There is no doubt about it: to follow Christ requires courage. He expects much of us, though he gives much more in return. He expects us to follow him in his example, to be servants of love. We are called to love everyone, especially those for whom we normally feel no love, and we are to do so even if it means we will suffer or die.
“But I say to you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from him who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to every one who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them again” (Luke 6:27 – 30).
These are no easy words to follow. I fail all too often. And when I do, I need to turn to them again and again and be convicted of my sin because of them. I know I need to do better, and through God’s grace and hard work, I can do better. But I also know I will be tempted by various people who present to me great challenges, because I find it difficult to love them — I would rather argue with them, fight them, and to silence them so that they cannot make me suffer by their presence. But even this is easier for me than for many, because I do not suffer persecution; I am not directly under the attack of any line of fire, and so there is no reason for me to fear that my acts of love will put me in any real danger.
Jesus said, however, that those who follow him will be persecuted for his name’s sake, and that their response should be that of love. It isn’t to find a way to take out the threat, to stop it, to protect oneself from harm, but rather, to be willing to give up one’s life for one’s love of God. Fear prevents many from doing this. Fear overrides Christian love, and has people acting out against Christ’s commands. Fear makes them think of themselves and their own personal safety instead of God — and in doing so, they end up willing to do anything to preserve their own life; nothing is out of bounds. They will save themselves by any means necessary.
Jesus warns us what will happen if we follow through with a desire for self-preservation instead of self-sacrifice: “For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake, he will save it” (Luke 9:24).
When we become the ones Christ meant for us to be, when we love so much that we are willing to put ourselves into danger for that love, we discover the true virtue of courage. It is a virtue when it has selfless love as its basis. Instead of needing a powerful state to preserve us from all our enemies, willing to kill our enemies before they kill us, we are willing to die for the sake of love — it is a courage which transformed the world, when Christians followed through with the love of Christ. Christianity took hold of Rome not through military might, but by Christian love. Christians showed true boldness when they would not fight back. If we want terrorism to stop, we must follow the lessons of the Apostolic Age and of Medieval Europe. The martyrs proved successful, while the Crusaders failed.
Thanks Henry. Perfect last line. Christ tells us in John 17 that we are to love one another as He loved them and He loves the Father so that the world will know that He was here.
Ronald
You are welcome. This is always a central issue of mine, and one I come back time and again — and it is one I know I fail at following, but hope through grace and hard work, I will fail less in the future than I do today. And knowing what is right is at least a step in the right direction.
To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from him who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt.
I was walking home from work once and the next thing I know, someone is holding a knife to my back and taking my wallet. This was in my early days in Manhattan, and someone had told me to keep a bunch of $1 bills in my wallet to satisfy muggers. I had done that, and I had a significant amount of cash in my shirt pocket. Should I have handed that over, too?
My partner was similarly robbed on the stairs going down into the subway, only once they had taken his money, they slugged him in the face, totally gratuitously. Should he have turned the other cheek?
If the police had been present in either case and had stepped in to stop the crime in progress, would they have been interfering with our religious duty to turn the other cheek, or give more than was being taken?
Give to every one who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them again.
Through the mail, I’d estimate I get two appeals for money for very good causes every day. Should I send every one of them a check? I actually do know someone who gives change to every beggar who asks for it on the street. The other night there was a man begging for money who was saying, “Help me get drunk!” (I wonder how many others begging on the street would say this if they were being perfectly honest.) Should I have given him money?
Is there a right to self-defense?
It took me a while to find this quote. It was Sarojini Naidu, president of the Indian National Congress, who once said of Gandhi, “It costs a lot of money to keep this man in poverty.” I wonder if something similar isn’t true with pacifists. In a free country, the right to be a pacifist is something that is available because the vast majority of the population aren’t pacifists, and on them falls the burden of protecting the country and individual citizens through military action and law enforcement.
