How Is It That A Person Can Oppose Abortion And Still Be Comfortable W

[Presbylicious]

What the title says. I'm really mystified about this.

Do Roman Catholics tend to be pro-war? What about pro-Iraq-and-Afghanistan-war?

If so, how do you justify such a blatant contradiction in your pro-life convictions? To me, my peace convictions (I am a pacifist - I attend a Presbyterian church but many of my convictions about the Christian's involvement in war and to what extent the Christian should use force are more Mennonite/Anabaptist in nature) are absolutely part and parcel of my pro-life convictions. I would rather die than knowingly carry out an abortion or allow one to be carried out if I could prevent it. I would rather die than to take a gun and shoot someone - in war or not.

It seems like, for a lot of Christians, dedication to defending life stops once a person is born. There is no protest of the horrors of a terrible, criminal war - there is complicity and co-operation with it. There is no protest of situations which degrade the lives of human beings already living (the sex trade, child soldiers, etc).

Sorry for this rant. I'm not terribly familiar with Catholicism, so maybe the Catholic Church already works hard to speak out against unjust war (I realize you are not, institutionally, a 'peace church', but adherents of just war theory) and social injustice. It just seems silly that so many Christians neglect a truly [i]consistent [/i]pro-life ethic. "Pro-life" means "anti-abortion" in people's minds. I am always quick to correct people and say "No, pro-life means PRO-LIFE. Opposition to ALL conditions which would destroy the life and dignity of a human person, from conception to natural death."

What say you?

[Presbylicious]

Also - some juicy quotes from the Church Fathers:

“He who holds the sword must cast it away and that if one of the faithful becomes a soldier, he must be rejected by the Church, for he has scorned God.” - Clement of Alexandria (217 AD)

"We refrain from making war on our enemies, but gladly go to death for Christ's sake. Christians are warriors of a different world, peaceful fighters, but in fidelity to their cause and in readiness to die they excel all others." Justin Martyr, (Apology I ii, 39)

"We who were filled with war and mutual slaughter and every wickedness have each of us in all the world changed or weapons of war... swords into plows and spears into agricultural implements."

Justin Martyr, (Trypho CX)

"In peace, not in war, we are trained.... Various peoples incite the passions of war by martial music; Christians employ only the Word of God, the instrument of peace."

Clement of Alexandria, (Paedagogus I, 12, II, 4)

"We must first inquire whether military service is proper at all for Christians.... The soldier who becomes Christian ought to leave the army.... One soul cannot be due to two Lords--God and Caesar."

Tertullian of Carthage
"When God prohibits killing, he not only forbids us to commit brigandage, which is not allowed even by the public laws, but He warns us not to do even those things which are legal among men. And so it will not be lawful for a just man to serve as a soldier."

Lactantius of Bithynia
"I am a soldier of Christ; I cannot fight."

Martin of Tours

[Archaeology cat]

Well, AFAIK, the Church states that we are to respect all life. We must not just be anti-abortion, but we are against euthanasia & unjust war as well, and seek to help to support those who need it. The things that you mentioned (child soldiers, the sex trade, etc) are not condoned by the Catholic Church.

[Sternhauser]

Presbylicious,

Some very good quotes. And some very good questions. Some people love war. They itch for it. War can be for them a macrocosm of a recreational bar fight. It's something to take their minds off their mundane lives, something that gives a little excitement to an otherwise dull existence. They see a "cause" that doesn't exist, usually involving "honor." Most wars, I would say, are fought for the purposes for which recreational bar fights are fought. But on a national scale. And some people (the ones who start and sustain the war, formally and materially) make a tidy profit off of other people dying. Nationalism posing as patriotism are the beer goggles that usually lead to the instigation of international war. And it's always the egotistical guy who can't leave well enough alone that starts both a barfight or a war. He has something to prove.

Then there is a second species of violence. A very rare one: the use of violence as an ultimate last resort to stop an act of unjust aggression as it is happening. That is not what we are seeing in Afghanistan and Iraq and the "Global War on Terror." (Pardon the mockery quotes.) What we are seeing there is a generalised, systemic and prophylactic use of violence. The attempt will fail, by its very nature.

I have no problem with using violence to stop an actual act of unjust aggression, if it is the last resort, if it has a probable chance of success, etc. In other words, war, to be at all moral, must be the macrocosm of the principles of individual self-defense. It seldom is. Part of that is "fought with just means." It seldom is.

