|
3 members (Fr. Al, 2 invisible),
103
guests, and
15
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,299
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716 |
Originally posted by byzanTN: Originally posted by Zenovia: [b] Dear Elizabeth Marie, The Muslims will convert to Christianity. I don't know how or when, but it will occur. We can only pray that it will be soon.  Zenovia God, that post could have come right out of the 12th century!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,217
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,217 |
I'm not one of the monarchists on the forum, but I admit right now we desperately need a Charles Martel, Don John of Austria or John Sobieski.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186 |
Originally posted by Lawrence:
I'm not one of the monarchists on the forum, but I admit right now we desperately need a Charles Martel, Don John of Austria or John Sobieski. St. Francis Xavier might even be better but he might be killed before he had a chance. I wouldn't be surprised if God raised up another Charles Martel, but we we kill him before he could do anything to protect us? Brian, What would your suggestion be? CDL
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Originally posted by Athanasius The Lesser:
Gordo:
Please exercise great caution in accusing someone of heresy on the question of pacifism-and I'm not a pacifist. What would make you think I would not be cautious? And would being cautious change the nature of the thing? I still stand by my statement. If you say that a nation has no right or obligation to defend itself through legitimate military means especially when all other means have been exhausted, that is heresy. It is a failure to fulfill the fundamental obligation and purpose of government ( to defend its innocent citizenry), and makes one complicit in a grave evil. That being said (as I believe I did clarify before) this is not a blanket endorsement of every effort to make war. It is just to say that we can and should defend ourselves against Muslim extremists, even if it means killing them first before they kill us. This is a pro-life position, since the goal is the restraint of evil against innocent lives. Here are a few quotes from the CCC that explain the position I am advocating: Avoiding war
2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.105
2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."106
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.
Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.107
2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.108
2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."109
2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Originally posted by Brian: Originally posted by byzanTN: [b] Originally posted by Zenovia: [b] Dear Elizabeth Marie, The Muslims will convert to Christianity. I don't know how or when, but it will occur. We can only pray that it will be soon. Zenovia I hope so. But it seems to me that large-scale conversions have historically had a little military force behind them. [/b] THE ONLY way I could agree with that statement is if the military force was used to restrain or remove the more radical and militaristic elements that act as a cancer within the group. (And even then, it is a question of WHOSE force!) But using military force to - even in a veiled way - force conversion? That should definitely be condemned. Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Just in case you thought things might be calming down... Al-Qaida in Iraq: Pope and West are 'Doomed'
Al-Qaida in Iraq and its allies warned Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that he and the West were "doomed" and proclaimed that the holy war would continue until Islam dominates the world.
The Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups that includes al-Qaida in Iraq, issued a statement on a Web forum about the pope's remarks last week on Islam. The authenticity of the statement could not be immediately independently verified.
"You infidels and despotic, we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism when God's rule is established governing all people and nations," the statement said.
The group said Muslims will be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross" saying "you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword."
Islam forbids drinking alcohol and requires non-Muslims to pay a head tax to safeguard their lives if conquered by Muslims. They are exempt if they convert to Islam.
The statement said that the Quran tells Muslims in many occasions that "jihad continues and should never stop until dooms day where this religion ends victorious."
The group also accused U.S. President George W. Bush of initiating the "new Crusades campaign against Islam by his invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq while the servant of the cross, the pope of the Vatican, is continuing this path by his blatant attack on Islam, its prophet . . . and especially his talk about jihad."
Benedict on Tuesday in Germany had quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and an educated Persian on the truths of Christianity and Islam.
"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the pope said.
"He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,'" he quoted the emperor as saying.
The pope on Sunday said that he was "deeply sorry" about the angry reaction and said the remarks came from a text that didn't reflect his own opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,930
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,930 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
|
|
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285 |
Gordo:
The passages you quoted fiom the CCC, as you pointed out, spell out the fundamental tenets of just war doctrine (to which I personally subscribe). However, I have read the entire CCC and I see nothing that condemns pacifism as heresy. To my knowledge, the just war approach has never been dogmatized by the Catholic Church. I learned in seminary that only the Lutherans have dogmatized just war theory. It may not have been your intent, but in your words, you have condemned pacifists as heretics. As I stated before, a pacifism that is merely "personal" is meaningless and cowardly. Again, I think you should be very cautious as to whom you condemn as heretics.
