 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
mrsbmoo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 341 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | former Methodist. RCA, Presbyterian, Holiness, Wesleyan... Catholic as of June ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 6th, 2007 04:34 pm |
|
| My husband was watching a video interview with a marine who had been a sniper during the Vietnam War and later had been my husband's instructer in Anti-terrorist Warfare School in the Navy. I found the man's jovial and casual attitude about shooting people very disturbing and this started a discussion of the morality of snipers. I maintained that except in very limited circumstances it was not moral and usually indicated that the person was irevocably morally damaged, perhaps even needing to be confined for the safety of society, after their military time. My husband felt that it was moral in a much wider circumstance and did not indicate the sniper was morally deranged or unsafe. Our opinions are very interesting, but I need some definitive answers on the matter. What does the Church say about the subject? I know there has been a lot written on Just War but what about other military methods like snipers? I know you guys are full of good links, lay them on me!
____________________
Becky
Wife of Michael(called Moo) and stay at home mom to 5 daughters between 13 months and 17
|
|
|
Annie
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Columbus, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 731 |
| First Name: | Annie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nothing, Quaker, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 7th, 2007 11:10 am |
|
mrsbmoo wrote: perhaps even needing to be confined for the safety of society, after their military time.
Wow, I wouldn't want to live in a society that does this. Military scout/snipers are very valuable personnel. Their targets are high-ranking officers of the enemy. Read the biography of Carlos Hathcock for more info.
____________________
Annie
Ora et labora
|
|
|
beachmoss
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 13th, 2006 |
| Location: | Simpsonville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 292 |
| First Name: | Beth | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Catholic (raised Baptist) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 7th, 2007 06:46 pm |
|
Becky,
I can't offer you any definitive answers--only my own opinion, for what it's worth. But I tend to agree with you.
If this particular person enjoyed his work as a sniper and shows no remorse he should be removed from society until he can prove that he has moral judgement.
But then we can't go locking up people on the assumption that they may harm someone. But I think the military does society a disservice by allowing these people to enter society unchecked. They should be periodically monitored by mental health workers to see if any long term damage has been done. And as you describe his "casual attitude", I believe he has been damaged mentally and should see a professional.
He, and any other sniper, is probably not a threat to society at large because he was conditioned to shoot certain people on orders from his superiors. It is one thing to follow orders while you wear the uniform, but it is quite a different matter to have such a casual attitude about his former job as a gun-for-hire. I'll probably take fire for that statement. But basically a sniper is a hired gun--actually worse--he doesn't get near the pay a professional hit man would. And his conscience is formed by others for him not on his own.
(Sorry I have a very low opinion of the military right now--having been married to a Navy man for 11 years.)
Beth
|
|
|
Daffodil
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 85 |
| First Name: | Daffodil | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | not attending church, New Age, Episcopalian, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12th, 2007 10:41 am |
|
It would be pretty sad if we expected our soldiers to repent of killing in a war. It's like saying that it is a sin. It isn't. The sniper had a job to do during a war. The Catholic Church supports the state's right to call a war. If it isn't murder--which it isn't under these circumstances--then it isn't a sin, and doesn't call for repentance.
Approaching it in a casual manner, even jovial, is how he deals with it. Would you rather he have a mental break believing that he has sinned in this act, when he hasn't?
As long as a soldier is following his orders, and not killing outside of the boundaries of the rules of engagement, he is not sinning, and should not have to feel bad about it. Certainly, we shouldn't ostracize such a person as you suggest.
I understand acknowledging the sanctity of life--but you cannot give a sniper orders to kill, and then demand that he feel bad about it at the same time. If the Catholic Church does in fact give the state the right to war, and this is something his government has asked of him in the process of war.........then he's got to do it. And find a way to live with himself.
____________________
My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior....
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1479 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12th, 2007 10:58 am |
|
| I agree with Daffodil, such a soldier is following orders and doing so for the protection of us and the free world, why would we then punish him (or her) but I think there should be within the military some form of debriefing or counseling when he is discharged. Just these special forces, the snipers. My father was in WWII in a lot of combat. He seldom talked about it, it was so painful. But when he did talk, they were some horror stories. The same is true of the vets of Viet Nam, as we know. They have to find a way to re-join society. But the specially trained snipers may need special help, but not ostracization or confinement. Was David a sniper with Goliath?
|
|
|
Annie
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Columbus, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 731 |
| First Name: | Annie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nothing, Quaker, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12th, 2007 01:26 pm |
|
I think because of their training snipers need less help dealing with being in the non-military world. They are trained to selectively stalk high-value targets and not trained to just be able to react to an attack as an infantry soldier is.
i think of my own concealed carry training and how I am taught to analyze all situations I am in, the legality of the use of force. I am never now in condition white except at home with the doors and windows locked. This goes even more for people in the military. We do them a disservice in not understanding the depth of the morality of their training.
