America And Guns

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='10 November 2009 - 05:37 PM' timestamp='1257889055' post='1999811']
No, I was talking about when he went with the crusaders and tried to convert the sultan.
[/quote]


He went as a Christian in protest of the Crusades. He used non-violence against the Sultan and the Sultan was so impressed, he released him.


FYI, I corrected my original post. Take another look

Jim

Edited November 10, 2009 by JimR-OCDS

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='10 November 2009 - 04:38 PM' timestamp='1257889132' post='1999813']
He went as a Christian in protest of the Crusades. [/quote]

[JimR-OCDS]

Well, I had to go look it up.

[quote]
From this chapter Francis sent some of his friars on missions to the infidels in Tunisia, Morocco, and Spain, while he himself undertook one to the Saracens of Egypt and Syria, embarking with eleven friars from Ancona in June, 1219. At the city of Damietta on the Nila Delta, which the crusaders were besieging, Francis was deeply shocked at the profligacy, the cynicism, and the lack of discipline of the soldiers of the cross. When in August the leaders prepared to attack, he predicted failure and tried to dissuade them from the attempt. The Christians were driven back with the slaughter of six thousand men, yet they continued the siege, and at last took the city. Meanwhile, a number of the soldiers had pledged themselves to live by Francis' rule. He also paid several visits to the Saracen leader, Melek-el-Kamil, Sultan of Egypt. There is a story to the effect that he first went among the enemy with only Brother Illuminato, calling out, "Sultan! Sultan!" When he was brought before the Sultan and asked his errand, Francis replied boldly, "I am sent by the Most High God, to show you and your people the way of salvation by announcing to you the truths of the Gospel." Discussion followed, and other audiences. The Sultan, somewhat moved, invited Francis to stay with him. "If you and your people," said Francis, "will accept the word of God, I will with joy stay with you. If you yet waver between Christ and Mohammed, order a fire kindled and I will go into it with your priests that you may see which is the true faith." The Sultan replied that he did not think any of his <imams> would dare to enter the fire, and he would not accept Francis' condition for fear of upsetting the people. He offered him many presents, which Francis refused. Fearing finally that some of his Moslems might desert to the Christians, he sent Francis, under guard, back to the camp.

Sickened by the senseless slaughter and brutality that marked the taking of the city, Francis went on to visit the Holy Places of Palestine. [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/mary/francis.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/mary/francis.htm[/url]

[/quote]

He didn't go as a Crusader.

Jim

[Nihil Obstat]

Jim, you keep talking about 'spiritual maturity' in non violence.

Remember when John Paul II was shot in St. Peter's Square? Mehmet Ali Ağca fled, or tried to flee the scene, and, or at least so goes the story, was tackled by a nun. (I don't have the time to confirm or deny this, but I've heard that story told before more than once.)
Anyway, let's assume that this did in reality happen.

The nun used violence to subdue Mehmet Ali Ağca. Would it have been more 'spiritually mature' of her to instead yell "hey, you should turn yourself in!?" I don't believe so. In fact, I think it would have been irresponsible of her to do so. What really shows spiritual maturity is that she stayed well within bounds of necessary violence.

I know if I was at St. Peter's Square and some nutjob shot the pope, and I happened to be the one to tackle him, I'd want to kill him. I don't think I would, but the point is that I'd really like to. That would be wrong, because it would not be necessary if he were already subdued.

Spiritual maturity is in how one acts according to the circumstances in which one finds himself. Sometimes, unfortunately, violence is necessary. Sometimes it's not. Maturity lies first in recognizing when it's necessary, and then in exactly how much is necessary, then in using precisely the minimum amount of violence needed to do what must morally be done.

If there was a gunman prepared to, say, commit a massacre in a school, and I had the opportunity to knock him down and remove him from his gun, or even if I had to hit him over the head with a length of lead pipe, it's not only acceptable, but more likely required of me to use violence (assuming this comes with no threat to myself or further threat to bystanders). It would be immoral of me to, if I had a safe opportunity to do so, not physically stop him. In this case it's not spiritually mature to refuse to do violence. It's reckless and irresponsible.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='10 November 2009 - 04:56 PM' timestamp='1257886566' post='1999773']
Right, but we're to use violence only when necessary and only to the degree to stop the agression.



