The just war theory is weak guidance in these times. There is no competent authority to declare war and there is no reasonable means off the authority has sought peace.
I have oft had these debates with folks and the just war theory still applies. I always go back to ww2 as an example. The problem now is the muddling of the Truth to the point where most of the time no one can agree on the facts around any conflict.
Very pleased to see the core issue addressed. In conversations with many good men, in navigating their (often) righteous anger, it’s evident through their unrighteous response that they lack prayer, discernment, prudence, and everything else you (thankfully) mentioned. Only once a man has a truly solid prayer life, and life in the sacraments, can he then further navigate the righteous (or otherwise) anger. But this first step is missed the vast majority of the time. Again - very thankful to see it addressed.
Men clearly are too passive today. We should be angry for the right reasons in the right measure. Dialogue rarely has solved anything in history, all lands, tribes and peoples reside where they reside because their ancestors fought and died. We clearly live in a soft totalitarian society but it will become much worse very soon. Then we will be forced to face our cowardice.
That's such a great point. I am NO theologian, but I think the answer lies somewhere in the goals of the Old Testament vs. the New. In the Old Testament God and the Israelites were reclaiming the Holy Land, which could only be done through violence. You could see this as a grand metaphor for inward and spiritual conquest of personal sin and corruption through prayer and trust in the Lord, rather than conquest of the land as such, even though both are simultaneously in play.
Whereas the New Testament is moving beyond the purpose of conquest to a purpose of renewal. The Messiah has arrived and makes up for the sin of Adam through His own self-sacrifice. The whole message of Christ is spiritually, and not physically, focused. It concentrates on a movement from the physical to the spiritual reunion with His people, made possible by His death and resurrection. After this death, resurrection, and final ascension, the destruction of personal sin and guilt is done spiritually through the sacraments of the Church He established. So it makes sense that his teaching is, at least in part, stopping violence by absorbing it and not perpetuating the cycle that violence necessitates.
Which ends with the dilemma of this article. How do you square necessary personal defense with the teachings of the New Testament?...and doesn't quite answer your question, except to say, Christians are taught to stop the cycle of violence and blood feud through personal absorption and spiritual focus.
This is a crucial topic, especially given our time's increasing totalitarianism. (It's interesting that the Revolutionary war wouldn't be considered a Just war by the criteria of Aquinas.)
I've been reading a bio of St Max Kolbe, and his approach seems to have been the polar opposite of, say, a Bonhoeffer or Alexander Solzenheitzen. Here's the latter's haunting quote:
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? They would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation… We purely and simply deserved everything that happened.”
Right? Spot on. Is the answer large vs small? Like in a break-in scenario you defend, whereas when it's the state you prayerfully accept martyrdom? Or is it okay to defend yourself against all violence? And what would the distinctions be, if not? I don't know how to square necessary personal defense with the teachings of the Gospels.
You guys seem to truly struggle with this one. Is this why justice is feminine? Are we better than you at feeling it? Knowing it? After all these are emotions and so quick. Perhaps feminine perception is just better at grappling with this than men’s when backs are against the wall and appeasement is now so obviously an absolute failure.
Thank you for this thoughtful and thought provoking piece. You touched on every point intrinsic to this problem. Justice and righteous anger have been a problem I've been thinking about a fair bit recently. How do you square self-defense with Christ's teaching on turning the other cheek? How do you react to social injustice meaningfully when Christ's own example in the face of Pilate is silence? Turning the other cheek, absorbing violence while not perpetrating it stops the cycle of violence, and is the wisest course, but how does that square in a break-in situation? Doubly so when you're a father of a family? Obviously in that scenario you are required to defend your family, but I don't see defense as such defended in the Gospels. Then, expanding that out, how do you respond, in true justice, to the injustice of the state? One example: Soviet Russia and the secret police. How should the Russian people have responded meaningfully to their state gone mad? Another example would be the Coptics facing Isis? Is the answer on that level of state led evil simply prayerful acceptance and martyrdom? I still don't know how to square Christ's teaching and life examples with personal defense.