____________________
Annie
Ora et labora
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12th, 2007 06:20 pm |
|
What does the Church say about the subject?
I don't think the Church gets into the details of the tactics used in a war. Only on whether the war is just and the targets of the war are armed military men as opposed to civilians.
In my opinion, "sniping" is a form of ambush similar to guerrilla warfare and is therefore a tactic in war. If the subject of the sniping is a military personnel engaged in war against our country, he is fair game.
However, if, somone wants to "take out" an obnoxious person who is engaging in a war of words, economical tactics and other methods, but is not attacking our country or our civilians with military power, I would say that use of sniping moves into the area of murder.
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
catholicdan
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | Merced, California USA |
| Posts: | 65 |
| First Name: | Danny | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | From A 2 Z now on to RC. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 13th, 2007 04:59 am |
|
This topic confuses me and let me tell you why.
Starting with the teachings of Jesus Christians are commanded to not take up arms and kill period. Let's look at Peter for instance. Was he not just in defending an innocent man? Sure he was if we follow the logic used in just war etc, but Jesus rebuked him sharply and told him to put his sword away and then healed the man who had his ear cut off.
Let's look at Jesus teaching about living by the sword, dying by the sword. Jesus states that violence will result in violence. The Ante-Nicean Fathers all agreed that Christians are not to kill for any reason because it is murder. that is how they were taught by the apostles and that is how they interpereted what they were taught.
Let's look at the terrible wars of the middle ages, many men died defending their "faith" but who was right? The Muslims or the Christians? Neither according to Jesus, the apostles and the Ante-Nicean Fathers.
Today we stand infront of jails and prostest the executions of the comdemned murderer. Even though they may have created heinous crimes we stand ther on their behalf because we believe in the sanctity of life.
Jesus brought to us a new way of living as the children of God. We are not living in the Old Testament any longer but in the Kingdom of Christ where we are to be above the killing for whatever we deem "justified".
If you read the accounts of those who went before us, they laid down their lives rather than take up the sword. They live "If you enemy hits you on one side of your face, offer him the other also". Jesus didn't say who that enemy was or what they were doing, just turn the other cheek.
I know this will stir up many emotions but if we are going to be the people of God then we need to be all that Christ called us to be. In fact the term "just war" did not come until much later and I would even today say that Jesus is the standard not anyone elses teachings.
If we read the Ante-Nicean Fathers we will see that they took very literally Jesus teacings of killing. When Christians were forced (drafted) into a war they would not take up arms but formed infantries of prayer warriors who would pray not only for their side, but also for the enemy.
There was a time that many churches refused to go to war and that is why you have the term "consciensous objector" which allow a person for religious reasons to join the medic core or serve under chaplains in the armed services. Some even were willing to go to jail and be labled a traitor because they would only fallow the Law of God and not of man.
Of course this in only my own opinion and not that of the RCC or any of its officail cannons but I want to follow the faith of those who went on before me and not make their sacrifice in vain.
I know I am being very direct about this but I need to stand on my convictions.
I feel for those who have joined the Armed Forces and what they are put through. That is why when my sons have told me that they wanted to join the Army or Marines I explained to them that I did not approve and you know what, even though they did not agree with me, none of them have and I thank God for that.
We can pray for our Government and our enemies and have great affect on both. We are the army of God and there is not a more powerful weapon than that of God's church comiing together in prayer and defeating the real author of war the devil.
Peace to all,
catholicdan.
____________________
"To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant." Cardinal Newman
"Crux Sacra Sit Mihi Lux,
Non Draco Sit Mihi Dux"
May the Holy Cross be my Light.
Let not the dragon be my guide.
|
|
|
Annie
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Columbus, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 731 |
| First Name: | Annie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nothing, Quaker, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 13th, 2007 10:37 am |
|
| My attitude is I am not going to do the world any good if I am dead.
