also, what about WWII? was it wrong for Churchhill to fight against Hitler and stop the mass murder of millions? And to another person’s question about if we could launch a Crusade on Hrjove, no, Hrjove would have to be doing something like trying to make himself (I don’t know Hrjove’s Gender), Pope by trying to take over the Vatican.

 

[Jerome_Jackson]

I just read something else Hrjove said. You think that there was no seperation of Church and state in the west, try the East, they believed that the Emperor was the head of the Church! (I learned this from an Orthodox Priest). Also, if you can shoot to save a child from Immortal death how much more so with eternal death. Also, there was no reasonable means for a holy war in the early church and the Catacombs in Rome have many soldiers in them.

 

[PrayforMallory]

Maybe, if it was for the Church (not any particular state) and the cause was just. Though I’m ill all the time now, maybe I could get back my old spirit and show legs how it’s done!

 

[nsper7]

I’m not proposing a sort of passive observer role; no. Like I said, if one is in a situation where say a child killer was about to kill a child in front of you, you should very much interfere with his plan. Several scenarios come to my mind:
-You pray. You trust the Lord. A miracle will come. This is the scenario I love the most. And, like some people have objected to me, it’s not wishful thinking. I was in a life/death situation and nothing short of a miracle saved me - I should be dead now, but I’m not.
-You block the way with your body, perhaps tackle the assailant and scream to the child: “Run, get your parents!” or something similar, and buy the child enough time for it to escape, while you most likely die.
-You have a tazor-weapon or something similar, which allows you to stun you opponent, gaining enough time both for you and the child to escape.
-You have a gun. You try to bluff. If you succeed, great. If you don’t, you don’t shoot him, since he still is, even then, a child of God. Hopefully, you will have gained enough time in the bluff to allow the child to escape.

Trusting in the Lord is important, but, read the OT some more, you see plenty of people who greatly trusted the Lord, but were also willing to fight for Him. I’d be careful in claiming that we follow the NT, not the OT, lest you fall into a quasi-gnostic type of heresy where we say that there are two ‘gods’: that of the OT and that of the NT. The same God who died on the cross for our sins was also the same God who commanded the Israelites to strike down their enemies.

In terms of option 2, what if we are talking about an infant or something? Also, you are not guaranteed success. I might add, if you’re taking a bullet for someone else, you are loving your neighbor more than yourself and that’s not the commandment, is it?

For option 3, tasers and stun weapons can be lethal.

For option 4, it just sounds like you’re lying (what is a bluff after all but a lie?).

I know these are all very specific scenarios and probably do not work the same in war.
With the Nazis, well, the only answer I can give you is a pacifistic one, and a path of trusting God. That doesn’t however mean staying home, safe. Not at all - you have a chance to do some good even there, like, if you have medical training, you could join the red cross or you could volunteer as at least some kind of charity-helper.
Even the Nazi is your brother. He kills a man. He has killed your brother. I kill him. I have killed another one of my brethren. I don’t think that justifiable enough cause to kill, to violate the principle of absolute value of human life - even if that Nazi you had a chance to take down is going to kill again tomorrow. It’s a matter of principle, and I don’t think we are in a position to calculate whose life is to be left and whose is to be destroyed, be it a Nazi or a Saints life.
I understand that these views are hardly global, and do not seem very convincing when the need to fight in an armed conflict for the good arises, so all I can say is trust in the Lord.

This is the problem with idealism: no real answers. Remember, the idea of killing here is not retribution, but in order to protect lives. By your way, you would allow millions (if not billions) of people to be murdered. You’re pacifism only works because there are many people who are willing to fight.

Sure. This is all very valid.

But, the question still remains, no matter what the context. One might argue, also, that Christianity in the west became tolerant of militant actions because of the circumstances - like the state/Church relationship - opposed to those in the time of the early Church.
It gives us no data on what stance is correct, since all of the theological positions on war were developed in some circumstances which have affected it’s course of growth.

However, with it being highly unlikely that the world is going to become pacifistic, it boils down to a personal level.
What wold I do?
I could never kill my brother.
I would still side with the early Christians in saying: I am a Christian, therefore I cannot fight.

Thanks for the exchange.
Pax Christi.

