What would you be willing to do

[Thumper]

[quote name='Timothy' date='Nov 22 2005, 01:20 PM']After thinking about actually having to do harm to another and whether or not it is just or unjust, personally I bnelieve it is a just cause.  The only thing that confuses me is the time when Peter went to draw his sword to defend Christ when he was arrested, and Christ told him to put his sword down.  However, there is also much support for protecting people in a violent manner if it is the last option. i.e. just war.  So, I have come to the conclusion that if protecting Christ in a nonviolent manner is not an option, and I am wrong for inflicting pain to someone...well I guess I will have to live with that, but I know my heart was in the right place.
[right][snapback]797762[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Timothy, that passage gives me pause as well--but it may be that it makes me come to a full stop! I agree that there is a tradition about being able to protect others from harm by using force. It seems to me, though, that Jesus made it pretty clear through the story of Peter and the sword (not to mention numerous other passages about persecution for faith and turning the other cheeck) that we shouldn't defend him in a violent manner. Again, that ties in to my understanding that Jesus Christ is Lord of the Universe--nothing human can truly injure the King of Glory.

Which leads me to a question--when would protecting Christ in a nonviolent manner not be an option?

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 22 2005, 12:28 PM']I agree with Thump.

This understanding of the role of the Tabernacle is askew.  The tabernacle is not a prison, but rather it is a house or a home for the consecrated host.
[right][snapback]797774[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
a lot of adoration prayers say stuff like "Sacred Heart of Jesus, who hast made thyself a prisoner in our tabernacles, have mercy on us" and stuff like that. The wording comes up a lot in traditional prayers. I don't think it necessarily alludes to the tabernacle being a prison (yes, it is God's house), but of Christ making Himself vulnerable in the hands of people. He allows Himself to come into the world in the form of bread and wine in the hands of a priest, and in a sense is very vulnerable.

[Thumper]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Nov 22 2005, 02:09 PM']a lot of adoration prayers say stuff like "Sacred Heart of Jesus, who hast made thyself a prisoner in our tabernacles, have mercy on us" and stuff like that.  The wording comes up a lot in traditional prayers.  I don't think it necessarily alludes to the tabernacle being a prison (yes, it is God's house), but of Christ making Himself vulnerable in the hands of people.  He allows Himself to come into the world in the form of bread and wine in the hands of a priest, and in a sense is very vulnerable.
[right][snapback]797821[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I agree it's imagery that is used in the tradition. If the imagery calls us to be respectful and careful and pious in regard to the Blessed Sacrament, that is all well and good.

My point, in light of this thread, is how "vulnerable" Jesus Christ is at this point in salvation history when he is sitting in glory at the right hand of the Father. I think my question is, given the fact that many would defend the Blessed Sacrament with their life, why is such a defense necessary?

Nothing human beings can do can harm Christ. So the idea that we would defend the Blessed Sacrament to the death in order to protect a "vulnerable" Jesus Christ doesn't make sense to me. Also, in the sad cases of the Eucharist being stolen for black masses, etc., I don't believe that Jesus Christ will allow his own Body to be used for evil. So it is not as if the defense is for the purpose of preventing the Blessed Sacrament to be used to give Satan power (though Satanists may believe they are giving power to Satan).

I think the answer to my question is more in the area of recognizing our own responsibility to act on behalf of Christ. In a sense, we are not simply defending Christ, but are defending what we believe to be most sacred, true and holy. In other words, I think defense of the Eucharist, and how we go about it, ends up being more about preserving our integrity as believers and friends of Christ than it is about protecting Christ per se.

Edited November 22, 2005 by Thumper

[Timothy]

So if the Church and we as Catholics believe in just war, how is defending Christ not just? If we are to lay our life down for our brothers and sisters and take others life for a just cause, then how can we not defend Christ with the same virtues?


I hope this doesn't come off like I want to go around looking to hurt people

[Thumper]

[quote name='Timothy' date='Nov 22 2005, 04:31 PM']So if the Church and we as Catholics believe in just war, how is defending Christ not just?  If we are to lay our life down for our brothers and sisters and take others life for a just cause, then how can we not defend Christ with the same virtues?
I hope this doesn't come off like  I want to go around looking to hurt people
[right][snapback]797948[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, I don't think you're wandering around looking for a fight.

