You & the popes are very wise to say that love is the only bringer of true peace. However, does this mean that all violence is to be condemned? Can violence be a part of love?
It seems to me that problem with your analysis & interpretation of the words of the popes is that violence in all situations is deemed to be unloving. Violence in self-defense, particularly when defending others, seems to be a loving (ie self-sacrificing) thing.
So I ask you this: if a woman is being mugged & beaten, what do you do (presuming you are physically capable of defending the woman)? Do you try to push the man off of her (which is an act of violence) or do you walk away like the men in the Good Samaritan parable? Or is there a third avenue that I don't see?
To me, the idea of the popes is this. I am allowed to use violence to push off the woman's attacker, but unless I bring love into the situation, that is I forgive the mugger and lovingly care for the woman, there will be no peace. Watching her being beaten does not seem to bring peace. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know why and what precisely you would do instead.
"I am grateful for my freedom, but ungrateful for the violence done to secure that freedom. There are only a few ways out of this conflict.."
I appreciate your reflection on nonviolence, and thank you for sharing these powerful words of the Holy Father that I was not aware of.
However, it's not necessary to claim that America's political/economic freedoms have been brought about by "the blood shed by Christ and his countless disciples throughout the ages" to make sense of this situation. I think the situation is much simpler. To the extent that the social freedoms we enjoy as Americans were won by unjust violence, these have been given to us as ill-gotten gifts.
Logically, I'm arguing for a fifth option: Grateful for the freedoms but disapproving of some of the ways they were gotten, and treating the freedoms accordingly. Logically, there's no contradiction between being grateful for something and not being grateful for the actions that brought it to me, though the latter may have implications.
Here's what I mean: If someone steals a car and gives it to me (say, drops it off at my house and I don't have any way to get it back to its rightful owner), perhaps the moral thing to do would be to not accept the gift as my own to do whatever I want with it--give it to someone who needs it or to charity. (But it would be odd to claim that the blood of the martyrs somehow brought this car to me.)
So I guess what I'm suggesting is that there's no contradiction between recognizing that freedoms (or cars) are a good thing, but given the circumstances, we simply recognize that these freedoms are not ours to do with as we wish. We are compelled to give these freedoms back, to use our freedoms for the good of others--most especially any people who have been hurt in our gaining them.
As an aside, we know that war is always a loss for humanity--it is never something to celebrate or be thankful for. Instead, Memorial Day is about remembering people who have died in wars, celebrating the people. When we bear in mind their suffering, we are imitating God's compassion.
I would suggest we need to define what it means to be free, and question (really question) how free we are in the US.
We have a mantra we are told from our youth: this system is the one which leads to freedom. We believe it, and we believe other systems are not as free. What freedom are we offered? Certainly not the freedom in Christ; indeed, we are told to live to the self, to live it up, follow our desires to the limit -- and we are told this is freedom. Christ's freedom suggests the opposite... indeed, I would say our system enslaves, enslaves people to the culture of death and to sin. It's why most peoplecan't think beyond its dictates, and those who can feel no ability to stop it.
It is an interesting fact that many non-Westerners, when they get to a so-called "land of Freedom", do not feel a sense of increased freedom; they notice some things they were not free to do they are now free to do, but other things they were free to do they are not free to do; moreover, they felt in the overall balance of things, their sense of freedom was at a loss.
As Pope Benedict XVI says in his new book, Jesus of Nazareth, violence can never be considered part of or an expression of love.
I don't know how you can even try to marry violence to Christian charity.
I appreciate your powerful words on violence and freedom. However, I would like to hear more about how Christ's sacrifice secures political freedom -- something that you assert twice, but needs more elaboration than you give here to be entirely convincing.
On the flip side, I am not certain I agree that "war and violence... will never purchase freedom or peace." I'm thinking concretely and historically. It seems difficult to argue that the violence of the Revolutionary War did not play a part in securing the political freedom of (many) British colonists; that the Civil War did not play a part in securing the freedom of slaves; that fighting in WWII did not play a part in secure the freedom of those that the Axis powers had conquered. Perhaps the difference lies in how we define terms such as freedom, peace, and purchase. But it isn't clear that Americans could possess the freedom that they experience without the war and violence used to obtain them.
The Christian peace that you describe may grant a moral freedom, eternal life, and peace of the soul, but it is hard to see how it alone, without violence, without war, would have secured the individual, social, and political freedom that we value today.
I think we need to get beyond mantras like we owe our freedom to the military. Honestly, non-Americans find this kind of rhetoric a little bizarre. Put it this way: all European countries enjoy the same freedoms as Americans, and yet they do not dress it up in military garb and parade it. What does engaging in unjust wars in Iraq have to do with securing freedom? On the contrary, it makes the world less secure, less safe, and less free.