I’d watch where that line of reasoing goes since you claim to be Roman Catholic. After all, how far is it from saying the Church became ‘tolerant’ of something you feel is wrong to saying the Church was morally in the wrong (not just individual members, such as a corrut priest, bishop or even Pope, but that the Magesterium itself was in the moral wrong).

 

[Hrvoje]

Trusting in the Lord is important, but, read the OT some more, you see plenty of people who greatly trusted the Lord, but were also willing to fight for Him. I’d be careful in claiming that we follow the NT, not the OT, lest you fall into a quasi-gnostic type of heresy where we say that there are two ‘gods’: that of the OT and that of the NT. The same God who died on the cross for our sins was also the same God who commanded the Israelites to strike down their enemies.

In terms of option 2, what if we are talking about an infant or something? Also, you are not guaranteed success. I might add, if you’re taking a bullet for someone else, you are loving your neighbor more than yourself and that’s not the commandment, is it?

For option 3, tasers and stun weapons can be lethal.

For option 4, it just sounds like you’re lying (what is a bluff after all but a lie?).

This is the problem with idealism: no real answers. Remember, the idea of killing here is not retribution, but in order to protect lives. By your way, you would allow millions (if not billions) of people to be murdered. You’re pacifism only works because there are many people who are willing to fight.

I’d watch where that line of reasoing goes since you claim to be Roman Catholic. After all, how far is it from saying the Church became ‘tolerant’ of something you feel is wrong to saying the Church was morally in the wrong (not just individual members, such as a corrut priest, bishop or even Pope, but that the Magesterium itself was in the moral wrong).

Sigh. I’m too tired to write a long post now, so perhaps I’ll get to it later.

Concerning the OT - like I’ve said, it has to be taken more seriously that - look there were people fighting for God, so we have to do so now. I’m not an OT scholar, but what I’ve read on the topic of OT wars follows this line. OT exegesis is more intricate than NT, since it involves a lot more layers of tradition than the new one does.

Concerning the first choice… I have really nothing to add, only can repeat what I’ve said.
The second one… Perfect love means perfect sacrifice. Wouldn’t you take a bullet for you child or brother? Why is your neighbor less deserving of your love?
The third one - sure. Less leather shotguns can be deadly. But stun weapons very rarely are. I’m not an expert, so I’ll stop there.
The option 4 - it’s the same deal when you lie to the Nazis about the Jews you’re hiding.

I’ll respond to your objection to my pacifism later…

About me questioning the Magisterium… No, I’m not saying the Church was wrong in an infallible statement. I’m saying that it became more tolerant to militant actions - which it did. That’s a historical fact. Early Christians did not (for whatever reasons) tolerate violence in any form, and later - when the just war theory was developed - the Christians (for whatever reasons) became tolerant of some forms of violence. I never once accused the Church of being wrong on a doctrinally binding statement, and I don’t like it when someone says I said that. Please don’t do that again.

Sigh. Can’t go on anymore.

God bless you.

 

[nsper7]

Concerning the OT - like I’ve said, it has to be taken more seriously that - look there were people fighting for God, so we have to do so now. I’m not an OT scholar, but what I’ve read on the topic of OT wars follows this line. OT exegesis is more intricate than NT, since it involves a lot more layers of tradition than the new one does.

Good job on the obfuscation. If you are going to put forward a theological idea, then you have to be able to defend from all parts of Scripture. If all you can do is pull a few quotes here and there and argue from Early Church history (at the exclusion of Post-ECF history), then you make a very weak argument indeed.

Concerning the first choice… I have really nothing to add, only can repeat what I’ve said.

Okay. You still have not addressed the issue. It is easy to talk into idealistic terms, but, regardless, by your way, you are still left with, if the people had taken your tact in World War 2, millions, if not billions, of victims murdered.

The second one… Perfect love means perfect sacrifice. Wouldn’t you take a bullet for you child or brother? Why is your neighbor less deserving of your love?

I can’t honestly answer the first question unless I am actually in that situtation (which I sincerely hope I am never in).

The third one - sure. Less leather shotguns can be deadly. But stun weapons very rarely are. I’m not an expert, so I’ll stop there.