____________________
Annie
Ora et labora
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 282 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 13th, 2007 11:38 am |
|
Dear Dan,
Do you equate murder and self-defense? Both may involve killing but both are not murder.
Are you saying that killing in self-defense is a sin? This kind of blanket statement is incorrect.
Please specifically quote Catholic teaching that says killing is always a sin. What in the world are you quoting?
Emotions can run high on this subject which can cause extreme statements.
Murder is always wrong.
We're not talking about murder here.
We're not talking about violence for the sake of violence and those addicted to it.
Being able to act in self-defense, such as the duties of a sniper or a policeman, is a special vocation. Those of us who can't envision doing it ourselves doesn't mean we should twist this concept to make it look wrong.
Your impression of the wars of the Middle Ages makes me suspect you have not read much on this subject. One example: Joan of Arc, a saint, was called by God to lead France against England because those who were supposed to do the job abdicated their authority and did nothing. She died at the stake because, again, the French did nothing to help her.
I personally know a priest who fled Vietnam as the Communists took over. He fled as priests, nuns, and monks were being slaughtered around him. The Americans had left and there was no one to stop these murderers. After the slaughter the Communists touted how peaceful it was - our Salesian priest-friend called it "the peace of the cemetery".
By the way, my own father died in captivity as a POW in South Vietnam. He was a civilian.
Is this what you want?
Peace and mercy,
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
Daffodil
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 85 |
| First Name: | Daffodil | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | not attending church, New Age, Episcopalian, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 13th, 2007 04:45 pm |
|
catholicdan wrote: This topic confuses me and let me tell you why.
Starting with the teachings of Jesus Christians are commanded to not take up arms and kill period. Let's look at Peter for instance. Was he not just in defending an innocent man? Sure he was if we follow the logic used in just war etc, but Jesus rebuked him sharply and told him to put his sword away and then healed the man who had his ear cut off.
Let's look at Jesus teaching about living by the sword, dying by the sword. Jesus states that violence will result in violence. The Ante-Nicean Fathers all agreed that Christians are not to kill for any reason because it is murder. that is how they were taught by the apostles and that is how they interpereted what they were taught.
Let's look at the terrible wars of the middle ages, many men died defending their "faith" but who was right? The Muslims or the Christians? Neither according to Jesus, the apostles and the Ante-Nicean Fathers.
Today we stand infront of jails and prostest the executions of the comdemned murderer. Even though they may have created heinous crimes we stand ther on their behalf because we believe in the sanctity of life.
Jesus brought to us a new way of living as the children of God. We are not living in the Old Testament any longer but in the Kingdom of Christ where we are to be above the killing for whatever we deem "justified".
If you read the accounts of those who went before us, they laid down their lives rather than take up the sword. They live "If you enemy hits you on one side of your face, offer him the other also". Jesus didn't say who that enemy was or what they were doing, just turn the other cheek.
I know this will stir up many emotions but if we are going to be the people of God then we need to be all that Christ called us to be. In fact the term "just war" did not come until much later and I would even today say that Jesus is the standard not anyone elses teachings.
If we read the Ante-Nicean Fathers we will see that they took very literally Jesus teacings of killing. When Christians were forced (drafted) into a war they would not take up arms but formed infantries of prayer warriors who would pray not only for their side, but also for the enemy.
There was a time that many churches refused to go to war and that is why you have the term "consciensous objector" which allow a person for religious reasons to join the medic core or serve under chaplains in the armed services. Some even were willing to go to jail and be labled a traitor because they would only fallow the Law of God and not of man.
Of course this in only my own opinion and not that of the RCC or any of its officail cannons but I want to follow the faith of those who went on before me and not make their sacrifice in vain.
I know I am being very direct about this but I need to stand on my convictions.
I feel for those who have joined the Armed Forces and what they are put through. That is why when my sons have told me that they wanted to join the Army or Marines I explained to them that I did not approve and you know what, even though they did not agree with me, none of them have and I thank God for that.
We can pray for our Government and our enemies and have great affect on both. We are the army of God and there is not a more powerful weapon than that of God's church comiing together in prayer and defeating the real author of war the devil.
Peace to all,
catholicdan.
If you are Catholic, then you have to abide by what the Church teaches. Which is that the state has the right to call war, and it is not murder to kill within the confines of war, within the parameters of the rules of engagement.
