The Nazis didn’t just “arise” in some pre-ordained, law-of-physics sort of way. They worked to gain power, using German’s (somewhat justified) resentment of having been assigned sole blame (and suffering under ruinous reparations) for the carnage of World War I.

European nations failed to recognize the danger posed by the rise of Hitler and the Nazis, and Germans allowed themselves to be seduced by the intoxicating brew of nationalism and self-exhaltation being peddled by Hitler and his minions.

None of that was inevitable: The allies could have been more humble and willing to accept more of the blame for WWI after their victory in 1918, and thus not impose such unfair and one-sided reparations upon Germany.

Germans could have resisted the temptation to give in to the Idolatry and self-glorification of nationalism, and instead worked to convince the victorious nations of the injustice of the Versailles armistice, through the non-violent means of appealing to their consciences.

Pacifism is different than nonviolent peacemaking. Soldiers do have the role of defending society. The only question is – how? Violently or nonviolently? You do not believe that nonviolent defense is possible. The Church does.

Does war simply “arise” apart from the human beings who start them?

http://die_meistersinger.tripod.com/gandhi9.html

All your pacifism would accomplish is to make the world safer for tyrants.

Michael Joseph, if pacifism is only useful when no conditions exist that could lead to war than it is truely a useless philosphy. The question is what good men should do when a war arises. A pacifist says they should never fight. I think history demonstrates what would happen if only evil men take up the sword. The Jews had no army to protect them and they suffered the worst crime in secular history.

Nate, for your perusal:

“Nor can I fail to mention the many soldiers engaged in the delicate work of resolving conflicts and restoring the necessary conditions for peace. I wish to remind them of the words of the Second Vatican Council: ”All those who enter the military in service to their country should look upon themselves as guardians of the security and freedom of their fellow-countrymen, and, in carrying out this duty properly, they too contribute to the establishment of peace”.(8) On this demanding front the Catholic Church’s military ordinariates carry out their pastoral activity: I encourage both the military Ordinaries and military chaplains to be, in every situation and context, faithful heralds of the truth of peace.”

Pope Benedict World Day of Peace January 1, 2006.

While I cannot share, or endorse, the notion of absolute pacifism as binding upon the Christian conscience, I think there are occasions when it may be the only legitimate option, however radical it may seem. I see it therefore not just as a radical option, but conditionally normative.

Good grief. And at this point, we’ll do another comparison/contrast of selective quotations from Benedict that lend the appearance of an absolute pacifism or an abolishment of just war doctrine with other quoteations that contradict said interpretation, as we have time and time again on this blog . . .

On second thought, why bother. =)

America had a chance to accept million of Jews from Europe during the 30s, But we refused. If you listened to our Popes instead of repeating the same tired references to the holocaust, you’d get a lot more mileage.