America And Guns

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Slappo' date='10 November 2009 - 12:29 PM' timestamp='1257870591' post='1999500']
Another saint that used violence to preach and convert: St. Louis Marie Grignion De Montefort
[/quote]

It is not moral to intend to use violence as a means of conversion. Ideas convince. Force coerces. You may not coerce anyone to believe anything. Belief is the free acceptance of truth as perceived by the intellect. It is a contradiction of logic and human nature to attempt to coerce (force) anyone to believe (freely assent to) anything.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 10, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Era Might]

[quote name='Slappo' date='09 November 2009 - 07:31 PM' timestamp='1257813093' post='1999215']
The problem with saying that choosing non-violence over violence shows that you love God more or are more spiritually mature is that the [b]saints[/b] have used violence. They are canonized. They achieved the heights of sanctity and they used violence.

St. Joan of Arc lead an army.
[/quote]
[quote name='Slappo' date='10 November 2009 - 11:29 AM' timestamp='1257870591' post='1999500']Another saint that used violence to preach and convert: St. Louis Marie Grignion De Montefort
[/quote]
I absolutely reject any and all violence used to preach and convert others. The only recourse to violence that I believe can be legitimate is for natural self-defense. In my opinion, the Gospel should never be spread or defended with violent means. And I believe that when someone is directly representing the Gospel (e.g., as a missionary), they should not have recourse to violence.

As for St. Joan of Arc, she technically never killed anyone. And I don't think she was using violence "to preach and convert." She wanted the English to leave France. Her immediate concerns were about a temporal matter, and thus she had recourse to temporal means (i.e., military means). I do not know anything about the life of St. Louis Marie Grignion de Montefort, so I cannot address his life.

That being said, I believe that the Saints are people of their times. I do not believe that just because a Saint did something in their society means that it should necessarily be a model for our society. That is why I always like to refer to the Apostles, because they walked on earth with Our Lord, and because they handed on to us Divine Revelation. The Apostles never had recourse to violence, and neither did the early Church. I believe that the reason why they did not have recourse to violence was because they understood very deeply that the Gospel is an eschatological vocation. They were not concerned about the kingdoms of this world. In later centuries, other Saints (like Joan of Arc) were involved in the kingdoms of this world, and thus they had recourse to the violent means of this world. But I believe that the witness of the Apostles is clear that violence has no place in the eschatological vocation of the Gospel. That is why I do not believe that the Gospel should ever be used to justify violence. If we are going to have recourse to violence in self-defense, then I believe that such violence can only be defended on natural grounds.

Supposing, for the sake of discussion, that St. Joan of Arc was wrong in her involvement with the military: that does not mean she was not a holy person, or that a non-violent person is necessarily holier than her just because the non-violent person does not have recourse to violence. But I do believe that the eschatological ideal as witnessed in the life of the Apostles is clear that non-violence is essential to the Gospel vocation. Insofar as we have recourse to violent self-defense, I believe that it must be done in the name of this world, and never done the name of the Gospel. And even when done in the name of this world, I believe that violence is a very dangerous matter that must be handled prudently and with great restraint.

JimR-OCDS said in a previous post:

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='09 November 2009 - 09:25 AM' timestamp='1257776750' post='1998748']Jesus is the prime example. He did not use violence to defend himself from being taken by the Romans, even though he had at his disposal, a legion of angels.[/quote]
Our Lord did not have recourse to armies and guns. His Kingdom is not of this world, and thus he did not use the violent means of this world.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Winchester' date='10 November 2009 - 10:45 AM' timestamp='1257864308' post='1999461']
By defending myself, I remain alive to defend my family. But then again, I'm not at the spiritual high that tells me supporting pro-abortion politicians is morally acceptable. Perhaps one day I will be so wise as to understand the complexity in not legalizing murder.
[/quote]

As a husband and father, it is your obligation to defend your family.

However, even Gandhi was a husband and father, yet he never fired a shot,
against his oppressors.