Sincerely,
Ryan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Originally posted by Athanasius The Lesser:
Gordo:
The passages you quoted fiom the CCC, as you pointed out, spell out the fundamental tenets of just war doctrine (to which I personally subscribe). However, I have read the entire CCC and I see nothing that condemns pacifism as heresy. To my knowledge, the just war approach has never been dogmatized by the Catholic Church. I learned in seminary that only the Lutherans have dogmatized just war theory. It may not have been your intent, but in your words, you have condemned pacifists as heretics. As I stated before, a pacifism that is merely "personal" is meaningless and cowardly. Again, I think you should be very cautious as to whom you condemn as heretics.
Sincerely,
Ryan Ryan, No - I suppose if you are looking for an explicit "anathema," you will search in vain. I am not condemning "pacifists," BTW. I condemn the form of pacifism that defines the legitimate defense by a nation against an unjust aggressor as immoral. I see it as heretical and the strong language upholding the rights and duties of nations to defend themselves in certain situations gives great weight to that claim, IMHO. As to your position that a personal pacifism (read "conscientious objection"?) is cowardly, that is your opinion but I think it contradicts the teachings of the Church. I uphold the place of conscientious objection within the Church's tradition. Why do you deny it? I would caution you not to condemn and apply the labels of "meaningless and cowardly" to those who exercise the right NOT to bear arms for reasons of conscience.  Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
|
|
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285 |
Originally posted by ebed melech: Originally posted by Athanasius The Lesser:
[b] Gordo:
The passages you quoted fiom the CCC, as you pointed out, spell out the fundamental tenets of just war doctrine (to which I personally subscribe). However, I have read the entire CCC and I see nothing that condemns pacifism as heresy. To my knowledge, the just war approach has never been dogmatized by the Catholic Church. I learned in seminary that only the Lutherans have dogmatized just war theory. It may not have been your intent, but in your words, you have condemned pacifists as heretics. As I stated before, a pacifism that is merely "personal" is meaningless and cowardly. Again, I think you should be very cautious as to whom you condemn as heretics.
Sincerely,
Ryan
No - I suppose if you are looking for an explicit "anathema," you will search in vain.
I am not condemning "pacifists," BTW. I condemn the form of pacifism that defines the legitimate defense by a nation against an unjust aggressor as immoral.
I see it as heretical and the strong language upholding the rights and duties of nations to defend themselves in certain situations gives great weight to that claim, IMHO.
As to your position that a personal pacifism (read "conscientious objection"?) is cowardly, that is your opinion but I think it contradicts the teachings of the Church. I uphold the place of conscientious objection within the Church's tradition. Why do you deny it?
I would caution you not to condemn and apply the labels of "meaningless and cowardly" to those who exercise the right NOT to bear arms for reasons of conscience.