As American Catholics, living in this time of ours, we must be troubled. That is if we are paying attention. Some of the most important elements of our civilization have been threatened greatly. These elements include the Geneva Conventions, (first devised, in part, in 1863), the US Constitution, (dating back to our founding of course) and the Right of Habeas Corpus, (going all the way back to Runnymede in 1215). All of this made possible from the fear and rage that enveloped the American consciousness following the September 11th attacks.
Very average American citizens now openly propose the notion of legalizing torture. In the pursuit of high office, our supposed future leaders openly endorse such notions. In the process, such techniques invented and popularized by the regimes of tyrants like Stalin and Pol Pot, gradually are obtaining an American face. In light of this, I pause before beginning a defense of armed combat. All that having been said, I must take issue with the following.
"In spite of the bloodshed committed in the name of freedom, I remain free - individually, socially, politically, because of the blood shed by Christ and his countless disciples throughout the ages."
Of course, Christ's sacrifice has given all of humanity the chance to be spiritually free, which is freedom in the greatest sense...the ultimate sense...the final sense.
But how his sacrifice possibly provide political freedom? Contrary to Pres. Bush's assertion, democracy is not God's gift to mankind. Democracy is a distinctly human invention, perhaps our best one. It was not developed by the Church, the Church itself is not a democracy. Indeed, throughout most of it's history, the Church has praised non-democratic rulers and promoted the divine right of kings. One can't find much fault here, as the Church is made up of humans and humans can be very flawed. Besides, through most of it's history, no one else was pushing democracy either. But religious freedom has been the Church's pursuit in modern times, not political freedom.
My grandparents were devout Catholics, old-world and old-school. They fled their mother countries of Ireland and Portugal in the 1920's, little more than children. They were in search of economic and political freedom. And I do not think that it calls my mother's parent's faith into question to speculate that they didn't have too much political freedom in super-Catholic Portugal under the fascist yet outwardly devout dictator Antonio Salazar.
And I hope it does not call into question my faith to feel thankful for the blood shed by prior generations of Americans in the service of their country. I do say prior generations and that's not to denigrate the service of today's military. Today's military has a task harder than ever before. It's only the fear-mongering politicians put current conflicts at the same levels as prior ones, which is not realistic by any measure, and do s
It's only the fear-mongering politicians put current conflicts at the same levels as prior ones, which is not realistic by any measure, and do so only for political purposes.
However, I do not feel any more thankful for war than you apparently do. War is evil. There are no good wars. Sometimes there are inevitable wars, the challenge of all humanity, (not just Catholics or other Christians) is to avoid war whenever possible. Yet every time humanity goes to war, humanity fails.
And yes, problems do exist.
One can be illustrated by the following. A young Robert E. Lee once said, "It is a good thing war is so terrible...lest we grow too fond of it." There is some great wisdom there. Today, Americans don't realize how terrible war is. We watch too many movies. Today, most of us don't serve in the military or even know anyone who serves in the military. This isn't some criticism of lack of public service. Just a disconnect from reality and an overindulgence in fantasy.
Another problem, and I'm glad to say that on average American Catholics seem to do it less than other Christians, is the attempt to try and bath our wars in our religion. That is to say, some Americans wrongly assume that God is on our side and thusly we as Americans can do no wrong. But God doesn't love America or Americans any more than he loves any other country or it's inhabitants. Christ shed his blood on the cross for the spiritual freedom of the world, not so Americans could go to the ballot box in November. America is a secular democracy, not a Christian one, no matter how many Americans may be Christian. No conflagration troubles me more.
Yes as followers of Christ, the Prince of Peace, armed conflict is completely foreign to our faith. Yet we are still very flawed children of God. This is not an excuse for participating in armed conflict but it is an explanation. We must try to be the best Christians we can be, which inevitably means being the most peaceful Christians we can be. When we as humans fail, there can be no way to truly reconcile it with our religious beliefs. Still, we can not be ignorant of history. Through the actions of flawed humans, warfare however misguided, has served the purposes of our religion from the days of Constantine to the liberation of Rome from the Nazis. Perhaps, that's a tragedy but it's also a reality.
It is uncomfortable if we are truthful. Christians should abhor warfare and violence, yet we still benefit from it.
I'm not sure Michael was trying to "marry Christian charity to violence" when he rightly pointed out that there are legitimate times for self-defense - even times when one has a grave duty to exerise physical defense of one's self or others.
The Catechism states in paragraph 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 renderedunable 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 responsiblity."
