Conscription: What is a proper Christian view?

[RDKirk]

Likely not but that's because God will have full sovereignty and power. Do we assume that God doesn't want us to reflect that aspect of himself but in a way which is geared towards the good?

It's not good.

 

[RDKirk]

so does that mean that we should just allow ourselves to be attacked or allow others to be attacked when we COULD do something about it? My late aunt and recently deceased grandfather for example were two of the LAST people I would expect to raise their voice in anger and I do not recall seeing either mad and certainly never violent, but I can also promise you that if they felt that their family ( particularly the grandchildren and in Pa Pa's case great grandchildren were in danger that may well be the last thing you ever did. Particularly sense my aunt carried in public with a permit ( though by her death one was NOT required in GA.)

Remember, you're talking to someone who spent 26 years in the military. And, btw, I'm licensed to carry a concealed weapon. When it comes down to it, I'm a sheepdog.

But not for a moment am I fooled to think that there is ever anything righteous about taking another life.

 

[RDKirk]

Does that mean therefore that all force or violence is immoral?

Unrighteous.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Remember, you're talking to someone who spent 26 years in the military. And, btw, I'm licensed to carry a concealed weapon. When it comes down to it, I'm a sheepdog.

But not for a moment am I fooled to think that there is ever anything righteous about taking another life.

I am confused I mean it would seem to me that if God has no problem with self-defense or defense of others then unless a person say oh I don't know started the issue there would be nothing wrong with it they call it justified homicide. This does not mean that such people WANT to take a life nor does it mean that if forced to do so they will not need mental help or even ever be the same but there is nothing wrong with self defense or defense of others.

 

[RDKirk]

I am confused I mean it would seem to me that if God has no problem with self-defense or defense of others then unless a person say oh I don't know started the issue there would be nothing wrong with it they call it justified homicide.

I don't confuse God's sheltering grace in the unrighteousness of the world as being righteous. What Jesus said about divorce applies as well to God's sheltering grace for other things such as self defense. But being sheltered by grace from condemnation is not the same thing as being righteous.

Going into the issue of divorce as the example, as Jesus tells it, the woman who has been unjustly divorced by her husband and subsequently remarries is caused to sin by the hardness of her ex-husband's heart. This doesn't mean she doesn't sin by remarrying, it means God recognizes who bears the guilt for it.

But it's still better not to be caught up in that whole cloud of sin. God permits Caesar to wield the sword, but that doesn't mean He expects Christians to take part in that, especially when in nearly all instances Caesar uses the sword unjustly.

I personally got tired of being used unjustly. I'm not sure God's sheltering grace extends to allowing oneself to be used unjustly and knowing it.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It's not good.

Violence used for correction and addressing justice isn't good? Is it evil then?

 

[RDKirk]

Violence used for correction and addressing justice isn't good? Is it evil then?

I have personally been involved in the slaughter of two hundred women and children...who would have lived absent my own action. We struck the intended target, which would not have happened except for me.

But America called that "good." It even went into my performance folder.

So, who is making the pronouncement of what is "good?" Is it God? Is the US likely to fight a war that God would say is "good?"

 

[timothyu]

Would you mind expanding on this? It seems that you might be hinting at Constantine or perhaps Augustine?

I am inclined towards this perspective, but I think there is still room to fight under a state rather than for a state. Sometimes a state's goals would be those of a Christian and working with the state in such a context might be acceptable.

It wasn't long before gentile Christians returned to what they knew best, the secular world, making the religion over in their own image of leadership, using God rather than changing themselves to suit His will. It has continued until this day and will until the end. Other wise the first and foremost rule of any church and nailed above the door would be put God's will first which for us is acting in servitude to each other, everyone. Would this make playing soldier acceptable? The church will not teach that which condemns itself without deep state repercussions.

 

[Hoping2]

On a broad societal level, yes, people were killed to protect you.

That is only your assumption.

Laws were enforced which require ultimately the barrel of a gun to enforce and you rely on the order of said society in order to have some sense of stability.

My reliance, and Leader, is God.
The world's societies hate God.

