← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · wild_bill
Thread ID: 12462 | Posts: 6 | Started: 2004-02-23
2004-02-23 03:27 | User Profile
Meeting the Orthodox: 25 Questions and Answers on the Orthodox Faith By Fr Thomas Hopko [url]http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Q-and-A/index.html[/url]
QUESTION 17: What about the Orthodox relation to war? The fact that the Orthodox have blessed the military seems to contradict your entire position, not to mention the teaching of Jesus about non-violence.
COMMENT: On the contrary, we would hope that the Orthodox position relative to the military supports what we have already discussed.
Christ taught that perfection requires the love of enemies and the absolute renunciation of resisting evil by evil. Thus if a man will be perfect he will renounce the relative values of this world totally and will not participate in any act which is morally ambiguous. In this way, for example, the Church forbids the bearing of arms to its clergy and does not allow a man to continue in the ministry who has shed blood, theoretically even in an accidental way!
However, the Orthodox Church follows Christ and the apostles in teaching that the relative and morally ambiguous life of this world requires the existence of some form of human government which has the right and even the duty to "wield the sword" for the punishment of evil.
In the Gospels, for example, we do not find Christ or John the Baptist or the apostles commanding the soldiers which they met to cease being soldiers. Even the early Christians bore the arms of the pagan Roman state for the welfare of society in this world.
But still, if a man will be perfect and give his life totally to Christ, he will of necessity renounce military service as well as any political service which always and of necessity is involved with relativistic values and greater and lesser evils and goods. Such a man will also renounce his possessions and follow Christ totally and in everything.
Thus total pacifism is not only possible, it is the sign of greatest perfection, the perfection of the Kingdom of God. According to the Orthodox understanding, however, pacifism can never be a social or political philosophy for this world; although once again, a non-violent means to an end is always to be preferred in every case to a violent means.
When violence must be used as a lesser evil to prevent greater evils, it can never be blessed as such, it must always be repented of, and it must never be identified with perfect Christian morality.
Also, one final point of great importance is that Christians who are involved in the relativistic life of this world must resist military conscription when the state is evil. But when doing so they must not yield to anarchy, but must submit to whatever punishment is given so that their witness will be fruitful.
-
2004-02-23 04:22 | User Profile
But still, if a man will be perfect and give his life totally to Christ, he will of necessity renounce military service as well as any political service which always and of necessity is involved with relativistic values and greater and lesser evils and goods.
That sounds like Amish or Mennonite theology.
Does the Orthodox Church prohibit its members from military service?
Also, one final point of great importance is that Christians who are involved in the relativistic life of this world must resist military conscription when the state is evil.
Who decides at any given moment that the state is "evil?" The Orthodox clergy? Have they ever instructed members to defy a draft?
2004-02-23 08:23 | User Profile
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Note that while war is a terrible thing that results from the Fall, it can be "just" and necessary and that serving in the military in a just war is praiseworthy public service. Serving is a just war is an act of Christian charity.
[QUOTE]Avoiding war
2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.105
2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
[B]However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."106 [/B]
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.
[B]Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace[/B].107
2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.108
2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."109
2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.
Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.
2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."110 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.
2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;111 it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.
2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.
2317 Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:
Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."112 [/QUOTE]
2004-02-23 13:29 | User Profile
The question of the "just war" is one which I, as a (now-skeptical) cradle Catholic, used to read about and mull over frequently, revolutionary gun nut that I am. :) So this is a topic I find very interesting, particularly on account of the implications it has for the morality of self-defense and armed revolution.
I generally agree with Catholic "just war" theory as it applies to fighting between nations. War should be a last resort in response to an imminent threat, but if such a threat exists and there is no other way to stop it, then war must be prosecuted. (It goes without saying that the invasion of Iraq was by no means a "just war" according to this yardstick. If there were more evidence for Saddam's supposed atrocities against his own people, then perhaps a case could be made, but his people were armed and were really responsible for liberating themselves.) I also agree without reservation that all possible efforts should be made to avoid the killing of innocent noncombatants, that prisoners should be treated humanely, and so on.