So yes, a soldier, (by the very root of the word, someone who takes the money of the king, as writer Laurence Vance points out,) puts himself in the service of the king. Once he has a chain of command breathing down his neck to do something with the rifle in his sweaty hands, his personal judgment will usually take a little holiday. If you want evidence of even very [i]mild[/i] "authority" being used to induce people to do what they would ordinarily never do, things against their individual moral judgement, look no further than the Milgram Experiment. In case you're unfamiliar with the experiment, her is a summary: the subjects, "the teachers," were told to give an electric shock to another participant, "the learner," every time the participant answered a question incorrectly. The shock was fake, and the other participant was an actor, but the real subject did not know that. The electric shocks were amplified as the experiment progressed, up to "severe and dangerous," and ultimately to three shocks marked as "XXX." The screams of the actor got worse, and he begged to stop the shocks and the experiment. They even shocked "the learner" after they stopped screaming and then stopped responding to questions. All it took for the vast majority to continue administering shocks, even against their better judgment, was a "scientist" in a white lab coat (uniform) calmly telling them "The experiment must go on, so please continue. The experiment requires that you go on." A minority of this majority didn't need any prompting. They obviously thought nothing of causing extreme suffering to their fellow man, for their own sadistic sake, and for the "noble cause" that the subject was "wrong." As one of the commentators note in the duplication, "These are the sort of people that under ordinary circumstances would pose no risk to other human beings." Normal people. No risk to other human beings. Then they join the a scientific experiment or a State military, and thereby [i]put themselves[/i] in extraordinary circumstances.

Here is a duplicate of the original Milgram Test. Watch the expression on the people's faces. Watch how they continue. Part I of III. Watch all three. [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcvSNg0HZwk"]Milgram Experiment Reproduced[/url]

The Stanford Prison Experiment shows you what happens when people are given artificial amounts of power over other people. Arrogance and violence immediately ensue.

Read Laurence Vance's [url="http://www.vancepublications.com/letter_to_young_man.htm"]"Letter to a Christian Young Man Regarding Joining the Military."[/url] It is countersigned, so far, by about fifty different military personnel, officer and enlisted, active and retired, from all of the different branches of the united State military.

~Sternhauser

Edited March 30, 2010 by Sternhauser

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Presbylicious' date='30 March 2010 - 08:17 AM' timestamp='1269947866' post='2083178']
What the title says. I'm really mystified about this.

Do Roman Catholics tend to be pro-war? What about pro-Iraq-and-Afghanistan-war?

If so, how do you justify such a blatant contradiction in your pro-life convictions? To me, my peace convictions (I am a pacifist - I attend a Presbyterian church but many of my convictions about the Christian's involvement in war and to what extent the Christian should use force are more Mennonite/Anabaptist in nature) are absolutely part and parcel of my pro-life convictions. I would rather die than knowingly carry out an abortion or allow one to be carried out if I could prevent it. I would rather die than to take a gun and shoot someone - in war or not.

It seems like, for a lot of Christians, dedication to defending life stops once a person is born. There is no protest of the horrors of a terrible, criminal war - there is complicity and co-operation with it. There is no protest of situations which degrade the lives of human beings already living (the sex trade, child soldiers, etc).

Sorry for this rant. I'm not terribly familiar with Catholicism, so maybe the Catholic Church already works hard to speak out against unjust war (I realize you are not, institutionally, a 'peace church', but adherents of just war theory) and social injustice. It just seems silly that so many Christians neglect a truly [i]consistent [/i]pro-life ethic. "Pro-life" means "anti-abortion" in people's minds. I am always quick to correct people and say "No, pro-life means PRO-LIFE. Opposition to ALL conditions which would destroy the life and dignity of a human person, from conception to natural death."

What say you?
[/quote]
I am Catholic and pro human life. Because of our fallen human nature, people have wars, so the Church has tried to regulate what happens during a war - hence the just war theory, rules of conduct etc. Because life is so precious, I also believe in the judicious use of the death penalty - if you take a human life you forfeit the right to keep your own. If my life is threatened I will certainly defend my kith and kin, because as a parent its my job to protect the lives entrusted to me by God. My daughter is Army National Guard, and while she has no desire to ever kill anyone, she is trained to defend our country.
There is great protest against slavery and child soldiers in the Church, as all other violations of human dignity- but as countries fall back into paganism and fundamentalist tribal units, this will only increase. THe concept of human rights is derived from the Catholic Church.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Presbylicious' date='30 March 2010 - 06:17 AM' timestamp='1269947866' post='2083178']
What the title says. I'm really mystified about this.