You hit the nail right on the head there. You admit you are not an expert, yet you are proclaiming a pacifistic theology. As your remarks on the OT show, you seem to replace lack of knowledge on said issue with fervency and obfuscation.

The option 4 - it’s the same deal when you lie to the Nazis about the Jews you’re hiding.

And what did the Church rule on that issue BTW?

About me questioning the Magisterium… No, I’m not saying the Church was wrong in an infallible statement. I’m saying that it became more tolerant to militant actions - which it did. That’s a historical fact. Early Christians did not (for whatever reasons) tolerate violence in any form, and later - when the just war theory was developed - the Christians (for whatever reasons) became tolerant of some forms of violence. I never once accused the Church of being wrong on a doctrinally binding statement, and I don’t like it when someone says I said that. Please don’t do that again.

Read my words more carefully: I never actually accused you of questioning the Magisterium, but I merely warned that that is a slippery slope. After all, although you give quotes from the Early Church Fathers on their pacifism, I have yet to see you actually quote from the Post-ECF and show why the Church changed its viewes. The way I see it, there are two options:

1. The situation of the Post-EC was sufficiently different enough from the EC’s situation (such as going from being a persecuted minority to a dominant majority) that a necessary change had to occur in order to properly preserve the Church in this new situation (compare how the situation changed for the Israelites from being a slave population in Egypt to being a nomadic tribe to being settled in the Land of Canaan).
2. Either the EC or the Post-EC is wrong, which thus challenges the notion of the Magesterium since either its foundation is wrong or its implementation after a certain point is wrong.

Feel free to supply a third option here, but otherwise, take your pick: either a necessary evolution had to occur (and, thus, did occur) or somewhere, someone got it wrong.

This is why I said it is a slippery slope, but I never accused you of doubting the Magesterium.

To me (and, obviously, I am not Roman Catholic), this seems to be the issue with holding an absolutely pacifistic view as a Roman Catholic. Historically, the Roman Catholic Church has justified military action (I am not judging whether said action was right or wrong…from a historical perspective, I think the Crusades were necessary…see these articles on the subject…Article/FAQ, Article 2), so thus, in order to proclaim absolute pacifism, there is a de facto questioning of the Magesterium. Again, show me where this is incorrect. This would be as opposed to say a Mennonite who is an absolute pacifist, because then it merely comes down to a disagreement over Scriptural interpretation since they would not claim to adhere to the Magesterium as authoritative.

I am sorry if I offend or anger you, that is not my intent. Theological debates can definitely get heated.

 

[Hrvoje]

Good job on the obfuscation. If you are going to put forward a theological idea, then you have to be able to defend from all parts of Scripture. If all you can do is pull a few quotes here and there and argue from Early Church history (at the exclusion of Post-ECF history), then you make a very weak argument indeed.

Ok, I’m back. Been a while.

Now, sorry if I was ambiguous, but I was tired and didn’t have enough time or willpower to supply anything other than the promise (with the short lay-out) of further explaining it.
So, here it goes:
Concerning the OT:

It simply is irresponsible to justify modern warfare by appealing to the Old Testament conquest stories. Many a preacher has made a remark to this affect to his or her congregation: “If you want to see how God feels about war, read the Old Testament!” While the OT can show that God has not been averse to using force in the past to accomplish His ends, the conquest stories are not proof texts to support modern day warfare, or at least they shouldn’t be.

The Battles of Yahweh in the Old Testament were unique to the nation of Israel and the theological goals and purposes of seeing the Israelites reclaim the Promised Land and rid themselves from all sin. There has never been another instance in history where God has directed His people to engage in warfare in the manner in which He did in those days. This was in the days when salvation was a national/ethnic matter and the Promised Land played prominently into the religious and cultural identity of God’s chosen people. Under the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34) national and ethnic boundaries were completely erased (it is acknowledged that foreigners were permitted to be adopted into Israel and fall under the Old Covenant, but the boundaries were further erased under the New Covenant).