Thank you for a thoughtful post. It points to an over-looked dimension of Christian living, that of recognizing our own alienation from this world. Look at the sophistry you have evoked with your scripture quotes! It is too difficult to recognize that maybe, just maybe, we are meant to be profoundly different than those around us. Maybe we are supposed to live a life of radical dependence on God, and if we are not strong enough to do that, then to do the best we can and work for justice the best we can… But that would not work with the mindset and worldview that passes for Christian today…
Christianity took hold of Rome not through military might, but by Christian love.
This, which comes from the very old online Catholic Encyclopedia, is what I was taught in grade school.
A very decisive moment in Church history took place because Jesus helped Constantine win a battle. We have many examples in the Old Testament where God intervenes to help those he favors win battles. The Old Testament God seemed often quite enthusiastic about violent conquest and even wholesale slaughter. How are we to interpret those stories today? And how are we to interpret the story of Constantine, which is not a Biblical story in figurative language but history (although some might say legend)? I was certainly left with the impression from what I was taught in Catholic school that Jesus actually did help Constantine win a battle against superior forces. Would a Jesus who preached nonviolence in the first century actually help Constantine win a battle in the fourth century to further the cause of Christianity?
I am not just trying to be difficult here or to argue for the sake of argument. (I take it Bernard C’s comment about sophistry is aimed at me.) I am writing on the basis of what I was taught in Catholic school. We were taught that sayings like “turn the other cheek” were not to be taken literally, that people had a right to defend themselves and their property, and that God helped those he favored win battles. I am not merely pointing out that I think taking these sayings of Jesus literally is impractical. I am saying I was taught, in my Catholic education, that the Church did not take them literally and did not advise, if someone hit you, that you should actually turn the other cheek.
I am not opposed to loving my enemy and praying for his/her redemption. However, I don’t believe Jesus would be against self defense.
At one time, I felt ashamed that Christians initiated the Crusades. I got over this since life was rough during that period in history. Also, Muslims actively invaded Europe and attacked innocent peasants.
Love will not always conquer. Sometimes, we need to keep our wits and watch our backsides to avoid the violence of a bully. Jesus came to the defense of the woman who committed adultry.
Let’s not equivocate, Cathy. Certainly there are reasons for self-defense, and kinds of defense which are permissible. Non-violent means of defense are justified. But did you see the early Christians saying “Jesus didn’t tell us we couldn’t use self defense” and use that as a reason to suddenly launch an armed response to the Romans and their other persecutors? No. Not at all. They would, if they could, try to escape harm (hide out, change cities, etc), but the one thing they didn’t do was take up an armed defense. This is what changed the hearts of the Romans (long before Constantine; Constantine felt the pressure to move to Christianity because of the 2nd century Christians finding themselves into positions of influence because of their non-violent resistance).
I agree with you that we should always read history in context; this doesn’t justify evil actions, but it might explain them (and even saints are sinners who need forgiveness and have done wrong, as anyone who knows the life of St Jerome knows). There were all kinds of invasions going on by Christians into other lands, really, it was all an issue of empire building on so many sides, with religion often just being used as an excuse (as can be seen by the Crusaders sacking Constantinople). However, we must also recognize the armed self defense didn’t work.
So it is not “he allows self-defense” — he allows it in accordance with moral qualifications. Nonetheless, he also points out that as long as we look out after ourselves first, and not to the higher dictates of love, we will end up the ones losing out.
Henry,
Wikipedia makes a pretty good case that early Christianity was truly pacifist in nature but that things went awry beginning with Constantine in the early fourth century.
Here is Aquinas on self-defense:
Aquinas certainly allows potentially deadly force (without the intent to kill) for the ordinary man, and further allows intentional killing by soldiers and public officials.
I can see urging a return to very early Christianity (not just on this issue, but others as well), but what you are advocating here is not what the Catholic Church has been teaching for about the past fifteen or sixteen centuries. How could they have been so wrong for so long?