Do Roman Catholics tend to be pro-war? What about pro-Iraq-and-Afghanistan-war?

If so, how do you justify such a blatant contradiction in your pro-life convictions? To me, my peace convictions (I am a pacifist - I attend a Presbyterian church but many of my convictions about the Christian's involvement in war and to what extent the Christian should use force are more Mennonite/Anabaptist in nature) are absolutely part and parcel of my pro-life convictions. I would rather die than knowingly carry out an abortion or allow one to be carried out if I could prevent it. I would rather die than to take a gun and shoot someone - in war or not.

It seems like, for a lot of Christians, dedication to defending life stops once a person is born. There is no protest of the horrors of a terrible, criminal war - there is complicity and co-operation with it. There is no protest of situations which degrade the lives of human beings already living (the sex trade, child soldiers, etc).

Sorry for this rant. I'm not terribly familiar with Catholicism, so maybe the Catholic Church already works hard to speak out against unjust war (I realize you are not, institutionally, a 'peace church', but adherents of just war theory) and social injustice. It just seems silly that so many Christians neglect a truly [i]consistent [/i]pro-life ethic. "Pro-life" means "anti-abortion" in people's minds. I am always quick to correct people and say "No, pro-life means PRO-LIFE. Opposition to ALL conditions which would destroy the life and dignity of a human person, from conception to natural death."

What say you?
[/quote]
I'm not going to address the points you make, because that is already being done by smarter people than me, but for next time I would recommend less of the "blatant contradiction in your pro-life convictions", most especially when you fully admit that you're "not terribly familiar with Catholicism". I think you posted this with the right intentions, but as Catholics we get attacks like that a lot, and after a while it all sounds like one long self-righteous rant against Catholics by people who don't know what Catholics believe.

[mortify]

[quote name='Presbylicious' date='30 March 2010 - 07:17 AM' timestamp='1269947866' post='2083178']
Do Roman Catholics tend to be pro-war? What about pro-Iraq-and-Afghanistan-war?[/quote]

Pope John Paul II was against it. One can argue it does not constitute a just war.

[quote]If so, how do you justify such a blatant contradiction in your pro-life convictions? To me, my peace convictions (I am a pacifist - I attend a Presbyterian church but many of my convictions about the Christian's involvement in war and to what extent the Christian should use force are more Mennonite/Anabaptist in nature) are absolutely part and parcel of my pro-life convictions. I would rather die than knowingly carry out an abortion or allow one to be carried out if I could prevent it. I would rather die than to take a gun and shoot someone - in war or not.[/quote]

I would not want to fight either, but there are circumstances where it's unavoidable. Consider for example the Islamic conquests which conquered 2/3 of the Christian world within 100 years of Muhammad's death. Do you really believe the noble Christians who fought to defend places like Constantinople were committing evil? Or that they should have laid down their swords and just let Muslims take the city, tax the Christians, convert their Cathedrals to mosques, and enforce other restrictions without resistance? Reason and natural law tell us waging war in such a case is just. It should be added however, that if a person fights in a war they know to be unjust it would be immoral for them to participate in such war. In the case of being drafted in an unjust war, the soldier will only be justified in killing those who threaten his immediate life.

Now as for abortion, it is a direct attack on innocent life at the most helpless stage of existence. That our country permits and even funds the destruction of life in the womb is far more horrific than any unjust war.

Edited March 30, 2010 by mortify

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='30 March 2010 - 10:32 AM' timestamp='1269963178' post='2083332']
. My daughter is Army National Guard, and while she has no desire to ever kill anyone, she is trained to defend our country.
[/quote]

I'd like to make a distinction. She is trained to kill people she is told are enemies. Whether or not they are, in fact, enemies who pose a real risk to the country, or whether she is [i]used[/i] to kill in actual defense of the country are entirely unrelated to what she is [i]trained[/i] to do. As it is, the people who train her to kill would rather she not come to such conclusions on her own.

