www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Violence, self-defense, and the clergy

The world is becoming crazier and crazier. We are seeing outbreaks of violence in many countries, and here in America, certain groups are making loud noises about "if you want my guns, come git them!" There are warnings (some probably overblown) about secret orders to round up Christians and put them in FEMA camps for extermination or "re-education."

My question is this: in a situation of aggression or violence directed towards the citizenry, are clergy of any rank prohibited from using force to defend themselves or their people?

I have more than a passing interest in this as it may be God's will that I am ordained within the next year.

Thank you!

I think that I remember some type of "just war theory" doctrine in Western Christianity...but I cannot recall the particulars. I do not think there is any such mindset in Holy Orthodoxy. I also do not recall any of the holy martyrs using violence against their oppressors before their martyrdom. St Basil the Great's canon 13 recommends that those who kill in war should abstain from taking communion for three years.

During the Bosnian civil war, Patriarch Pavle said: “the Church must condemn all atrocities that are committed, no matter what the faith or origin of the person committing them may be. No sin committed by one person justifies a sin committed by another. We will all face the Last Judgment together where each of us must answer for his sins. No one can justify his sins by saying someone else is guilty of a crime.” And the Serbian bishops said: “The way of nonviolence and cooperation is the only way blessed by God.” A petition in the Liturgy was added: “For all those who commit injustice against their neighbours, whether by causing sorrow to orphans, spilling innocent blood or by returning hatred for hatred, that God will grant them repentance, enlighten their minds and their hearts and illumine their souls with the light of love even toward their enemies, let us pray to the Lord.”

I wish I had known of this before preaching on the passage calling for non-retribution in the Sermon on the Mount this past Sunday (Lutheran, Anglican, RC lectionary).

If I understand what you are saying then, it appears that martyrdom is preferable to self-defense, which appears to be seen as an "evil" in the sense of returning hatred for hatred. Correct?

Living among the "plain people" ("historic peace churches" such as Mennonite and Church of the Bretheren) they would say resoundingly, "YES".

Much of their formation comes from recalling the martyrs of pre-Constantinian Christianity as well as the martyrdom suffered by their people in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Better decanonize St. Alexander Nevsky and every other Orthodox saint who took up arms, including monks to fight the Mongols.

At the risk of writing with forked fingers: There would also be serious problems with Bishop of Rome Gregory the Great for having raised an army to repel the Goths.

Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg Professor Scott Gustafson described such situations as "using sin against sin."

Messy. Very messy.

Not to mention Martin Luther for what he urged Christians to do with Jews and their synagogues . . .

Have we here lost the ability to discuss a subject dispassionately and logically?

Can we not defend ourselves or others, even with arms?

It is easy for pacifist groups to say they won't take up arms - let others do that for them.

That is why the pacifist groups are still around to continue their sermonizing.

Alex

Father Deacon Lance,

And don't forget St Alexander Oslablya who left his monastic cell to kill his country's enemies in direct combat.

Now that was a Recluse with backbone!

Alex

What did Martin Luther say about the Jews and their synagogues.

More sarcasm? Sigh.


Orthodoxy.....views all dimensions of creation eucharistically. The offering of the Divine Liturgy is the paradigm for human life in the world as we fulfill our vocation as the priests of creation. Bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ through which the church participates already in the heavenly banquet of the kingdom of God. Communicants are then to live the Eucharist by offering all aspects of their lives to the Father in union with the sacrifice of the Son by the power of the Holy Spirit. Such a life should be characterized by peacemaking, forgiveness and reconciliation; a non-violent approach surely provides the most straightforward witness to the life of kingdom as revealed in Jesus Christ. Nonetheless, the process of theosis is dynamic and open to everyone in all walks of life and vocations; hence, the soldier, the police officer and others involved in the use of deadly force for the protection of the innocent may grow in holiness and find salvation. They do not fight holy wars and will not become saints simply due to their success in killing enemies. Indeed, their participation in violence will probably produce a variety of obstacles for their faithful pursuit of the Christian life. They will need the spiritual therapies of the church in order to find healing for their souls from the harms they have suffered. But as the many saints from military backgrounds indicate, it is possible for them to overcome the damaging effects of bloodshed and to embody the holiness of God. Fr John McGuckin notes that “most of the soldier saints … went voluntarily to their deaths, as passion-bearers, or martyrs; and some of them were actually martyred for refusing to obey their military superiors”. Those who returned home as “righteous vindicators” did so because they conquered not only a worldly enemy, but also “the very chaos and wickedness” of warfare and bloodshed.
http://www.incommunion.org/tag/war-and-violence/