David,
If you want to look into a great work on Constantine, get Constantine and the Bishops by Drake. It is clear Constantine was not a pacifist, and he did a great amount of evil in his life (Solovyov has a great quote which I will probably put up for the quote of the week soon comparing Constantine with Mohammad). Nonetheless, it was really later that the great abuses get into the mix (Theodosius). Constantine is much misunderstood and this comes in part because of the Donation of Constantine (used by all sides for polemics) and Burckhardt (Drake does a good job showing the problems there). But I would say the conversion of the empire to Christianity really was what happened before Constantine and, almost like a Baudrilliardian moment, Constantine’s conversion was the recognition of how the empire had changed due to Christianity. Of course, that moment allowed a two-way interaction come into play; there was much good in it, but also much bad which came in with the mix as well. Much of the theology of the late 20th century has been the attempt to examine this mix, to see what really took place, and what of it is necessary, and what of it needs to be discarded. It’s not an easy task, because we have become used to so much through the years. It is not, however, an attempt for a pristine return to the sources — that would be an impossible task. Rather, it is the examination of them for the sake of contemporary theology to deal with the problems which have been created such assimilation through the centuries leading to problems in contemporary Christian life and ideologies.
As for St Thomas Aquinas; I will say this as I always do — I respect him a great deal, but in many things he is wrong, often quite wrong. This does not harm him and his genius in the least, but rather, recognizes it even more, to realize how much of his work was theology at its contextual best, dealing with the circumstances of his time, and trying to theologize based upon the concerns of his time. He created some very important and influential ideas, but nonetheless, fallible ones. We do not need to hold all of Christendom to his views and treat him as the end all of all discussion. This is doubly so for someone like me who likes Thomas’ methodology, but thinks often his givens were in error, leading to bad conclusions.
If you have not done so, something you might find interesting to read are the essays on the Orthodox Peace Fellowship website. It should have introduce much of the patristic times and its understanding of the issue of pacifism/war/violence etc.
http://incommunion.org/
Sometimes, violent defense is necessary if it means life or death for yourself or a loved one. It is not violence for joy. And, you might be looking out for yourself first over the life of the attacker. A choice is made in defense but you did not initiate the violence.
It takes courage to fight against the violence of a rapist. Fighting against the violence and for your life is not turning your back on God by preserving yourself over the love of God.
Fighting for the love of Jesus and defending his honor against a persecutor is turning the other cheek and accepting the criticism rather than conforming to evil and hatred proposed by the persecutor. For example, a teenager might risk his life by not joining a gang and accepting its violence. The teen’s life is in danger and the teen could be killed. However, the teen and family have the right to defend against violence for not conforming to the demands of the gang. In this case, the act of self defense is not turning against the love of God. Joining the gang and paricipating in its violence would be turning against the love of God for self preservation.
“Sometimes, violent defense is necessary if it means life or death for yourself or a loved one.” The martyrs didn’t think of it in this fashion when they were being led to the slaughter by the Romans. The early Christians in fact wrote against such an excuse to violence. The fact that I agree there might be times for a justified self defense does not diminish its role in being less than pure, and, even in the most justified of situations, riddled with sin. The early Church required those who killed anyone, even in defense, to abstain from the eucharist for this very reason. They didn’t deny the state might need to engage a defense, but they also didn’t want people to say such action was a Christian action. As Ellul points out, it is very human; it’s far from Christian.
If Nazi Germany had invaded America, should Americans have laid down their arms and accepted the violence against them? If so, who would have defended the persecutions in Europe?
For people asking about war, whether or not it is necessary, etc, I would suggest one reads this post of mine: http://vox-nova.com/2008/04/30/on-the-morality-of-war-in-essence-and-in-practice/
But I would add, as I said just a little while ago, we must remember when war is employed, it is a human, not a Christian action, and we must not confuse a war as somehow the Christian response. It isn’t. The Christian response can only be the response of Christ. The questions people bring up now can be — and have been — brought up to Christ (and God). Why doesn’t God “do anything” when there is great evil in the world? Why didn’t Jesus just “take over” and save all the poor, suffering people of Israel — just as they expected the messiah to do? This, the idolatry of violence, really is contra-Christian and I would recommend “The Grand Inquisitor” by Dostoevsky to see how it really is the temptation of the devil which brings up these objections to the Christian. The “but what about X” response always is raised to God. Why did God allow Auschwitz? When you begin to understand that, you begin to understand the tragic demand of love.
