From around the Blogosphere and such

Greetings!

It's been too long since I've posted, and I still don't have the time or focus to put together anything original or intelligent. Nevertheless, what follows are some stories or thoughts which have caught my eye recently. Let me know what you think.

On the Peace and Nonviolence Front...

Catholic Lt Col at Gitmo chooses the Cross over the Flag

Darrel Vandeveld is a devout Catholic. Not so long ago he was also a military prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay. However, what he saw and experienced there struck him as immoral and un-American. His well-formed Catholic conscience was not comfortable. He emailed Fr. John Dear, a peace activist, and after much mental anguish chose to quit the US military. Watch the BBC's interview here and read more here

US Torture policies in Iraq have lead to the Deaths of countless Americans

Matthew Alexander was an interrogator for a special ops task force in Iraq in 2006. Other people in his position chose to torture alleged and/or known terrorists to attempt to get what they wanted. Alexander refused, and in an article titled "I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq" for the Washington Post he writes:

Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: Torture and abuse cost American lives.


I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.

Read the entire article here.

The FDA: What were they thinking?

This is Silly: Prescription Handguns!??

According to their website, the mission of the FDA is as follows:

The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health.

If that's the case, why are they approving a miniaturized thumb-triggered handgun as something which can be prescribed? What!? Oh! In the near future it may be covered by Medicare. Ladies and Gentleman, your tax dollars hard at work!

More here.


This is dangerous and reprehensible: Gardasil - Bad for women (a shocker I know)

Remember how Gardasil was supposed to help prevent much of cervical cancer? Forgetting for a moment that you shouldn't have to be vaccinated for a disease caused by STDs, because... you know... your free will, chastity, abstinence, the moral life, etc. Forget about all that. Generally speaking a drug might be considered a good thing if it can prevent a large portion of the population from getting a deadly form of cancer. Well, as it turns out, Gardasil may actually make things worse.

Natural News reporter Mike Adams has uncovered some interesting facts about this vaccine. The FDA has been aware since 2003 that Human Papillloma Virus [1] does not cause cervical cancer. The Gardasil vaccine is unable to eradicate HPV virus from women who have been exposed to HPV (nearly all sexually active women). This makes vaccinating all young women in Texas against HPV virus a very questionable decision.

To make matters even worse it has now been learned that vaccinating women with Gardasil may actually increase the risk that those women harboring a benign cervical HPV viral infection have a 44.6 percent increased risk of having their benign HPV infection converted into a precancerous state by the HPV vaccine administration. Thus women vaccinated with Gardasil not only receive no benefit those who were sexually active before the vaccine administration have become at increased risk for developing cervical cancer.

Read the entire article here.
Hat tip to feminine-genius.

Anyone have any thoughts on any of this? Let me know.

Christ our Hope... OT Appendix

The following is a response I wrote to a comment on a previous post. Someone suggested I make it a post of its own, so here it is.


The commenter wrote: "It is not congruent with a pacifist deity." [Here it references some actions of God in the OT, specifically death of the first born at Passover and "wiping out" "wicked people"]

I’m not at all making an argument for a pacifist deity. I am not really sure what that means. The God who is Being or Existence, whose name is I AM, who is eternal and the Author of all created things, cannot rightly be called either pacifist or violent, etc--that would be, I think, of anthropomorphism akin to that of the Greek gods. We may be able to debate whether He reveals Himself in Scripture to just and loving God or malicious and cruel, but as Creator he cannot rightly be called violent or pacifist. A limited being, like human, we he discovers another being, has only finite authority over that being, if any at all. However, the Maker of a being has infinite authority over that being--the authority to choose to give life or to revoke that gift, etc.


I am not arguing that God is a pacifist deity.I am claiming that the most virtuous response, the Christian response, to conflict is a non-violent response. Hopefully the difference will be becoming more clear in the final few posts.


There are certainly incongruencies and perhaps even flat out contradictions between the OT and NT. Heck, Jesus himself admits as much in the “you have heard that it was…., but I say to you…” sermon. Nevertheless, for the Christian, Jesus is the Christ, the Word made Flesh, the full and complete self-revelation of God, thus he is the final interpreter of Sacred Scripture.

Also, as I mentioned before, God is revealing himself slowly to sinful humanity, and in doing so, he is slowly revealing man to himself. This revelation is also completed and perfected in Christ.

Finally, the Bible is not primarily a history book, or a science book, or even a morality book. It is primarily a book of proclamation. A legit use of the historical-critical method reveals that ancient literature did not so much intend to convey fact as to convey truth. Thus “what happened” and “what is true” do not always coincide perfectly (although it is difficult if not impossible for us to draw that line).

The Bible tells a story. It tells us about Salvation history. It speaks Truth, but this Truth is not always historical or scientific fact or moral platitude. God works with us where we are. Thus it is possible to conceive that what is in the OT is a lot of an imperfect and muddled following of God’s will. They may have intended to do what He willed, but were incapable of conceiving of the radical Hope they could have in him. This becomes more explicit later in the OT. As Israel is responding, perhaps “justly” and perhaps not, according to the reason of men, the prophets are calling for peace and mercy and repentance. Even David, who despite his obvious flaws, could be called a “saint” of the OT, is denied the honor of building the Temple because he has blood on his hands.


