There are two schools of thought in the Catholic church about how to tackle tyranny. The traditional one is that it is justified to take up arms to defeat tyranny in certain circumstances. The other school of thought is that it is preferable to take the course of non-violent resistance.
The debate about the justification for armed insurrection will go on for as long as there are human beings with grievances or perceived grievances. It has been going on within the Catholic church for centuries and it will continue to be a huge moral and spiritual issue for many.
For those opposed to the use of violence under any circumstances the answer is cut and dried. The use of armed force is always wrong. Killing is always wrong as the Fifth commandment states. The people who take this view tend to take the moral high ground and lecture and condemn those who see no alternative to armed insurrection to end oppression. Those who lecture usually belong to the comfortable class who are not directly affected by the oppression or injustice and who have been favoured in some ways by those in power.
The Catholic church many centuries ago introduced the notion of the Just war and this was followed for many years offering many in positions of power a way out of the dilemma about killing. However, ever since Pearl harbour and Hiroshima and Nagasaki that theory has been almost abandoned within the Catholic church. It is accepted now in most Christian churches that there can never be justification for the use of nuclear weapons by the powers since in this context the use of weapons of mass destruction would lead to the annihilation of the human race.
The Just War theory is no longer acceptable in Catholic theology as a way of dealing with disputes-international or otherwise. With the rise of Muslim extremists this debate is more sharply focussed. How are western countries, mainly Christian, to respond to the advance of the Muslim extremists like ISis? Can an armed response be justified?
you could lose people their jobs with questions like that.didnt katie hopkins lose hers over giving her opinion.
Strange that Billy, a view too extreme for the British media…. when they are constantly exhalting their troops and their murdering antics elsewhere…..unequalled hypocrisy
You see to me its more about my way of life my traditions my upbringing, the feeling i get getting of the plane that i am home. I am going to see my family and friends, go to the pub meet my mates talk about where i was what i was doing, where were they if anywhere and what they were up to. Going to watch a local match maybe going down to Dublin for the weekend maybe to Croke Park. All the familiar stuff i grew up with go for a walk round the shore meet someone have a chat go for a pint. So the question is below.
There are two schools of thought in the Catholic church about how to tackle tyranny. The traditional one is that it is justified to take up arms to defeat tyranny in certain circumstances. The other school of thought is that it is preferable to take the course of non-violent resistance.
I am with the first one because it also usually means protecting my family and also very important my way of life and traditions.
(The Just War theory is no longer acceptable in Catholic theology as a way of dealing with disputes-international or otherwise. With the rise of Muslim extremists this debate is more sharply focussed. How are western countries, mainly Christian, to respond to the advance of the Muslim extremists like ISis? Can an armed response be justified?)
(The Just War theory is no longer acceptable in Catholic theology as a way of dealing with disputes-international or otherwise )
Well that’s just to bad for the catholic church and their theology because Ireland is a secular country and they can speak like anyone else but i would like to think that they have no more authority than anyone else in my secular opinion. I personally think religion should butt out of politics. Unless a priest wants to take his collar of so to speak and try to persuade me to his point of view without relying on God. Like i say i will listen to his secular point of view and make up my own mind.
(With the rise of Muslim extremists this debate is more sharply focused. How are western countries, mainly Christian, to respond to the advance of the Muslim extremists like ISis? Can an armed response be justified?)
In my humble opinion George Bush and Tony Blair are two criminals followed by those other criminals Obama and Cameron and the french guy in Libya. They are responsible or the deaths of hundreds of thousands of poor Muslims and thousands of Christians. Who were lets be honest kind of tolerated by the Muslim majority, but who became targets because of their actions. Then when it all really got down and dirty and you had to show just how good a neighbor you really were unfortunately the leaders of Islam and a hell of a lot of Muslims were kind of found wanting. There is an odd wee condemnation here and their but no real groundswell of protest to the barbarism of Islam towards Christians Jews gays child abuse, women rights amputations weekly hangings floggings horrific. (Do you see now why i like my secular country)not even by those Muslims safely living in a secular country with all its protections for religious liberty and freedom of speech..If other christian country’s were behaving like this and practicing, an in my opinion outdated tradition like Sharia law and parts of the bible We in Ireland would be marching in protest and doing our best to help people and demanding change. I just think all country’s should be secular with a free judiciary and swear on the bible or harry potter if you want but tell the truth or face the consequences.
Islam is in my opinion a political and religious movement as Christianity sort of was. But christian countries learned over the centuries religion and politics was not a good mix, best totally separated. So yes if these type of religious people come for you wipe them out you most certainly wont change their twisted thinking.
It is a very interesting question and I wish Joe had actually given us his view rather than just pose the question.
I would have thought that followers of Christ would surely have to advocate non violence
I have previously cited just war theory as a way of assessing the rightness or otherwise of armed conflict.and I do think it or something along the same basic lines is necessary as a generally accepted frame for society to deal with conflict and its aftermath.
The alternative is to have a free for all where might is right and the strong can do as they like with no fear of consequences.
Yes I know that already happens in practice a lot of the time,but in theory at least, there are consequences for illegal wars and for war crimes..
I would be interested to hear what others think.
Maybe the answer is to get your own nuclear arsenal or better still buy one of your next door neighbours. Any dodgy arms deal and they’re your men.