This is in the section regarding legitimate self-defense, not just war. It seems to be referring directly to the kind of situations that Michael raised. Of course, one would always use the least amount of force possible to stop the aggressor, but I do not see how it violates charity to protect the innocent from the aggressive sin of another.
I just wouldn't go so far as to say that violence can be an act of love. I don't know how you can defend violence in grounds of charity.
Katerina:
I think if you get into a fight to help defend a woman from a mugger, that would be a type of charity as you are giving of yourself, blow by blow, for the woman.
Perhaps our disagreement becomes clearer if you respond to my scenario. That is, what does a man do if he sees a woman being physically attacked? Is it permissible for him to defend the woman or should he not? Nate's hard line against violence seems to suggest a "no" response. Then additionally, if violence to defend others isn't Christian love or charity, then what precisely is it that allows it to be permissible under Christian morality?
It would probably also help me if you or Nate would define "violence." Are you using the defintion as "any act of aggression or force against another person" or do you have a more narrow defintion?
Michael,
I think the scenario you raise involves intervening to stop violence. This does not require violence "blow by blow" as you imply.
Here's one example, excerpted from the Houston Catholic Worker (http://www.cjd.org/paper/change.html):
"In The Long Loneliness Dorothy also responded to critics who believe that pacifists will stand by while their relatives are attacked. She used the example of responding to violence in the houses to answer the questions and accusations, making it clear that she was not opposed to police action when necessary:
'What would you do if an armed maniac were to attack you, your child, your mother? How many times have we heard this. Restrain him, of course, but not kill him. Confine him if necessary. But perfect love casts our fear and love over-comes hatred. All this sounds trite but experience is not trite.
'On one occasion an armed maniac did try to kill Arthur Sheehan, one of our editors during the war. A victim of World War I, who had already assaulted several other men in the house and almost broken my wrist one day when I tried to turn off the radio in the kitchen, took a large breadknife and a crucifix and announced that he was going to kill Arthur. Another woman and I seized him, forcing him to drop the knife. We could not hold him, however, and after he had hurled a gallon can of vegetables at Arthur and smashed a hole in the wall, we restrained him long enough to allow Arthur to escape. We called the police and asked that Harry be con-fined to Bellevue for obser-vation, but since we would not bring charges against him the hospital released him the next day. Later we persuaded them to keep him for a month in the psychiatric ward. He was returned to the hospital, but at the end of thirty days he was out again, and continued to eat on our breadline during the war.'"
Here's another, from JCecil3: http://nomorewar2.blogspot.com/
Search for the paragraph that starts
"About two years ago, I was tutoring an inner city youth"
It would probably also help me if you or Nate would define "violence." Are you using the defintion as "any act of aggression or force against another person" or do you have a more narrow defintion?
Catholic teaching on the legitimate use of military force and the profession of a soldier. An absolute (pacifist) condemnation of the military cannot be reconciled with Catholic tradition or the Catechism.
(On that note -- and pardon, but being his son I'm a tad biased 
-- see Dr. Blosser's "War and the Eclipse of Moral Reasoning" New Oxford Review April 2002 for a detailed analysis of rival Christian approaches to war).
As George Weigel observed:
In classic Catholic thought, armed force is not intrinsically suspect, morally speaking. Classic Catholic thinking about world politics understands that armed force can be used for good or evil, depending on who’s using it, why, to what purposes, and how. Armed force is one instrument among the many available to prudent statecraft. Other instruments should be tried first. But the use of armed force under certain specific circumstances – defined by the just war tradition – can serve the rule of law, not wreck it.
I think it remains that those who assert an absolute prohibition on the use of force (whether as a soldier in the military, or in the exercise of enforcing public order as, say, a policeman) have to square this against Catholic tradition.
Tim:
Restraint is a form of violence. You are exerting physical force upon them. Can you pulverize the guy into a pulp? No (unless the situation demanded it to save the life, which would be a rare situation indeed). But that's still an authorization of violence which is banned under Nate's (and perhaps Katerina's) argument.
Christopher's right. Catholic tradition does not hold that all war was unneccessary. Even Tolkien, who is a pacifist, suggests in a letter dated April 30, 1944 that despite war being a "waste...not only material but moral and spiritual," that it "will be neccessary to face it in an evil world" (From the "Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien" ed. by Humphrey Carpenter). This is not a ringing endorsement of all war but seems to suggest that Tolkien, though hating war, is not appalled by the participation of his son in war though he rightly fears for his son and as such believes in the just use of force.