David, it seems to be, could be a microcosm of what I am talking about. God calls him and blessed him. David sins and repents. God forgives him and blessed, granting him success and kingship, but God tells him that his hands are stained with blood. He may not build the Temple.



Considering briefly your question about Passover, I would like to make a few points. We must ask ourselves a series of questions, questions for which I do not yet have well articulated answers.

What is being proclaimed here? What is the historical situation of the event? Of the authorship of the story?



We can say that it was Pharaoh who initially ordered to killing of the Hebrew first-born. Thus the Passover is not rightly conceived absent from this. This is yet another case of self-inflicted judgment, and God, as God, has the right to judgment. However, I would add that his judgment cannot be separated from his mercy. Thus Pope Benedict argues that the transcendent concept of Justice, which can never be achieved on earth (how then was it originally conceived?) is itself an argument for the afterlife. Thus God, who is God of both the living and the dead, who is the Author of Life, has the authority and ability to the judge the Egyptians in this way, but in His justice, may reward to the “innocent” children infinitely more than justice would demand.



Much of this is somewhat speculative and will probably come across as grasping for straws, but I can only add this. For me, Jesus is no longer merely some piece of information I was taught in school and raised to believed. Jesus is a person whom I have encountered in very real, but unempirical and difficult to articulate ways. I do not question the existence of God or the Love of Christ anymore than I question the love of my wife or parents. The Christ whom I have encountered is the Word made flesh. Integrity and authenticity compel me to interpret life and scripture in light of Him. I do not fully understand the intricacies of the Bible. But I trust in its Truth and hope to grow in understanding. I thank you for continuing to push me, because it is forcing me challenge some of my preconceptions and helping my knowledge to grow in depth.

Finally, I would suggest listening to the following, which is a little more coherent although less specifically directed to your question, than my response: click here



Pax.

Christ out Hope: Conclusion - THE FOLLY OF VIOLENCE AND THE BODY OF CHRIST

This is the conclusion of a series entitled Christ our Hope in the Face of Violence and our Witness to Nonviolent Love. Part 1 served as an introduction and Part 2 considered God as a God of Peace in the Old Testament. Part 3 and Part 4 began to consider what Christ has to say on the issue of violence and war and . Part 5 looked at the witness of early Christianity and the changes which took place after Constantine along with the thought of Augustine and Aquinas on the issue. In part 6 we studied the witness of the contemporary Church. Part 7 examined the thoughts of some recent American Catholic theologians on the topic. Part 8 explored the way of violence.

Genesis reveals to us the presence of violence at the onset of history. Ever since, mankind has chosen to express its jealousy, vengeance, and hatred with violence. Christ calls us to move past this. He institutes the new law. He tells us no longer an eye for an eye, but love, forgiveness, prayer, sacrifice. Why does Christ not want us to use violence to mete out justice? Because, “Violence is a lie, for it goes against the truth of our faith, the truth of our humanity. Violence destroys what it claims to defend: the dignity, the life, the freedom of human beings.”[1] Not only will violence not bring about lasting peace; to the contrary, violent war devastates what it claims to defend, human life, dignity, and freedom. In light of this knowledge and the indeterminate violence of modern warfare, the Compendium adds,

“War is a ‘scourge’ and is never anappropriate way to resolve problems that arise between nations, ‘it has never been and it will never be.’ In the end, war is ‘the failure of all true humanism,’ “it is always a defeat for humanity,’ ‘never again some peoples against others, never again! ... no more war, no more war!’[2]

Again we hear reference not only to our Christians brothers and sisters, but to humanity as a whole. Because of our understanding of the Communion of Saints, we can understand that when a Christian merely wishes harm upon a brother Christian, he harms and desecrates the Body of Christ. However, what we easily forget is that we are merely temporal. We cannot know when, how, or if a person may convert and choose to walk with Christ. Therefore, we must treat all humanity as our brothers. We must treat all humanity as we would treat Christ. For Christ intends to drawall men to himself,[3]and we, as the living Body of Christ, must be his hands and feet, must witness to his love to all mankind. Christ tells us that he, as the Divine Physician, comes for sick, the sinner, those who really need him;[4] we, as his Body, must especially strive to love those who are so lacking in the peace of Christ that they would turn to violence, hatred, and evil.

We can turn to the Communion of Saints, the Body of Christ, for examples and inspiration in this regard. Franz Jagerstatter, a German Catholic during the reign of the Third Reich, who
was martyred for refusing to join the army, even though his priests and bishop gave him permission, writes, “As a Christian, I prefer to do my fighting with the Word of God and not with arms. We need no rifles or pistols for our battle, but instead spiritual weapons — and the foremost among these is prayer.”[5] Nearly two millennia earlier, St. Justin Martyr writes, “We who formerly murdered one another now not only do not make war upon our enemies but, that we may not lie or deceive our judges, we gladly die confessing Christ.”[6]

We have testimony to the love, the self-sacrificial love, which the holy ones of God embrace as Christ embraced his cross. We must live and love in solidarity with all humanity. Here we can gain confidence from the efficacy and success of this new way when it is actually attempted on the large scale. Even Weigel affirms this. He writes, “By igniting a revolution of
conscience in Poland in June 1979, John Paul II had a decisive impact on shaping the nonviolent politics that eventually produced the revolution of 1989 in east-central Europe and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.”[7] However he adds that it is unreasonable to believe that this example can be universalized. We must address this critique before concluding our analysis.