Like I said earlier, Gandhi himself said it requires spiritual maturity to use non-violence to over come an aggressor. Those who have not reach that spiritual level, will not have the wisdom to use non-violent means to overcome the aggressor, but will be overcome. They have no choice but use violent means themselves.

Jesus and all the apostles, did not use violence to defend themselves. Their level of love was too great to resort to violence.

Jim

Edited November 10, 2009 by JimR-OCDS

[Winchester]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='10 November 2009 - 02:28 PM' timestamp='1257881280' post='1999670']
As a husband and father, it is your obligation to defend your family.

However, even Gandhi was a husband and father, yet he never fired a shot,
against his oppressors.

Like I said earlier, Gandhi himself said ...[/quote]
I don't care what Gandhi said. I don't follow Gandhi. I could give two craps about anything he said. Shut up about him, already. We get it, you're open-minded and worldly.

And Jesus had a different objective. You try loving the Taliban (for instance) to furry cuddlies. Let me know how it works out for ya.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Winchester

[JimR-OCDS]

'Slappo'

[quote]This is complete opinion. As no one knows the interior soul, except God, of the saints, there is no way to even speculate really as to which saints are holier aside from those who have been named such by the Church. Our Lady, and St. Joseph for example. (who recieve hyperdulia and protodulia respectively).[/quote]

We know their lives and the virtues they exhibited. Not all saints were on the same level spiritually, except, all aligned their wills with God's.



[quote]Jim, you are walking on very thin ice. It was either in this thread, or other threads, where you said you have reached the spiritual maturity where violence now disgusts you and you would never use it (or something similar). [/quote]

I never said I reached this level of spirituality. I spoke about others who have, like Gandhi.


[quote]Now you are implying that St. Joan of Arc was not so spiritually mature as to give up violence for the sake of peace. You're coming really close to saying you are holier then St. Joan of Arc, and that in itself would reveal that you are indeed NOT as holy as St. Joan of Arc as humility is one of the greatest characters of all saints.
[/quote]

Please, I never suggested that I'm holier than anyone, especially Joan of Arc.

Remember one thing, she never took up arms, she inspired her country men to fight against their oppressors, who BTW, were enemies of Rome.

Also, when Joan was arrested and imprisoned, she was shown the torture devices that would be used on her, if she didn't recant her statements about the locutions she had been receiving. She became fearful and said she would. However, that night in her cell, she had a dream where the Blessed Mother appeared to her and told her she was wrong to fear the torture devices and that she must stay true. She did, and of course was burned at the stake.



[quote]Another saint that used violence to preach and convert: St. Louis Marie Grignion De Montefort[/quote]


Never heard of him, but I'll check him out.

Hope he isn't just a legend, ala St Christopher.

Jim

[JimR-OCDS]

'Winchester


[quote]I don't care what Gandhi said. I don't follow Gandhi. I could give two craps about anything he said. Shut up about him, already. We get it, you're open-minded and worldly.[/quote]

Well I guess there's not much point in going further in the discusion with you.


Have a nice day

Jim

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='10 November 2009 - 01:42 PM' timestamp='1257882150' post='1999682']
'Winchester




Well I guess there's not much point in going further in the discusion with you.


Have a nice day

Jim
[/quote]
There are many better role models than Ghandi. I assume you mean the male one, because Indira Ghandi wasn't a particularly good role model for anybody.

[Winchester]

You don't mean have a nice day, though. That's insincere. Say what you think. I know you're more saintly than Joan of Arc, but I'm a 30th level Irritator so I know I got to you.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Winchester' date='10 November 2009 - 02:35 PM' timestamp='1257881714' post='1999675']And Jesus had a different objective. You try loving the Taliban (for instance) to furry cuddlies. Let me know how it works out for ya.
[/quote]
It will probably work out to your martyrdom. And that is precisely what the Gospel calls us to: martyrdom. This world calls us to preserve our lives with violent self-defense. I think St. Paul recognizes the tension between being a Christian and being a member of this world:

[quote]I mean, brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the form of this world is passing away. I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided.

