Abortion is simply murder, mass murder. As Catholics, this must be our fundamental understanding and perspective on abortion – that it is mass murder, a slaughter, an inhuman crime of horrifying injustice.
I will not vote for anyone who gives his consent to mass murder. It is irrelevant whether or not a President can stop abortion. A candidate’s support of mass murder, whether tangible or symbolic, whether active or tacit, displays a shocking lack of both faith and reason.
If a pro-choice candidate presented a non-violent strategy to combat and end abortion through the massive mobilization of the American people, and if the pro-choice candidate presented in the clearest possible terms how utterly depraved it is to end a human life before birth, then perhaps, perhaps, one could support such a candidate.
No such candidate exists.
Abortion is an intolerable offense against both man and God, and any candidate who remains passive (or God forbid, positive) in the face of such bloodshed deserves to be shamed, not elected.
So much for the Democrats. Moving on to the Republicans, we find a parallel to abortion – war.
War is simply murder, mass murder. As Catholics, this must be our fundamental understanding and perspective on war – that it is mass murder, a slaughter, an inhuman crime of horrifying injustice.
I will not vote for anyone who gives his consent to mass murder. It is irrelevant whether or not a president can stop war. A candidate’s support of mass murder, whether tangible or symbolic, whether active or tacit, displays a shocking lack of both faith and reason.
If a pro-war candidate presented a non-violent strategy to combat and end war through the massive mobilization of the American people, and if the pro-war candidate presented in the clearest possible terms how utterly depraved it is to end a human life after birth, then perhaps, perhaps, one could support such a candidate.
No such candidate exists.
Killing, all killing, is an intolerable offense against both man and God, and any candidate who remains passive (or God forbid, positive) in the face of such bloodshed deserves to be shamed, not elected.
Out of curiosity, how do we square the latter half of the post with the history of just war doctrine developed by the Church? Recognizing that it is not obligatory to consent to just war doctrine, it does seem that flawed to make war and abortion an equivalently heavy weight on the moral conscience. The Catechism clearly states that “governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.” (P 2308) I would agree that Iraq has shown itself to be an unjust war in cause and conduct, but I would part company over whether war may never be tolerated.
I would clarify, that I mean that it is not the case that we must consent to an affirmative application of just war doctrine. Pacifism seems to always be a legitimate course.
With a faulty understanding of double-effect and proportionality – with the application of the just-war theory and double-effect rule rather than the teaching itself.
In other words, that killing is a legitimate method of waging war or defending oneself.
I think I agree with you, but I want to make sure I understand what you are saying.
In regard to your comment:
Are you saying that you believe the just -war theory allows defensive non-violent waging of war only?
Regarding the post:
This sounds harsh and radical, but Christianity is radical, and when it fails to be such, it loses its power to evangelize and bring light to the world.
I’m curious, if you don’t mind me asking, how do you plan on approaching the upcoming elections?
I guess you won’t be voting, then.
Three points:
First, the obvious and boring point that Catholic teaching does not hold that all killing and or all war is morally wrong, etc.
Second, the equally obvious (though sometimes forgotten) point that the Democrats as well as the Republicans accept the legitimacy of war in certain cases, as do all the major third parties (assuming “major third party” isn’t an oxymoron). In fact, if there are any political parties that take a purely pacifist line, I’m not aware of them.
Third, it has long seemed to me that if one is going to be consistent about being against violence in all circumstances, then one has to be an anarchist. The state, after all, is based on violence and the threat of violence, and could not exist otherwise. So if one is serious about rejecting violence in all circumstances, then one needn’t worry about which candidates one should reject voting for. It is the very act of voting itself that must be rejected.
Jimmy,
I won’t speak for Nate, but I think I share his view on these issues, and my perspective is that just because I can’t in good conscience vote for a Democrat or a Republican does not mean that I can’t or won’t vote.
We, as Catholics, tend to have a both/and worldview. Both faith and works, Both scripture and tradition, both faith and reason, etc. We have been forced into a protestant either/or view of voting and party politics.
I believe that the reduction of our political discussion to an either/or has played an important role in the deterioration of serious political discussion. It is a large reason we have difficulty finding candidates worth getting excited about.
I will not be pigeon-holed. I will be forced to choose between a candidate who is respects the unborn but wages unjust wars and tortures the enemy, and a candidate who respects the poor and marginalized and works for peace, but respects the choice of others to murder the unborn.
