Pacifism and Matthew 5:39

[Anastasia13]

I'm not a pacifist, but in a debate a while back, the opposing view offered Matthew 5:39 to support pacifism. I haven't fully resolved my understanding in light of this verse. Can anyone help me?

Matthew 5:39 in the NKJV that I have is: "But I tell you not to resist an eavil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."

Thank you.

[philothea]

It was that verse, and the succeeding ones, that have formed my pacifist stance.

I understand the Church may have exceptions, but to me, personally, I cannot justify violence, even against someone who is evil.

I know war may be [i]allowed[/i] but I don't think fighting is [i]required[/i] of anyone.

[StColette]

I'm pretty much a pacifist at heart, and have been that way since I was very very young. If you want to read about a Catholic pacifist I would read about Dorothy Day.

[Cathurian]

But what if it's like Hitler?

What do you do if someone is just bent on slaughter and will not respond to diplomacy, or even appeasement?

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='philothea' date='Jul 23 2005, 01:54 PM']I know war may be [i]allowed[/i] but I don't think fighting is [i]required[/i] of anyone.
[right][snapback]655912[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I don't understand how you can say that.

[mulls]

ok if we are going to think like this, than I don't want to hear anybody complaining about why there are so many sissy Christian men who don't stand up for themselves or for what's right these days.

i hear that thrown around all the time. no wonder.

[philothea]

[quote name='Light and Truth' date='Jul 23 2005, 03:18 PM'][quote name='philothea' date='Jul 23 2005, 02:54 PM']
I know war may be [i]allowed[/i] but I don't think fighting is [i]required[/i] of anyone.
[right][snapback]655912[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I don't understand how you can say that.
[right][snapback]655936[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Errr.

Is there some Church or biblical teaching that says that people are required to use violence? (If biblical, New Testament, please.)

JPII was a pacifist. It can hardly be incompatible with Catholic doctrine!

[philothea]

[quote name='Cathurian' date='Jul 23 2005, 03:15 PM']But what if it's like Hitler?

What do you do if someone is just bent on slaughter and will not respond to diplomacy, or even appeasement?
[right][snapback]655933[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I can't speak for other people, and I don't say it would be wrong for them to use force.

I would try to get in the way, and do whatever nonviolent thing I could do to stop someone like that. I'd probably be killed in the process.

[jmjtina]

Historically important pacifists include Leo Tolstoy, Mohandas K. Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr.

No violence.

There are so many factors concerning WWII. I don't like to think that it all became as big as it did overnight.

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='jmjtina' date='Jul 23 2005, 06:36 PM']Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
[right][snapback]656111[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
what if words are not enough?

[Aloysius]

you know in Jesus' time turning the other cheek was an INSULT, basically like saying "is that all you got punk?"

in a self-defence situation it can be noble to allow yourself to be hurt or even killed without fighting back. but when other people are in danger, your family (or even in circumstances of a just war, your homeland) it is often your responsibility to step up and use violence if necessary. Yes, that's right, I said responsibility, as in it would be wrong to stand by and do nothing.

[jmjtina]

[quote name='Light and Truth' date='Jul 23 2005, 08:23 PM']what if words are not enough?
[right][snapback]656198[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Martin Luther King Jr. only used words?

Four words:

Open your history book.

[Aloysius]

okay... so next time a murderer is holding his gun to someone I'll just break out into "I have a dream, that one day, you will not murder that person!"

no... sorry, I'll pull the trigger of a gun in a heartbeat to stop him from murdering an innocent person.


oh, and maybe if the Allies during WWII would've said "I have a dream, that one day, Hitler will not invade Poland and cause havoc over Europe and kill millions of people"..

sorry, SOMETIMES, words are not enough.

[jmjtina]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 23 2005, 09:13 PM']okay... so next time a murderer is holding his gun to someone I'll just break out into "I have a dream, that one day, you will not murder that person!"

no... sorry, I'll pull the trigger of a gun in a heartbeat to stop him from murdering an innocent person.
oh, and maybe if the Allies during WWII would've said "I have a dream, that one day, Hitler will not invade Poland and cause havoc over Europe and kill millions of people"..

sorry, SOMETIMES, words are not enough.
[right][snapback]656285[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

that's not what I meant al.