While the Puritans believed, as do some modern day Americans, that America is “God’s country,” this is not true to the extent that it was during the days of the ancient Israelites. God has been very gracious to America, but neither America nor any other country since has had the same kind of national experience and theological purpose of the ancient nation of Israel. This does not nullify the importance or inspiration of the Old Testament conquest stories in a pseudo-Marcionite manner or claim that there is no relevance to the Christian today, but it a wild exegetical leap to assert that those passages should be used to justify modern day warfare.

God was meeting His people under their cultural conditions and circumstances. Harem warfare, where everything was totally destroyed and annihilated, was a prominent feature of battle during the time of the Ancient Near East. So on one level, God was simply meeting the people where they were at and operating under their conditions of warfare. Perhaps it was also a tool to get them to pay attention since that is what the people knew and responded to. Thankfully, however, this type of warfare is no longer the standard accepted practice and society has grown from its former primitive practices. But it is not altering the immutable character of God to rightly say that He was simply meeting the people where they were at under their own cultural practices.

Secondly there is also a moral/ethical element as well that the Israelites had to be completely separated from every unholy thing. The Promised Land was to be completely pure and holy. The practices of these nations were utterly disgusting, idolatrous and evil (Duet. 7:25-26). They were to totally destroy everything amongst these wicked people groups (Duet. 7:2), including their evil idols (Duet. 7:5). If they failed to do so, then they would also be lured away by their evil ways (Duet. 7:26). The Israelites were to be different and set apart from all the wickedness around them. They were to be His treasured possession (Duet. 7:6) and were not to conform to the evil patterns of the world around them. The harem ban was the only way to achieve this driving out of evil during this time.

However, the Israelites did exactly what they weren’t supposed to do. All throughout the Old Testament they are shown as going the way of the idols and rejecting Yahweh God who had delivered them. It only took several generations for the people to completely forget about what God had taught them. When the Book of the Law was rediscovered in Judah, God had warned of impending judgment upon the land because it had almost totally forsaken His ways (2 Ki. 22-23).

Therefore, as extensive as the harem warfare was, it apparently was not enough to keep the Israelites from polluting themselves with idols and false teachings. While God today commands total separation from the evil ways of the world (I Jn. 2:15-17), He never again has instituted the kind of national and ethnic warfare that He did in the days of ancient Israel. That is because the Promised Land and the people who occupied it (or were being pushed out of it) served a unique theological purpose that has not yet been repeated.

The major applications for Christians today from the conquest stories are not that they have the right to commit genocide, but that they are to abstain and totally separate themselves from evil. Once it can be agreed upon that the Battles of Yahweh of the OT were unique and localized to the Israelites, suddenly the case for modern day warfare becomes weak.

 

[Hrvoje]

cont.

Another important item to keep in mind when examining war in the Old Testament is that war was only permissible when God was the one who was ordaining and directing the battle. When the people tried to go to war without His approval or without relying upon His strength, they failed. There is no example anywhere in Scripture of God blessing people who went to war without His approval and without His leading. Even in the NT, where Christ is showcased as a powerful and terrifying avenger on a White Horse (Rev. 19), this is the plan of God and not man. God, as the author and creator of life is the only one who has the right to take life. This is no unfair contradiction. God is the only legitimate source that can call for the taking of a life without warrant or self-defense. In all other circumstances, the 6th commandment still applies (Ex. 20:13).

When it is recognized that God is the only authorized agent who can take a life, and that He was the general of Israel’s wars, it begins to change the perspective one has on war. Also it must be stated, that while God has permitted all kinds of wars (and other evils) in human history, it does not mean that he ordained or necessarily willed it (though He can still use it and bring good from it). That is unless, of course, one is of the most militant Calvinist persuasion.

One must also study the original design and intention of God. When God created man His desire was for humanity to live in perpetual union with Him. Nowhere does Scripture indicate that violence was God’s original design and intention for humanity. Cain was judged harshly for murdering his brother Abel and not long after the earth became filled with violence and God was grieved for how wicked man had become. Injustice, unnecessary force, ungodly hatred, and other forms of unwarranted aggression are always condemned in Scripture. In fact, the whole of Scripture seems to point towards a vision of peace.