I will most likely choose exercise my right to vote by conscientiously abstaining or by voting for Joe Schriner or another third party candidate.
opps,
I will not be pigeon-holed. I will be forced to choose between a candidate who is respects the unborn but wages unjust wars and tortures the enemy, and a candidate who respects the poor and marginalized and works for peace, but respects the choice of others to murder the unborn.
I will most likely choose exercise my right to vote by conscientiously abstaining or by voting for Joe Schriner or another third party candidate.
that should have read…
I will not be pigeon-holed. I will NOT be forced to choose between a candidate who respects the unborn but wages unjust wars and tortures the enemy, and a candidate who respects the poor and marginalized and works for peace, but respects the choice of others to murder the unborn.
I will most likely choose to exercise my right to vote by conscientiously abstaining or by voting for Joe Schriner or another third party candidate.
JB, you summed up exactly what I believe.
About the election, I’ve given some thought to voting for Ron Paul, as he’s one of the few candidates who is consistently pro-life. But I’m not sure that national reform is possible at this point, with the stranglehold that both parties have on political life.
On the local level, I see great possibilities for turning government into a tool that communities and individuals use to empower themselves, rather than what it is now – a platform of domination for the rich and powerful.
JB,
Very well said.
Nate,
As Blackadder notes, the Catholic tradition does hold that not all killing is “intolerable” morally and therefore murder. We can say that all killing is a tragedy, all killing seems to echo with the sounds of that original Fall from justice and grace into sin. But can we make such a blanket claim about violent acts as they play out in the providential order of concrete human actions? If we were to make an analogy: a group of homicidal villains has broken into your house and threatens to kill your family. Assuming that all reasonable precautions to preserve life have been taken, would your act of killing to save your family be morally “intolerable?” Would it be murder?
Now obviously in the case of the justice or injustice of war, it is not nearly as clear and simple to establish the conditions analogous to what I have mentioned. But assuming that such conditions can occur, as the tradition holds, that a nation does have the right to wage defensive war under certain circumstances; would non-violence be the only way to “wage” that war? I am just not sure we can paint with such broad strokes.
Christianity is without doubt radical, as it should be. But it is also without doubt eminently reasonable.
Pax Christi,
Blackadder, in response to your three points:
1) Not so obvious. The Church condemns all intentional killing. From ‘intentional’, you get into odd discussions that the Church hasn’t settled definitively (double-effect rule). But even St. Augustine rejected killing in personal self-defense. As for war, various councils have outlawed various ways of fighting (crossbows and nukes come to mind) as incompatible with proportionality. The Church has called us to take a new look at war, in light of total warfare (Vatican II). Not only is this subject not boring, but we are witnessing a pivotal development in Church doctrine in relationship to bloodshed. The modern wars of our century have revealed something about violent self-defense that few but saints could see beforehand – that bloodshed cannot forge peace.
2) Both parties embrace war, I agree. One more reason to find alternatives.
3) There are ways to force people to do things without killing them. I see a difference between passive non-resistance (what most people confuse with my position) and non-violent resistance. It is possible to form a government that uses non-violent means of law enforcement, but it might look a lot different than what we have today.
X-Cathedra,
I’ve thought a lot about your points. I’ve come to believe that violent self-defense, whether for individuals or societies, is a sin not so much because of the blood shed, not so much because it is violating the human rights of another (his right to life), but because it is a form of idolatry. This actually parallels the thought of St. Augustine, who thought that killing in self-defense was expressing a heart overly in love with itself (the idol of self).
Nate,
Do you know off-hand where we can find Augustine’s thought on this?
Thanks
St. Augustine’s letter to Publicola (paragraph 5): http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102047.htm
St. Aquinas’ quotes this letter in the Summa, portraying St. Augustine as opposed to personal lethal self-defense: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#7
“Objection 1. It would seem that nobody may lawfully kill a man in self-defense. For Augustine says to Publicola (Ep. xlvii): “I do not agree with the opinion that one may kill a man lest one be killed by him; unless one be a soldier, exercise a public office, so that one does it not for oneself but for others, having the power to do so, provided it be in keeping with one’s person.”"