Weigel may be correct. He is not correct that this is the inevitable state of things in a fallen world. But, he is right because too few Christians have considered and attempted Jesus’ nonviolent love. Instead of hoping in the witness of Christ, we hope in the power of the U.S. military. Now that the Church is no longer wedded to the state, the Church, the Body of
Christ, no longer has need of military force. We Christians, we faithful disciples of Christ, must remember that we belong to the City of God first and foremost. With Origen, we can theoretically or potentially confirm the justness of certain secular wars, but as Christians we can no longer allow the Body of Christ to be associated with the violent destruction of life. Origen argues that Christians are doing more good for justice by praying than are those who
take up arms in the name of righteousness.[8] Just as the pagan priests were kept from warring to keep their hands clean for sacrifices, so we, a “holy priesthood”, must keep our hands free from human blood and worthy of offering “spiritual sacrifices” to God.[9] Over time, the powerful witness[10] of the Body of Christ loving and, in some cases, dying in solidarity with the
poor and the violent will bring the Truth of Christ’s victory to all nations, such that those who are willing to take up the sword, or the gun, in the name of justice will dwindle in number. However, those violent aggressors will also dwindle in number. This would be a long and slow solution, but it is the divine way of bringing about peace and justice without sacrificing the Gospel.

This witness cannot and will not merely happen by force of will, on the practical realm; we, the Body of Christ, must mentally, spiritually, emotionally, and physically prepare ourselves for nonviolent resistance, just as soldiers prepare themselves for violent resistance. We must educate ourselves in peace and nonviolence. We must recognize that there is no guarantee that it will succeed in every instance, but neither does violence. Furthermore, Blessed Theresa of Calcutta reminds us that we are not called to be successful, but faithful.

Jesus’ new way, the way of kenotic nonviolent love is not easy. Because, “the only real difference between violent force and nonviolent force is who we are willing to sacrifice –
ourselves and our enemies,”[11] Self- sacrifice is certainly not easy, but “there is no greater love than this.”[12] It will be more challenging than resorting to violence. Nevertheless, we must
answer this call to sacrificial love and witness. We can only accomplish this if we give attention to the spiritual realm as well. We shall listen to the advice of Pope Benedict XVI in his recent Encyclical Spe Salvi in this regard. The Vicar of Christ writes:

“the capacity to accept suffering for the sake of goodness, truth and justice is an essential criterion of humanity, because if my own well-being and safety are ultimately more important than truth and justice, then the power of the stronger prevails, then violence and untruth reign supreme.

“Yet once again the question arises: are we capable of this? Is the other important enough to warrant my becoming, on his account, a person who suffers? Does truth matter to me enough to make suffering worthwhile? Is the promise of love so great that it justifies the gift of myself? In the history of humanity, it was the Christian faith that had the particular merit of bringing forth within man a new and deeper capacity for these kinds of suffering that are decisive for his humanity. The Christian faith has shown us that truth, justice and love are not simply ideals, but enormously weighty realities. It has shown us that God —Truth and Love in person—desired to suffer for us and with us… in truly great trials, where I must make a definitive decision to place the truth before my own welfare, career and possessions, I need the certitude of that true, great hope of which
we have spoken here. For this too we need witnesses—martyrs—who have given themselves totally, so as to show us the way—day after day. Let us say it once again: the capacity to suffer for the sake of the truth is the measure of humanity. Yet this capacity to suffer depends on the type and extent of the hope that we bear within us and build upon. The saints were able to make the great journey of human existence in the way that Christ had done before them, because they were brimming with great hope.”[13]

All Christians share a universal call to holiness. We are all called to be saints. If our hope is in Christ and his victory over death, and if we have hope that God is justice and peace and mercy and love, then we can have the courage and faith, to follow He who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life to the death if necessary for love of his children, our brothers and sisters, even if they happen to be our enemies.

If we can be faithful in following Christ, God will work through us and bring Christ, bring hope, to those who may want to kill us.

---

[1] CSDC, 496.
[2] Ibid., 497.
[3] John 12:32.
[4] Matt 9:12.

[5] "Franz Jagerstatter: The Blessed Objector." Whispers in the Loggia.http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2007/06/blessed-objector.html (accessed April 25, 2008).

[6] St. Justin Martyr, "First Apology." Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers,”http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html (accessed April 25, 2008), 39.
[7] Weigel.
[8] Orgien, Contra Celsus, (248), VII, 73.
[9] 1 Peter 2:5.
[10] Part of our witness should also be lobbying our countries to spend time and money researching and developing nonviolent weapons that could rend unjust aggressors unable to cause harm without violating the dignity of the person.
[11] Nate Wildermuth, “Militant,” Vox-Nova, http://vox-nova.com/2007/06/04/militant-part-1/ (2-20-08). I am in debt to Nate for much of his research and thought on this topic.
[12] John 15:13
[13] Pope Benedict XVI, Encyclical Spe Salvi, (2007),38-39.