Please correct me if I am incorrect, but I don't see anything radical in Patriarch Pavle' s words. Orthodoxy views the taking of a life, even by a soldier in war as a sin requiring repentance and absolution. Defensive actions by common soldiers would be viewed in a different way than atrocities. Of course it's a slippery slope in defining actions by soldiers and governments.

As I have been thinking over these thoughts for the last many months (maybe years) I find that this train of thought is what I have tended to feel is the most correct. Joining my life to Christ means, I believe, a participation in His Eucharistic suffering for the world and sin. How many were converted by watching martyrs go heroically (by the grace of God) to their deaths.

I pray for a good death in which our Lord helps me, coward that I am, to be victorious in Him.

Amen my brother in Christ. Let us follow Christ's example.

The only apostle to ever shed blood, (in defense of Christ), was St Peter when he cut off the ear of Malchus. He was immediately admonished by Jesus: "Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

Christ's last miracle before his crucifixion was to heal Malchus' wound.

Whilst I would not take steps of physical defense for myself alone, should an assailant take steps of violence against women, or children (or those otherwise marginalized by society) in my presence) I should surely stand between the assailant and them; even if that means physically removing the assailant from his intended victim(s).

I feel there is a Biblical and justifiable use of force. Not that there is a "Just War" or cause foe war. But should my Christian testimony be an excuse for me to stand by if I know a woman or child is being raped or otherwise victimized?

The matter of Peter's action against Malchius in the garden was misplaced because Simon Peter acted to prevent our Lord from being arrested and by extension going to the cross to make redemption possible for those who believe. Simon Peter's act outside the will of God because of the circumstance at the time.

Still, it was a sign to the Israelite leadership. Our Lord's act of healing Malchius was overt testimony of His Person and Power in light of His claims. Since He was being arrested because of His claims the healing pointed to the validity of His testimony of Himself.

My 2¢ worth anyway,

μιχαηλ η αιρετικη

I do not think it is misplaced. Of course what you say is correct....but our Lord also instructs St Peter regarding the consequences for those who take the sword.

Is it proper to defend the helpless and innocent using force? I would....but I would try not to use deadly force.

“A soldier under authority shall not kill a man. If he is ordered to, he shall not carry out the order, nor shall he take the oath. If he is unwilling, let him be rejected. He who has the power of the sword or is a magistrate of a city who wears the purple, let him cease or be rejected. Catechumens or believers, who want to become soldiers, should be rejected, because they have despised God.”
(St Hippolytus Canon XVI: On professions)

Except once St Constantine took over that canon went into the trash bin.

No. Just showing the kind pacifism you claim for Orthodoxy isn't really followed. It is just to defend the helpless from unprovoked aggressors and I have never seen Catholicism or Orthodoxy teach otherwise.

Yes.....your comment to "de-canonize" an Orthodox saint was sarcasm (and rude). You used an Orthodox saint in an attempt to prove a point that is not valid.

After St Alexander Nevsky died, the people of Russia remembered him as the prince/warrior who became a peacemaker. He cloaked himself with the monastic robe....leading a penitential life as an ascetic. This is why he was canonized.

The Church has never canonized anyone for his military/combat skills, courage or heroic feats under fire, or achievements in war.