Nate,
The Church does not condemn all intentional killing. It condemns all intentional killing of the innocent, which is quite different. St. Augustine may have thought that intentional killing as a matter of personal self-defense was wrong but he clearly thought that intentional killing in war was sometimes legitimate (as the very letter you cite shows).
Also, on the anarchism point, I would think that non-violence involves more than simply no killing. A state might be able to maintain itself without killing or threatening to kill anyone, but I don’t see how it could do so without using or threatening to use violence.
Hey JB I agree!!!
GO JOE
enjoy Lent, peace to all
Sadly, Ron Paul isn’t as pro-life as he might seem. The free market capitalism he embraces is pure culture of death.
The Church does not condemn all intentional killing. It condemns all intentional killing of the innocent, which is quite different.
The Church affirms pacifism as well as just war teaching. Both. Two positions. Not simply the second one you mentioned. Significant portions of the Church DO condemn ALL intentional killing, and this is upheld as legitimate by the Magisterium.
By the way, welcome back Nate! We need more anarchists around here. :)
Michael,
The Church does affirm the pacifist tradition as well. But is it the case that the Church would simultaneously condemn the man in my analogous scenario for 1) killing the criminals in order to save his family’s life (assuming that violence was the only way); AND 2) condemn him for not taking that action in order to protect his family and thereby allowing a more serious evil to occur when he might have stopped it? Would the Church ever be in contradiction by affirming both a tradition that says all intentional killing is unacceptable and some intentional killing is acceptable? I’m curious as to how the strict pacifist would respond in the situation I mention. And it seems like we need to work out more precisely the nature of the Church’s dual affirmation and its implications.
Nate,
The reference to idolatry is interesting. I will look more deeply into that. But even so, in the case of self-defense, why does the preservation of one’s own life against an unjust attempt to take it necessarily constitute an idolatrous vision of oneself? Can’t we simply construe that as a perfectly reasonable form of self-love? At least in most cases?
Pax Christi,
“The Church affirms pacifism as well as just war teaching.”
I’ve heard a number of Catholic pacifists try to make this case. I can’t say I’ve found them to be very convincing. In any event, if one says that the Church affirms just war and pacifism as two legitimate options, then you can’t say that She condemns all intentional killing. That would imply that She affirms pacifism but not just war.
Well, I am a follower of the just war tradition. Not necessarily in the way most are (as people who have read my piece on war know). However, I also think Nate’s points need to be given more consideration than people tend to do, and I think much of what he says follows aspects of ancient Christian thought on killing which people tend to ignore.
But first, some brief thoughts:
Augustine, while influential, and while he helped create in the West the just war doctrine, is not the only viable option or patristic source for the question at hand. To say the Church allows just war doctrine side by side with pacifism is correct, because the Church allows multiple theologies to be followed or practiced. In this way, one should not condemn the pacifist for not going to war, but it also means, one cannot condemn someone from following just war doctrine (if followed properly). However, often just war doctrine is abused to say “this means even an unjust war is not a great evil” and that is a total rejection of just war teaching, more than anything I’ve seen Nate say or do.
Augustine’s letter mentioned that only those with just authority or following just authority can engage in war (now we need to question which kinds of authorities he would consider as just here, something I think would be interesting for any future discussion; do we find that same authority today? I myself question it, though I think the Church tends to say yes. But this could be another reason why one could say war is not permissible today while not rejecting the basic teachings of just war doctrine; one must prove one is that authority and not just assume it for oneself).
Thomas certainly disagreed with Augustine on killing in self-defense. At least up to a point. But what does this mean? Do we just follow Thomas because his answer makes it easier on us for what we want to do? It sometimes seems people just look for quotes from sources to justify what they want instead of looking deeper to see which is right. And what if one does kill in self-defense, does that mean there is no moral effects on the soul because of it? That would be going further than permissible here. Which leads us to my thoughts:
Yes, I agree with just war doctrine, but I remember with it that just war is looking for a way to know when killing is allowed as a dispensation. It is only allowed when there is no option left but one of two evils. Then it says you can, under strict (often ignored) guidelines. And when it is allowed, it doesn’t make killing morally neutral. It just means you were forced into a catch 22 situation, and recognizes that in such a situation your will is not completely free. But killing is still a morally offensive act; even in just wars. This explains why the Church required soldiers to confess after coming back from war for the killing they engaged in. This explains why David was seen as “bloody”, as tainted, so he couldn’t build the Temple. Death — and its engagement — is a taint. It affects the person, harms them. This makes war a sad thing, even when necessary, and not something to glorify. Not something morally neutral. It is always a defeat for humanity.
