Pacifism and Matthew 5:39

[jmjtina]

they didn't even follow the treaty when it stated what should be done to them if they WERE to break it.

I think my brain is going faster than my hands.

and because I'm cleaning at the same time.

[philothea]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 23 2005, 10:01 PM']you know in Jesus' time turning the other cheek was an INSULT, basically like saying "is that all you got punk?"
[right][snapback]656261[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Do you have a reference for that? In context, it seems unlikely...

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles."

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 23 2005, 10:13 PM']okay... so next time a murderer is holding his gun to someone I'll just break out into "I have a dream, that one day, you will not murder that person!"

no... sorry, I'll pull the trigger of a gun in a heartbeat to stop him from murdering an innocent person.
oh, and maybe if the Allies during WWII would've said "I have a dream, that one day, Hitler will not invade Poland and cause havoc over Europe and kill millions of people"..

sorry, SOMETIMES, words are not enough.
[right][snapback]656285[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

u don't need to kill him to stop him, in your the second scenario.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]Is there some Church or biblical teaching that says that people are required to use violence? (If biblical, New Testament, please.)[/quote]

Yes, actually. From the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

[quote]Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. [b]The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. [/b]The end of the Commandment­ is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.[/quote]

Taking up violence against an unjust agressor is an act of OBEDIENCE to the sixth commandment, and thus morally necessary. The Church does allow conscientous objections in the context of war, since society as a whole takes up defense, and thus one person is not going to make the difference. This provision is akin to St. Paul's teaching that those Jewish converts who couldn't in good conscience eat meat to refrain, and those who could, to do so. Eating meat was nevertheless morally licit, whether they ate it or not. The same is true of violence in some circumstances.

[quote]JPII was a pacifist. It can hardly be incompatible with Catholic doctrine! [/quote]

John Paul II was not a pacifist. Not only was he in the army himself, he also defended the Church's teaching on Capital Punishment (its licitness in certain circumstances), and he also did not oppose the US war in Afghanistan.

Christ's command to "turn the other cheek" does not imply an absolute rule of pacifism, anymore than his command to "give your cloak" is a rule for Franciscan poverty, or his command to "call no man father" is a condemnation of sacerdotal titles. Rather, it is an exhortation to be willing to endure persecution however far it goes.

Christ did not tell the Roman centurion when he met him to give up his arms. He told him to be just in exercising his duties as a soldier, not to rape and pillage, and so forth.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='philothea' date='Jul 23 2005, 07:14 PM']
I don't understand how you can say that.
[right][snapback]655936[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Errr.

Is there some Church or biblical teaching that says that people are required to use violence? (If biblical, New Testament, please.)

JPII was a pacifist. It can hardly be incompatible with Catholic doctrine!
[right][snapback]656098[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Why New Testement the Old Testement is just as Valid, God didn't just Change His very Nature the day of the Incarnation he just showed us a good deal more of it. I think there are times that it is morally obligatory to use violence but I think it is never morally obligatory to use violence to defend oneself, one has the right to allow ones own life to be taken, that is not true of the defenceless that one is responsable for. for example I think it is morally obligatory for a parent to use violence to protect his Child, likewise it is obligatory for the soldier or policemen to use violence to protect the citizen, one is required to defend those one is responsable for.

Was JPII a pacifist? I don't recall him saying that violence was never permissable--- by the way just as an aside pacifism has been pivotal in the escalation of warfare for hundreds of years but that I suppose is a differant story.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]I think it is never morally obligatory to use violence to defend oneself, one has the right to allow ones own life to be taken[/quote]

I'm not so sure about that. "Love your neighbor as you love yourself". If you don't love yourself enough to defend your own life, how can you love your neighbor enough to defend their life?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='jmjtina' date='Jul 23 2005, 10:09 PM']Martin Luther King Jr. only used words?