Gordo [/b]Gordo: Let me spell out my position and why I think your statements condemn pacifists as heretics. Personally, I subscribe to just war-or perhaps it might be better to say that I subscribe to what I think is a variation on the theme of just war, similar to the position of Dietrich Bonhoeffer-there are times when the sinfulness of humanity results in situations where we are forced to choose between the lesser of evils. I'll use WWII as an example. I think that WWII was sinful, and that all involved are implicated in that sin. But I think the greater sin is that committed by Hitler and I also think that for those nations that were able to oppose Hitler, failing to do so would be a greater sin than the sin involved in going to war-given what Hitler was in the process of doing and what his ultimate intentions were. I'm glad that you respect consciencious objector status, as do I. What I mean in saying that a pacifism that is merely "personal" pacifism is meaningless is that the pacifist, in my opinion, has a moral duty to seek to persuade others of her/his belief that resort to violence is always wrong, just as I believe that those of us who subscribe to just war have a duty to persuade our government that wars that don't measure up to just war standards are morally wrong and that it is morally wrong to fail to act under certain circumstances, like WWII. How can it be that the pacifist can say to herself, "It's wrong for me to take up arms in defense of my nation, because I believe that violence is always wrong, but it's OK for anyone else to go to war and kill and be killed, since they've reached a different conclusion than I have." That is the sort of thinking used by many people who personally oppose abortion to justify the "pro-choice" position as a matter of public policy, because they don't want to "impose their views on anyone else." In saying that a pacifism that is merely personal could be cowardly, I'm referring to those who have claimed conscientious objector status merely to avoid serving in wartime. While I do not pretend to know the intention of any given individual in claiming conscientious objector status, I have virtually no doubt that it has been claimed insincerely, simply to avoid the possiblity of being killed on the battlefield. You say that "the form of pacifism that defines the legitimate defense by a nation against an unjust aggressor as immoral" is heresy. I'm not aware that true pacifism accepts any sort of violence. The idea of "legitimate defense by a nation against an unjust aggressor" is just war theory-not pacifism. To me, the only logical outcome of your statement is that pacifists are heretics. You say that you are not condemning pacifists and I'll take you at your word as to what your intent is, but I don't see any way around the conclusion that pacifists are heretics using the particular language you have chosen to use. My reason for defending pacifism even though I don't subscribe to the position myself is that I see in Holy Scripture that a good case can be made for pacifism. Christ rejected violence as a way of dealing with those who unjustly chose to kill him-Christian pacifists see this as a model for their own position of preferring to be tortured or even killed to resorting to violence. Also, Jesus stated, "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.'" (Matthew 5:43-45) Christian pacifists see in this passage a mandate to reject violence in any circumstance. I personally do not believe that it was Christ's intent to remove the possibility of armed resistance against an unjust aggressor. However, I do not think it is absurd that someone would arrive at that conclusion-a conclusion that I've almost reached on numerous occassions-though I've ultimately rejected. This is why I don't think it is right to suggest that Christian pacifists are guilty of heresy. Sincerely, Ryan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Originally posted by Athanasius The Lesser:
Let me spell out my position and why I think your statements condemn pacifists as heretics. Personally, I subscribe to just war-or perhaps it might be better to say that I subscribe to what I think is a variation on the theme of just war, similar to the position of Dietrich Bonhoeffer-there are times when the sinfulness of humanity results in situations where we are forced to choose between the lesser of evils. I'll use WWII as an example. I think that WWII was sinful, and that all involved are implicated in that sin. But I think the greater sin is that committed by Hitler and I also think that for those nations that were able to oppose Hitler, failing to do so would be a greater sin than the sin involved in going to war-given what Hitler was in the process of doing and what his ultimate intentions were. Ryan, I wish I had time to address this right now but unfortunately I do not. It is not legitimate to take a "lesser of two evils" approach to this, at least not within the Catholic moral tradition. Bonhoeffer's ethics are extremely problematic in this regard. Either to kill Hitler was a virtuous act or it was not. For a Christian, one cannot commit evil that good may come from it, even if it is a "lesser evil". (It is like saying, I can put a little bit of poison on my food, so long as I do not take the whole bottle!) I hold to the belief that the Lutheran pastor committed a good act in trying to help assasinate Hitler. The death of Hitler would have been a great restraint against the evil he sought to commit. As to the moral obligation of those who hold to a pacifist position to convince others, I'll have to ponder that some