So when you say God has it covered, what do you mean?

God's will is being done on earth now, just as it has always been done.
Part of that will is the safety of His children.

Is it in a general vague sense or is that God produces miracles to defend you from harm each time they might happen?

I can only speak to the times I know His intercession happened.

I think I remember in our last discussion you implied that if a Christian gets attacked then they probably weren't a true Christian because they were attacked and didn't rely on God. Do I have that right?

That would depend on the context of the attack.
If the Christian is speaking God's word somewhere and is attacked, it is for the furtherance of the gospel.
I don't believe that Christians are ever the victims of random attacks.

 

[Hoping2]

yes, as written, all animal, birds, and fish seek on earth, look to Yahweh for sustenance(food) DAILY.

The miracles are every day, regardless if seen or not.

Amen to that !!!

 

[Hoping2]

It's not necessarily a dichotomy Hoping and this is my frustration with your perspective.

OK

You seem to think that in acknowledging the participation of others in our lives for certain things, like being defended against an aggressor, that we somehow deny God in all of this.

The world has "Veterans day", but no "God's Day".
The world has given men the glory that rightfully belongs to God.
Whenever man is credited with something, God is denied.

Your position comes across as incredibly craven and self righteous in that you acknowledge the need for protection,

Where have I acknowledged a need for the protection of men ?

that others protect you, but then you condemn them as wicked for having the gall to actually defend you because they might harm someone else.

Killers ARE wicked, but the world glorifies them as saviors.
I am not of that world.

 

[Aaron112]

I don't believe that Christians are ever the victims of random attacks.

?
also, everyone else.
also, not always random. but it may outwardly seem so.

Remember, ALL society is evil.
ALL society is death dealing.
ALL society is pernicious.
ALL society is seeking to bring everyone down, no matter how close or how far away.

 

[Hoping2]

?
also, everyone else.
also, not always random. but it may outwardly seem so.

Remember, ALL society is evil.
ALL society is death dealing.
ALL society is pernicious.
ALL society is seeking to bring everyone down, no matter how close or how far away.

Thank God I am not a member of the world's society.

 

[o_mlly]

What if the Catholic in question considers the war immoral. Is he still bound to serve?

The moral teaching is Catholic and would apply to all, not just Catholics.

A defensive war is either objectively just or unjust. A certain conscience is distinguished from a probable conscience. Conscience can error. If in error one's probable conscience deems the war unjust then subjectively, one may not excuse themself from service. A conscience is certain when without any prudent fear of error it firmly decides that some act is either lawful or unlawful.

A defensive war that is unjust, for example, is an unwinnable war. A conscript in an such an unjust war may with certain conscience refuse service.

 

[RDKirk]

The moral teaching is Catholic and would apply to all, not just Catholics.

A defensive war is either objectively just or unjust. A certain conscience is distinguished from a probable conscience. Conscience can error. If in error one's probable conscience deems the war unjust then subjectively, one may not excuse themself from service. A conscience is certain when without any prudent fear of error it firmly decides that some act is either lawful or unlawful.

A defensive war that is unjust, for example, is an unwinnable war. A conscript in an such an unjust war may with certain conscience refuse service.

Some parts of that don't make sense.

Logical Issue: A war’s justice does not depend on its winnability.

An unjust war is one that fails just war criteria (such as proper authority, proportionality, or last resort). A just war can be lost, and an unjust war can be won.

If you mean that an unwinnable war is unjust due to unnecessary loss of life, that would require more theological and philosophical support.

A probable conscience is uncertain by definition. Catholic moral theology would not require someone to act against their conscience, even if it is only probable.

 

[o_mlly]

Some parts of that don't make sense.

Logical Issue: A war’s justice does not depend on its winnability.

An unjust war is one that fails just war criteria (such as proper authority, proportionality, or last resort). A just war can be lost, and an unjust war can be won.

If you mean that an unwinnable war is unjust due to unnecessary loss of life, that would require more theological and philosophical support.

A probable conscience is uncertain by definition. Catholic moral theology would not require someone to act against their conscience, even if it is only probable.