~Sternhauser

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='30 March 2010 - 12:02 PM' timestamp='1269964970' post='2083359']
I'd like to make a distinction. She is trained to kill people she is told are enemies. Whether or not they are, in fact, enemies who pose a real risk to the country, or whether she is [i]used[/i] to kill in actual defense of the country are entirely unrelated to what she is [i]trained[/i] to do. As it is, the people who train her to kill would rather she not come to such conclusions on her own.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

[url=http://planetsmilies.net][img]http://planetsmilies.net/vomit-smiley-31.gif[/img][/url]

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='30 March 2010 - 01:02 PM' timestamp='1269964970' post='2083359']
As it is, the people who train her to kill would rather she not come to such conclusions on her own.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Its quite obvious you haven't a clue.

[Apotheoun]

"While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, [i]Letter to the U.S. Bishops on denying Communion to Pro-abortion Politicians[/i], no. 3]

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='30 March 2010 - 11:54 AM' timestamp='1269968095' post='2083384']
Its quite obvious you haven't a clue.
[/quote]

Thank goodness I don't have a clue. And thank goodness I haven't a clue in precisely the same way USMC Major General Smedley Butler didn't have a clue when he said "Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service." If I have to be without a clue, I am glad to be in his clueless company.

~Sternhauser

Edited March 30, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='30 March 2010 - 04:41 PM' timestamp='1269981705' post='2083553']
Thank goodness I don't have a clue. And thank goodness I haven't a clue in precisely the same way USMC Major General Smedley Butler didn't have a clue when he said "Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service." If I have to be without a clue, I am glad to be in his clueless company.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

why would you be thankful to be without a clue?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Presbylicious' date='30 March 2010 - 06:29 AM' timestamp='1269948549' post='2083180']
Also - some juicy quotes from the Church Fathers:

“He who holds the sword must cast it away and that if one of the faithful becomes a soldier, he must be rejected by the Church, for he has scorned God.” - Clement of Alexandria (217 AD)

"We refrain from making war on our enemies, but gladly go to death for Christ's sake. Christians are warriors of a different world, peaceful fighters, but in fidelity to their cause and in readiness to die they excel all others." Justin Martyr, (Apology I ii, 39)

"We who were filled with war and mutual slaughter and every wickedness have each of us in all the world changed or weapons of war... swords into plows and spears into agricultural implements."

Justin Martyr, (Trypho CX)

"In peace, not in war, we are trained.... Various peoples incite the passions of war by martial music; Christians employ only the Word of God, the instrument of peace."

Clement of Alexandria, (Paedagogus I, 12, II, 4)

"We must first inquire whether military service is proper at all for Christians.... The soldier who becomes Christian ought to leave the army.... One soul cannot be due to two Lords--God and Caesar."

Tertullian of Carthage
"When God prohibits killing, he not only forbids us to commit brigandage, which is not allowed even by the public laws, but He warns us not to do even those things which are legal among men. And so it will not be lawful for a just man to serve as a soldier."

Lactantius of Bithynia
"I am a soldier of Christ; I cannot fight."

Martin of Tours
[/quote]

Another juicy quote from a Church Father:

"For if the Christian religion condemned wars of every kind, the command given in the gospel to soldiers asking counsel as to salvation would rather be to cast away their arms, and withdraw themselves wholly from military service; whereas the word spoken to such was, "Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely, and be content with your wages," Luke 3:14 — the command to be content with their wages manifestly implying no prohibition to continue in the service." (St. Augustine of Hippo, Letter 138, 15)

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Presbylicious' date='30 March 2010 - 08:17 AM' timestamp='1269947866' post='2083178']
What the title says. I'm really mystified about this.

Do Roman Catholics tend to be pro-war? What about pro-Iraq-and-Afghanistan-war?

If so, how do you justify such a blatant contradiction in your pro-life convictions?
What say you?
[/quote]


I seem to remember a Bible passage where some soldiers come up to St. John the Baptist and ask him how they should live a life of holiness. He does not tell them to quit their jobs (shockingly enough) but rather "He told them, 'Do not practice extortion, do not falsely accuse anyone, and be satisfied with your wages'" (Luke 3:14). This leaves the crowd amazed and it says they wondered if he was the Messiah. Also there is a long tradition of what is known as the "Just War Doctrine" which stems from writings on St. Augustine (a Church Father) on when a Christian may participate in a war justly. There are also writing in St. Thomas Aquinas on this topic. If you are serious about this question, I would look them up. If you need links I can give them to you but a good google search should be able to provide them too.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Presbylicious' date='30 March 2010 - 08:17 AM' timestamp='1269947866' post='2083178']
It just seems silly that so many Christians neglect a truly [i]consistent [/i]pro-life ethic. "Pro-life" means "anti-abortion" in people's minds. I am always quick to correct people and say "No, pro-life means PRO-LIFE. Opposition to ALL conditions which would destroy the life and dignity of a human person, from conception to natural death."