Christ our Hope: Part 8 - THE WAY OF NONVIOLENCE

This is Part 8 of a series entitled Christ our Hope in the Face of Violence and our Witness to Nonviolent Love. Part 1 served as an introduction and Part 2 considered God as a God of Peace in the Old Testament. Part 3 and Part 4 began to consider what Christ has to say on the issue of violence and war and . Part 5 looked at the witness of early Christianity and the changes which took place after Constantine along with the thought of Augustine and Aquinas on the issue. In part 6 we studied the witness of the contemporary Church. Part 7 examined the thoughts of some recent American Catholic theologians on the topic.

Pope John Paul II, echoing and explaining Christ’s teachings and witness writes:

“One’s neighbor is…the living image of God the Father, redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ and placed under the permanent action of the Holy Spirit. One’s neighbor must therefore be loved, even if an enemy, with the same love with which the Lord loves him or her; and for that person’s sake one must be ready for sacrifice, even the ultimate one: to lay down one’s life for the brethren.”[1]

However, at another speech he reminds us of the duty we have to defend ourselves and others from unjust aggressors.[2] Nevertheless, he does add that war can never truly solve the problems it intends to, because of the death and destruction it leaves in its path.[3]

We hear from him a reaffirmation that Jesus’ call to nonviolence is not a cowardice or passivism. It must be active. We are duty bound, by justice, to defend others. But, Pope Benedict XVI reminds us that, as followers of Christ, our response must not be violent.

“[Christ] does not oppose violence with a stronger violence. He opposes violence precisely with the contrary: with love to the end, his cross. This is God’s humble way of overcoming: With his love … he puts a limit to violence. This is a way of conquering that seems very slow to us, but it is the true way of overcoming evil, of overcoming violence, and we must trust this divine way of overcoming.”[4]

It seems then, that we can say with Pope Benedict XVI that our hope must not be in violence. We must love our neighbors and even our enemies with the very love of He who is Love. This new way of overcoming evil which Christ shows us on the cross will run in the face of our American microwave “I need solutions now”mentality, but the Holy Father encourages us that this slow way is the trueway, the divine way, of overcoming evil.

In light of this, we can confidently say that we must confront injustice and evil, but our confrontation must not be violent. It must be an imitatio Christi. But, practically speaking, what might this look like? Is war necessary for justice? Is justice necessary for peace? Is violence necessary for war? Pope John Paul II again points us in the right direction: “There is no peace without justice. There is no justice without forgiveness.”[5] John Paul II is speaking only a few months after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. He is gently chiding and lovingly reminding us that we must not repay violence with violence. Vengeance is empty and cyclical. Justice must be served, but if we want peace, we must be willing to forgive. This is not new
or novel. When we pray the Our Father, we admit as much.

We can now recognize the importance of forgiveness, but how does this forgiveness relate to justice? How do they coexist? John Paul II again offers us his wisdom, teaching, “The
primacy and superiority of love vis-a-vis justice - this is a mark of the whole of revelation - are revealed precisely through mercy”[6] and “Properly understood, justice constitutes, so to speak, the goal of forgiveness. In no passage of the Gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as
its source, mean indulgence towards evil, towards scandals, towards injury or insult.”[7]
Now, Jesus’ new way begins to come into focus. Nonviolence does not mean passivity. Love is superior to justice, thus self-defense and defense of others does not have to be violent. Furthermore, in order for true justice and peace to reign, violence cannot be relied upon, while mercy and forgiveness, based in love, must be offered to our neighbor.

Those with acute knowledge of the evils of the world, those have experienced war or are aware of the irrationality and hatred which has corrupted the hearts of our “enemies,” will at this point proclaim that without force, without violence, without arms, we will not be able to secure justice, and the violence of the enemy via terrorism or other means will win the day. In response to this we must briefly address the folly of violence.

---

[1] John Paul II, Encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, (1987), 40.
[2] John Paul II, “Peace: a Gift of God Entrusted to Us,” World Day of Peace Message,(1982), 9. [3] John Paul II, “Offer Forgiveness and Receive Peace,” World Day of Peace Message, (1997), 4. [4] Benedict XVI, “Benedict XVI’s Reflection on Peace” Zenit, (July 25, 2005), http://www.zenit.org/article-16679?l=english

[5] John Paul II, “No Peace Without Justice, No Justice Without Forgiveness,” World Day of Peace Message, (2002), 15.
[6] John Paul II, Encyclical Dives en Misericordia, (1980), 4.

[7] Ibid., 14.

Christ our Hope: part 7 -AMERICAN THEOLOGIANS AND JUST-WAR

This is Part 7 of a series entitled Christ our Hope in the Face of Violence and our Witness to Nonviolent Love. Part 1 served as an introduction and Part 2 considered God as a God of Peace in the Old Testament. Part 3 and Part 4 began to consider what Christ has to say on the issue of violence and war and . Part 5 looked at the witness of early Christianity and the changes which took place after Constantine along with the thought of Augustine and Aquinas on the issue. In part 6 we studied the witness of the contemporary Church. The present installment will examine the thoughts of some recent American Catholic theologians on the topic.