I haven't heard an answer to Michael's question yet. I've struggled a great deal with this question of whether violence is ever justified for a Christian and I found myself coming up with the exact same analogy that Michael did. Yes, we all know what a good neighbor does when he comes upon the Samaritan after he's been beaten to a pulp. But what if we came by 15 minutes earlier when he was in the process of being beaten to a pulp? What if the local child molester, appreciative of your gentle meekness, informs you that he's going to take away your children (or your neighbor's children) and rape and murder them?
It seems to me that we will at points in our lives find ourselves in the position where we have the capability of protecting others who are otherwise defenseless; are we supposed to leave them to their fate? Is that the moral thing to do?
By extension, governments find themselves capable of defending their otherwise defenseless citizens. If those citizens come under mortal attack should the government stand back and watch? Is that the moral thing to do?
So what's the answer to Michael's question?
Thanks for all the thoughtful comments and questions!
Many have asked the question, "What would you do if..." someone raped, killed, burned, slaughtered, mutilated, tortured, etc., your wife, daughter, grandparent, etc.
I'm going to reformulate the question.
When a little child is about to be raped, mutilated, and murdered, what is her Father's responsibility? And by Father, I mean God the Father.
"Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing compared to love in dreams."
The answer, as always, starts upon the cross, and ends in an empty tomb.
How does God the Father save his little daughters from being sexually enslaved, tortured, and finally executed?
Does he stand by with his clean hands in the air repeating the matra, "free will, free will," or does he do something?
I do want to answer your questions as specifically and thoughtfully as possible - but there is some preliminary stuff to get to before tackling the "what would you do" question. Essentially - "what did God do? what is God doing?" We believe in a risen Christ. We believe in a God who intervenes powerfully within human history. What is he doing to stop the rapes and murders?
I think that intro questions leads to my answer. But it's something we have to think through together, otherwise it's just me babbling.
I'm generally too humble to answer the question of "what is God doing?" because I am aware that if I was aware of everything God was doing, then I would be God. So I'm abstaining from answering.
However, it seems that you have an answer to both that question and the original question. I look forward to when you produce both of those answers.
"I haven't heard an answer to Michael's question yet."
Well, that's what I was *trying* to do. 
I even gave concrete examples. We should always intervene to stop violence when we can.
I think it's a real stretch to refer to restraining someone as violence. Probably the definition of violence should include harming someone? C'mon.
I'll give you another example: Christian Peacemaker Teams http://www.cpt.org/
Christopher,
George Weigel represents an different view on war than is currently the Church's teaching. If you agree with his position, that's fine, but realize that it's contradicted by the Vatican and the U.S. Bishops. (I also think it's wrong, shaped by an America-first perspective.) http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/...703/
020703d.htm
Otherwise, I would offer up paragraph 2306 of the Catechism as an answer to your challenge:
"Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death."
The Catholic Peace Fellowship is a great resource: http://www.catholicpeacefellowsh...page.asp?
m=1002
Tim:
I think restraining someone could certainly count as violence particularly using Nate's argument that love alone is the way to peace. This is furthered by the utilization of "turn the other cheek" quote by pacifists.
Harming someone is a poor defintion b/c its centered on ends. That is, because I'm a weak sap, I can punch a big guy a few times before I harm him. However, we would certainly call this "violence." Perhaps you could attach the qualifier of an intention so that the defintion becomes "the intention of harming someone." However, then you would need to clarify "harming." That is, using the idea of a police arrest what is violent and what is not? Is tackling the suspect to the ground violent? Is wacking the subject in the knees violent? Is tasering violent?
I think my defintion avoids such nitpicking by classifying all forms of physical force and aggression as violence.
Chris,
You always offer links to "secondary sources," if you will, when you try to explain the Catholic Church's position on certain political and socio-economic issues. Usually the prelude to the links are a short paragraph that you write about how certain positions contradict Catholic teaching but as I read your comments and your posts I see that you lack a critical interpretation of the primary sources, which are needed for these kind of arguments, because you are not backing them up.
Needless to say, I am eagerly waiting for you to critically interpret the "primary sources" found in the tradition of the Church instead of relying on Weigel, for instance. As an example, quote the Catechism itself, but in context with papal teachings and tradition on some of these issues. The interpretation you may perhaps come up with may differ with mine, for example, but let us go back to the sources instead of interpreting "interpretations."
Nate:
God gives little girls mothers and fathers to help protect them from sexual molestation. And if I come across someone physically molesting my daughter, you better believe that I will be physically restraining him!
God gives both an aggressor and a possible defender free will. The Church tells us that we have a "grave duty" to protect the innocent who are unjustly attacked.
Let me tell you from personal experience, a woman who is being raped would certainly see the actions of someone who fought off her attacker as an act of charity.
Maria, thank you for your reply to my question about how God defends the innocent. Is it fair to say that your answer is, "he delegates?"