This is mistaken. Canons don't go to the trash bin. It is a wonderful glimpse at the mind of the early Church.

“The Church is an army which sheds no blood. In peace, not in war, we are trained. If you enroll as one of God’s people, heaven is your country and God your lawgiver. And what are His laws? You shall not kill, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. To him that strikes you on the one cheek, turn to him the other also.” (St Clement of Alexandria)

Dear Recluse,

Father Deacon Lance did not do what you are accusing him of. It was a manner of speaking.

(This doesn't mean that saints cannot be "de-canonized" - it certainly has also happened in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church, e.g. St Anna of Kashin whose sainthood was cancelled because, as she reposed, her hand was shaped in the Old Believer way for making the Sign of the Cross.)

St Alexander Nevsky (to whom I am actually distantly related and whose medal I wear constantly as my patron) is depicted as both a monastic and as a soldier, defending Rus' etc.

And while no one is glorified by the Orthodox Church for military feats, that someone participated in such feats and even killed others to defend the Church, one's country etc. is not considered something that would prevent one from being canonized.

And the Church canonizes the whole person. St Alexander did not repent of his taking up of arms to defend his Church and country - that would mean that he would have approved of his Church and country being overrun by those who would have enslaved them.

He did not become a monk to repent of that. He could have done penance before God for the deaths he caused, but it wasn't his intention to inflict death and suffering, only to defend in the only way possible.

A soldier kills , to be sure. But to actually like such killing - that is where real sin creeps in. I've met some veterans who told me they are doing penance because they liked the killing they did and are angry at themselves, and sorry, for liking it.

St Alexander became a great hero as a soldier, not as a monk. Swedish mothers in his time would get their disobedient children to behave by saying, "If you don't behave, Alexander Nevsky will come for you!"

My medal of St Alexander depicts him as a warrior with a sword - as well as with a halo.

He was no pacifist, but someone who fought to protect his people.

He would have made no apology for that.

The problem with pacifists is that they face the moral problem of allowing evil to inflict itself on the innocent if they refuse to use necessary physical force to prevent it.

I was going home one night late from work and in front of me was an elderly woman. It was dark. In the darkness, someone grabbed hold of her purse and a scuffle ensued. This happened very quickly. And the assailant began to hit her.

I stepped up, made a fist and hit that fellow as hard as I could (thought I broke my hand). The bandit made off and left her alone. She hugged me so hard amidst tears to thank me as my hand throbbed with pain, covered with that fellows blood.

I'm not proud of what I did. But there was no other way in that split second. I mentioned it in Confession, but my confessor told me not to be disturbed by it.

Alex

I always give everyone the benefit of the doubt.


He was canonized due to his great ascetism...not his military prowess.



If he killed....you can be sure he repented as a monastic...he finished his life in repentance as a monk.


If he killed...you can be sure that he repented as a monk



So it is not sin if you kill...but don't like it? Nonsense.


He was not canonized for his military feats.


That is superstition.


That is a later innovation. The early Icons depicted him in monastic robes.


Yes.....he was a great pacifist in imitation of Jesus Christ....living out his life as a monk with asceticism and repentance.


He does not need to make apology for being canonized as a great ascetic.

Dear Recluse,

You are quite combative for a pacifist!

As for the Swedish mothers - it can be an untrue story but not superstition.

It certainly is not nonsense to kill because one must. One is allowed to kill under certain circumstances. But to like it is forbidden. That is not nonsense. Just because someone disagrees with what you think is the way things are (and you tolerate nothing else) doesn't make it nonsense.

The fact that the Orthodox Church later did depict him as a soldier - so what are you saying here? That the Orthodox Church erred in this? The fact is that he is depicted as a soldier with a halo and a spear. His Liturgical service gives no indication that he was a "great" ascetic like the Desert Fathers and the like.

Are you questioning if he killed? You mean when he engaged in hand-to-hand combat and gave orders to others to fight?

