How Is It That A Person Can Oppose Abortion And Still Be Comfortable W

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Presbylicious' date='30 March 2010 - 08:17 AM' timestamp='1269947866' post='2083178']
It just seems silly that so many Christians neglect a truly [i]consistent [/i]pro-life ethic. "Pro-life" means "anti-abortion" in people's minds. I am always quick to correct people and say "No, pro-life means PRO-LIFE. Opposition to ALL conditions which would destroy the life and dignity of a human person, from conception to natural death."

What say you?
[/quote]

Amen.

Google up some "seamless garment," promoted by one of President Obama's alleged heros, Cardinal Bernadin.

And fwiw, I like to think about what the word "catholic" actually means. To have a catholic (and Catholic) pro-life ethic is exactly what you're saying.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Presbylicious' date='30 March 2010 - 08:17 AM' timestamp='1269947866' post='2083178']

What say you?
[/quote]

Personally, I do not know that the Iraq war falls within the understanding of Just War. I do think our action to get Al qaeda in Afghanistan fall under just action and just war, especially since we had already been attacked. Also, now that we are in Iraq, I do think it would be unjust for us to leave in a way that would otherwise destablize the country.

[mommas_boy]

Basically, we are all against war. However, there does come a time when war is necessary to DEFEND life; that is to say, one cannot morally be the "aggressor" or "instigator" of a war. Just government has not only the right (that is, they not only "can" get into a war), but rather the responsibility (that is, they "must" go to war) when the lives of their citizens are at stake.

Even still, even if a just government has the intention of going to war in order to protect the lives of its citizens, there are still rules to follow, as has been mentioned by others in the "Just War Theory". If you would like to read more on it, have a look here:

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm

EDIT: You see, what really gets me is this. If every nation followed Just War principal, especially my little synopsis, "Do not attack unless attacked upon", there really wouldn't be any wars. Because nobody would provoke the war, and so no one would have to defend against it. But, such are we as fallen humans.

Anyway, this is really what the Catholic view on it is: don't attack unless you are attacked. It is both realistic in the sense that it allows us to defend ourselves, but looking toward what life as a global community should be: without war. I see it as being very wise of our Church leaders to formulate Just War Doctrine as such.

Edited March 31, 2010 by mommas_boy

[Presbylicious]

Wow, thanks for the replies, everyone!

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='30 March 2010 - 11:00 AM' timestamp='1269972018' post='2083429']
"While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, [i]Letter to the U.S. Bishops on denying Communion to Pro-abortion Politicians[/i], no. 3]
[/quote] Thanks, Apo. This answers the question fairly neatly: so it is fair to say a Roman Catholic could actually be a Mennonite-style pacifist? Is there a movement within Catholicism that espouses this sort of nonviolent resistance?

That's the other thing I think some people are confused about: pacifism is [i]not [/i]passivity. It is the refusal to meet an evil means with a similarly evil means.

To give an example: when the Bulgarian Orthodox Metropolitan Kyrill in Plovdiv heard that the Jews in Bulgaria were being rounded up and put onto trains to be sent to the death camps, he marched with those of his flock to the train station and stood amongst the Jews who were to be loaded onto trains. The Nazis attempted to get the Christians to leave, but they refused. Bishop Kyrill shouted aloud a verse from the book of Ruth,

"For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried."

The Nazis did not send anyone to the death camps that day, and indeed not a single Bulgarian Jew was sent to the death camps! (though, sadly, this is not the case of some of Bulgaria's outlying territories such as the ones promised them by the Nazis for allying with the Axis powers, such as Thrace and Macedonia). [i]This [/i]is Pacifism - not cowardly, passive non-resistance, but corageous, ballsy (if you'll pardon the crassness), Gospel-driven non-violent resistance to terrible evil. It meets the violent power of the Prince of Darkness with the peaceful power of the King of Peace who laid down his life for His enemies rather than allow them to perish!