Excellent summary and explanation Henry!
X- Cath,
I’ve enjoyed your thoughts thus far and anticipate continuing to do so. A couple thoughts…
<i2) condemn him for not taking that action in order to protect his family and thereby allowing a more serious evil to occur when he might have stopped it?
What is the more serious evil that my family and I are killed by some raving lunatic while we are trying to show him the love that Christ would show him or that I kill the raving lunatic in front of my family, possibly damning him in the process, putting blood on my hands (remember as Henry pointed out killing is never a neutral act; it is always a failure for humanity, although it may be “permissible” in some circumstances), and possible scarring myself, wife, and kids with violent memories?
As Americans we tend to presume the violence will always work better than non-violence. Why do we assume that when we know that the Son of God emptied himself of his power to become man, a helpless infant. Furthermore he laid down his life, loving his persecutors to the end and knowing the apostles would suffer his own fate. Jesus did not rise up in power against the Romans or the Jews who would make martyrs out of Peter, James, etc. Rather He prayed, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.”
Note that for us non-violence is not doing nothing. It is forceful loving resistance that refuses to wish harm, spiritual or physical, on the other.
Ghandi once said that it is better for a man to resist non-violently than to fight (in defense of self or others), but it is better for him to fight than to be a coward and do nothing.
If we truly love our enemies and are praying for them (and most of us, myself included cannot say we consistently live this out) as Jesus commanded then killing them, even in self-defense is not an option
I’ve heard a number of Catholic pacifists try to make this case. I can’t say I’ve found them to be very convincing.
Why the doubts? Do you need some texts or something?
In any event, if one says that the Church affirms just war and pacifism as two legitimate options, then you can’t say that She condemns all intentional killing. That would imply that She affirms pacifism but not just war.
What I am trying to do though is to problematize your statement that “The Church does NOT oppose all intentional killing” as too simplistic because that would imply that the Church affirms just war and not pacifism. The Church affirms both.
Michael,
I would be interested to know if you have references that the Church _affirms_ both. Given that the positions are contradictory, that would seem to be the Church saying “X both is and is not” which would be a textbook example of an illogical statement.
Perhaps what you mean is that the Church has often praised saints who are, functionally or proclaimedly, pacifists. It seems to me that this is different form affirming or asserting pacifism. One might well greatly praise the choice not to engage in war or self defense as a heroic example of valuing the lives of others above one’s own, while at the same time holding that it is not morally necessary to make such a choice.
U.S. Catholic Bishops, The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and Our Response, 1983
118. Two of the passages which were included in the final version of the Pastoral Constitution (Gaudium et spes) gave particular encouragement for Catholics in all walks of life to assess their attitudes toward war and military service in the light of Christian pacifism. In paragraph 79 the council fathers called upon governments to enact laws protecting the rights of those who adopted the position of conscientious
objection to all war: “Moreover, it seems right that laws make humane provisions for the case of those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms, provided, however, that they accept some other form of service to the human community.”[49] This was the first time a call for legal protection of conscientious objection had appeared in a document of such prominence. In addition to its own profound meaning this statement took on even more significance in the light of the praise that the council fathers had given in the preceding section “to those who renounce the use of violence and the vindication of their rights.”[50] In Human Life in Our Day (1968) we called for legislative provision to recognize selective conscientious objectors as well.”
119. As Catholic bishops it is incumbent upon us to stress to our own community and to the wider society the significance of this support for a pacifist option for individuals in the teaching of Vatican II and the reaffirmation that the popes have given to nonviolent witness since the time of the council.
120. In the development of a theology of peace and the growth of the Christian pacifist position among Catholics, these words of the Pastoral Constitution have special significance: “All these factors force us to undertake a completely fresh reappraisal of war.”[52] The council fathers had reference to “the development of armaments by modern science (which) has immeasurably magnified the horrors and wickedness of war.”[53] While the just-war teaching has clearly been in possession for the past 1,500 years of Catholic thought, the “new moment” in which we find ourselves sees the just-war teaching and non-violence as distinct but interdependent methods of evaluating warfare. They diverge on some specific conclusions, but they share a common presumption against the use of force as a means of settling disputes.