--1Corinthians 7:29-34[/quote]
There is, on the one hand, the eschatological ideal of the Gospel that calls us to celibacy. And there is, on the other hand, the fact that if everyone were celibate, there would no longer be any humans. Similarly, the Gospel is an eschatological vocation to non-violence and martyrdom; but the kingdoms of this world probably cannot exist without some violence. So, I don't think St. Paul tries to reconcile the Gospel with this world. I think he recognizes an ultimately irreconcileable tension between them, and thus he permits things like marriage and violence in this world as a sort of concession to human weakness and necessity. But I think he upholds the eschatological ideal as the norm for Christians, and he stresses the radical distinction between the Gospel and this world. Insofar as we live for this world, then we are failing to follow the eschatological ideal of the Gospel; and this may sometimes be a necessary failure, which is why we pray constantly for mercy.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='10 November 2009 - 03:46 PM' timestamp='1257882395' post='1999688']
There are many better role models than Ghandi. I assume you mean the male one, because Indira Ghandi wasn't a particularly good role model for anybody.
[/quote]


Mahatma Gandhi is a role model in the use of non-violence, whether we like him or not.

Martin Luther King based his non-violence on Gandhi.

I suppose I shouldn't mention him either, after all, he wasn't Catholic. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/sadder.gif[/img]

Jim

[Winchester]

[quote name='Era Might' date='10 November 2009 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1257882570' post='1999690']
It will probably work out to your martyrdom. And that is precisely what the Gospel calls us to: martyrdom. This world calls us to preserve our lives with violent self-defense. [/quote]
And I have no problem with martyrdom. But we are not obliged to give up our lives or the lives of others and defeating evil through violence is something God endorses several times throughout the Bible. God also calls for defense of lives through violence. Let's not forget that.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='10 November 2009 - 01:50 PM' timestamp='1257882658' post='1999693']
Mahatma Gandhi is a role model in the use of non-violence, whether we like him or not.

Martin Luther King based his non-violence on Gandhi.

I suppose I shouldn't mention him either, after all, he wasn't Catholic. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/sadder.gif[/img]

Jim
[/quote]
There are Catholic saints who are equivalent in their use of non violence, but better role models because they accepted the Catholic Church.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='10 November 2009 - 02:53 PM' timestamp='1257882803' post='1999697']
There are Catholic saints who are equivalent in their use of non violence, but better role models because they accepted the Catholic Church.
[/quote]
Hopefully they voted democrat, though!

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='10 November 2009 - 03:53 PM' timestamp='1257882803' post='1999697']
There are Catholic saints who are equivalent in their use of non violence, but better role models because they accepted the Catholic Church.
[/quote]



I already mentioned St Francis of Assisi and St. Anthony, but Gandhi and Martin Luther King, are closer to our day and age.

Also, I don't know any saints who won the freedom and indepence for an entire nation or race of people, through non-violent means.

I'd love to know if there are any.

I suppose I could speak about Pope John Paul II, but he's not a saint yet, and although he had a great hand in bringing down communism, there were other factors in play as well.

Fact is, Gandhi is the epitome of the use of non-violence for our day and age. Sorry this upsets people.

Jim

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='10 November 2009 - 01:58 PM' timestamp='1257883092' post='1999700']
I already mentioned St Francis of Assisi and St. Anthony, but Gandhi and Martin Luther King, are closer to our day and age.

Also, I don't know any saints who won the freedom and indepence for an entire nation or race of people, through non-violent means.

I'd love to know if there are any.

I suppose I could speak about Pope John Paul II, but he's not a saint yet, and although he had a great hand in bringing down communism, there were other factors in play as well.

Fact is, Gandhi is the epitome of the use of non-violence for our day and age. Sorry this upsets people.

Jim
[/quote]
Is Ghandi 'better' in any way because he was successful?