Certainly, prayer for peace is good, I fully agree! 
____________________
My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior....
|
|
|
catholicdan
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | Merced, California USA |
| Posts: | 65 |
| First Name: | Danny | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | From A 2 Z now on to RC. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 13th, 2007 08:29 pm |
|
I know that this topic brings a lot of emotions to the surface. Some because they have fought and killed in wars past or present, and some because family members were either killed in wars past or present and are currently in the latest war. Whatever the reason we all have a stake that we feel needs to be heard.
I do not mean to offend anyone and I hope I have not but I cannot sugarcoat a topic because it is uncomfortable, in fact it is our responsibility as Christians to speak the truth to on another with love and mercy.
Now as to this topic of war I am going to quote those who the Catholic Church recognized as Saints and Bishops of the church and therefore are teaching good Catholic doctrine.
The first I quote is Jesus: Matthew 5:43-44
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Mt 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Lu 6:29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.
Mt 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Lu 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
Lu 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
St. Paul: 2Co 10:2- -7
But I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh. For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.
¶ Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's.
Justin Martyr (100-165 AD):
We who formerly murdered one another now refrain from making war even upon our enemies. (c. 160), ANF 1.176.
We used to be filled with war, mutual slaughter, and every kind of wickedness. However, now all of us have, throughout the whole earth, changed our warlike weapons. We have changed our swords into plowshares, and our spears into farming implements. (c. 160), ANF 1.254.
Tatian (120-? AD)
:
I do not wish to be a king. I am not anxious to be rich. I decline military command. (c. 160), ANF 2.69
Athenagorus (2nd century, AD)
:
We have learned not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us. Instead, even to those who strike us on one side of the face, we offer the other side also. (c. 175), ANF 2.129.
Irenaeus of Lyon (130/135-200/202 AD)
The new covenant that brings back peace and the law that gives life have gone forth over the whole earth, as the prophets said: "For out of Zion will go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem; and he will rebuke many people; and they will break down their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks, and they will no longer learn to fight." ... These people [i.e., Christians] formed their swords and war-lances into plowshares,... that is, into instruments used for peaceful purposes. So now, they are unaccustomed to fighting. When they are struck, they offer also the other cheek. (c. 180) ANF 1.512.
Tertullian (155/160-225/250 AD)
The one instrument of peace is what we employ: the Word alone, by whom we honor God. We no longer use the ancient psaltery, trumpet, timbrel, and flute. For those who are God puts His prohibition on every sort of man-killing by that one inclusive commandment: "You shall not kill." (c. 197), ANF 3.80.
"Nation will not take up sword against nation, and they will no more learn to fight." Who else, therefore, does this prophecy apply to, other than us? For we are fully taught by the new law, and therefore observe these practices ... The practice of the old law was to avenge itself by the vengeance of the sword. It was to pluck out "eye for eye," and to inflict retaliatory revenge for injury. However, the teaching of the new law points to clemency. It changes the primitive ferocity of swords and lances to tranquility. It remodels the primitive execution of war upon the rivals and enemies of the Law into the peaceful actions of plowing and cultivating the land. (c. 197), ANF 3.154
Now inquiry is made about the point of whether a believer may enter into military service. The question is also asked whether those in the military may be admitted into the faith even the rank and file (or any inferior grade), who are not required to take part in sacrifices or capital punishments ... A man cannot give his allegiance to two masters -- God and Caesar ... How will a Christian man participate in war? In fact, how will he serve even in peace without a sword? For the Lord has taken the sword away. It is also true that soldiers came to John [the Baptist] and received the instructions for their conduct. It is true also that a centurion believed. Nevertheless, the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier. (c. 200), ANF 3.73.
Of course, if faith comes later and finds someone already occupied with military service, their case is different. For example, there is the instance of those whom John [the Baptist] received for baptism, and of those most faithful centurions. I mean the centurion whom Christ approved, and the centurion whom Peter instructed [i.e., Cornelius]. Yet, at the same time, when a man has become a believer and faith has been sealed, there must be either an immediate abandonment of the military office, which has been the course of many-or else all sorts of quibbling will have to be resorted to in order to avoid offending God. And such quibbling is not allowed even outside of military service. (c. 211), ANF 3.100.