Two of the relevant references to this question from the Catechism. Though it certainly doesn’t seem to say that pacifism is correct for all. I think it points out somewhere else (though I can’t find it) that individuals who refuse to bear arms make a particular witness to peace. But this is not the same as saying that a society in general can be pacifist. Again, public authorities have a duty to protect the common good.
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
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
Blackadder,
If you find the dual affirmation paradoxical it may be fruitful for you to check out NAte’s post, all three parts, where he attempts to sort out the demand for justice and call to mercy.
Remember, we are a both/and Church. If they seem contradictory that is probably because we are misunderstanding what the truth means by either pacifism or just-war or both.
Michael,
First, I want to be clear what I am and am not saying here. When I talk about pacifism, I mean the belief that violence, killing, and war are morally wrong at all times. This is different both from having a personal commitment to non-violence (i.e. resolving never to use violence oneself), and from thinking that any particular war (or even the vast majority of wars) are immoral and/or unjust. One can find plenty of examples of the latter two types of individuals throughout Catholic history, and I would certainly never deny that such positions are in contrary to Catholic teaching or tradition.
Second, I’ve heard various people (Father Baxter, say) try and use the passage from The Challenge of Peace that you cite as proof that just war and pacifism are somehow now co-equal options within Catholic doctrine. As I said before, I don’t find the argument very convincing. What the passage says is 1) pacifists and other conscientious objectors should be exempt from military service, 2) there are commonalities between pacifism and just war theory (e.g. the presumption against the use of force), and 3) the existence of pacifists provides a useful check on the violent tendencies in society. None of that amounts to an affirmation of pacifism as either compatible with Catholic though, or as a position co-equal to just war theory within Catholic thought.
Blackadder:
Part of having a “personal commitment to non-violence” often includes the belief that violence, killing, etc. are wrong at all times. Some groups, such as some branches of the Mennonites for example, believe in a type of two kingdoms doctrine that holds that violence is wrong for Christians, but not necessarily for everyone else. I find this position nonsensical. Christian nonviolence is usually rooted in the belief that killing is always wrong for all people. The Church seems to affirm that this belief is indeed compatible with Catholicism, or else we would read passages which say that pacifists must believe that killing is legitimate despite personal beliefs, and I don’t see this in the texts at all. Additionally, no, I don’t think the Church is saying that pacifism is somehow lesser than a just war position. The two seem to be co-equal, according to the texts.
JB,
To answer your question about which is the more serious evil, I think we can reasonably hold that not killing the lunatic may indeed be a worse evil, especially as a husband and father, because the common good of your family requires that the aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. Nor is it clear to me that 1) he would recognize your inaction as an act of love toward him; 2) that self-sacrifice in that sense would be unambiguously the love that Christ would show towards him; 3) that your family would accept your inaction and consent to be so sacrificed as an expression of Christ’s love; or 4) that you would be at all responsible for damning him. Couldn’t you, theoretically, end up damning a member of your family who was murdered in a state of mortal sin why you idly stand by? Wouldn’t your family think it much worse to be gunned down or slowly tortured while you stood there doing nothing, rather than watch you (unfortunately) take the life of the one attacking them? Wouldn’t they much rather have “scarring” then a horrible, gruesome death? Wouldn’t it be worse if that lunatic were allowed to continue on a rampage, and proceeded to murder your neighbors and countless other victims because you did nothing, even if action called for violence?
I don’t think it is quite so easy to apply a broad Biblical hermeneutic to the Gospels and other texts that seem to inspire strict pacifism. The logic is not entirely filled out in moving from “Christ was non-violent” or “Christ laid down his life” to “I must in all cases be non-violent, and even lay down my life, in order to imitate Christ.” This seems a bit simplistic to me. Kenosis, sure: but does that really, clearly translate to “I would rather my family killed before my eyes than raise a hand against the murderer?” Christ did lay down His life, and He did so for a very specific Providential action, not simply for the first aggressor who wanted to kill Him. He did not rise up against the earthly powers, and He told peter to sheath His sword: but again, all of this within a very specific narrative action and not self-evidently as a proscription that self-defensive violence is always unacceptable. He also made a whip of cords and angrily (violently?) drove people from the temple. It simply seems like faulty moral theology to assume that Christ’s non-violence contains within it the mandate for universal non-violence.