I am a bit bothered by your intrepetation of my response. I am not advocating that war is necessary. I am not asking why God allowed any of these evil acts. I interpret your responses as somehow putting guilt on the person who decided to use self defense.
Killing is a sin. I believe that a rational person killing in self defense would suffer emotional consequences as a result. However, I see a person ‘offering the other cheek’ by not joining the gang and risking his/her life by not joining.
Interesting Conclusion… talk about throwing a rock, and running!
The Crusades “Failed”???
No. The Crusades did not fail — human politicking failed us. Human respect failed us. And how did they “fail”?
The failure was that the Orient was lost. Christians were lost in a sea of mohammedan conquest, rape, plunder, and darkness, which persists to this day.
The Crusades did not fail because they were forceful. They were triumphant, in fact! They failed when they became human, homocentric, when God took away His blessing and His protection from those entrusted and consecrated to His service…
It’s interesting how some of us pretend to be Christians by acting like Protestants, who quote convenient passages — convenient to what we’re trying to say, convenient in making us look good… holy, sweet, meek.
There are two edges to the sword, sir… the Christian Sword, which the martyrs of the crusades aptly venerated as the veritable sign of the Holy Cross itself.
Would that we were worthy of a Crusade in our day!
-E.g.S.
Quod Scripsi Scripsi.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15446a.htm
A proper understanding of the equivocity of Violence, may be of interest.
And no, Wikipedia cannot define our faith. The case it makes is irrelevant. The Church, and only the Church via her official teaching, defines what is right and wrong in terms of our moral actions for our day.
Pope John Paul II put the crusades on his list of actions which he apologized for. Is it now anti-Catholic and protestant to follow the Pope?
The C.E. is not an official document of the magisterium either. However, Pope John Paul II’s apology for the crusades is magisterial.
Much of the theology of the late 20th century has been the attempt to examine this mix, to see what really took place, and what of it is necessary, and what of it needs to be discarded.
Henry,
What with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, infallibility, and such, one would think that what went right and what went wrong with the Church in the 4th century would have been figured out long before the 20th century. If what I understand you to be saying is the correct interpretation of the teachings of Jesus and the earliest Church, there was a profound turning away from the authentic message of Jesus within about 200 years after his death. I couldn’t begin to count the wars that were fought on behalf of Christianity, or between Christians defending their own brand of Christianity, or how many leaders invoked the name of God in justifying war, or how many priests, bishops, and popes participated in all of this, or how many men fought in wars with the blessing of the Church (and, as Michael Iafrate might note, with chaplains there to sustain them).
If the Church got so much wrong for so many centuries, how can anyone believe it represents Jesus on earth?
David
Your question would take several book-length discussions to get into it properly. And I’m sure you know the general answers (I would hope you do): don’t confuse infallibility with impeccability, don’t confuse infallibility with all knowledge, don’t confuse an infallible declaration as a final statement; don’t confuse everything said as being infallible — only an infallible statement is guaranteed to be pointing in the right direction.
As for St Thomas Aquinas; I will say this as I always do — I respect him a great deal, but in many things he is wrong, often quite wrong.
I think almost anyone would acknowledge that St. Thomas did not say the last word on every topic and that some of what he said is quite correctly rejected. But the Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes from the very same argument of his that I quoted:
It is one thing to shrug off something Aquinas said that nobody has taken seriously for centuries. It is another thing to dismiss something that has met the test of time and is still quoted by authorities today. I suppose you will say the Catechism isn’t infallible, but certainly it reflects the current official teachings of the Catholic Church.