On a grander scale, I think alot of people do nothing to prevent WAR. During History class, one of the BIGGEST things I couldn't get was why no one did anything when Hitler first invaded and broke that first treaty. That's like everyone turning a blind eye to the fact that this man just broke law and everyone's right in that country.

When I mean good men do nothing, I mean just that.

Stick a gun in a face of an innocent person, and you bet I'll use violence as well to defend myself. Don Jon taught me better than that.

[Aloysius]

okay, then I'm confused as to what you meant. anyway, when he broke that first treaty all they did was use words, when they should've used force then and there.

I thought you were saying that we should be more pacifist and only use words like MLKJ (seemed like you were arguing words are always enough)...

[jmjtina]

they didn't even follow the treaty when it stated what should be done to them if they WERE to break it.

I think my brain is going faster than my hands.

and because I'm cleaning at the same time.

[philothea]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 23 2005, 10:01 PM']you know in Jesus' time turning the other cheek was an INSULT, basically like saying "is that all you got punk?"
[right][snapback]656261[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Do you have a reference for that? In context, it seems unlikely...

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles."

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jul 23 2005, 10:13 PM']okay... so next time a murderer is holding his gun to someone I'll just break out into "I have a dream, that one day, you will not murder that person!"

no... sorry, I'll pull the trigger of a gun in a heartbeat to stop him from murdering an innocent person.
oh, and maybe if the Allies during WWII would've said "I have a dream, that one day, Hitler will not invade Poland and cause havoc over Europe and kill millions of people"..

sorry, SOMETIMES, words are not enough.
[right][snapback]656285[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

u don't need to kill him to stop him, in your the second scenario.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]Is there some Church or biblical teaching that says that people are required to use violence? (If biblical, New Testament, please.)[/quote]

Yes, actually. From the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

[quote]Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. [b]The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. [/b]The end of the Commandment­ is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.[/quote]

Taking up violence against an unjust agressor is an act of OBEDIENCE to the sixth commandment, and thus morally necessary. The Church does allow conscientous objections in the context of war, since society as a whole takes up defense, and thus one person is not going to make the difference. This provision is akin to St. Paul's teaching that those Jewish converts who couldn't in good conscience eat meat to refrain, and those who could, to do so. Eating meat was nevertheless morally licit, whether they ate it or not. The same is true of violence in some circumstances.

[quote]JPII was a pacifist. It can hardly be incompatible with Catholic doctrine! [/quote]

John Paul II was not a pacifist. Not only was he in the army himself, he also defended the Church's teaching on Capital Punishment (its licitness in certain circumstances), and he also did not oppose the US war in Afghanistan.

Christ's command to "turn the other cheek" does not imply an absolute rule of pacifism, anymore than his command to "give your cloak" is a rule for Franciscan poverty, or his command to "call no man father" is a condemnation of sacerdotal titles. Rather, it is an exhortation to be willing to endure persecution however far it goes.

Christ did not tell the Roman centurion when he met him to give up his arms. He told him to be just in exercising his duties as a soldier, not to rape and pillage, and so forth.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='philothea' date='Jul 23 2005, 07:14 PM']
I don't understand how you can say that.
[right][snapback]655936[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Errr.

Is there some Church or biblical teaching that says that people are required to use violence? (If biblical, New Testament, please.)

JPII was a pacifist. It can hardly be incompatible with Catholic doctrine!
[right][snapback]656098[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Why New Testement the Old Testement is just as Valid, God didn't just Change His very Nature the day of the Incarnation he just showed us a good deal more of it. I think there are times that it is morally obligatory to use violence but I think it is never morally obligatory to use violence to defend oneself, one has the right to allow ones own life to be taken, that is not true of the defenceless that one is responsable for. for example I think it is morally obligatory for a parent to use violence to protect his Child, likewise it is obligatory for the soldier or policemen to use violence to protect the citizen, one is required to defend those one is responsable for.

Was JPII a pacifist? I don't recall him saying that violence was never permissable--- by the way just as an aside pacifism has been pivotal in the escalation of warfare for hundreds of years but that I suppose is a differant story.