That vision of peace can be found in both the Old and New Testaments. Isaiah prophesied about a time when the “lion and the lamb would lay together” (Isa. 65:25), a rather “utopian” statement by modern “realist” standards. Even where God did command war He would sometimes lay restrictions on the types of weapons that could be used. The goal was to get the people to trust in Him rather than trusting in the strength of what was then modern weaponry (Isa. 31:3). Furthermore, Scripture looks to the crossing of the Red Sea as an ideal type battle for the Israelites,

Source

 

[Hrvoje]

Okay. You still have not addressed the issue. It is easy to talk into idealistic terms, but, regardless, by your way, you are still left with, if the people had taken your tact in World War 2, millions, if not billions, of victims murdered.

I think there was a misunderstanding between us. When I said that it is unlikely that the world is going to suddenly become pacifistic and that it boils down to a personal choice, I didn’t mean to give an explanation or a foundation on how to deal with the issues if nonviolence were to be recognized as authentically Christian. What I tried to do is give an example of how one might act in accord with such a viewpoint in a war-hungry world.
I only wanted to give an example, from a micropespective, on how one should act in accord with Christian non-violence.

Now, I know what I propose is terrifying - it means facing an enemy armed with nothing but Love and prayer. But, to answer your question: I hold that one can’t be the judge of one’s life, no matter how grave the circumstances are. I would (I hope very much that I would have the strength to do so) follow the examples set by the ECFs, when they refused any act of violence, and when they refused to measure the worth of lives at stake - be it a single life for a hundred or even more.
Regarding the examples of WWII and such…
The principle still stands. War only produces more war.
the United State’s entry into World War I broke the multi-year stalemate between Germany and the allies, ensuring an overwhelming victory rather than a negotiated settlement. This permitted the victors to bankrupt Germany with war reparations, leading to economic unrest that hastened the rise of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.
Also, one of the reasons Germany entered the World Wars (especially the first) was the disturbance in the power distribution concerning colonies. England had the greatest colonial empire in the world (which it didn’t forge trough peace, but trough bloody wars), while Germany had only a couple of territories in Africa.
The root of that problem were the imperialistic tendencies of European countries, which could only be realized trough war.
So, shortly put, WWI and WWII wouldn’t have (probably) broken out if previous wars hadn’t. If a rational pacifistic policy had been held, with a balanced distribution of power, the historical circumstances leading to the rise of social-nationalism in Germany would have never come to be.
Japanese imperialism against China only mirrored the centuries of European imperialism in the Asia and that United States economic and military actions towards Japan provoked it to attack Pearl Harbor in 1941.
(from wikipedia - it’s a quick reference)
But even then, even if we are left with the break-out of WWII, what then? I think I’ve shown a causal link between wars and warlike actions which are based on a desire to increase one nations power and decrees another nations power.
I think every historian would testify to the existence of such a causal chain. So, If a non-violent doctrine had been the way of conducting political incidents, there would never had been a need to take up arms in any war - just or unjust.
But that’s just wishful thinking, right?
So what if Hitler encountered no resistance?
Well, I can’t really say I know what would have happened.
But those who say “If we hadn’t fought Hitler, he would have controlled the world” are wrong for several reasons:
first - One ideology under a single nation (or an alliance of several nations) could never POSSIBLY have enough manpower to occupy the world. It would be an impossible task - given of course, that other countries would not accept their fascist ideology.
second - If Germany had established a great empire, it would inevitably collapse, like all great multi-national empires do - from Alexanders Empire, the Roman, Ottoman to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and even the Soviet Union (Gorbačov in 1985) they all fell apart due to internal affairs. Even ones like the Roman or the Ottoman, which were based on repression not unlike Hitlers Germany. Hitler killed non-arians, Ceaser killed non-romans.
Also, non-violent resistance proved itself on several occasions (the most obvious being India) as equally effective (if not more) as say an armed liberation.
Also, had such a great repressive state been created, it’s policy of repression would need a non-minor revision, for the economy doesn’t function if you exterminate the people who would do all the work.

 

[Hrvoje]

I can’t honestly answer the first question unless I am actually in that situtation (which I sincerely hope I am never in).

Likewise.
But I think that giving ones life for another is a very heroic deed - as to what a great deal of saints have testified.