Death came into the world through Original Sin. Human deaths are evil. We should avoid doing evil. Prosecuting an unwinnable war increases human deaths unnecessarily.

Proportionality also requires that the defender have some probability of success in going to war – otherwise people will suffer and die needlessly.

Catholic moral theology requires one not act against his certain conscience.

 

[RDKirk]

Death came into the world through Original Sin. Human deaths are evil. We should avoid doing evil. Prosecuting an unwinnable war increases human deaths unnecessarily.

Proportionality also requires that the defender have some probability of success in going to war – otherwise people will suffer and die needlessly.

Catholic moral theology requires one not act against his certain conscience.

Does Catholic moral theology require one to act against his probable conscience?

If one's conscience is only probable, it is still all that he has. Explain why he should act against his probable conscience any more than his certain conscience?

 

[o_mlly]

Does Catholic moral theology require one to act against his probable conscience?

If one's conscience is only probable, it is still all that he has. Explain why he should act against his probable conscience any more than his certain conscience?

It is patently obvious why we must obey a true conscience.

When we know that we don't know: It is not permissible to follow conscience when it is in vincible error no matter whether it commands or forbids some action. The man who acts without being morally certain that his act is lawful commits sin by exposing himself unnecessarily to the proximate danger of formally offending God. On the other hand, one cannot act contrary to such a conscience. However, the error must be corrected before any action is taken.

Sometimes it is impossible to obtain anything more than imperfect certainty regarding our actions and no one is bound to do the impossible. Even the most probable opinion is not absolutely certain but is certain only in the wide sense of the term. One is permitted to follow a most probable opinion, and absolute certainty is not always required, certainty in the wide sense is sufficient.

Man’s obligation to follow an invincibly erroneous conscience is because failure to do so would mean that he was acting contrary to his subjective norm of morality and was therefore committing sin.

 

[RDKirk]

It is patently obvious why we must obey a true conscience.

I did not question that.

When we know that we don't know: It is not permissible to follow conscience when it is in vincible error no matter whether it commands or forbids some action. The man who acts without being morally certain that his act is lawful commits sin by exposing himself unnecessarily to the proximate danger of formally offending God. On the other hand, one cannot act contrary to such a conscience. However, the error must be corrected before any action is taken.

Sometimes it is impossible to obtain anything more than imperfect certainty regarding our actions and no one is bound to do the impossible. Even the most probable opinion is not absolutely certain but is certain only in the wide sense of the term. One is permitted to follow a most probable opinion, and absolute certainty is not always required, certainty in the wide sense is sufficient.

You have, then, said that a man's got to go with as much as he knows, even when he is aware his knowledge is not perfect (which it rarely is). That's going to be "probable conscience," in most situations.

Man’s obligation to follow an invincibly erroneous conscience is because failure to do so would mean that he was acting contrary to his subjective norm of morality and was therefore committing sin.

As I understand Catholic teaching, an "invincibly erroneous conscience" would be a conscience that cannot be made perfect. There is no way for that man to do any better than his own probable conscience...he's still compelled to go with as much as he knows.

Keeping in mind that we're talking about conscription into the military of any given nation, in what case is a Christian obligated to act against his conscience regardless how imperfect it is? That is my question.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I have personally been involved in the slaughter of two hundred women and children...who would have lived absent my own action. We struck the intended target, which would not have happened except for me.

But America called that "good." It even went into my performance folder.

So, who is making the pronouncement of what is "good?" Is it God? Is the US likely to fight a war that God would say is "good?"

Since I do not think the wars the USA has engaged In were on the whole good, I am not going to justify your operation which resulted in 200 women and children slaughtered.

This sort or extreme example is not what I was thinking about when I referred to the good use of physical force. If there is a mad man with a gun who is killing multiple people, the application of violence to this man to defend others is not evil. It is necessary and if we're going to say that killing the mad man is evil then we have to allow those who would do evil do evil.

I would also not go as far as you would and suggest any warfare is evil and therefore impermissable. It seems to me there were countless times Christians were called to fight for their own defense and for their own benefit.