[b]Sternhauser: [/b]I have a B.Sc in Linguistics, which had a very large psychology component. I'm familiar with Milgram's experiments. =)

[quote name='Mortify']I would not want to fight either, but there are circumstances where it's unavoidable. Consider for example the Islamic conquests which conquered 2/3 of the Christian world within 100 years of Muhammad's death. Do you really believe the noble Christians who fought to defend places like Constantinople were committing evil? Or that they should have laid down their swords and just let Muslims take the city, tax the Christians, convert their Cathedrals to mosques, and enforce other restrictions without resistance? Reason and natural law tell us waging war in such a case is just. It should be added however, that if a person fights in a war they know to be unjust it would be immoral for them to participate in such war. In the case of being drafted in an unjust war, the soldier will only be justified in killing those who threaten his immediate life. [/quote] I'm not certain they should have fought, no. Persecution is something the Church had to deal with until Constantine came along and 'baptized the sword'. (Consider: prior to Constantine a Christian could not join the Roman Army - after Constantine, you [i]could not [/i]join the Roman army [i]unless [/i]you had received Baptism!) The Church should not use an immoral means in order to defend her liberty. Her Lord told her that she would be persecuted and that she is to [i]love [/i]her enemies and [i]pray for those who persecute her[/i].

Also, the better alternative for the man who is drafted in war and whose government refuses to discharge him based on conscientious objector status, is either to go to prison for his convictions, or if he is forcibly placed on the battlefield, to allow himself to be killed. [i]This [/i]would be the far more God-honouring course of action

[quote name='Mortify']Now as for abortion, it is a direct attack on innocent life at the most helpless stage of existence. That our country permits and even funds the destruction of life in the womb is far more horrific than any unjust war.
[/quote] You will not find any argument from me that abortion is a terrible evil. But to say that an abortion is a greater evil than a killing in war is to [i]de-value [/i]human beings that are born already, which is another criticism I have of pro-lifers whose sole concern seems to be abortion. It seems like, to such people, people outside the womb < an unborn child. A person post-born is just as worth fighting for as an unborn person.

[quote name='Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam']I seem to remember a Bible passage where some soldiers come up to St. John the Baptist and ask him how they should live a life of holiness. He does not tell them to quit their jobs (shockingly enough) but rather "He told them, 'Do not practice extortion, do not falsely accuse anyone, and be satisfied with your wages'" (Luke 3:14). This leaves the crowd amazed and it says they wondered if he was the Messiah. Also there is a long tradition of what is known as the "Just War Doctrine" which stems from writings on St. Augustine (a Church Father) on when a Christian may participate in a war justly. There are also writing in St. Thomas Aquinas on this topic. If you are serious about this question, I would look them up. If you need links I can give them to you but a good google search should be able to provide them too.[/quote]

I'll deal with this in two parts:

First, Luke 3:14 is rendered by most translations (including a prominent Catholic translation, the Douay-Rheims Bible!) with the words 'do violence to no one'. Does serving in the military allow a person to do violence to no one? Certainly not.

Even if we take a view with a version which is more military friendly (for instance, the English Standard Version, actually my translation of preference, has 'Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.') one has to note that John the Baptist is speaking to soldiers who were regularly asked in ancient times by their superiors to extort and intimidate, to refuse to do so. In that time, as is the case today, soldiers were often ordered to cover up unjust behaviour or mistakes by saying 'the enemy was at work' - but John the Baptist isn't allowing for this. What is he saying? Do violence to no man, says one translation. Extort no man. Cheat no man. Falsely accuse no man. The soldier, rather than being given the excuse that he was just following orders, [b]must examine [u]every[/u][/b][u] order that he is given[/u] in order to determine that it is just, and allows him to do no violence, to not cheat, extort, or falsely accuse anyone. In other words, his conscience is captive to the orders of his Commander and to the State, not to God and His Holy Word! This is an absolutely untenable position for the Christian, as Peter and some of the apostles, said 'we must obey God rather than men' (Acts 5:29).

For the Christian to enter the military makes Caesar the master of his conscience, when it should be captive to Christ, and Christ alone!