Now, I am willing to entertain the possibility that you may very well be right in interpreting what Jesus said and what the position of the early Church was regarding killing another human being. But that is because my attitude toward the teaching authority of the Church and the “Magesterium” would make it difficult for me to claim to be a Catholic. It seems to me the Church has said one thing on this topic for centuries, and you are saying something really quite different and in direct contradiction. Paragraph 2265 says defending the lives of others (with arms, if necessary) is a “grave duty.” You are saying the duty is to avoid violence even if it means the lives of others will be lost. I don’t see how you can reconcile your position with the position of the Church.
David
Not only is the catechism not infallible, not everything said in it is of the same level of doctrinal authority. Many people do not understand this and think everything in it is of equal value. It is not. Much of what is in it is reflected upon and some, from very high levels, ends up being disagreed with — Pope Benedict himself has suggested just war theory needs to be entirely revamped, if it is to survive at all.
As for St Thomas Aquinas, the problem is people often quote him (or the catechism) and think that settles the issue. Neither does. Both have their value, with the catechism having higher magisterial authority than Aquinas.
If this topic really is of interest, I recommend Francis Sullivan, start with his book “Creative Fidelity.”
And I’m sure you know the general answers (I would hope you do)
No, not really. Unless the claim to infallibility is without significant meaning (a possibility that I am more than willing to entertain, actually, but that I doubt most faithful Catholics are). If there are few truly infallible statements, and even they can be radically reinterpreted or explained away, I don’t see the point of asserting infallibility.
In By What Authority? Guillardetz saysWhat the doctrine of infallibility promises us is that the Church will never be in error in matters pertaining to our salvation [emphasis in the original]. Given what combat does to many young men (and now women), it seems to me that if the authentic teaching of Jesus is nonviolent resistance, a Church that has been sending people off to fight and kill — as a grave duty — in wars for century upon century can’t claim not to have made errors pertaining to salvation. War basically ruins some people’s lives (take a look at the problem of suicide in today’s military) — and of course MI believes military training turns people into murderers.
I am not play acting or feigning ignorance* here to try to give you a hard time. I am quite convinced that if somehow you could be proven correct that Jesus commanded nonviolence, it would knock the foundation out from under the Catholic Church.
*I really am ignorant!
If this topic really is of interest, I recommend Francis Sullivan, start with his book “Creative Fidelity.”
Ordered from Barnes & Noble. Thanks!
David,
The Catechism quotes St. Aquinas on self-defense with reference to the double-effect theory. It is worth your while to spend some time researching and studying the double-effect theory: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/
I started off as a great opponent of this theory, but after study, have found it to be very helpful and true.
Primitive feelings of threat and danger inherited from ancestors make us more prone to violence as a source of self-protection. However, Christ has the last word on the Cross and we either are given the grace to have the strength to love the victim who is the aggressor or we act from the instinctive response of self preservation.
When someone is attacking another person the attacker’s instinctive brain is in charge and has expectations as to how the victim will respond. Confusion occurs within the attacker’s primitive brain when it doesn’t perceive the expected response coming from the victim. Only grace can give one the response that will cause a short circuit in the attacker. This grace is not given to everyone and it seems that it is only given to a few who have been examples of active loving in response to aggression. The church holds them up as saints but forgets that we are to follow the example of grace that they were given.
There is so much that is not love nor wisdom in the catechism and it needs to be weeded out. That which is not love is the toxic instinctive fear of being defenseless with nobody to save you except the faith that tells us this world is not our destiny. Our destiny is in love.
“Pope Benedict himself has suggested just war theory needs to be entirely revamped, if it is to survive at all. ”
Some input from the Holy Father himself (just after the 9/11 attacks):
Christopher
But then there are other comments, such as these from 2003:
http://catholicism.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=catholicism&cdn=religion&tm=9&f=00&tt=11&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp%3Fid%3D775
So, Christopher, why did you ignore his statements, which you knew, which were said after the quote you gave, using it to act as if my comment was in error?
Nate,
Thanks for the link. I will look more deeply into the issue. But the fact remains that what Henry is arguing for is not currently the teaching of the Church. The right to use force instead of nonviolent resistance in self-defense is firmly established.