Jim
[/quote]

Which does not make one less spiritually mature to do so. Pacifism is not Christian. When necessary violence is exactly what a Christian should engage in. That is, unless Jesus was wrong to overturn the tables of the money changers and God was wrong to place various peoples under the ban.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='10 November 2009 - 05:55 PM' timestamp='1257890139' post='1999825']
Which does not make one less spiritually mature to do so. Pacifism is not Christian. When necessary violence is exactly what a Christian should engage in. That is, unless Jesus was wrong to overturn the tables of the money changers and God was wrong to place various peoples under the ban.
[/quote]


How many people did Jesus injure or kill when he turned over the tables?


The problem is, we are quick to use violence, and to tell you the truth, I think the Just War Doctrine has been abused over the centuries.

Jim

[Era Might]

[quote name='Winchester' date='10 November 2009 - 03:31 PM' timestamp='1257885087' post='1999749']
I should also point out that martyrdom is a personal choice. A government can't make the same decision--it has to fight to defend its people.
[/quote]
I agree that martyrdom is a personal choice. Joining the military is also a personal choice, and many (perhaps most) Christians in the early Church refused to be in the military, choosing instead to become martyrs.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='10 November 2009 - 04:55 PM' timestamp='1257890122' post='1999824']Remember when John Paul II was shot in St. Peter's Square? Mehmet Ali Ağca fled, or tried to flee the scene, and, or at least so goes the story, was tackled by a nun. (I don't have the time to confirm or deny this, but I've heard that story told before more than once.)
Anyway, let's assume that this did in reality happen.

The nun used violence to subdue Mehmet Ali Ağca. Would it have been more 'spiritually mature' of her to instead yell "hey, you should turn yourself in!?" I don't believe so. In fact, I think it would have been irresponsible of her to do so. What really shows spiritual maturity is that she stayed well within bounds of necessary violence.[/quote]
I suppose we should probably define what we mean in this discussion by "violence" (I'm not sure it would be as easy to define as we might think). But when I use the word "violence" in this discussion, I primarily (though not necessarily solely) mean lethal or potentially lethal violence.

I don't think I would object to a nun tackling Ağca. But in my opinion, I would not agree with using lethal force to prevent someone from killing the Pope. I believe that, as a Bishop, the Pope should not be using violence in defense of his own life, because he is a representative of the Gospel.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Era Might' date='10 November 2009 - 04:08 PM' timestamp='1257890927' post='1999839']
I suppose we should probably define what we mean in this discussion by "violence" (I'm not sure it would be as easy to define as we might think). But when I say "violence," I primarily (though not necessarily solely) mean lethal or potentially lethal violence.

I don't think I would object to a nun tackling Ağca. But in my opinion, I would not agree with using lethal force to prevent someone from killing the Pope. I believe that, as a Bishop, the Pope should not be using violence in defense of his own life, because he is a representative of the Gospel.
[/quote]
Well in this case lethal force wasn't necessary. We can imagine a situation though, where it's nearly certain that the force used will prove to be lethal. (Intent is just to subdue, but the amount necessary is probably lethal.)
It doesn't have to be regarding the Pope, if that adds unnecessary complications. How about my second example? What if the minimum amount of force was likely to be lethal? The intent would be to eliminate the threat to innocent people, and one unintended consequence is the (probable) death of the aggressor.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Era Might' date='10 November 2009 - 05:08 PM' timestamp='1257890927' post='1999839']
I suppose we should probably define what we mean in this discussion by "violence" (I'm not sure it would be as easy to define as we might think). But when I use the word "violence" in this discussion, I primarily (though not necessarily solely) mean lethal or potentially lethal violence.