Yet you also mention "free will."
How do you reconcile the idea that God won't intervene because he respects free will, while demanding that human beings intervene for him? I see a contradiction in that. That's like a King who says he won't judge anyone, yet appoints someone to execute the kingdom's enemies. Maybe you could explain your thoughts further?
God does use human beings as His representatives on earth. Every day at Mass our priests act in persona Christi Capitis. As Mediator Dei states, "It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents." Bishops, and in a special way the Bishop of Rome, make visible the presence of Christ as head of the Church. Since Christ ascended into Heaven, God has indeed used human beings to further His will.
I don't believe this is limited to the priesthood. All of us are called to further God's will by our life of Faith. By following the commandandments, fulfilling our duties, and most of all, by loving are fellow man, we are following God's will and further it here on earth. Certainly, it is only through God's grace that we are able to do so, but God certainly uses us as His instruments.
You always offer links to "secondary sources," if you will, when you try to explain the Catholic Church's position on certain political and socio-economic issues. Usually the prelude to the links are a short paragraph that you write about how certain positions contradict Catholic teaching but as I read your comments and your posts I see that you lack a critical interpretation of the primary sources, which are needed for these kind of arguments, because you are not backing them up.
Needless to say, I am eagerly waiting for you to critically interpret the "primary sources" found in the tradition of the Church instead of relying on Weigel, for instance. As an example, quote the Catechism itself, but in context with papal teachings and tradition on some of these issues. The interpretation you may perhaps come up with may differ with mine, for example, but let us go back to the sources instead of interpreting "interpretations."
Katerina,
ROTFLOL. Try the Catechism, which I think sufficinetly precludes a pacifist and absolutist prohibition of moral force. I can walk you through the relevant texts but I think you can look them up for yourself.
For starters, from the USCCB:
Our conference's approach, as outlined in The Challenge of Peace, can be summarized in this way:
1. In situations of conflict, our constant commitment ought to be, as far as possible, to strive for justice through nonviolent means.
2. But, when sustained attempts at nonviolent action fail to protect the innocent against fundamental injustice, then legitimate political authorities are permitted as a last resort to employ limited force to rescue the innocent and establish justice.
Despite areas of convergence between a nonviolent ethic and a just-war ethic, however, we acknowledge the diverse perspectives within our Church on the validity of the use of force. Many believe just-war thinking remains valid because it recognizes that force may be necessary in a sinful world, even as it restrains war by placing strict moral limits on when, why and how this force may be used. Others object in principle to the use of force, and these principled objections to the just-war tradition are sometimes joined with other criticisms that just-war criteria have been ineffective in preventing unjust acts of war in recent decades and that these criteria cannot be satisfied under the conditions of modern warfare.
Likewise, there are diverse points of view within the Catholic community on the moral meaning and efficacy of a total commitment to nonviolence in an unjust world. Clearly some believe that a full commitment to nonviolence best reflects the Gospel commitment to peace. Others argue that such an approach ignores the reality of grave evil in the world and avoids the moral responsibility to actively resist and confront injustice with military force if other means fail. Both the just-war and nonviolent traditions offer significant moral insight, but continue to face difficult tests in a world marked by so much violence and injustice. Acknowledging this diversity of opinion, we reaffirm the Church's traditional teaching on the ethical conditions for the use of force by public authority.
Inasmuch as you like to refer to the USCCB's writings as secondary sources, you should know the document.
Relating this to the question at hand, I do not believe God would purposely desire a violent sin against one of His children. He may stop it with a supernatural divine intervention (a miracle), but more often He seems to allow us and our free will to play an active role. To me it is a great wonder that the Lord allows us, His imperfect instruments, to help achieve His will.Still, we are not forced to intervene - He always respects our free will to choose to do so or not.
I wouldn't see this a King abdicating His power to judge. God does judge each man - just not in our limited earthly time. And He does not delegate us the power to judge. He simply gives us guidelines by which to judge actions and how to respond to those actions. By defending a woman being attacked, I would certainly not see myself as appointed by God to bring down judgement on the attacker. Who knows the state of his reason or will? He may be mentally ill, under the influence of drugs/alcohol, etc. I certainly do not feel called to judge his guilt in the situation. I would be acting out of my duty to protect the innocent woman from this act of aggression.
Christopher,
As someone who calls his website the "Ratzinger fan club", I wonder why you don't give due regard to his views on the Iraq war (and modern war in general)? Let me refresh your memory:
"The United Nations is the [institution] that should make the final decision."
"It is necessary that the community of nations makes the decision, not a particular power."
"The fact that the United Nations is seeking the way to avoid war, seems to me to demonstrate with enough evidence that the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save."