It also not clear to me that love of one’s enemies requires that one allows them to continue slaughtering people, rather than take their lives. Isn’t it the case that by such actions one has forfeited his right to life, by forcing others into precisely the situation in which killing is necessary for defense? And if one must not take their lives in order to love them, than have you failed to love your children by allowing them to be tortured and killed as they scream out your name for help, and die in a state of abysmal abandonment by their father?
Does the pacifist have any framework for conceiving of any omissions as sinful, unjust, evil?
Other than that, I agree with all that Phillip and Blackadder have said. It appears that to assume the Church holds both absolute pacifism and just war on equal grounds is a bit confused and implicates it in contradiction: how does one hold a doctrine that both says “all killing is morally unacceptable” while at the same time holding one that says “some killing is morally acceptable?” Unless of course it is understood that the former position be restricted to a limited population within the Church community, on the basis of personal conscience.
But in that case, then the original post is misleading. Then there is equivocation going on in the broad, sweeping claims, because in reality any normative claims about all killing being unacceptable applies only to a minority and not the Church as a whole. “All killing is intolerable” really means “All killing for those who according to their consciences choose pacifism as a moral position acceptable in the Church, etc.” In that case, why make such inclusive normative statements in the first place?
Pax Christi,
X-Cathedra,
Thanks for putting your time and energy into composing such a lengthy and thorough response.
Regarding your first paragraph:
Perhaps we can agree that the argument is far too hypothetical to carry any real persuasive force or weight. There simply too many variables and possibilities for the free will of a person to be exerted in the name of good or evil for us to be able to predict the situation with any accuracy. However, I would like to add that Jesus says is is my commandment: love one another as I love you.
No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” He does not say “No one have greater love than this, to kill a man in protection of one’s family/friends.”
If regards to your second paragraph:
1) I am not speaking of strict pacificism (in the sense of passive-ism). I am speaking of active forceful non-violent love.
2) I may have quoted a few specific passages, however I don’t believe I inappropriately applied a broad hermeneutic to the Gospels. I believe Jesus’ entire life and mission exhibited non-violent love. It seems to me that the Eucharist, “the source and summit of Christian life,” is fundamentally a sacrament, of kenotic love, of sacrificial love, of non-violent love.
You spoke of Jesus’ cleansing of the temple possibly being a violent act. I do not now have time to search for an authoritative source, but I think David Rensberger’s brief analysis is compelling, well-reasoned, and well, correct:
“The whip is mentioned only in John, which is also the only gospel that mentions livestock (cattle and sheep). In fact, it is perfectly clear (more so in the Greek than in some English translations) that the whip is applied only to the animals and not to the people…According to John, Jesus started a stampede, and then turned his attention to the other merchants; but he didn’t whip people.
Of the other gospels, Mark gives the earliest and the most vivid account of this event. There are no animals, and no weapons. The verb commonly translated “drive out” in Mark 11:15 is a common one in Mark, usually used in reference to Jesus casting out demons. But it’s also used to describe the Spirit driving Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted (Mark 1:12), and Jesus “sending away” a leper he has healed (1:43) and putting people outside of a room before working a miracle (5:40). It is not in itself a violent term. Yet Jesus certainly does act with vigor, if not downright aggression. Overturning the tables of the currency exchange merchants did them no physical harm, though, and how it was that Jesus prevented people from carrying objects through the Temple we can’t really know. On the whole, Jesus’ action has a quality something like that of a protester who chains himself to a door to prevent people entering a building. It is obstructive and aggravating, but nobody suffers bodily injury. And it is worth noting that this is the most violent act attributed to Jesus in the Bible; there is really nothing else that is even close. Frankly, if this is as much violence as Jesus ever used, it’s not much of an argument in favor of guns, bombs, and missiles.”
In regards to your third paragraph:
It also not clear to me that love of one’s enemies requires that one allows them to continue slaughtering people, rather than take their lives.
Again, I am not advocating passive-ism. We must act when violence is being perpetrated. We do have a real duty and responsibility, as the Catechism teaches us. What I am talking about does not negate that. But, why does stopping have to be done killing him? Even if we use violence (which I think is not ideal) why can’t we just bring him down, temporarily incapacitate him, etc.?