I'm just giving my opinion about how I think it would be best to defend Christ, given the fact that I see him as the foundation for teachings about peace and justice. And I think scripture passages such as the one with Peter and the sword may point us to another way of thinking about defending Christ apart from violence.

You indicated in the previous post that if defending the Eucharist in a non-violent manner was not an option, then you would defend the Eucharist through violence. OK, that's your opinion. I'm wondering at what point you would say "non-violence isn't the answer--I'll need to use violence at this point"?

[beatty07]

The observation that Jesus isn't harmed is critical. Protecting the Blessed Sacrament prevents an evil, and that's good. It protects would-be assailents from perpetrating an evil, and that's charity. But it doesn't protect Jesus. Jesus is not diminished in any way by any sacrilege. In fact, His submission to sacrileges upon his earthly body only showed forth his glory!

Deadly force is not an appropriate measure to prevent sacrilege or save someone from committing it. At least it sure doesn't seem like it to me. Perhaps we should query the CDF.

Can someone translate to Latin: "Wither the slaying of satanic terrorists in the act of menacing the Blessed Sacrament?"

[Timothy]

To the CDF we go!!!!

[Timothy]

From the CCC ( I hope I'm using this in context).



2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Edited November 22, 2005 by Timothy

[tojo]

Since Jesus isn't harmed by our "chewing Him," I can't imagine that He is harmed by sacrilege. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of harming someone to prevent sacrilege, especially to the point of death.

[Sarah_JC]

I think I would approach reverently and consume the Eucharist. Then I'd probably say something in jest, or dance about in victory... and that would be what gets me killed.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote=Sarah_JC]
I think I would approach reverently and consume the Eucharist. Then I'd probably say something in jest, or dance about in victory.
[/quote]

You know, it's the crazy dichotomy of those types of statements that are so prevalent here that really confuses me.
------------------------------

[quote =tomasio127]
Since Jesus isn't harmed by our "chewing Him," I can't imagine that He is harmed by sacrilege. [/quote]

I find it bizarre that you see no difference between the consumption of the eucharist of a devout believer and the blood of goats being poured on it while sex acts are performed in the background....no harm? Jeeze

-------------------------------

The best part of this thread is the fun of me imagining hot stuff imagining terrorist satanists...



and WHY AREN'T MY QUOTES WORKING?!

Edited November 23, 2005 by Cow of Shame

[tojo]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Nov 23 2005, 12:34 AM']I find it bizarre that you see no difference between the consumption of the eucharist of a devout believer and the blood of goats being poured on it while sex acts are performed in the background....no harm?  Jeeze
[right][snapback]798325[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I didn't say that there was no difference, I was just pointing to consumption to point out that it causes Christ no harm, and that sacrilege, while dishonor Christ, doesn't "hurt Him." As awful as sacrilege is, I don't think Christ would want us to kill to prevent it, since He would rather see the men live to repent, since He desire that "all should come to everlasting life."

[Timothy]

I think we could all agree nobody wants to kill anybody...I don't think I could even physically do that if I tried unless I had a weapon. I guess I was just thinking of an ultra extreme situation for example lets say and crazed satinist or any person at that, with a gun, walks in while you're in adoration. You notice he is going to go for the Eucharist, so you go fo it and consume it before he can get to it. Out of rage he looses it and threatens your life and starts to beat you. You realize that if you don't do something you are going to be killed! So what do you do?

Edited November 23, 2005 by Timothy

[Paphnutius]

I was just about to say it is odd, but seemly, that this thread has turned from you loosing your life for the Eucharist to taking someone else's in defense of it.

Question for you Timothy...what is the satanist wanting you to do? Why is he threatening you? You has supposedly already thwarted his plans by consuming the Host, so what does he want?

Edited November 23, 2005 by Paphnutius

[AlterDominicus]

Yes. God is my God, and I'm not about to let some crackpot guy "try" (even though he will fail again) take the "Under God" out of the pledge, and the "In God We Trust" off our dollar bills.

I mean. I had this day dream the other day and it was about Satanists trying to burn down a Church, I woke up in bed ran to my mom and said, "WE HAVE TO GO TO THIS CHURCH!" And got in the car and drove there. I saw the flames after getting out of the car and I decided that I dont care if my life would end up being taken by this decison I'm going to make. Then I ran into the Church grabbed the blessed sacrament, and I dont know what happend after that, I came back to reality.