Now these are just many of the teachings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. They base their teachings on those of Jesus and the Holy Apostles. Every single Ante-Nicene Father taught the same. But what really stands out to me is this statement made by Tertullian:
Is the [military] laurel of triumph made of leaves, or of corpses? Is it adorned with ribbons, or with tombs? Is it wet with ointments, or with the tears of wives and mothers? It may be made of some [dead] Christians too. For Christ is also believed among the barbarians. (c. 211) 3.101.
Now that statement is very powerful. Think for a moment, in war between two nations the is going to be those who are also of the faith because they have been taught that “Just War” is ok. So, without knowing he has killed another Christian. That is why this is such an important topic. Even if the Church decides that there can be “Just War” then the Church needs to rethink its position and align it back to what Our Lord and Savior has taught on this subject. I am going to now show some more Authorized Church Fathers and their teachings which the Catholic Church says are their Church Fathers.
Hippolytus (170-236/245 A.D.)
A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath. If he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected for baptism. A military commander or civic magistrate who wears the purple must resign or be rejected. If an applicant or a believer seeks to become a soldier, he must be rejected, for he has despised God." (c. 200, Apostolic Tradition 16:17-19)
Alternative translation by Everett Ferguson: A soldier of the the government must be told not to execute men; if he should be ordered to do it, he shall not do it. He must be told not to take a military oath. If he will not agree, let him be rejected [from baptism]. A military governor or a magistrate of a city who wears the purple, either let him desist or let him be rejected. If a catechumen or a baptized Christian wishes to become a soldier, let him be cast out. For he has despised God.
These are the teachings that cause me to wonder where “Just War” came from and who started it. I know this may offend some but the history and the authority of these teachings are right here on paper.
How do we deal with these teachings of the Bishops of the first, second and third centuries? After all, these were the official catechesis of the early church.
I can still be a Catholic and disagree with a matter. This does not make my any less of a Catholic and somehow in rebellion. On the contrary, even those of us who are not an appointed priest or bishop still have the right to challenge something if we do not see the reason for an accepted teaching or where its authority come from.
I am still in the process of converting but does this mean that I should not ask questions or make statements that may seem to be contrary at the time?
Last edited on Fri Jul 13th, 2007 08:32 pm by catholicdan
____________________
"To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant." Cardinal Newman
"Crux Sacra Sit Mihi Lux,
Non Draco Sit Mihi Dux"
May the Holy Cross be my Light.
Let not the dragon be my guide.
|
|
|
anfan
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 28 |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 13th, 2007 10:19 pm |
|
Perhaps the Answer Guide on Just War from Catholic Answers would be helpful. Here's the link:
Catholic Answers: Just War Doctrine
Pax
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2276 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 13th, 2007 10:26 pm |
|
The Catholic Church actually has an extensive and readily available doctrine concerning the question of taking human life. (See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2258 through §2330, available here.) Therefore, it is not necessary that Catholics express opinions and choose up sides, as if it were a matter of personal choice or conviction. Nor is it necessary to adhere always to one side of the inevitable debate of what is the best course of action, for the Church herself lists the moral conditions that apply to each person’s and each government’s decisions in the various circumstances.
As catholicdan has pointed out, there are precedents, even biblical injunctions, that point toward pacifism. But there are also precedents and biblical injunctions that point to the legitimacy of self defense, both for the individual and for the state or government. The point is that these moral goods can and indeed must be reconciled. This is what Catholic moral teaching does. It shows where each course of action is legitimate, and where it is not. It also marks out the more perfect path.
I believe that Dan’s emphasis on pacifism shows just how strong the desire for perfection was among the early Christians: it went so far as to teach pacifism, based on our Lord’s commandment of fraternal love. But this early teaching of perfection must also face the later threat of genocide, such as those which we witnessed during the last century. This is where the Church’s teaching on the possibility of a just war makes sense. Not in a context of perfection, to be sure, but in a context of survival. The personal guide must be, as always, a combination of conscience and prudence.
The moral imperative of following one’s conscience has been greatly abused in all epochs, though probably never more than over the past century, when it was conveniently forgotten by both sides that conscience must be properly formed and informed before it can be of any real use. Conscience is not pragmatism.
The moral virtue of prudence has also been forgotten. Prudence properly seeks the greatest good for all. To misuse it in a personally pragmatic way is a grave sin, by no means a virtue. Prudence is not a contradiction of charity, but a means of expressing it. And if charity is violated by someone supposedly practicing prudence, that person is acting in a manner which is both uncharitable and imprudent.