Second, regarding Augustine: you'll notice that many of the citations above are from ante-Nicene writers. This is because, as I mentioned above, Constantine 'baptized the sword'. With Christianity now becoming mainstream in society, the strong barrier between Church and State was broken down and you [i]had to be a Christian to serve in the army[/i]. As such, as far as I'm concerned, anyone post-Constantine writing positively on the subject of the Christian's participation in war is suspect for this reason.

Phew. I've been working on this reply all day. Thanks for your courteous responses guys. Also, cmom and Stanhauser-guy - please don't rip each other's throats out.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Presbylicious' date='31 March 2010 - 01:41 AM' timestamp='1270017707' post='2083910']
Wow, thanks for the replies, everyone!

Thanks, Apo. This answers the question fairly neatly: so it is fair to say a Roman Catholic could actually be a Mennonite-style pacifist? Is there a movement within Catholicism that espouses this sort of nonviolent resistance?
[/quote]

The just war doctrine is official Church teaching. (See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2309.) All Catholics must accept it.

[Presbylicious]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='31 March 2010 - 12:24 AM' timestamp='1270020272' post='2083916']
The just war doctrine is official Church teaching. (See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2309.) All Catholics must accept it.
[/quote] Looking up the catechism at that paragraph and reading a bit further, I found reference to a document called [i]Gaudium et Spes [/i](What exactly is this?)

[indent][font="Times New Roman"][size="3"][size="3"]79. "....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 agree to serve the human community in some other way.[/size][/size][/font]"

[/indent]I'm not entirely sure what to make of this. Does this mean the Roman Catholic Church thinks that those who refuse to bear arms are right to not do so?

Edited March 31, 2010 by Presbylicious

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Presbylicious' date='31 March 2010 - 04:48 AM' timestamp='1270028910' post='2083923']
Looking up the catechism at that paragraph and reading a bit further, I found reference to a document called [i]Gaudium et Spes [/i](What exactly is this?)

[indent][font="Times New Roman"][size="3"][size="3"]79. "....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 agree to serve the human community in some other way.[/size][/size][/font]"

[/indent]I'm not entirely sure what to make of this. Does this mean the Roman Catholic Church thinks that those who refuse to bear arms are right to not do so?
[/quote]

[i]Gaudium et Spes[/i] is an excellent Papal Encyclical from 1965 that lays down the law on some very violent tendencies humanity has. A few years later came [i]Humanae Vitae,[/i] another great encyclical which, word is on the street, a guy named Karol Wojtyla greatly influenced its formulation.

The Church teaches that individuals have the right, and sometimes even the duty, to defend themselves.

Abiding by the Just War theory would eradicate 100% of the wars initiated in the world.

~Sternhauser

Edited March 31, 2010 by Sternhauser

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Presbylicious' date='31 March 2010 - 06:48 AM' timestamp='1270028910' post='2083923']

I'm not entirely sure what to make of this. Does this mean the Roman Catholic Church thinks that those who refuse to bear arms are right to not do so?
[/quote]
No, it simply means you cannot be forced to fight against the dictates of your well-informed conscience, and should not be punished for that belief. However you should do some kind of alternative service for the sake of humanity.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='31 March 2010 - 08:47 AM' timestamp='1270043262' post='2084001']
[i]Gaudium et Spes[/i] is an excellent Papal Encyclical from 1965 that lays down the law on some very violent tendencies humanity has.
[/quote]

Gaudium et Spes is not a papal encyclical. It is a pastoral constitution.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='31 March 2010 - 03:33 PM' timestamp='1270067625' post='2084241']
Gaudium et Spes is not a papal encyclical. It is a pastoral constitution.
[/quote]

Good catch.

~Sternhauser

[Presbylicious]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='31 March 2010 - 01:33 PM' timestamp='1270067625' post='2084241']
Gaudium et Spes is not a papal encyclical. It is a pastoral constitution.
[/quote] What's the difference?