"It [the United Nations] is the instrument created after the war for the
coordination -- including moral -- of politics."
"The concept of a 'preventive war' does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church."
"The Holy Father's [John Paul's] judgment is also convincing from the rational point of view: There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war."
1) There are two related but separate topics here. One is the justification for the Iraq war in general. Rather than kick a dead horse I'll refer you to a separate blog devoted, specifically, to that particular debate. In this case, even beyond the question of WMD's and the U.S. enforcement of the U.N.'s own resolutions, there was the issue of Saddam's contributions to terrorism and the wisdom of ceding sovereign authority to the United Nations especially when the very members of the security council were compromised by their own corruption and involvement with Saddam.
2) This isn't the first time people have played the "but you're the founder of the RatzingerFanClub; you HAVE to agree!" card -- as if that implies I should necessarily abstain from weighing and considering the judgement of the Pope and other contributing authorities on prudential matters. To cite another example, when Benedict gave a tacit endorsement to the "Make Poverty History" campaign, it was somehow expected that I would unthinkingly endorse it -- when in fact I thought there were very sound reasons to be wary of debt-relief for third world nations.
But we're getting far afield of the original question here on the general use of armed force in Catholic tradition -- which was Michael Denton's, and which I think was not sufficiently answered as to what was meant by "violence":
Are you using the defintion as "any act of aggression or force against another person" or do you have a more narrow defintion?
Weigel's recognition that the Church makes distinctions about the legitimate and illegitimate use of force, and that it does not hold the use of force immediately suspect, is a valid one. The USCCB seems to indicate likewise.
Christopher, that's fair enough. Church teaching maintains a place for just war, in theory, while recognizing as the legitimate the views of pacifists. (Of course we could have a long discussion about why I disagree with your judgment about the Iraq war in your point 1.)
Michael,
I think the word games you are getting into about violence are probably beside the point. I've given you three concrete examples to explain what I mean.
Tim:
The word games are probably unneccessary to the central point but critical when examining the scope of what you're advocating against. That a policemen tackling a subject would be banned under a complete ban of violence shows the absurdity of the position that all violence is immoral.
I count two concrete examples. The Dorothy Day & the inner city mugging. The Day example seems to back mine up, as physical restraint is a type of violence. The Mugging is a wonderful story but certainly one cannot say that that will work all the time. Despite the power of God, men still have free will to choose against him and often do, both in individual & national ways. So the example tries to skirt the issue by saying you'll get the result of peace without violence so there's no dilemma. Since that's not always going to be the case, what do you when it's not? When it's physical force to save the victim or severe pain & perhaps even death for the victim? What is the right course then?
Maria - thank you for your thoughtful reply. I'd like to focus in on something you said here: "(God) may stop it with a supernatural divine intervention (a miracle)"
I agree - God has the power to intervene in our world to stop little children from being raped without destroying free will.
So there are really two options, as I see it:
1) God stands by as little children are raped and murdered, though he has the power and the right to stop such evil without infringing upon human freedom.
2) God doesn't stand by as little children are raped and murdered. He doesn't rely on someone else to do a job he could do. He does intervene - in every case. We just don't see it.
Option 1 contradicts what we know of God's love for us. We would never stand and watch and do nothing as our children were raped. If God is good, he wouldn't stand by and do nothing either.
Option 2 must be true. God is good, God loves us. He must be intervening powerfully to confront every evil which our children face. He would not just watch our children be raped and say, "Where is that child's father and mother?"
But children are raped. And though we know that God must be intervening, we also know that the rapes continue. In what possible way could God's intervention still permit children to be raped?
In what possible way could God's divine intervention still permit horrific evil to occur?
"Turn the other cheek . . . "
In what possible way could God's divine intervention still permit horrific torture to occur?
"Love your enemies . . . "
In what possible way could God's divine intervention still permit his beloved children to be penetrated by evil and murdered by men?
"No greater love . . . "
God intervenes to save each and every child who faces rape and death. We just don't understand his intervention. He gives us the power to participate in his intervention, but we just don't understand.
"Follow me."
God has done everything he possibly could to save us from evil. He gave up his life for us. He gave it up not to stop us from suffering, but to give us a chance to triumph over suffering. He gives us the same power to triumph over suffering - to give our lives for one another.
What would I do if my child was facing rape and murder? I would complete the sufferings of Christ in my own body - I would give up my life to save her.
To truly save her.
As to how - if we spent 200 billion a year on creating peacemaking systems that allow Christians to sacrifice their lives (not other's lives) to save one another, I could give you an answer you'd like a lot more than what I can give you now.