I don't think I would object to a nun tackling Ağca. But in my opinion, I would not agree with using lethal force to prevent someone from killing the Pope. I believe that, as a Bishop, the Pope should not be using violence in defense of his own life, because he is a representative of the Gospel.
[/quote]

While I agree that bishops (or priests or religious, for that matter) shouldn't use violence to defend their own lives, I don't think I would object to others using violence to defend the Pope. I haven't given a great deal of thought to it, though...

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='10 November 2009 - 04:17 PM' timestamp='1257891428' post='1999846']
While I agree that bishops (or priests or religious, for that matter) shouldn't use violence to defend their own lives, I don't think I would object to others using violence to defend the Pope. I haven't given a great deal of thought to it, though...
[/quote]
Intuitively, I'd be inclined to use violence to defend the pope or a bishop (([b]if it were necessary[/b])). I don't know if I'd be right or not, but if I were put in that situation today, that would be my instinct.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='10 November 2009 - 05:14 PM' timestamp='1257891260' post='1999842']
Well in this case lethal force wasn't necessary. We can imagine a situation though, where it's nearly certain that the force used will prove to be lethal. (Intent is just to subdue, but the amount necessary is probably lethal.)
It doesn't have to be regarding the Pope, if that adds unnecessary complications. How about my second example? What if the minimum amount of force was likely to be lethal? The intent would be to eliminate the threat to innocent people, and one unintended consequence is the (probable) death of the aggressor.
[/quote]
I honestly don't have all the answers. To defend my own life, I would not want to use violence. But to defend the lives of others, I may. And even when it comes to the lives of others, I would have to consider other factors (e.g., I would not kill the innocent to save the innocent). As I said in a previous post, I recognize the complexity in all of these issues. I certainly don't want to come across as though I have all the answers. But, my main point is that I do not believe that the Gospel should be used to justify violence; and more importantly, I do not believe that violence should be used to spread or defend the Gospel.

[Era Might]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='10 November 2009 - 05:17 PM' timestamp='1257891428' post='1999846']
While I agree that bishops (or priests or religious, for that matter) shouldn't use violence to defend their own lives, I don't think I would object to others using violence to defend the Pope. I haven't given a great deal of thought to it, though...
[/quote]
I don't believe in using violence to spread or defend the Gospel. Since Priests are uniquely representatives of the Gospel, then I think that they are "connected" to the Gospel so directly that to use violence in their defense is almost tantamount to using violence in defense of the Gospel itself. Like you, I haven't given it much thought, but this is my gut instinct view of the matter.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Era Might' date='10 November 2009 - 05:25 PM' timestamp='1257891946' post='1999850']
I don't believe in using violence to spread or defend the Gospel. Since Priests are uniquely representatives of the Gospel, then I think they are "connected" to the Gospel so directly that to use violence in their defense is almost tantamount to using violence in defense of the Gospel itself. Like you, I haven't given it much thought, but that is my gut instinct view of the matter.
[/quote]

By "violence" you mean lethal force?

I do think that violence can be acceptable means of defense for the Gospel. If it is acceptable to defend human life, why would it not be acceptable to defend something much more important than temporal human life (i.e. Divine and eternal Truth)?

[Era Might]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='10 November 2009 - 05:28 PM' timestamp='1257892115' post='1999852']
By "violence" you mean lethal force?[/quote]
Primarily, but I don't [i]necessarily[/i] mean [i]only[/i] lethal force. As I said in a previous post, we have to define "violence," which might be a bit complicated to define. But in this discussion, when I use the word "violence," I do primarily mean lethal force or potentially lethal force.

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='10 November 2009 - 05:28 PM' timestamp='1257892115' post='1999852']I do think that violence can be acceptable means of defense for the Gospel. If it is acceptable to defend human life, why would it not be acceptable to defend something much more important than temporal human life (i.e. Divine and eternal Truth)?
[/quote]
Our Lord and his Apostles did not use violence to defend their own lives, or to defend the Gospel. Who are we to follow any other example?