Also why do we place more trust in the destructive power of violence than we place in the creative (in the sense of the Creator) power of Love?
(To answer my question through personal reflection: I am a short, small, man who is not the best of shape, has decent eye-hand co-ordination, but minimal athletic ability, has never been trained in any sort of combat or shot any gun. I have serious doubts that any attempt I make to use violent force to subdue any intruder would be helpful in any way. I think I’d be lot more productive if I invited him to dinner, or expressed love to him in other real way.)
Why do our thought processes have violence as the default? Should not love be the default? We all know this, but we must remember in practical and lived out way, that Jesus did not die for me or you, he died for us and for our enemies and for that guy who is misguided enough to want to kill me. Should I not love this man? Should I not be moved to pity for this man, that Christ is so absent from his life that he feels it necessary to murder?
You said, “It simply seems like faulty moral theology to assume that Christ’s non-violence contains within it the mandate for universal non-violence.” Without weakening the strength of any arguments that I have made or will subsequently make, I’d like to add that I believe this call to non-violent love is a virtuous one. It is saintly. We are called to strive to be saints. For broken sinful men like myself, this is a very difficult call, and I do not presume that I am (or ever will be) holy enough to live out the greatest of loves. However, I do believe we should be striving for that and planning for that possibility. But if I am too weak to lay down my life for my friends (or my enemies) it is, in my opinion, better for me to manifest fortitude and fight than for me to manifest cowardice and do nothing. [I do not believe the US is ready to be an actively non-violent peacemaking nation, but I do believe we, as Christians, need to be the leaven to at least the possibility of Christ-like love to the nation’s political and moral consciousness.]
Finally (for now), You said, “ Then there is equivocation going on in the broad, sweeping claims, because in reality any normative claims about all killing being unacceptable applies only to a minority and not the Church as a whole. Regardless of whether or not you agree with what I have said above, I do not think we can simply dismiss the portion of Nate’s post which condemns the Republicans by condemning killing in war. His comments remain relevant precisely because this war (and the deaths that have resulted from it) is not just, and is intolerable.
I agree with him. I find both the Republicans and Democrats generally despicable. I am unable to reconcile their actions/policies with Christianity or my conscience, and I think we (as intentional Catholic Christians) need to make a statement (although I doubt enough of us will) that we will not be forced into this false either/or situation. We must stop giving in to this uncomfortable alliance or that and start demanding justice, peace, solidarity, charity, mercy, etc. We need to do this via our votes (on national and local levels) and by informing the conscience of our families, friends, co-workers, students, etc.
By virtue of our Baptism we all priest, prophet, and king. We live in a world in sore need of true prophets.
Pax
Michael,
Sure, having a personal commitment to non-violence often includes the belief that violence, killing, etc. are wrong at all times, but it needn’t include this belief and often does not do so. Hopefully if someone does think that violence is always wrong, he will be personally committed to not using violence, but from the fact that he does not think it would be right for him ever to use violence it does not follow that he must think this is so for everyone. There are some people, for example, who feel called to celibacy, and who think that it would be wrong for them to ever have sex (St. Francis, apparently, was of this type). But that doesn’t mean that such a person must think it wrong for anyone to ever have sex.
Blackadder,
The analogy does not work. Sex is in itself good. Feeling a call to celibacy is recognizing the God-given gift of sexuality and offering it back to God as a loving sacrifice.
Killing someone is never a good. (Although we could argue that in some cases it is morally neutral). It is in fact, a rejection or destruction of the God-given gift of life, where celibacy is an appreciation of that gift
JB,
It wasn’t an analogy. It was an illustration of a point. The point is that the fact a person believes it would be wrong for him to do x does not mean that he must believe it would be wrong for everyone to do x. Whether sex and killing are themselves analogous activities is beside the point.
BA – I agree that your celibacy comparison doesn’t work.
I have never personally met a pacifist who believed he or she had a “personal vocation” to pacifism which other people did not share. Indeed, such a view seems, at first glance, awfully arrogant. Most pacifists think that everyone should be a pacifist.
Great discussion!
On intentional killing – the Church does forbid all intentional killing -regardless of the guilt or innocence of the one killed. But they use ‘intentional’ in a very strange way.
2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful . . . Unintentional killing is not morally imputable.
Here is the loop-hole, the double-effect rule: “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”