What say you?
[/quote]

Amen.

Google up some "seamless garment," promoted by one of President Obama's alleged heros, Cardinal Bernadin.

And fwiw, I like to think about what the word "catholic" actually means. To have a catholic (and Catholic) pro-life ethic is exactly what you're saying.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Presbylicious' date='30 March 2010 - 08:17 AM' timestamp='1269947866' post='2083178']

What say you?
[/quote]

Personally, I do not know that the Iraq war falls within the understanding of Just War. I do think our action to get Al qaeda in Afghanistan fall under just action and just war, especially since we had already been attacked. Also, now that we are in Iraq, I do think it would be unjust for us to leave in a way that would otherwise destablize the country.

[mommas_boy]

Basically, we are all against war. However, there does come a time when war is necessary to DEFEND life; that is to say, one cannot morally be the "aggressor" or "instigator" of a war. Just government has not only the right (that is, they not only "can" get into a war), but rather the responsibility (that is, they "must" go to war) when the lives of their citizens are at stake.

Even still, even if a just government has the intention of going to war in order to protect the lives of its citizens, there are still rules to follow, as has been mentioned by others in the "Just War Theory". If you would like to read more on it, have a look here:

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm

EDIT: You see, what really gets me is this. If every nation followed Just War principal, especially my little synopsis, "Do not attack unless attacked upon", there really wouldn't be any wars. Because nobody would provoke the war, and so no one would have to defend against it. But, such are we as fallen humans.

Anyway, this is really what the Catholic view on it is: don't attack unless you are attacked. It is both realistic in the sense that it allows us to defend ourselves, but looking toward what life as a global community should be: without war. I see it as being very wise of our Church leaders to formulate Just War Doctrine as such.

Edited March 31, 2010 by mommas_boy

[Presbylicious]

Wow, thanks for the replies, everyone!

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='30 March 2010 - 11:00 AM' timestamp='1269972018' post='2083429']
"While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, [i]Letter to the U.S. Bishops on denying Communion to Pro-abortion Politicians[/i], no. 3]
[/quote] Thanks, Apo. This answers the question fairly neatly: so it is fair to say a Roman Catholic could actually be a Mennonite-style pacifist? Is there a movement within Catholicism that espouses this sort of nonviolent resistance?

That's the other thing I think some people are confused about: pacifism is [i]not [/i]passivity. It is the refusal to meet an evil means with a similarly evil means.

To give an example: when the Bulgarian Orthodox Metropolitan Kyrill in Plovdiv heard that the Jews in Bulgaria were being rounded up and put onto trains to be sent to the death camps, he marched with those of his flock to the train station and stood amongst the Jews who were to be loaded onto trains. The Nazis attempted to get the Christians to leave, but they refused. Bishop Kyrill shouted aloud a verse from the book of Ruth,

"For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there will I be buried."

The Nazis did not send anyone to the death camps that day, and indeed not a single Bulgarian Jew was sent to the death camps! (though, sadly, this is not the case of some of Bulgaria's outlying territories such as the ones promised them by the Nazis for allying with the Axis powers, such as Thrace and Macedonia). [i]This [/i]is Pacifism - not cowardly, passive non-resistance, but corageous, ballsy (if you'll pardon the crassness), Gospel-driven non-violent resistance to terrible evil. It meets the violent power of the Prince of Darkness with the peaceful power of the King of Peace who laid down his life for His enemies rather than allow them to perish!

[b]Sternhauser: [/b]I have a B.Sc in Linguistics, which had a very large psychology component. I'm familiar with Milgram's experiments. =)

[quote name='Mortify']I would not want to fight either, but there are circumstances where it's unavoidable. Consider for example the Islamic conquests which conquered 2/3 of the Christian world within 100 years of Muhammad's death. Do you really believe the noble Christians who fought to defend places like Constantinople were committing evil? Or that they should have laid down their swords and just let Muslims take the city, tax the Christians, convert their Cathedrals to mosques, and enforce other restrictions without resistance? Reason and natural law tell us waging war in such a case is just. It should be added however, that if a person fights in a war they know to be unjust it would be immoral for them to participate in such war. In the case of being drafted in an unjust war, the soldier will only be justified in killing those who threaten his immediate life. [/quote] I'm not certain they should have fought, no. Persecution is something the Church had to deal with until Constantine came along and 'baptized the sword'. (Consider: prior to Constantine a Christian could not join the Roman Army - after Constantine, you [i]could not [/i]join the Roman army [i]unless [/i]you had received Baptism!) The Church should not use an immoral means in order to defend her liberty. Her Lord told her that she would be persecuted and that she is to [i]love [/i]her enemies and [i]pray for those who persecute her[/i].