Have you read his liturgical service? His military feats are mentioned. The service notes his monastic tonsure - but at no time does it mention that he did so to repent of his military defence of Orthodox Rus'.

But ask any Orthodox priest if he believes St Alexander Nevsky should not have taken up arms to fight the enemies of Orthodox Rus' - that he sinned in so doing. And you will have your answer.

The problem with pacifists is that they rely on others to defend the values of freedom etc. that they enjoy.

Pacifism can also be seen to approve of evil, the evil in those who attack others.

In short, it is an unrealistic, ridiculous proposition.

The website you link is a ridiculous one as well which offers a one-sided, tendentious view of the Fathers and of Scripture.

The same Lord Who preached non-violence is also the same Lord Who made a whip and threw the money-changers out of the Temple. Turning the other cheek did not mean that He couldn't ask the man who struck His Face why he did so. (The idea that we can predict what Christ will do is also nonsense.)

Pacifists offer a ridiculously simplistic view of the world which is unrealistic. In the case of St Alexander Oslabya - he actually LEFT his monastic cell to do battle in which he did kill the enemies of his Church and country.

And you would say what to this? That he sinned in killing and returned to his cell to do penance? Does that not indicate that there was, in those circumstances, a moral justification for killing?

Alex

I cannot imagine seeing such a thing from our Sacred Scriptures.


It is nonsense to indicate that it is okay to kill....as long as you don't like it.



Your insults to not affect me, sir.


I am saying that he was canonized for his asceticism...and early Icons depicted him as a monastic.


That is not how he was originally depicted.


His military prowess was not the reason for his canonization. It was the fact that he lived out his life as an ascetic in repentance that he was canonized. Sorry if you cannot accept this.


I am saying that as a monk...you can be sure that he was deeply repentant for the sin of taking human life.



Surely you are capable of making an argument without attempting to denigrate and insult the person with whom you are conversing, eh?



Yes.


Yes.


I absolutely guarantee you that he was repentant for all his sins as a monastic....including the taking of human life.


I have asked many Orthodox priests if taking human life is a sin.....under any circumstance....and I have received my answer.


Christ did not justify killing...neither did his apostles....neither did the holy martyrs. One can defend the values of freedom without violence and killing.


I believe that it is your proposition that is ridiculous....that it is okay to kill...as long as you don't enjoy it. I have never heard of such a thing!


That is a ridiculous defence!!! Christ did not shed others' blood when he did this. In fact, it helped to finalize the fact that his own blood would be shed for our sins.



Yes....without killing him.


I don't have to predict that Christ did not kill. In fact, He preached against it.


Peace and love and forgiveness through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is not unrealistic.


I have never heard of this saint...read his story....or researched his life. But I pray that he repented for any killing that he committed.

Listen, If you want to justify killing in war, by subscribing to the “just war theory"...you have free will to do so. I believe that it was Blessed Augustine that began such a notion and it was expounded upon by Thomas Aquinas and Robert Bellarmine. It was never elevated to dogma in your Church. I think it is rather dishonest to use someone like St Alexander Nevsky to further that agenda. The saints were not infallible...they were sinners like you and I. But St Alexander reposed as a monk in repentance....that is a fact. Furthermore, I am sure that our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ would not subscribe to the “just war theory.” And of course, I have free will to believe that.


“We who formerly murdered one another now not only do not make war upon our enemies but, that we may not lie or deceive our judges, we gladly die confessing Christ.”
(St Justin Martyr,I Apol. 39)

Dear Recluse,

I apologise for calling you boorish etc. - I should not have said that.

Is it your position that Christians cannot under any circumstances take up arms to defend their country?

That is what it all comes down to.

Alex

Thank you Alexander, this is a good and honest question. I will try to answer it as honestly as I can.

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God."

