Christians core beliefs and ways to act in the world. Blessed are the peacemakers; turn the other cheek; love your enemies. Just asking because it is a hard one to embrace.
You have to look at the whole counsel of the Word of God. Jesus said "If thy brother offend thee, rebuke him".(Matthew 18:15)
he taught non-violence against an innocent person. You don't bully a person because you are stronger. but he taught violence to safe innocent people from harm.
and that means anyone.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
There are different kinds of violence. Some violent acts are totally barred; some are justifiable. There are imporant factors at play:
- the reasons violence occurs (intent to kill or revenge vs. intent to stop violence),
- the levels of violence employed (proportional vs. excessive), and
- whether the violence is (a) aggressive violence or (b) responsive violence for a legitimate purpose.
Aggressive individual violence is always wrong. That is, attacking an innocent person (e.g., a person who is doing no harm to you, and no harm to anyone in your charge or even no harm to anyone else)...that is always wrong. This includes attacks against all innocent humans, including the unborn who are the most innocent of all humans. I understand how that last example can be hard for some people, but difficulty in compliance doesn't make it ok.
Defensive individual violence can be justifiable. If someone attacks you or attacks someone in your charge (e.g., your children), you can use appropriate responsive violence to stop the aggressor violence. Not only are you not required to stand by and allow someone to torture your child (you are justified to use violence to stop that), you may even be obligated to use violence to stop that.
Violence done as a subject-agent of authority (e.g., as a member of police or military) on behalf of a legitimate government is excused in many cases. In some cases (e.g., declared war in apparent compliance with international conventions) but not in all cases (e.g., genocides), the citizens acting may be excused from sinful responsibility when participating in violent behavior, but the authority leadership may be sinfully responsible for causing non-justifiable violence to occur.
The above is my simplification of a complex issue, and we can discuss nuances of each if you wish. Feel free to poke.
Regardless, outright pacifism is not required.
The Catholic Catechism walks through the issues very well. Check out the link.
Link: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
would seem to endorse pacifism if the violence is directed toward you.
There are some words and phrases in the languages the Bible was written in which we have no perfect equivalent, the Greek word Thanatos for example.
unoriginal as I have in other contexts.
Items such as the Nicene Creed and other portions of the mass which have been changed to allegedly be more in line with the original Greek. Under the former Roman Missal, before communion you would use to pray that you were unworthy to receive the Lord, now you pray that you are unworthy to let him in under your roof. Or sumphin like that.
If someone is beating on you with intent to kill you and then rape and torture your 5 year old daughter, I don't think turning the other cheek is appropriate.
Obviously, there is a continuum of behavior between the two examples.
I think the Catholic Church's teaching is pretty sophisticated on this topic. It doesn't stop at a mere aphorism. Basing complex morality on a simple aphorism is usually not the best way to go. The Bible is merely part of revealed teaching. The Bible is not the sum total of Christ's teaching on Earth. That is why Jesus established a Church...to speak about these types of problems.
The literal interpretation of that statement which wasn’t qualified in any way though at the time by the speaker may be a different thing.
The thing people often forget is that Jesus wrote nothing. Instead, he established a Church.
The Catholic Church wrote the "books" of the Bible and many many other writings. Then, the Catholic Church called conferences of bishops to decide which writings made it into the Bible. The Church did not surrender it's authority when it selected some of its writings for inclusion in the Bible. We need not look at a saying in the Bible and lament that there is no context for it. There is 2000 years of authoritative context.
People often lament that Catholics don't read the Bible enough. That is a worthy lament. But, I lament more that Catholics don't read the Catechism enough. The Catechism often directly addresses issues that are only peripherally addressed in the Bible, and Catholics are mislead when they start creating their own doctrine to fill in the gaps in their own knowledge. If any one has a question, I think there is a good chance that the question has been addressed by dozens of authoritative Church writings. The Bible is a good place to start. The Catechism is also a great place to start, but if you do start with the Bible, the Catecism is the obvious next step. And, the Catechism is heavily annotated, so other authoritative writings can be easily found which dig deep into particular issues.
It's opinion on its own infallibility.
At issue, however, is whether you believe them as an individual.
"We are infallible"
"How do you know that?"
"We say so, and we are infallible."
Doesn't meet the sniff test. And good lord, extrapolating the "gates of hell shall not prevail" language into infallibility doesn't cut it.
What is believable is that so many spiritual people have prayed and debated this stuff for centuries. The Holy Spirit guided them and inspired them, but did not ask them to take dictation...
Which infallible beliefs do you have a problem with?
For me, infallibility is a non-issue. I never think about it. I just freely give the assent of my will to the authority of the Church which was founded by Christ.
Also, while Jesus didn’t write anything, he said a lot. If we believe that the Gospel writer got what he said correctly in his writing which we do, then we have an unqualified statement subject to different interpretations which is my only point. I happen to think that Catholic dogma is the correct interpretation, but it isn’t the only one.
I can't speak to non-Catholic interpretations.
(no message)
Catechism. Catechism is good for formation and guidance but it is by its very nature in your head concepts and theology. Look up what St Paul says about the law. I believe true non-violence is an outcome of love and springs from the heart and the freedom of knowing you are made in the image and likeness of God. But you did qualify your original response as being simplistic so I understand where you are coming. I am not sure you understand where I am coming from.
God bless
The Catechism is a compendium of general revelation, which is binding on all believers (indeed, we would believe all human beings). The "living Christ" only gives private revelation now. True private revelation that you receive is binding on you, not the world. The Church communicates general revelation (the Bible, and Tradition).
Check out the newest version of the Catechism issued by the Church. I'm not talking about publications like the Baltimore Catechism. The most recent full catechism is fairly comprehensive, and it addresses many issues specifically, with references.
Regarding the nature of non-violence, you said: "true non-violence is an outcome of love and springs from the heart and the freedom of knowing you are made in the image and likeness of God." I don't think we have any disagreement there.
Read Luke 22:36, for example.
It is difficult to forgive those who trespass against us. It's even more difficult to practice forbearance.
I have a good friend who is a pacifist. He says he would never use violence, even in defense of himself or someone he loves. Violence is wrong, plain and simple, in any context, according to him. My point to him is that when he, as a man, chooses not to protect someone weaker, he makes that decision for those he loves who lack the power in such situations to choose to defend themselves, and then it becomes more about "I, as a pacifist, staying pure, rather than thinking of the needs or wishes of my loved ones."
Defending the weaker or self defense both individually and corporately as nation states, etc. we as a people seem more inclined to delude ourselves to foster violence than to find ways to non-violent solutions. I heard today that when you overcome your enemies you lose, when your enemies partner with you God wins.
(no message)
(no message)
Positions and people. And about commerce and religion