[mortify]

[quote name='Presbylicious' date='31 March 2010 - 02:41 AM' timestamp='1270017707' post='2083910']I'm not certain they should have fought, no. [/quote]

If they hadn't fought you and I would likely have been Muslims.

[quote]Persecution is something the Church had to deal with until Constantine came along and 'baptized the sword'.(Consider: prior to Constantine a Christian could not join the Roman Army - after Constantine, you [i]could not [/i]join the Roman army [i]unless [/i]you had received Baptism!)[/quote]

There are a number of reasons why Christians did not join the Roman Army. The army was rife with idolatry and every soldier had to swear a pledge to the Pagan Emperor, this in itself would be a deterrent to join. But then there are more obvious reasons, the Romans were persecuting Christians, so why should they join their army? Once Rome converted to Christianity and a Christian civil authority was finally established, it only made sense that Christians joined the army to defend it.

[quote]The Church should not use an immoral means in order to defend her liberty. Her Lord told her that she would be persecuted and that she is to [i]love [/i]her enemies and [i]pray for those who persecute her[/i].[/quote]

Yes, I am to love and pray for my enemy, but if my enemy seeks to strike me, do I not have a *right* to defend myself? What if instead they choose to harm someone I love? Is defense not warranted? GK Chesterton said the true soldier fights not because he hates what's in front of him, but because he loves what's behind him. To do [i]nothing[/i] would be the immoral thing to do.

[quote]Also, the better alternative for the man who is drafted in war and whose government refuses to discharge him based on conscientious objector status, is either to go to prison for his convictions, or if he is forcibly placed on the battlefield, to allow himself to be killed. [i]This [/i]would be the far more God-honouring course of action[/quote]

The reality is determining whether a war is just is generally inaccessible to most people fighting, since one really needs an in-depth understanding of the numerous factors involved. In cases where one's conscience is uncertain of the justice of a war, one is permitted to fight regularly.

Now if one knows the war is unjust, and is still forced to fight, they still retain the *right* to defend themselves. Thus even in an unjust war a soldier can return fire and kill enemies that are attacking him. It's not "God honoring" if one permits another to violate their rights.

[quote] You will not find any argument from me that abortion is a terrible evil. But to say that an abortion is a greater evil than a killing in war is to [i]de-value [/i]human beings that are born already, which is another criticism I have of pro-lifers whose sole concern seems to be abortion. It seems like, to such people, people outside the womb < an unborn child. A person post-born is just as worth fighting for as an unborn person.[/quote]

Circumstances have a lot to do with judging a thing morally. Killing an armed soldier who is trying to kill me can't be compared to killing innocent human life in the womb. The circumstances of both cases are entirely different and so is the morality of the action. By natural law I have the right to defend myself, thus killing the enemy soldier is a just thing, on the other hand destroying a fetus is utterly unjust, as it is innocent and has the inalienable right to life. That our society has granted a license to perform these horrific acts against this most helpless group of human beings is appalling.

[Presbylicious]

[quote name='mortify' date='31 March 2010 - 10:43 PM' timestamp='1270100628' post='2084662']
If they hadn't fought you and I would likely have been Muslims.[/quote] Really? So God would have permitted His Church to be eradicated?
[quote]Now if one knows the war is unjust, and is still forced to fight, they still retain the *right* to defend themselves. Thus even in an unjust war a soldier can return fire and kill enemies that are attacking him. It's not "God honoring" if one permits another to violate their rights.
[/quote] I seem to recall that my Lord and Saviour honoured God, His Father by permitting His 'rights' to be violated - to death.

This is the example Christians should be following.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Presbylicious

[Presbylicious]

[quote name='Presbylicious' date='02 April 2010 - 12:16 AM' timestamp='1270192607' post='2085422']This is the example Christians should be following.
[/quote] If I recall, it's also the example that men like Maximillian Kolbe followed, and he is viewed by the Catholic Church as a Saint, is he not?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Presbylicious' date='02 April 2010 - 04:16 AM' timestamp='1270192607' post='2085422']
This is the example Christians should be following.
[/quote]
On this we will disagree.