I do not think there is any such person as a pure pacifist in this world. We are terrible sinners being bombarded by the terrible passions from every angle. But I believe in peacemakers. I am somewhat informed on Church history...and our little debate has been played out in many arenas over vast periods of time. I am aware that there are soldier saints. And I am aware that there are many martyr saints. And there have been soldiers who died as martyrs. I know that the West developed a theory of "just war" and the East took a stance more like war being a "necessary evil" (but evil nonetheless). I know that the early Church Fathers were almost exclusively against war and killing....even involuntary killing. I know that murder is looked upon as the greater sin than involuntary killing (as in cases of war and/or self defense). I also know that the consensus of Fathers continued to view involuntary killing as a sin that was still in need of repentance and confession.

But I can only speak for myself here....so please forgive me if it has seemed that I was condemning anyone who believed otherwise. I would like to believe that I would not bear arms and go to war. I would pray that Christ would give me the words needed to fight the good fight on a spiritual front. I would like to believe that if attacked, I could defend myself and/or my family without using deadly force (I have much experience in the martial arts). I would like to believe that if confronted with a situation that may cost me this earthly life, I could die as a martyr confessing Christ. I am saying, "I would like to believe," because I do not know how I would react until I am placed in such a situation.

Sometimes I think that my faith is strong....but in reality....it is weak. But I must continue to trust in Christ and try to do His will.

Having said all of this, I do not begrudge anyone who thinks differently on this subject than myself. I am not the one who sits in judgment on such things...God forbid.

I did not mean to offend anyone. Please forgive me.

R

And now my friend, after many rounds of debate, I am going to attempt to succinctly answer your question.

Canon 83 of the Holy Apostles
"If any Bishop, or Priest, or Deacon is engaged in military matters, and wishes to hold both a Roman (i.e.; civil) and a holy office, let him be deposed. For "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s" (Matthew 22:21).

Dear Recluse,

Thank you very much for your comprehensive answer!

And I do not begrudge anyone the right not to bear arms in an armed conflict.

In fact, depending on the conflict, it could be that a Christian must oppose bearing arms.

God bless, Alex

The succinct answer is -- no.

Alex,

This has always been the rub (i.e. the place where things just don't fit together as neatly as we'd like): since the average Christian will typically have little or no knowledge regarding the real international situation, the "just war" doctrine grants that he has a right--if not an obligation--to trust his leaders in such matters. The problem is that in practice, this virtually guarantees that the leaders will have their way--no matter how unjust their real motives might be.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Historically, the Eastern Churches have prohibited the clergy from carrying weapons or spilling blood, and those who did were usually returned to the lay state. Anna Comnena, in the Alexiad, writes of the scandal caused by Frankish monks and priests riding in the Crusader army wearing full panoply of armor and carrying maces. Apparently in the West the injunction against carrying a sword was taken very literally, so that Bishop Odo of Bayeux, half-brother of William the Bastard (aka the Conqueror) fought in the Battle of Hastings wielding a wicked looking club (he's featured prominently in the Bayeux Tapestry, which he commissioned).

In the East, while clerics did not bear arms, they played an active role in the defense of their people, as spiritual and sometimes as military commanders. During several of the sieges of Constantinople, the Archbishop of the time helped rally the defenders and maintained morale by delivering exhortatory sermons, leading prayer services, and carrying icons around the walls of the city.

St. Sergei of Radonezh played a similar role in the defeat of the Golden Horde, by advising and blessing Dmitry Donskoi prior to the Battle of Kulikov.

Now, in extremis, it's pretty clear that an Eastern cleric can use force (even lethal force) to defend the innocent (self-defense is not so clear cut), but if he does, then canonically he would have to be laicized, the injunction against spilling blood being so deeply embedded in the Tradition.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of instances, mainly in the genocidal wars of the Balkans, of Orthodox clerics actually participating not merely in combat, but in atrocities against others. They were not alone in this--it's a bad neighborhood, and Catholic and Muslim clergy did the same thing. That is one reason why I think the ideal should be upheld to the greatest extent possible.