My answer now is - get in the way, distract, cover, etc. But by the time someone is in that position, it is a little late to think that we're going to recover. The work of peacemaking occurs far earlier, with much more thought and planning.
Ever since Peter put down his sword and ran away, Christians have been struggling with how to defend one another without killing. The honest truth is that if we aren't prepared to kill, we'd better be prepared to die.
Peter wasn't prepared to die. Not right away, at least.
Am I prepared to give up my life?
I wrote about this a month or two back on my personal blog - about getting in the way of two of my housemates who were ready to tear one another apart. Not pleasant. And I don't think I'm ready yet. But perhaps with prayer, and a few billion...
Nate:
Your answer doesn't shed any light on your position, which is nice way of saying "what the heck did you just say?" lol. It went right over my head lol. Presumably this is a fault of my own understanding, so I'll need a clarification. Specifically, what are the actions you are proposing to take? Is it offering yourself up instead of the woman?
As far as "option 1" vs "option 2" I'm not sure we can't have an option 3. That is, is it not possible that God intervenes by calling the attackers away from their sin and by using us as instruments? Ie God tells the mugger "stop that" through conscience while placing someone there to defend the woman if the call to holiness. Not sure that clear; if not I'll try to rephrase. You seem to be drawing a line between spiritual intervention by God and human action. Can we not posit a third option that has a spiritual intervention that includes human action? We know God places individual people in our lives to draw us closer to Him and would call this an intervention of sorts. Could we not call his placing of us in a position to defend the woman as well as His grace to give us the courage to come to the woman's aid a third type of intervention?
I really hope that was coherent. If not, lemme know.
oh. you weren't done responding and talking about your answer. My bad.
Nate,
1) God stands by as little children are raped and murdered, though he has the power and the right to stop such evil without infringing upon human freedom.
There is a third option for how to view God. It may be that any direct, miraculous intervention on his part would be a violation of human freedom (or demonic freedom), but that a direct, physical intervention on our part would not be a violation of human freedom.
Chris,
The Catechism is meant to be a compendium, if you will. The Catechism has plenty of footnotes of documents it draws from and those are the ones that I am inviting you to interpret.
If I want to make an argument about how the Church teaches pacifism and I quote you Dorothy Day, needless to say, you will not be convinced at all and would not take me seriously, because I'm reading the Church's teachings through Dorothy Day. Same thing applies when you quote Weigel when you try to make a point about just war or what have you. I won't take you seriously. Now if you start quoting Popes and other relevant documents and interpreting them accordingly, then we're talking.
Either way, between Day and Weigel, I'll stick with the Servant of God
Michael,
Fair enough. The burden is certainly on pacifists to define what they mean by violence, what they believe should be morally prohibited. This definition should flow out of the reason they want to prohibit it.
For example, in my understanding of Dorothy Day, the command of Christ to love our enemies is important. So the standard is that we should not do anything unloving toward our enemies. And I think she rejected the argument of St. Augustine (correct if I'm wrong) that it can be loving to kill your enemy, but she would probably consider restraining someone from killing another person to indeed be loving toward that person. What if it is necessary to kill another person to prevent them from killing myself or another? I think you need to be pretty imaginative to dream up a scenario like this, but in that case, I think Dorothy Day would still stand against killing--perhaps because it is too easy to fall into this kind of reasoning when the situation really does not warrant it. Make a presumption against taking human life, just as we do when we prohibit abortion up to the moment of conception--out of profound respect, although we do not know exactly when personhood begins. I'm thinking of her quote displayed on Michael Iafrate's blog: "It is better that the United States be liquidated than that she survive by war." http://www.catholicworker.org/do....cfm?
TextID=466
In any case, all I'm looking for is an admission that the pacifist position is not completely absurd or ridiculous, that it is internally consistent. When you say "The Day example seems to back mine up, as physical restraint is a type of violence," it makes me suspect you are not making an honest effort to understand the position. You take an example Dorothy Day specifically gave as an alternative to violence in dealing with a difficult situation and state flatly that it is violence without so much as considering whether their might be a definition that distinguishes the two.
At the same time, I acknowledge the importance of your question--distinguishing non-violent intervention from violence.
p.s. My third concrete example was the Christian Peacemaker Teams. You can read about theirs and similar work here: http://www.cpt.org/links.php#TPNI
Nate:
I think your last reponse turns the conversation a bit. It seems more to be addressing the topic of the reality of evil in light of the goodness of God rather than the moral question of violence. Definitely a great topic to discuss, but not exactly what I was getting at in my response. Sorry if my ramblings led us off topic.