Also, the better alternative for the man who is drafted in war and whose government refuses to discharge him based on conscientious objector status, is either to go to prison for his convictions, or if he is forcibly placed on the battlefield, to allow himself to be killed. [i]This [/i]would be the far more God-honouring course of action

[quote name='Mortify']Now as for abortion, it is a direct attack on innocent life at the most helpless stage of existence. That our country permits and even funds the destruction of life in the womb is far more horrific than any unjust war.
[/quote] You will not find any argument from me that abortion is a terrible evil. But to say that an abortion is a greater evil than a killing in war is to [i]de-value [/i]human beings that are born already, which is another criticism I have of pro-lifers whose sole concern seems to be abortion. It seems like, to such people, people outside the womb < an unborn child. A person post-born is just as worth fighting for as an unborn person.

[quote name='Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam']I seem to remember a Bible passage where some soldiers come up to St. John the Baptist and ask him how they should live a life of holiness. He does not tell them to quit their jobs (shockingly enough) but rather "He told them, 'Do not practice extortion, do not falsely accuse anyone, and be satisfied with your wages'" (Luke 3:14). This leaves the crowd amazed and it says they wondered if he was the Messiah. Also there is a long tradition of what is known as the "Just War Doctrine" which stems from writings on St. Augustine (a Church Father) on when a Christian may participate in a war justly. There are also writing in St. Thomas Aquinas on this topic. If you are serious about this question, I would look them up. If you need links I can give them to you but a good google search should be able to provide them too.[/quote]

I'll deal with this in two parts:

First, Luke 3:14 is rendered by most translations (including a prominent Catholic translation, the Douay-Rheims Bible!) with the words 'do violence to no one'. Does serving in the military allow a person to do violence to no one? Certainly not.

Even if we take a view with a version which is more military friendly (for instance, the English Standard Version, actually my translation of preference, has 'Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.') one has to note that John the Baptist is speaking to soldiers who were regularly asked in ancient times by their superiors to extort and intimidate, to refuse to do so. In that time, as is the case today, soldiers were often ordered to cover up unjust behaviour or mistakes by saying 'the enemy was at work' - but John the Baptist isn't allowing for this. What is he saying? Do violence to no man, says one translation. Extort no man. Cheat no man. Falsely accuse no man. The soldier, rather than being given the excuse that he was just following orders, [b]must examine [u]every[/u][/b][u] order that he is given[/u] in order to determine that it is just, and allows him to do no violence, to not cheat, extort, or falsely accuse anyone. In other words, his conscience is captive to the orders of his Commander and to the State, not to God and His Holy Word! This is an absolutely untenable position for the Christian, as Peter and some of the apostles, said 'we must obey God rather than men' (Acts 5:29).

For the Christian to enter the military makes Caesar the master of his conscience, when it should be captive to Christ, and Christ alone!

Second, regarding Augustine: you'll notice that many of the citations above are from ante-Nicene writers. This is because, as I mentioned above, Constantine 'baptized the sword'. With Christianity now becoming mainstream in society, the strong barrier between Church and State was broken down and you [i]had to be a Christian to serve in the army[/i]. As such, as far as I'm concerned, anyone post-Constantine writing positively on the subject of the Christian's participation in war is suspect for this reason.

Phew. I've been working on this reply all day. Thanks for your courteous responses guys. Also, cmom and Stanhauser-guy - please don't rip each other's throats out.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Presbylicious' date='31 March 2010 - 01:41 AM' timestamp='1270017707' post='2083910']
Wow, thanks for the replies, everyone!

Thanks, Apo. This answers the question fairly neatly: so it is fair to say a Roman Catholic could actually be a Mennonite-style pacifist? Is there a movement within Catholicism that espouses this sort of nonviolent resistance?
[/quote]

The just war doctrine is official Church teaching. (See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2309.) All Catholics must accept it.