Even John Paul II upheld the right to execute dangerous criminals if there is no other way to protect society. (Of course, pro-death-penalty Catholics have interpreted “absolute necessity” and “very rare, if not practically nonexistent” to mean “just a matter of prudential judgment.” Consequently, they defend George Bush’s signing of every death warrant put before him — 152 of them — as not really problematical. It is stunning to think that something “very rare, if not practically nonexistent” could occur 152 times in a not-quite-full term of one governor.)
And if the Catholic Church has ever even hinted that soldiers are not permitted to engage in combat and kill when necessary, I would like to see someone cite an authoritative source. The very existence of just war theory clearly indicates that war is not forbidden.
David
Once again, I would recommend you read the link I gave to my post on war. You have not followed my point exactly yet. There are several issues involved. One is the Christian response, in the perfection of love, the kind of response expected of us as we become more and more holy. The second is the humanitarian issue. Ellul does a good job in distinguishing the two in his works — so as not to confuse the ways of humanity and idolize it.
“And if the Catholic Church has ever even hinted that soldiers are not permitted to engage in combat and kill when necessary, I would like to see someone cite an authoritative source.”
That is not what has been said. What has been said is that even in necessity, when it is permitted, it doesn’t come without a price, and without a need for the soldier to make penance for what killing they did in combat. Many early fathers forbade soldiering, but most gave soldiers who killed a time out from communion. http://incommunion.org/?p=409 is a good discussion of St Basil on this issue.
And if the Catholic Church has ever even hinted that soldiers are not permitted to engage in combat and kill when necessary, I would like to see someone cite an authoritative source.
The crux of the matter, of course, is who decides when it is “necessary”? Just war principles indicate that the state obviously gets to decide because they are the ones with the guns. But the very existence of just war teaching shows that what the state decides stands under a higher source of judgment. Just war principles obviously exist because states cannot be trusted to act out of anything other than self-interest.
The very existence of just war theory clearly indicates that war is not forbidden.
On the contrary, the “theory’s” existence — as well as the specifics of the “theory” — indicates that most wars are in fact forbidden.
most wars are in fact forbidden
Michael,
Of course what I was saying is that there is no absolute prohibition against war.
Also, it seems to me there can never be a “just war” — that is, a war in which both sides are justified in fighting. When an aggressor launches an unjust war against another country, that other country is justified in defending itself. So what is an unjust war for one side may be a just war for the other side.
It is simply not a teaching of the Church that violence is always and everywhere forbidden, and that self-defense must be limited to passive resistance. In the case of self-defense, passive resistance is permitted but not required. If force is necessary to protect the lives of others, then it is a “grave duty.”
The Fifth Commandment is not “You shall not kill.” It’s “You shall not murder.” (And, indeed, when it originated, it may have meant “You shall not murder anyone in your own tribe.”)
The crux of the matter, of course, is who decides when it is “necessary”?
And it seems to me that this has led to the Church being more permissive rather than less. Instead of suggesting to those in the military that they should think long and hard, because in all likelihood, the war they are fighting in is unjust, the bishops and priests on one side of the war give their blessing to soldiers on their side, and the bishops and priests on the other side of the war give their blessings to soldiers on their side.
It is presumed that the soldier is honorably doing his duty unless a totally compelling case can be made against against the side he is fighting for. What you would like to see, I take it, is the presumption that soldiers are wrong to fight unless there’s an absolutely clear-cut, objective case for their side. But that’s not what we have today.
And it seems to me that this has led to the Church being more permissive rather than less. Instead of suggesting to those in the military that they should think long and hard, because in all likelihood, the war they are fighting in is unjust, the bishops and priests on one side of the war give their blessing to soldiers on their side, and the bishops and priests on the other side of the war give their blessings to soldiers on their side.
The leaders of the church rarely “give their blessing,” of course, but insofar as they usually remain pastorally silent, they sin. Their role is precisely to give concrete moral guidance to disciples.