How many of us actually love our enemies? How many of us bless those who curse us, do good to those who hate us and pray for those who harm us? Why do we pay lip service to these words of our Lord? Where is our heart? Pride, pride, pride. Fear and self interest. Let us be true Christians, brothers. Let us consider how best to bring true peace to the world we live in. This will obviate most of our “need” for recourse to violence and retaliation.
I say this not as a doctrinaire pacifist, but as a man of faith. We need to put first things first and learn what Jesus meant when he said, “You must be holy, as your heavenly Father is holy.” We wonder why God in the Old Testament seems so warlike, whereas in the New he commands charity. It is because of our hard hearts that we “need” the violence, the unalterable commandments and judgments. If we would imitate Christ, let us also imitate him as the Lamb of God when they arrested him, tried him unjustly, beat him and put him to death. Only then will we have confidence to rise with him and enter into his glory.
David
|
|
|
catholicdan
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | Merced, California USA |
| Posts: | 65 |
| First Name: | Danny | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | From A 2 Z now on to RC. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 13th, 2007 11:00 pm |
|
anfan wrote: Perhaps the Answer Guide on Just War from Catholic Answers would be helpful. Here's the link:
Catholic Answers: Just War Doctrine
Pax
The Answer Guide from Catholic Answers is a well written document. But it still seems to be only talking about secular governments and does not address the individual Chirstian until the last part which is as follows:
As the Second Vatican Council noted, "insofar as men are sinful, the threat of war hangs over them, and hang over them it will until the return of Christ" (Gaudium et Spes 78). The danger of war will never be completely removed prior to the Second Coming.
Christ's followers must be willing to meet this challenge. They must be willing to wage war when it is just and they must be willing to wage it in a just manner.
Simultaneously, they must work to establish a just and peaceful order among the nations. In so doing they seek to fulfill the words of the prophet, according to which the nations "shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more" (Is. 2:4).
Even thought this is straight from The Second Vatican Council the statement "Christ's followers must be willing to meet this challenge. They must be willing to wage war when it is just and they must be willing to wage it in a just manner" is a troublesome one for me at best.
This seems to fly right in the face of all that I stated in my last post, does it not? Christ's followers must be willing to wage war? Is this not saying the same as, "Christ followers must be willing to kill their enemies?"
Paul did say that the government is there to keep the peace and protect the innocent but he never says that Christ followers must be willing to kill the enemy if it is justified.
Jesus is our King as we all believe and those who are his are citizens of His Kingdom. The same Paul who said that worldly governments are there to take care of evil doers and protect the innocent, said "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal...". All the Ante-Nicene Fathers interpreted Jesus and the Apostles to mean exactly that. These would include Pope St. Peter and yet it wasn't until over three hundred years later that the church started to accept that which was not acceptable and now we have Christians killing Christians in Just Wars. How do you reconcile this? Please do not send me to another web site but with all due respect someone sit down with me a reason together.
I have tried to talk with our priest but It has been over a week since I have tried to get an appointment. This is what really discourages those of us who are serious bible and history students from other churches in the process of converting to the RCC but it seems many keep saying "go to your priest". Without sounding rude or condensending, isn't or hasn't anyone ever really looked into the first teachings of the first Pope and Bishops of the church? The Vatican II statement above is completely 180 degrees of our founding Fathers I think this would be of concern for all of us.
I love the Catholic Church and intend to officially become a part of it, but I would never ever take up a gun if ordered to and kill my enemy. I have been in war, gang war and killing is killing. I know that is a very bad example but one putting on a countries uniform is just another bigger badder gang. They fight for their colors called the flag and country. I used to believe in God, guns, guts and glory too but the more I study this matter the more I am hurt that God's Church would condone such violence and use the just War reasoning as an excuse to kill other believers as has happened in the past.
Why not build an army of prayers warriors who pray for both sides to come to an agreement? Do we not believe that God can intervein? I believe he can and have seen him do it. Let me give you an example.
There was a man that started a prayer school and he taught men and women how to become intercessors. During WWII when Hitler was on the move this school got on their knees and prayed that God would stop this man from taking over Europe. Four times Hitler made four bad decsision and his armies ended up become sick and cold, some died from hypothermia and eventually they had to turn back. I cannot remember the name of the book or the man but will have it for you by tomorrow if you need it, but look at what this army did and they did not shoot one bullet!