While we must admit the occasional acknowledgement by the popes that all men have a duty to defend others, peace, mercy, and nonviolence have begun to occupy more of their thought and teaching. However, in contrast with the popes, we can see the thought of American Catholic theologians[1] continuing to focus on the just war theory and even attempting to interpret it less restrictively than was apparently intended by Augustine and Aquinas. First, they have exacerbated the misuse of the just war theory for politics rather than pastoral purposes. Michael Baxter explains,

The teaching on just war was, first and foremost, a form of pastoral reflection and discernment. And it was in this respect an ecclesial discourse. But a shift occurred in modern times…such that "just war theory" came to be seen primarily as a set of norms for managing the affairs of modern states in the arena of international politics. At length, it came to be seen almost exclusively in this way[2]

This has resulted in an eradication of the concept of penance from war. It has transferred the perceived moral culpability from the soldier in tandem with the state, to the head of the state alone. And it has led to the just war theory being used as a rationalizing tool to justify military actions of nation states rather than as a criterion meant to limit war and to discern penances.

A few examples will suffice to shed light on their thought. In 1963 Blessed John XXIII wrote Pacem in Terris in which he outlined a vision of peace based on truth, justice, love, and freedom – a vision which he considered to be attainable if the world would embrace the awareness of human dignity and rights and if the world would justly agree on an international public authority to help resolve conflicts. However, Weigel considers this a utopian vision. He writes, “Human nature being what it is, someone would undoubtedly breach the peace, and in some instances that breach of the peace would have to be met by the use of proportionate and discriminate armed force.”[3] Because the pillars set forth by Pope John XXIII –truth, justice, love, and freedom—cannot and will not succeed, according to Weigel’s implication, we must have a backup plan. That backup plan must include violent armed forces.

Let us conclude this portion of our discussion by considering a disagreement Weigel, Pope John Paul II’s biographer, has with John Paul’s year of 2000 message on the World Day of Peace, in which the Pope writes, “war is a defeat for humanity.”[4] The Pope continues to speak of the need for humanitarian intervention for those innocent victims in war torn countries.[5]Weigel assumes this intervention necessarily must be violent and armed intervention. He writes of “John Paul II’s insistence on a duty of humanitarian intervention, which would presumably include the use of proportionate and discriminate armed force.”[6] Cardinal James Stafford of Apostolic Penitentiary responded to Weigel in an interview, explaining that Weigel’s interpretation is “abbreviated” and “omits” important qualifiers which specify and limit the Pope’s statement. Specifically, says Stafford, Weigel ignored John Paul II’s insistence that the United Nations, an international authority like the one mentioned in Pacem in Terris, is the authority to make the call on potentially armed interventions, not any specific nation-state.[7]

Cardinal Stafford’s implication is that Weigel, intentionally or not, is ignoring the importance of an international authority because of his allegiance to the United States. In doing so, Weigel is departing from an authentic Catholic understanding of the just war theory as taught by our recent popes. Thus, he and those like him have failed to perceive the continual shift toward a renewed emphasis on nonviolence. Cardinal Stafford refers to this implied disobedience of American theologians and identifies a key to this new way of thinking about war to which the Council Fathers, following Jesus’ exhortation, have called us. Stafford explicates:

"Pope John XXIII spoke of this in 1963 when he said that a program for peace is based 'on the Gospel of obedience to God, mercy and forgiveness.' Major portions of the World Day of Peace messages…have been devoted to forgiveness and reconciliation. No one is talking about the Christian understanding and practice of forgiveness which are unique.”[8]

Thus we can finally begin to come to a conclusion, a resolution of this apparent contradiction between nonviolence and war, between mercy and justice. In order to do this we shall analogically adopt Augustine’s approach[9] to Sacred Scripture and assume that apparent contradictions between Scripture and Tradition are only apparent: if there appears to be a discrepancy, the error is in our interpretation, thus we much approach humbly, ridding ourselves of preconceptions and allowing the Holy Spirit to guide us. Let us begin.

---

[1] We speak here primarily of Richard Neuhaus, Geroge Weigel, and Michael Novak, among others.

[2] Baxter.

[3] George Weigel, “World Order: What Catholics Forgot,” First Things, May 2004.

[4] Pope John Paul II, “Peace on Earth to Those Whom God Loves,” World Day for Peace Message, 2004, 3.

[5] Ibid., 11.

[6] Weigel.

[7] Delia Gallagher, “Cardinal Stafford on War and the Church’s Teaching,” Zenit, May 2004, http://zenit.org/article-17478?l=english.

[8] Ibid.

[9] St. Augustine, Letters, 116.3.

Christ our Hope: Part 6 - Witness of the Contemporary Church

This is Part 6 of a series entitled Christ our Hope in the Face of Violence and our Witness to Nonviolent Love. Part 1 served as an introduction and Part 2 considered God as a God of Peace in the Old Testament. Part 3 and Part 4 began to consider what Christ has to say on the issue of violence and war and . Part 5 looked at the witness of early Christianity and the changes which took place after Constantine along with the thought of Augustine and Aquinas on the issue.