It is presumed that the soldier is honorably doing his duty unless a totally compelling case can be made against against the side he is fighting for. What you would like to see, I take it, is the presumption that soldiers are wrong to fight unless there’s an absolutely clear-cut, objective case for their side.
That is indeed what I want. If you don’t think this is what should take place, then it does not seem to me that you take human life very seriously at all.
But that’s not what we have today.
Again, you are pointing to human and ecclesial weakness, i.e. sin.
Michael, I agree totally with your statement “…Their (leaders) role is precisely to give concrete moral guidance to their disciples.” Their silence is their failure and their silence supports the “culture of death”.
Now I am going to go a little insane here. Their silence relating to concrete observable living human beings killing each other while living in the safety and security of their abstract theological and philosophical passivity is the result of their fear of loving human beings in a real, concrete and observable flesh, blood and spiritual relationship. Their celebacy separates them from the passionate intimate suffering associated with the death of someone whom they have passionately loved.
It is much easier for them to love the abstract Christ, the abstract Mary and the abstract child in the womb and write about them as though they are real, rather than about living them in a passionate struggle to find the courage to face someone who wants to kill you and love them in response.
Our church leaders are the individuals we talked about in another post. They are separated from us and each other through the individualistic history of tradition expressed in the clothing they wear and the isolation of the theology they write in the body and buildings they inhabit which they cling to for dear life.
The courage of love will give up all of this and go to the front lines where the battle takes place. That leader will risk losing his life in order to gain it. He will love the person who may kill him in order to convert him. He will have no enemies.
The truly “just war” is won internally when Love transforms fear from self-preservation to creativity which only occurs with the death of the identity that has its foundation built on fear and all of the fragility that it defends.
Michael and Ronald,
It seems to me you are making an extraordinarily serious indictment of the Catholic Church.
I was recently looking up information about Pius XII, and I came across this passage in Paul Johnson’s A History of Christianity:
Here’s another interesting passage I just found from The Church and Nazi Germany by Guenter Lewy:
From the viewpoint you are advocating, Pius XII was very wrong, as would any pope be who advised soldiers to “fight with valor and charity on whatever side they found themselves.” I should note that this is actually a separate issue from the usual arguments about Pius XII and the Nazis. The question here, from the Michael’s viewpoint, would not be whether Pius XII was correct to remain neutral. It was the way he remained neutral. Presumably Michael would argue that Pius II should have said, “Don’t fight in this war, no matter what side you are on.” Instead, he said, “Fight with valor and charity” to those on both sides.
This man, of course, is going to be made into a saint.
David, Thank you for that info. I am absolutely going crazy at my keyboard. My beautiful faith is contaminated with gutless left brain dominated theologians who have no passionate connection to real human beings. Consequently, they hide in their abstract world of ideas and slowly whither away before our eyes after publishing hundreds of books and papers and edicts and judgements and B.S.
Intellectual hedonists!
It seems to me you are making an extraordinarily serious indictment of the Catholic Church.
Yep.
From the viewpoint you are advocating, Pius XII was very wrong, as would any pope be who advised soldiers to “fight with valor and charity on whatever side they found themselves.”
Yep.
Pius’ position, as reflected here at least, has no concern for the truth, unless his conception of “truth” is that fighting is itself the only “good” that matters.
The question here, from the Michael’s viewpoint, would not be whether Pius XII was correct to remain neutral. It was the way he remained neutral. Presumably Michael would argue that Pius II should have said, “Don’t fight in this war, no matter what side you are on.” Instead, he said, “Fight with valor and charity” to those on both sides.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Yes, I think Pius’ position was wrong. It obviously doesn’t jive with my pacifist commitments, but it doesn’t even jive with Roman Catholic just war tradition. It’s simply an all-out pro-war-no-matter-what position.
Also, be careful not to fall into this position of neutrality nonsense. There is no “neutral” position. Pius was not being “neutral” by telling everyone to fight their balls off.
This man, of course, is going to be made into a saint.
So what? The absolute pacifist Dorothy Day is going to be made into a saint too.