 

[Hrvoje]

You hit the nail right on the head there. You admit you are not an expert, yet you are proclaiming a pacifistic theology. As your remarks on the OT show, you seem to replace lack of knowledge on said issue with fervency and obfuscation.

That’s right - I’m not an expert - on weapons.
All I know concerning non-lethal weapons is what one can read in encyclopedias and such.

I responded concerning the OT in a previous post - sorry again about that - I just didn’t have enough time to write a coherent post earlier.

 

[Hrvoje]

And what did the Church rule on that issue BTW?

If I’m not mistaken, it is justified to lie to the Nazis about the Jews you’re hiding, since they do not represent a lawful state and they do not have the right to know whether you really are hiding anyone or not.

I tried to give a parallel - it would be justified to bluff the potential assailant, since he doesn’t have a right to know whether you are lying or not.
Similar to that are the undercover operations run by the police.

But I read that on another thread…

 

[Hrvoje]

Read my words more carefully: I never actually accused you of questioning the Magisterium, but I merely warned that that is a slippery slope. After all, although you give quotes from the Early Church Fathers on their pacifism, I have yet to see you actually quote from the Post-ECF and show why the Church changed its viewes. The way I see it, there are two options:

1. The situation of the Post-EC was sufficiently different enough from the EC’s situation (such as going from being a persecuted minority to a dominant majority) that a necessary change had to occur in order to properly preserve the Church in this new situation (compare how the situation changed for the Israelites from being a slave population in Egypt to being a nomadic tribe to being settled in the Land of Canaan).
2. Either the EC or the Post-EC is wrong, which thus challenges the notion of the Magesterium since either its foundation is wrong or its implementation after a certain point is wrong.

Feel free to supply a third option here, but otherwise, take your pick: either a necessary evolution had to occur (and, thus, did occur) or somewhere, someone got it wrong.

This is why I said it is a slippery slope, but I never accused you of doubting the Magesterium.

Sure - here’s a third option:
The Church has a long peace tradition. In the first centuries, in fact, Christians would have nothing to do with war. Over the centuries, however, another tradition of “just war” developed, which taught Christians to apply strict requirements before going to war and rules for conduct within war.

They are two responses, and neither of them has been made the official.
Like two theological traditions, which have some mutually exclusive elements - the fact that a great deal of the theologians of the Church preferred one tradition doesn’t mean that the other one is wrong, since no binding statements were made on which tradition is the right one.

“The Christian tradition possesses two ways to address conflict: nonviolence and just war. They both share the common goal: to diminish violence in this world” (U.S. Bishops, A Harvest of Justice is Sown in Peace).

 

[Hrvoje]

Article/FAQ

, Article 2), so thus, in order to proclaim absolute pacifism, there is a de facto questioning of the Magesterium. Again, show me where this is incorrect. This would be as opposed to say a Mennonite who is an absolute pacifist, because then it merely comes down to a disagreement over Scriptural interpretation since they would not claim to adhere to the Magesterium as authoritative.

Like I’ve said above - two theological schools of thought, if you will. And even if one was used extensively, that doesn’t mean that the other can’t be held to, when no infallible statements concerning the schools of thought had been made.

 

[Hrvoje]

I am sorry if I offend or anger you, that is not my intent. Theological debates can definitely get heated.

No problem, brother.
Glad we’re having a profitable discourse.

 

[Crusader4Jesus]

I’m not exactly sure at what you are trying to get across. We all want more peace there is no doubt about that, but there are times when a non-pacifist stand is necessary. When you quoted above that in the OT they were guided by God so that they were justified whereas we are not . . aren’t you Catholic? I’m not sure if the source was Catholic or protestant, but we are guided by God, Jesus assured us that we would be guided by the Holy Spirit and that He would be with us and never leave us. The Pope initiated the Crusades because it was God’s Will “Deus vult”
No matter how uncomfortable we may be with some touchy subject, we know that when the Pope makes an infallible statement then we have full knowledge that it is of God.
I understand that the early Christians didn’t use force but there is “a time of war, and a time of peace” this is not a contradiction, just as if God told you to sleep and then later told you to wake up, there are different things called for in different circumstances and at different times, sometimes even if the circumstances are the same or similiar.
God bless you for your zeal for peace.