THE WITNESS OF THE CONTEMPORARY CHURCH

After Vatican II, The Catholic Church adopted and updated the thought of Augustine and Aquinas in the Catechism of the Catholic Church officially teaching the just war theory,[1]but, as we previously mentioned, the Catechism also speaks of the evangelical witness of those who fully answer Jesus’ call and respond nonviolently. Furthermore, we know that the just war theory was one of the two most controversial and debated items in the Catechism.[2]Here, in the context of and discussion about the just war theory in the Catechism, we see the reappearance of a dilemma, an apparent dichotomous paradox within Church tradition. God is perfectly merciful. God is perfectly just. We can see this apparent contradiction in the words of each of the last two Popes. Pope John Paul II writes, “‘legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State’. Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life.”[3] However, Pope Benedict XVI writes, “Loving the enemy is the nucleus of the ‘Christian revolution,’…The revolution of love… Here is the heroism of the “lowly” who believe in God’s love and spread it, even at the cost of their lives!”[4]

What shall we make of this? We have seen already that Jesus clearly and irrevocably taught his disciples love of neighbor and nonviolent resistance. He showed us, by example, not to return evil with evil, but to love, and to forgive, and to pray. We have seen that the first Christians received Jesus’ call to holiness openly and without excuse or limit. For them Jesus’ teachings were not mere platitudes, but were life giving. We have also seen, in a unique way in the past one hundred years, what horrid evil and destruction mankind is capable of. Humanity has been further convinced of the apparent necessity of violent force to defend those who cannot defend themselves and to work for justice. In this respect we can quote the ancient Roman maxim as being accurate current American sensibility: “If you want peace, prepare for war.”

Forced into unease by this apparent contradiction, we shall attempt to accept the challenge put forth by the Church in Gaudium et Spes, and echoed in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church: we shall consider war with a new attitude.[5]

Before attempting a synthesis and determining a firm direction from which we can develop this new attitude, we would be remiss if we did not consider the recent Magisterial statements on war, peace, and violence. The diachronic response of the Magisterium to the atrocities of the last century has overwhelmingly begun to move in thought towards nonviolence: Pope Benedict XV, writing during WWI, speaks confidently that injustices can be rectified without violence and calls on all involved to lay down their weapons.[6] In 1944 Pope Pius XII proclaims, “The Church desires to win over peoples and to educate them to virtue and right social living, not by means of arms but with the truth. For ‘the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty to God.’”[7] Pope Paul VI gives us a hint as to what alternative weapons we might employ:

“It is necessary before all else to provide Peace with other weapons - weapons different from those destined to kill and exterminate mankind. What is needed above all are moral weapons, those which give strength and prestige to international law...It is no longer a simple, ingenuous and dangerous utopia. It is the new Law of mankind which goes forward, and which arms Peace with a formidable principle: "You are all brethren."[8]

Additionally, predating, but adding to the thought of Paul VI, Gaudium et Spes condemns the notion of peace through an arms race[9] and teaches, “the Council wishes passionately to summon Christians to cooperate, under the help of Christ the author of peace, with all men in securing among themselves a peace based on justice and love and in setting up the instruments of peace.”[10]

Based on the above evidence, a shift in Church understanding of violence and war becomes evident. In light of teachings of our popes, no longer can we speak of a Christian war at all, at least not one which implies violent weapons aimed at the destruction of men. What might this new type of war be like? Is it even reasonable? Before we more fully concern ourselves with these questions, we must give heed to the opposite perspective.

---

[1] CCC 2309.

[2] Palermo, 2005.

[3] John Paul II, Encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (1995), 55.

[4] Pope Benedict XVI, Angelus Feb. 18, 2007.

[5] Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, (Rome:the Holy See, 1965), 80; CSDC, 497.

[6] Benedict XV, Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, (1914), 4.

[7] Pius XII, Encyclical Summi Maeroris, (1950), 12.

[8] Paul VI, “The Real Weapons of Peace,” World Day of Peace Message, Jan 1, 1976.

[9] Gaudium et Spes, 81

[10] Ibid., 77.

Christ our Hope: Part 5 - Witness of Early Christianity

This is Part 5 of a series entitled Christ our Hope in the Face of Violence and our Witness to Nonviolent Love. Part 1 served as an introduction and Part 2 considered God as a God of Peace in the Old Testament. Part 3 and Part 4 began to consider what Christ has to say on the issue of violence and war.

THE WITNESS OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY

Up until the time of Constantine, history bears witness to the lives of the first Christians’ taking to heart Jesus’ “third way” and rejecting violence in all situations. In their writing and in their lives Christians lived out Jesus’ commands to love to their enemies, to pray for them, to turn the other cheek, and in following his example, to pray for their enemies while being persecuted unto death in a witness to the efficacy and power of Jesus’ kenotic love. We do not here have time to explore the witness thoroughly, but a few poignant quotes and testimonies will suffice.

The Didache, considered to be the teachings of the Apostles, opens with a paraphrasing of Jesus’ non-violent commands in the Sermon on the Mount:

“There are two ways, one of life and one of death; and between the two ways there is a great difference. Now this is the way of life: First, you must love God who made you, and second, your neighbor as yourself. And whatever you want people to refrain from doing to you, you must not do to them. What these maxims teach is this: Bless those who curse you, and pray for your enemies. Moreover fast for those who persecute you…and you will be perfect…Do not hate anybody; but reprove some, pray for others, and still others love more than your own life.”³⁴

Clearly, the Apostles seem to be fully embracing Jesus’ witness of self-sacrificial love, exhorting their flock to be willing to sacrifice their lives out of love of others. Furthermore, their exhortation to love others more than one’s life is given in the context of those whom one might be tempted to hate, whom one might need to reprove, for whom one might need to pray. The Apostles are not calling Christians to merely die for Christ, although that is certainly primary; they are calling us to be willing to die out love for our enemies. St. Clement of Alexandria begins to clarify the difference between non-Christians and Christians. In this regard he shows that Christians no longer spend time training for war or in violent disputes. “We [Christians] are being educated not in war, but in peace... [For] man is really a [peaceful] instrument…we have made use of one instrument, the peaceful Word only, wherewith we honor God.”³⁵ St. Clement calls us to respond with the Good News of Jesus Christ, but in order to do so we must be educated in peace.