more. Perhaps there are those who hold to that position that are here and can explain it better than I. As to whether I condemn all pacificism, I do not. Figures who advocated non-violent resistance to evil like Ghandi and MLK, JR are great heroes to me. I am amazed at the great and gentle power they wielded in the face of terrible evils. I suppose we should also begin by defining terms like "pacifism". I am equating "personal pacifism" with "conscientious objection", but that may not apply, since one can be an objector in one war and not in another, I suppose. Pacifism that calls all violence "immoral" is immoral in itself, IMHO. Certainly peace is the ideal, but there are rare times when we need to commit violence to defend the innocent and restrain the evil. It does not compromise our morality, only accomodate our behavior to the needs of the situation to defend the higher good. (Otherwise, could Jesus be regarded as a pacifist in view of His battle waged against Satan?) As to whether Jesus intended his "turn the other cheek" statement to apply to nations and not just individuals is an interesting question. I try to think of a government as a parent of sorts. I am NOT a violent person, but if I had an intruder come into my house with the intent of killing or injuring my family, I believe that I would be obligated to take action to restrain this individual from committing such a grave evil against those who are entrusted to my charge as husband and father - protector of my home. And yes, that includes killing them if necessary, although I would not relish it. Such an act would be virtuous on my part, not a "lesser evil", since "Thou shalt not kill" does not refer to the taking of all human life - just innocent life. Just read that passage in context and you will see the command to kill lawbreakers left and right! I think that government has a positive role of defense with force that should be acknowledged and defended. Indiscriminate pacifism that undermines this is wrong, heretical and immoral. (Again, I am not arguing for a blanket approval of war, as I said.) Anyway, so sorry that I cannot provide a more thorough response. When I have a chance, I will respond. God bless, Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 706
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 706 |
I strongly encourage everyone to please read Left to Tell or Father Arseny for examples of other ways to deal with conflict.It is time to move to the next level.No need worrying about whether or when war is justified.All this talk of war is human thinking and it does not work!!(my thoughts are higher than your thoughts and my ways higher than yours,saith the Lord)
Peace,
Indigo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 706
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 706 |
Gordo,
if we truly renewed our minds then intruders would be dealt with peacefully in ways our little human thinking minds can't comprehend-we'd be Daniels in lions dens,literally. Left to Tell gives excellent examples of this and the author was an average 21yr old young woman;no saint.If she can repel with consistent,fearless,egoless prayer,murderous groups of 10-200 drugged rapists and torturers, who literally called out her name while looking for her, you could certainly rid your home of a intruder without murdering (because that is what killing is,justified or not)a single soul.
You'd have to read this to see how her mind was literally cleansed of anger and renewed through intense prayer to the point of having no fear and completely surrendering to God.
Peace,
Indigo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Indigo,
I love Father Arseny. Do you have any quotes that you can provide?
Again, like I said, I love peace. I hope for peace. I pray for peace.
But our enemies seem to think otherwise, and our Holy Father is in danger of being murdered by these kooks. My own personal feelings are that I would lay down my own life for Peter, and my passions as a man are aroused to defend him against unjust threats. Call it weakness, but I am no pacifist when it comes to the murder of the innocent. (Christian, Jew, Muslim or otherwise.)
I will say, though, that my obligation at present is to work, support, love and defend my family. I am not in any position to lay down my life for anything, except for them. Therefore insofar as my obligations (moral and spiritual) are concerned, I can do nothing about any of this...except pray.
So that is what I will do, and I will welcome any quotes you can offer.
God bless,
Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
|
|
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285 |
Originally posted by ebed melech:
I wish I had time to address this right now but unfortunately I do not. It is not legitimate to take a "lesser of two evils" approach to this, at least not within the Catholic moral tradition. Bonhoeffer's ethics are extremely problematic in this regard. Either to kill Hitler was a virtuous act or it was not. For a Christian, one cannot commit evil that good may come from it, even if it is a "lesser evil". (It is like saying, I can put a little bit of poison on my food, so long as I do not take the whole bottle!) I hold to the belief that the Lutheran pastor committed a good act in trying to help assasinate Hitler. The death of Hitler would have been a great restraint against the evil he sought to commit.
As to the moral obligation of those who hold to a pacifist position to convince others, I'll have to ponder that some more. Perhaps there are those who hold to that position that are here and can explain it better than I.