Four words:

Open your history book.
[right][snapback]656275[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Martia Luther king did not just use words, the "I have a dream" speach was near the end of his career, further he was not [i]that [/i] opposed to violence he certianly didn't try to activly stop it from being used by people in his own movement. Finally I would argue that "civil disobediance" is in fact Violence at it's heart and soul, it is just low intensity violence and agianst people who have a conscience it is fairly effective ( which is why it worked for Gandi, the brits wouldn't just shoot the little troublemaker) but it is fairly useless agianst an enemy who will just kill you, remember Teineman Square. As for Leo Tolstoy he was hardly a shining example of morality.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jul 24 2005, 10:38 PM']I'm not so sure about that. "Love your neighbor as you love yourself". If you don't love yourself enough to defend your own life, how can you love your neighbor enough to defend their life?
[right][snapback]657790[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


You might love yourself plenty, but one might choose to allow violence to be done to you as a Christian witness, as many of the Martyrs did, but one cannot make that choice for an innocent one is responsable for.

[Guest Eremite]

The martyrs didn't have a choice.

There's a difference between accepting the inevitable (ie, martyrdom) when there is no prospect of stopping it, and declining not to stop it when possible.

I can walk down a street of Sudan and start proclaiming Christ as Lord, and be killed within 5 minutes. But there's nothing honorable about that.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jul 24 2005, 10:51 PM']The martyrs didn't have a choice.

There's a difference between accepting the inevitable (ie, martyrdom) when there is no prospect of stopping it, and declining not to stop it when possible.

I can walk down a street of Sudan and start proclaiming Christ as Lord, and be killed within 5 minutes. But there's nothing honorable about that.
[right][snapback]657808[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I didn't say you should seek it out, and many of the martyrs had a choice, many indeed, could have kissed a Koran or eaten meat sacrificed to Idols or even fought, some where professional soldiers ( St Morris springs to mind and he had a whole Christian legion to fight with) but they didn't choose to fight because they submited to what they believed was legitiment authority. Many martyrs could have run--- PETER Anyone--- but chose not to because proper Christian witness demanded that they stand firm. Now as for your sudan comment I couldn't disagree more, that is precisely what Chirst commanded that we do, Proclaim him as Lord.

[Guest Eremite]

By not putting up a resistance to an attack, when there is a reasonable prospect for success, then you are seeking out that attack.

St. Peter did not seek out martyrdom. He carried out his apostolic duty.

Now, if martyrdom is an inevitable consequence of your duties to God, then the course must be followed.

Nevertheless, when there is a reasonable way to escape an attack against you, you need to make use of it.

If martyrdom is indeed your lot in life, then God will see to it that it does not require suicide.

And no, God does not call us to do stupid things like seek out martyrdom for the sake of martyrdom. A missionary understands his mission is to save souls, not get himself killed for the sake of getting killed. He will avoid getting killed insofar as is possible, so that he can continue his duty to save souls. Preaching to those firmly entrenched in another religion, knowing they will kill you in 5 minutes, is not saving souls. It is in fact ensuring that you won't be around to preach to anyone.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jul 24 2005, 11:50 PM']By not putting up a resistance to an attack, when there is a reasonable prospect for success, then you are seeking out that attack.

St. Peter did not seek out martyrdom. He carried out his apostolic duty.

Now, if martyrdom is an inevitable consequence of your duties to God, then the course must be followed.

Nevertheless, when there is a reasonable way to escape an attack against you, you need to make use of it.

If martyrdom is indeed your lot in life, then God will see to it that it does not require suicide.

And no, God does not call us to do stupid things like seek out martyrdom for the sake of martyrdom. A missionary understands his mission is to save souls, not get himself killed for the sake of getting killed. He will avoid getting killed insofar as is possible, so that he can continue his duty to save souls. Preaching to those firmly entrenched in another religion, knowing they will kill you in 5 minutes, is not saving souls. It is in fact ensuring that you won't be around to preach to anyone.
[right][snapback]657856[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


[quote]By not putting up a resistance to an attack, when there is a reasonable prospect for success, then you are seeking out that attack.[/quote]
That is simply absurd, the faulyty logic there cannot be expressed in words, Christ did not resist attacks on HIM. Agian I am no pacifist anyone on here who has been here any time can tell you I am anything but a pacifist, but one is not obligated to defend ones life using violence. On the other hand one is always impowered to use violene to defend ones life what ever the chances for success.