This insight will have bearings on our conclusion. We could quote many more Church Fathers, and nearly all will speak similarly toward violence and Christian involvement in war. Before moving on however, we should reference a few of the Church fathers on specific issues: It is noteworthy that nowhere in patristics do we see any reference to using violence (or anything else) to defend the rights of others.

Tertullian, for example, accepts unreservedly that he would not use violence to avenge wrongs committed against him; therefore he never even considers using violence to avenge the wrongs committed against another.^{36 37} Cadoux explains well that, in spite of this, the early Christians were guilty of neither selfish negligence, nor cowardice³⁸; rather, they lived and died in the image of Christ, reflecting his love and his refusal to avenge the deaths of John the Baptist³⁹ or the slaughtered Galileans.⁴⁰

In moving the discussion further towards war, we can refer to Origen. Writing around 248 in Contra Celsus, he admits the possibility of a just-war for non-Christian peoples,⁴¹ but consistently maintains that Christians should not take part, adding “[Jesus] nowhere teaches that it is right for His own disciples to offer violence to any one, however wicked.”⁴² Origen’s approach to the role of Christians living as citizens in a non-Christian country at war can provide a prophetic witness to our current call. We shall have cause revisit this later.

We have found, in our brief examination of the first two centuries of Christianity, that the followers of Christ indeed interpreted Jesus’ teachings to love the enemy, pray for the persecutor, and turn the other cheek literally. Christians, who had no power on their own and were not in any official way bonded to the state, received Christ’s call and responded generously with love of God and love of neighbor. Furthermore, for the early Christians these were not mere Christian idealisms. To be Christian was to be a man of peace, a man who had no weapon but the Word of the Christ and the Spirit of Love. So when did Christian’s begin to accept and participate in wars?

AUGUSTINE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF JUST-WAR THEORY

The first we see of a major development of a Christian “just war” theory⁴³ is in St. Augustine’s City of God. Augustine began writing around 413, and much had changed for Christians since the time of Origen and Tertullian. Constantine had risen to power, thus ending the persecutions of Christians by the Roman Empire, had been baptized, and died. Shortly thereafter, Christianity became the official religion of the empire. Herein lies a great temptation for Christendom. Christians are no longer merely an oft persecuted minority sect in a powerful Empire.

Rather, much of the Roman Empire became Christianized. The military and the politics were now related to the faith. Emperors and governors tried to mingle political interests with Church issues, bribing priests and bishops. For the first time a significant part of the military, including the banner, became Christian. For the first time, Christians had the power, the strength, to physically, violently fight their enemies. Around this time the empire had also suffered repeated attacks from barbarians. Writing in this context, Augustine was aware of having to defend Christianity from her critics and give the philosophical and theological foundations for Christians who are active citizens in the Roman Empire.⁴⁴

Augustine, developing on the thought of Cicero and the Old Testament, describes the importance of the state as a keeper of peace and defender of persons.⁴⁵ Rome, as a Christian state, must, at times, be able to war in the name of God as a defender of peace. Augustine attempts to answer the nonviolent apologies of Tertullian and others by arguing that killing is not evil in and of itself; rather what matters is the disposition of the person: one must never kill with motivations of hate or vengeance, but only for God’s will, that is, with the intent to defend. Augustine correlates this perspective of the spiritual disposition⁴⁶ of a soldier to that of the state,⁴⁷ thus justifying violent warfare. We must note however, that for Augustine war was only justifiable if it was absolutely necessary, that is, if the state found itself compelled to fight unjust attackers after nonviolent means of settling the issue, via communicating, had failed. Augustine explains, “Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace."⁴⁸

However it is precisely on this point, of necessity, that Tertullian’s argument for Christian nonviolence seems to trump Augustine’s development of a just war theory. Tertullian writes, “A state of faith admits no plea of necessity. They are under no necessity to sin…because there is a higher necessity to dread denying and to undergo martyrdom than to escape from suffering.”⁴⁹ As Christians the only thing that is necessary is following Christ. Christ does not directly forbid violence or violent warfare; instead, focusing on the positive, he commands kenotic love.⁵⁰

Furthermore, McGuckin, explaining St. Basil's pastoral approach to the response of his dioceses to invading barbarians and the subsequent “necessity” of a violent response writes:

All violence, local, individual, or nationally-sanctioned is here stated to be an expression of hubris that is inconsistent with the values of the Kingdom of God, and while in many circumstances that violence may be “necessary” or “unavoidable” (Basil states the only legitimate reasons as the defense of the weak and innocent) it is never “justifiable.” Even for the best motives in the world, the shedding of blood remains a defilement, such that the true Christian, afterwards, would wish to undergo the kathartic experience of temporary return to the lifestyle of penance, that is “be penitent.” Basil’s restriction of the time of penance to three years (seemingly harsh to us moderns) was actually a commonly recognized sign of merciful leniency in the ancient rule book of the early Church.**

Thus, even when Christians were pardoned on the basis of necessity and permitted to participate in a war, neither the war itself nor the violence was justified. In fact, the warriors were considered defiled and in need of penance before returning to the Altar.