As to whether I condemn all pacificism, I do not. Figures who advocated non-violent resistance to evil like Ghandi and MLK, JR are great heroes to me. I am amazed at the great and gentle power they wielded in the face of terrible evils.
I suppose we should also begin by defining terms like "pacifism". I am equating "personal pacifism" with "conscientious objection", but that may not apply, since one can be an objector in one war and not in another, I suppose. Pacifism that calls all violence "immoral" is immoral in itself, IMHO. Certainly peace is the ideal, but there are rare times when we need to commit violence to defend the innocent and restrain the evil. It does not compromise our morality, only accomodate our behavior to the needs of the situation to defend the higher good. (Otherwise, could Jesus be regarded as a pacifist in view of His battle waged against Satan?)
As to whether Jesus intended his "turn the other cheek" statement to apply to nations and not just individuals is an interesting question. I try to think of a government as a parent of sorts. I am NOT a violent person, but if I had an intruder come into my house with the intent of killing or injuring my family, I believe that I would be obligated to take action to restrain this individual from committing such a grave evil against those who are entrusted to my charge as husband and father - protector of my home. And yes, that includes killing them if necessary, although I would not relish it. Such an act would be virtuous on my part, not a "lesser evil", since "Thou shalt not kill" does not refer to the taking of all human life - just innocent life. Just read that passage in context and you will see the command to kill lawbreakers left and right!
I think that government has a positive role of defense with force that should be acknowledged and defended. Indiscriminate pacifism that undermines this is wrong, heretical and immoral. (Again, I am not arguing for a blanket approval of war, as I said.)
Anyway, so sorry that I cannot provide a more thorough response. When I have a chance, I will respond.
God bless,
Gordo [/QB] I personally agree with you that there is such a thing as legitimate use of force in opposing unjustified aggression. As to my own position, perhaps using Bonhoeffer as a model is not the best way for a Catholic to take-I suppose it's more a matter of personal or private opinion that's basically irrelevant because I would never condemn as sinful participation by Christians in a war for which there is a case to be made using a Catholic understanding of just war theory. What I'm trying to get at is that while I would certainly agree that the use of arms against Germany in WWII was justifiable and that I would even say it was justifiable to attempt to kill Hitler to hasten the end of the war (which he started), I must admit that I'm uncomfortable with calling it a virtuous act, and I certainly don't see it as something over which we should rejoice (I'm not accusing you or anyone on this Forum of suggesting this-but I certainly have had encounters with Americans who take pleasure when we kill our enemies in wartime). As for "indiscriminate pacifism," I'm really not sure what you mean by that. Again, I think it is not right for you to say that Christian pacifists are heretics. Given the fact-to use your own words-that one will "search in vain" if you are trying to find a specific anathema against pacifism, I don't think that it is right. IMO, you have no more right to condemn pacifism as heresy than the individual pacifist who is also a Christian has the right to condemn you and me because we subscribe to just war. BTW, I have taken note that you have pointed out that you do not advocate "blanket approval of war." You have been clear about that and in no may do I mean to suggest that you have advocated for "blanket approval," orwhat some might call "blank check" (the people giving the government a "blank check" to wage war regardless of the justification-which unfortunately is a position to which many Christians subscribe). You say that pacifism that condemns all violence as immoral is itself immoral. I have a problem with that because I think that pacifists have very strong, Scriptural, arguments to make. I'm ultimately not persuaded-but I do take their arguments seriously. And I would repeat-to me, pacifism that makes exceptions isn't really pacifism as I understand pacifism-it's just war theory. I agree that one can be a conscientious objector in one case but not another-but that's not pacifism-it's just war theory. For example, I would object on grounds of conscience to participating in the Vietnam War, but not WWII. My objection to Vietnam does not make me a pacifist-I object because I don't believe that there is a case to be made on grounds of the Catholic teachings of just war. I would agree to serving in WWII, because I think there is a very strong case made on grounds of just war-though I'm not sure that the dictates of just war teaching were followed in much of the actual execution of the war. Sincerely, Ryan
|
|
|
|
|