[quote]If martyrdom is indeed your lot in life, then God will see to it that it does not require suicide.[/quote]

Suicide is a word too often thrown around, accepting Death is not suicide it is simply Christian, and what kingd of Calvinest B.S. is that anyway as if your destiny was fixed by God and you had no say in the matter, there is that little thing called free will.


[
I never said anything about seeking martyrdom for the sake of Martyrdom, I said it is are obligation to preach to the infidel even if it might mean martyrdom, do you realize how many missionaries have been martyred over the last 20 centuries. Thank you I know all about missionary activity I studied with a missionary order, was given months of preperation for the missions and only did not go because of a serious illness which I got as we where to leave. I understand perfectly what a missionaries role is and being prepared for death isa very real part of it.
[quote]Preaching to those firmly entrenched in another religion, knowing they will kill you in 5 minutes, is not saving souls. It is in fact ensuring that you won't be around to preach to anyone.[/quote]


beaver dam I guess someone should have told that to the Jesuitss who died preaching to the Huron, or those silly Fransicans and Oblates who died preaching to the Comanche, Apache and Kiowa. Of Course before you tell them you might want to mention it to the 11 apostles who where martyred. You preach to the Heathen sometimes that will cost you your life sometimes the will convert and sometimes you have a man like Cortes ready to smash the enemies religion for God-- and if you really study the conquest you will find that was very, very, important to Cortes. HAving someone like that makes life easier for the missionary but still saving souls often requires risk, particularly among the Heathen of course all of our ancesters where equally savage before Christ was brought to us.

Edited July 25, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]Christ did not resist attacks on HIM. [/quote]

Yes, he did actually. Scripture specifically notes times when he escaped blood thirsty crowds because his time had not yet come. That is irrelevant, however, because Christ is God. He gives life, and he has the authority to take it, including his own. We do not have the authority to take our own lives, directly or indirectly. Only God has that authority.

[quote]accepting Death is not suicide it is simply Christian[/quote]

Of course it is. Accepting death where there is a reasonable way to live is not Christian, it is suicide.

[quote]what kingd of Calvinest B.S. is that anyway as if your destiny was fixed by God and you had no say in the matter, there is that little thing called free will.
[/quote]

Yes, it's possible to have no say in whether someone else kills. That is an unfortunate result of our limited human capability. If we are surrounded by 100 people, our free will can not make us disappear. What they decide to do is out of our control, and we must accept it, whatever it is.

[quote]HAving someone like that makes life easier for the missionary but still saving souls often requires risk, particularly among the Heathen of course all of our ancesters where equally savage before Christ was brought to us.[/quote]

You need to stop erecting straw men and responding to them. I specifically noted that there our vocations must be followed, even if they involve martyrdom.

The only time it is just to surrender to an attacker is where there is no reasonable chance to overcome it, as the Catechism notes in the context of illness:

[quote]Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted.

--2278[/quote]

To apply that principle to a physical attacker, one may decline to fight against lions. "Here one does not will to cause death; one's ability to impede is merely accepted".

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Jul 25 2005, 10:08 AM']Yes, he did actually. Scripture specifically notes times when he escaped blood thirsty crowds because his time had not yet come. That is irrelevant, however, because Christ is God. He gives life, and he has the authority to take it, including his own. We do not have the authority to take our own lives, directly or indirectly. Only God has that authority.
Of course it is. Accepting death where there is a reasonable way to live is not Christian, it is suicide.
Yes, it's possible to have no say in whether someone else kills. That is an unfortunate result of our limited human capability. If we are surrounded by 100 people, our free will can not make us disappear. What they decide to do is out of our control, and we must accept it, whatever it is.
You need to stop erecting straw men and responding to them. I specifically noted that there our vocations must be followed, even if they involve martyrdom.