Nevertheless, after Augustine, Christians were further assimilated into Rome, and wars were waged in the name of the Church. Although, Augustine’s teaching on just war was not intended to be used by the state (it was initially used by the Church for pastoral purposes to help to determine the guilt and penance for those returning from war),⁵¹before long war, even holy war, became a normal part of Christendom. Some of the wars waged in the name of the Church could be called “just,” others cannot.

The first prime example of a “Christian war”, began more than 600 years after Augustine, when, at the Council of Claremont in 1095, Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade. Admittedly, this war was, in a certain sense, a war waged in defense of the Byzantine Church, which had been under persecution by Muslims. Nevertheless, the sword, which Jesus had scolded Peter for taking up, became a Christian symbol,⁵²meanwhile “Pope Urban II had brought together an international Catholic, war-loving Légion Étrangère.”⁵³

Clearly, this is a major shift, if not a complete reversal, from the faith lived out nonviolently by the early Christians. Previously, Christians had been ridiculed and persecuting for refusing to take part in the military; now they are called “war-loving.” This general attitude was predominant for as long as the Church and the state remained cohorts.⁵⁴

Less than 200 years later and over 800 years after Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas would continue the discussion of the just war theory. Aquinas adds further depth to the theology of the just war theory and further weight to its authority. For Aquinas three things are necessary for a war to be just: the war must be declared by the proper sovereign authority⁵⁵, the war must be waged on those who are guilty of injustice and refuse to make recompense, and those declaring and waging must intend the advancement of the good and deterrence of evil.⁵⁶ Again we must add that for Aquinas war must always be a last resort, and for a war to be just, it must answer the objections he raises in the Summa.⁵⁷

The Church would remain in bed, as it were, with the state, until the Papal States were taken by force in 1870 during the Franco-Prussian War. Since the Church has been freed from the temptation of temporal power and military force, the Magisterium has slowly begun to revert to the nonviolent love and witness of the early Christians. But it has not yet discarded the just-war theory. Let us now consider the more recent proclamations of the Church on the issues of war, peace, violence, and mercy.

Works Cited

34 The “Didache,” 1:1-4, 2:7, cited from Early Christian Fathers, ed. Cyril C. Richardson (Library of Christian Classics Series), 1970, 171-172.

35 Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus, 190-200 A.D, Book I Ch. xii, Book II Ch. ii. 32, Ch. iv. 42.

36 Tertullian, de Corona Militis, 211 A.D., 11 (ii. 92).

37 This is in stark contrast with the common thought of today, which assumes a legitimate defense of self and a duty to defend others, even unto death. We shall have cause to visit this thought in more detail when we consider the contemporary question of just war. (CCC 2263)

38 Cadoux, 70.

39 Matt 14:1-17

40 Luke 13:1-5

41 Origen, Contra Celsus, 248 A.D., vii, 26.

42 Ibid., iii, 7.

43 N.B. For the time being we are assuming that war includes violence, and may therefore be contrary to Jesus’ call.

44 Robert Brimlow, What about Hitler? Wrestling with Jesus’ Call to Nonviolence in an Evil World, (Brazos Press, Grand Rapids, MI: 2006), 23.

45 St. Augustine, City of God (Penguin Classics), (London: Penguin Classics, 2004) 19:7.

46 We can see this also in his exegesis of Matt 5:39, where he limits Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek to a mere inner disposition. Robert Brimlow, correctly I think sees this as introducing a false dichotomy into the human person. See Brimlow, p30-32 for more on this. While I think Brimlow may be correct, we shall not pursue his line of reasoning, which intends to do away with the just war theory.

47 Ibid.

48 St. Augustine, "CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 98 (St. Augustine to Boniface)," NEW ADVENT. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102098.htm (accessed April 22, 2008), clxxxix

49 Tertullian, De Corona XI.

50 Brimlow, 32.

**John McGuckin, "Nonviolence and Peace Traditions in Early & Eastern Christianity".

51 Michael Baxter, “Just War and Pacifism,” Houston Catholic Worker, Vol XXIV, No. 3, May-June 2004.

52 H. W. Crocker, Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic – A 2,000-Year History, (Roseville, CA: Prima Publishing, 2001), 214.

53 Ibid.

54 Crocker points out another intriguing example, in addition to that of war, of the Empire’s influence on Christianity. He writes, “Christianity had distinguished itself, in the centuries before Constantine, by not making heresy a capital crime. After the empire and Christianity became one, the imperial penalty for heresy overruled Christian practice – though most of the leaders of the Catholic Church disapproved of such capital punishment.” Is it a coincidence that these two issues, war and capital punishment, were the most hotly debated topics in the development of the Catechism?

55 Here we see a subtle beginning of the move away from the pastoral focus of the just war theory.

56 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 2a 2ae, Q. 40, A

57 N.B. One of Thomas’ strongest objections quotes Jesus’ aforementioned teachings in the Sermon on the Mount. Aquinas refutes this on basis of necessity, which as we have noted above, Tertullian shows is faulty logic for a Christian.