I strongly disagree, however, with the Catholic view (not necessarily shared by all Christians) that "only the state has a right to declare war." I say that killing is killing regardless of who does it, whether war has been officially declared or not; and the exacerbating or mitigating circumstances surrounding the act(s) of killing are independent of whom the actors are. How could it be otherwise?
Getting into the subject of civil authority and revolution, the early Church Fathers made some good points which I readily accept. I think it was Aquinas who stated that a civil law that is contrary to the Natural Law is not really a law at all. If memory serves, he was also correctly pointed out that the arbitrary use of power by rulers is tyranny. So far, so good.
Where I disagree with the Church is on remedies for tyranny. Augustine, for example, did not permit violent revolution even for the purpose of ending tyrannical persecution; I believe he said that the appropriate response is to accept the tyranny as divine punishment and pray for it to end. I say: Nuts to that! I'm not going to just sit around while police and soldiers have their way with my friends, family, and countrymen.
Other Catholic theologians, both past and present, are not as strict as Augustine, but most place such extreme constraints on the moral justification of revolution as to make it all but impossible. Many Protestant theologians have done the same. I don't have a source for this handy, but I read somewhere that one of the main reasons the Founding Fathers adopted Deism rather than Christianity is because they felt the Christian prohibition against revolution was incompatible with true Natural Law. I will look for the source and post it here if I find it.
When it comes to personal self-defense, the Catholic Church accepts the use of the minimum necessary force by private citizens necessary to stop an attack. It does not allow the deliberate killing of one's attacker, but only the use of deadly force according to the "double-effect" principle: one uses the force with the intent to stop the attack and save one's life, not with the intent to kill the attacker. That sorta-kinda seems reasonable enough, but get this: the Catholic Church does allow "lawful authorities" to deliberately kill attackers. Now, why should morality for a cop be any different from morality for Joe Citizen? That's inconsistent. If it's morally unacceptable for me to shoot to kill to defend my life or that of others, then why is it morally acceptable for someone else to do so just because he wears a badge? I say: Given equal circumstances, the same moral considerations apply to both citizen and state. This is common sense. If life can be spared without danger to innocent parties, then it should be spared; if it cannot be spared, then it shouldn't be. It doesn't matter who's making the decision.
To summarize, I think Catholic "just war" doctrine is quite sensible as it pertains to conflict between officially-recognized states; I disagree, however, with the Church's artificial moral distinction between state and non-state actors in issues related to the use of force. To accept such a distinction is to put too much faith in government and to court tyranny, and that's unacceptable without direct, empirical proof that God wills it to be so.
2004-02-23 14:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]That sounds like Amish or Mennonite theology.
Does the Orthodox Church prohibit its members from military service?
No.
Who decides at any given moment that the state is "evil?" The Orthodox clergy? Have they ever instructed members to defy a draft?[/QUOTE]
I suppose a person would decide this himself after prayer, and after consulting with his priest if possible, but I think the statement assumes there's little, if any, ambiguity. If an individual makes the decision, he must of course take responsibility if he acts incorrectly.
2004-02-23 17:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I strongly disagree, however, with the Catholic view (not necessarily shared by all Christians) that "only the state has a right to declare war." I say that killing is killing regardless of who does it, whether war has been officially declared or not; and the exacerbating or mitigating circumstances surrounding the act(s) of killing are independent of whom the actors are. How could it be otherwise?[/QUOTE]
I think that the term of art is a bit more ambiguous than that - it has to be a legitimate authority.
You're misinformed about acquiesance to political oppression. There is of course a Natural Law right of revolution arising from general principles of self defense. There are times when Christians must disobey the civil authorities, and indeed take up arms to resist tyranny. The presumption is always stacked heavily toward obedience to legitimate authority and peaceful change, but there comes a time when both must be discarded.
The Catechism speaks directly to this:
[QUOTE]2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."48 "We must obey God rather than men":49
When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.50
2243 Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution. [/QUOTE]
Once again, you're mistaking the suburban American version of Church teaching for the real McCoy. It's okay, I still do it sometimes. We grew up after Vatican II, after all. I remember in my Confirmation class we read a 1970's feel-good pop psychology book called "I Ain't Much Baby But I'm All I've Got" instead of reading the Bible or Church doctrine. It was the times, I'm afraid. We were robbed of our heritage, and our job is to take it back using any means necessary.
Walter