Pax.
____________________
"To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant." Cardinal Newman
"Crux Sacra Sit Mihi Lux,
Non Draco Sit Mihi Dux"
May the Holy Cross be my Light.
Let not the dragon be my guide.
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 282 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 14th, 2007 12:46 pm |
|
Danny, These questions you ask are important. Its a lot harder to come to an understanding if you don't ask. I can't tell that you are open to the answers or if you are only in "transmit" mode, rather than "receive" mode. I am susceptible to this myself, appearing as if I am challenging a statement while my mind is working wildly on the question [and it can take a while!]. So I don't know 'xactly how you approach this kind of process.
Thank you for taking that time to put in the quotes. I still don't see anything saying that killing in self-defense is always wrong.
Have you considered that you are taking the exception [killing is usually murder] to make a blanket rule for all killing? Don't disregard the just and merciful aspects when killing another is appropriate. I think that this is why you can't get over the "MUST" statements in the war document quoted above.
What I mean is, don't use the exception to the rule to advocate your opinion for whole belief. No one is saying we shouldn't pray for peace, no one is saying that people never fight for the wrong reason, no one is saying that we shouldn't try to deter murder without loss of life.
Are you considering that mercy is involved in self-defense? That when you kill a crazed intruder in your house intent on murdering your wife and children, that this is an act of mercy for your wife and children?
How is it that you personally enjoy a life free from Communism because of the sacrifices of the war dead? Is it okay for others to lose their life for your freedom, as long as you don't have to be personally involved?
Or what about the policeman in your neighborhood carrying the gun? It is the threat of that power over those who have no regard for the life of others that works as a deterrent. In other words, the policeman may not be shooting up the neighborhood, but the visible power a gun represents that the gangsters see can deter them from wreaking havoc. You live in peace in your town because of this.
What I am saying is that you benefit every day from those who are committed to self-defense.
Explaining where you come from, your previous involvement with violence sheds a light on this discussion. I hope bad experiences aren't coloring your outlook? Hopefully, you can soon find the middle ground between utter pacificism and rampant unconscionable murder. I'm sorry to hear of your experiences.
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 14th, 2007 10:03 pm |
|
The topic confuses me as well. All I know is that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth and I believe the Church.
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2276 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 14th, 2007 11:28 pm |
|
Juan wrote:
The topic confuses me as well. All I know is that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth and I believe the Church.
That’s why I wrote the piece above. Its purpose is to point out that morality in general is not black and white. There is not just good and evil. There is also good and better.
Moses received the commandment from God: Thou shalt not kill. But Moses was also commanded by God to do battle against Sihon, king of the Amorites, Og, king of Bashan, and all their warriors. There has to be a criterion other than Yes or No. The Church’s moral doctrine has spelled it out. We need to listen and understand before we opine.
David
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 26th, 2007 12:48 pm |
|
The Church’s moral doctrine has spelled it out. We need to listen and understand before we opine.
Its not that simple. I believe I understand the Old Code and I use it in my apologetical discussions to defend the Just War doctrine and the death sentence.
The quandary in my mind (and Dan's I believe) is, why, for the first 300 years, did our Church Fathers unanimously believe that Jesus taught peace at all costs? At least, I have not found any indication that any of them believed even in self defense.
In our defense of every other doctrine, we present the witness of the Early Church Fathers as the most certain, since they were taught by the Apostles. But in this one, we seem to be against the ante-Nicean Church Fathers?
However, I don't believe I have to understand everything, in order to believe it. I defer to the teaching of the Catholic Church. In fact, it makes more sense to me than the Ante-Nicean attitude, but I can't defend it using the Ante-Nicean Fathers, I have to wait until Chrysostom and Augustine for that.
There is not just good and evil. There is also good and better.
I believe I understand what you mean. It is good to defend oneself but better to turn the other cheek. Right?
But how about a person killing innocents? Such as what happened at Columbine? Should lethal force be used to stop such a thing? And how about war to stop Hitler?
Which is good and which is better then? I believe it is better to defend the innocent even using lethal force. But I've never been able to use the Ante-Nicean Fathers to defend that position.
So, my position has been, that although the Ante-Nicean Fathers are usually our better witnesses. Even they may err. Only the Catholic Church is imbued with infallibility in faith and morals.
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
Current time is 01:19 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