The just war theory is weak guidance in these times. There is no competent authority to declare war and there is no reasonable means off the authority has sought peace.
I have oft had these debates with folks and the just war theory still applies. I always go back to ww2 as an example. The problem now is the muddling of the Truth to the point where most of the time no one can agree on the facts around any conflict.
Very pleased to see the core issue addressed. In conversations with many good men, in navigating their (often) righteous anger, it’s evident through their unrighteous response that they lack prayer, discernment, prudence, and everything else you (thankfully) mentioned. Only once a man has a truly solid prayer life, and life in the sacraments, can he then further navigate the righteous (or otherwise) anger. But this first step is missed the vast majority of the time. Again - very thankful to see it addressed.
Men clearly are too passive today. We should be angry for the right reasons in the right measure. Dialogue rarely has solved anything in history, all lands, tribes and peoples reside where they reside because their ancestors fought and died. We clearly live in a soft totalitarian society but it will become much worse very soon. Then we will be forced to face our cowardice.
I never got the glorification of nonviolence, especially with how often God commanded the Israelites to go to war.
That's such a great point. I am NO theologian, but I think the answer lies somewhere in the goals of the Old Testament vs. the New. In the Old Testament God and the Israelites were reclaiming the Holy Land, which could only be done through violence. You could see this as a grand metaphor for inward and spiritual conquest of personal sin and corruption through prayer and trust in the Lord, rather than conquest of the land as such, even though both are simultaneously in play.
Whereas the New Testament is moving beyond the purpose of conquest to a purpose of renewal. The Messiah has arrived and makes up for the sin of Adam through His own self-sacrifice. The whole message of Christ is spiritually, and not physically, focused. It concentrates on a movement from the physical to the spiritual reunion with His people, made possible by His death and resurrection. After this death, resurrection, and final ascension, the destruction of personal sin and guilt is done spiritually through the sacraments of the Church He established. So it makes sense that his teaching is, at least in part, stopping violence by absorbing it and not perpetuating the cycle that violence necessitates.
Which ends with the dilemma of this article. How do you square necessary personal defense with the teachings of the New Testament?...and doesn't quite answer your question, except to say, Christians are taught to stop the cycle of violence and blood feud through personal absorption and spiritual focus.
This is a crucial topic, especially given our time's increasing totalitarianism. (It's interesting that the Revolutionary war wouldn't be considered a Just war by the criteria of Aquinas.)
I've been reading a bio of St Max Kolbe, and his approach seems to have been the polar opposite of, say, a Bonhoeffer or Alexander Solzenheitzen. Here's the latter's haunting quote:
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? They would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation… We purely and simply deserved everything that happened.”
Right? Spot on. Is the answer large vs small? Like in a break-in scenario you defend, whereas when it's the state you prayerfully accept martyrdom? Or is it okay to defend yourself against all violence? And what would the distinctions be, if not? I don't know how to square necessary personal defense with the teachings of the Gospels.
You guys seem to truly struggle with this one. Is this why justice is feminine? Are we better than you at feeling it? Knowing it? After all these are emotions and so quick. Perhaps feminine perception is just better at grappling with this than men’s when backs are against the wall and appeasement is now so obviously an absolute failure.
Thank you for this thoughtful and thought provoking piece. You touched on every point intrinsic to this problem. Justice and righteous anger have been a problem I've been thinking about a fair bit recently. How do you square self-defense with Christ's teaching on turning the other cheek? How do you react to social injustice meaningfully when Christ's own example in the face of Pilate is silence? Turning the other cheek, absorbing violence while not perpetrating it stops the cycle of violence, and is the wisest course, but how does that square in a break-in situation? Doubly so when you're a father of a family? Obviously in that scenario you are required to defend your family, but I don't see defense as such defended in the Gospels. Then, expanding that out, how do you respond, in true justice, to the injustice of the state? One example: Soviet Russia and the secret police. How should the Russian people have responded meaningfully to their state gone mad? Another example would be the Coptics facing Isis? Is the answer on that level of state led evil simply prayerful acceptance and martyrdom? I still don't know how to square Christ's teaching and life examples with personal defense.