The only time it is just to surrender to an attacker is where there is no reasonable chance to overcome it, as the Catechism notes in the context of illness:
To apply that principle to a physical attacker, one may decline to fight against lions. "Here one does not will to cause death; one's ability to impede is merely accepted".
[right][snapback]658077[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


[quote]Yes, he did actually. Scripture specifically notes times when he escaped blood thirsty crowds because his time had not yet come. That is irrelevant, however, because Christ is God. He gives life, and he has the authority to take it, including his own. We do not have the authority to take our own lives, directly or indirectly. Only God has that authority.[/quote]

Christ actions are irrelevent, funny I thought Christ was also fully man and that we were supposed to look to His life as the ultimate example of our own. Christ had the Power to stop his death with but a word yet he did not, therefore not stoping ones death even when one has the power Cannot be suicide because suicide is a sin and Christ did not sin.

[quote]Of course it is. Accepting death where there is a reasonable way to live is not Christian, it is suicide.[/quote]
You are simply wrong see above.

[quote]Yes, it's possible to have no say in whether someone else kills. That is an unfortunate result of our limited human capability. If we are surrounded by 100 people, our free will can not make us disappear. What they decide to do is out of our control, and we must accept it, whatever it is.[/quote]

No we have no control over what others do, but we where discussing going to preach and that isa choice, backing down when confronted with force is also a choice, often simply forsaking the Faith to live is a choice as well, one is not predeterermend to be a martyr, one is martyred because one chooses God over life-- Something Christ specificly instructed us to do.


[quote]You need to stop erecting straw men and responding to them. I specifically noted that there our vocations must be followed, even if they involve martyrdom.[/quote]


I erected no straw men you specificly stated that following your vocation to preach to the heathen knowing he would likely kill you was "suicide"( your word) so I responded to that that is not constructins a straw man that is called discussion, if you would like to withdraw your previous statement or modify it in some way you are welcome to do it. But don't say I am constructing a straw man because I responded to your statement.

Medical procedures are not analgous, modern medicine can determine what can and cannot be cured quite easily, the same can never be determined in a physical combat, one can kill a lion with ones bear hands, it has been done, and I assure you a group of men can do it quite easily, they might have some casualties but they can do it, yet the Early christian didn't even try, there are many saints that could have used force to stay alive and did not. St. Morris, St. Moses the Black, St. Lawrance ( now that is someone who simply asked for death and was reportedly overjoyed to meet it). And likewise there are many martyrs who where missionaries who went to the heathen knowing they would most likly meet death St. Issac Jogues springs to mind, a Jesuit missionary to the Huron who suffered a year of torture at the hands of the Iroquois escaped and one he made it back to France requested to be sent back, he was and he and another priest where martyred by Mohawks almost immediately. There are many others in both Catagories--- what you say is simply not in the Tradition of the Church, on is never obligated to use violence in defene of ones own life. However I still contend that one might be obligated to do so in defence of anothers life.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Light and Truth' date='Jul 23 2005, 02:11 PM']I'm not a pacifist, but in a debate a while back, the opposing view offered Matthew 5:39 to support pacifism.  I haven't fully resolved my understanding in light of this verse.  Can anyone help me?

Matthew 5:39 in the NKJV that I have is:   "But I tell you not to resist an eavil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."

Thank you.
[right][snapback]655880[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The way I Iook at it is this: we are not sola scriptura protestants. The cathechism, while acknowledging that nonviolence is preferred, states that there are legitimate uses of deadly force. As I don't have my catechism handy, please look for the section on "legitimate defense".

We do not "camp out on" that verse to universally exclude the right of self-defense.