I guess I'm just unsure where you draw the line at "violence." You say you are prepared to die for your daughter should she be being attacked. I'm not sure what you mean by that. You would stand between her aggressor and her? Heroic, but also seems foolish if the man is simply going to kill you, then continue to attack her. The evil act in question has not been stopped, the innocent victim has not been protected, and now the good of your life has been violated. It seems it would be better to stay out of the situation if one is not willing to use the necessary amount of foce to actually stop the aggressor.
I was trying to simply say that it is moral for us to use some level of force to protect innocent victims from unjust aggressors. This seems well within the teaching of the Church (see above quotation from the Catechism). I can certainly see the argument for pacifism, but I the Church does not demand us to embrace it. The Church clearly allows for legitmate self-defense. If you personally want to embrace pacifism, go for it. I would just refrain from sounding like you may be judging others who support legitimate self-defense, well within the teaching of the Church. I don't think that is what you are trying to do at all - I think you seem to trying to be resovling conflicting emotions you have regarding this issue - but it can have that tenor.
I would certainly agree with you that Christ's sacrafice on the Cross is the source of all healing, peace, and redemption. A person who stops an agressor does not ultimately bring any of these things to the agressor or the victim. Only Christ does that. That does not negate the fact that stopping a horrific evil being committed against another or oneself can be a moral good.
I think what I wrote went over my head too. I'll have to think about what you guys have said!
Michael, (I bold your name to make it easier for you to see my response to your thoughts), you said: "You seem to be drawing a line between spiritual intervention by God and human action. Can we not posit a third option that has a spiritual intervention that includes human action? We know God places individual people in our lives to draw us closer to Him and would call this an intervention of sorts. Could we not call his placing of us in a position to defend the woman as well as His grace to give us the courage to come to the woman's aid a third type of intervention?"
I agree with most of what you said, but I tend to think more in terms of us participating in God's intervention. When I think of it in this way, I see giving up my life as the ultimate form of fighting evil. So through our own nonviolence, I see us participating in the "nonviolence of the cross", which is God's direct intervention in our world.
So I'd put it this way: that God gives us the grace to defend one another, but in the way that he defended us - by nonviolent self-sacrifice.
For me, this really resolves the big question - why doesn't God save little children from being raped? I agree that God works through us - but still, why would he be content with letting us fail? There are too many situations where there simply isn't anyone even present for God's grace to save those little children.
The typical idea is that God respects free-will, and that's why he won't intervene. But that idea doesn't make any sense to me. God has intervened in the past, and didn't seem to care about free will (the resurrection and Pentecost are good examples).
The only option left is that God intervenes in a different way than we imagine. And I see that intervention on the cross. And I see God giving us the grace to fight evil in just the same way.
And the big thing for me is that we are fighting evil - not just defending our bodies. With nonviolence, we can really destroy evil. With violence, we can only save our bodies.
Hope that clarifies it a little, and I'll try to answer all the other thoughts too!
Nate,
God has intervened in the past, and didn't seem to care about free will (the resurrection and Pentecost are good examples).
What does the resurrection have to do with free will? Do you think Jesus' will was not considered when the Father resurrected him?
Neither is Pentecost an example of God "not caring" about free will. The Holy Spirit was conferred in part because Jesus prayed for it (John 14:16).
This is significant. In Mark 6:4-6, Jesus cannot do miracles, (with a few exceptions), because of the lack of faith of the people in his hometown. The effectiveness of prayer is upheld repeatedly in the Bible, but it would make no sense to say that prayer is effective if God would do everything good we ask of him even without our prayers.
How are we to understand all this? I maintain that our prayers allow God to take action that he otherwise is constrained (by his good nature) not to take. Our prayers allow God to do things which would be a violation of free will if he did it without our prayers.
Pentecost, I suspect, might be an example of this. Jesus prayed and God sent us his Holy Spirit.
Nor did that Spirit override the free will of the disciples. They were not forced to speak in tongues, they were ennabled to and given incentive to. Peter was not forced to make his speech, he was inspired to.
If we think this way, prayer becomes a lot more important. Our physical intervention in situations like child-rape also becomes more important, because it is God's will that we prevent evil when it is in our power to do so.
The only option left is that God intervenes in a different way than we imagine. And I see that intervention on the cross.
The problem with this way of thinking is that the little girl still gets raped. God's intervention on the cross may give her the option of forgiving her raper and obtaining healing later. But God still allowed her rape. Either he could have miraculously stopped the rape from happening, or else there was some reason that it would have been wrong for him to deal with it directly, such as free will.
With violence, we can only save our bodies.
I suspect the woman who is saved from being raped thinks more than just her body is saved. Physical damage can cause spiritual damage, so sometimes preventing physical damage also prevents spiritual damage.
Commenting by HaloScan
