Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Turning the other cheek; is it obligatory, no ifs, no buts?
Topic Started: Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 18:14 (1,432 Views)
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Rose of York
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 21:36
Clare
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 21:12
The Catechism of the Council of Trent list types of killing which are lawful.
Please may we have that list? One never knows when it may come in handy.
Ha ha! Of course, Rose!

The Fifth Commandment

Quote:
 
Exceptions:

The Killing Of Animals

With regard to the prohibitory part, it should first be taught what kinds of killing are not forbidden by this Commandment. It is not prohibited to kill animals; for if God permits man to eat them, it is also lawful to kill them. When, says St. Augustine, we hear the words, "Thou shalt not kill," we do not understand this of the fruits of the earth, which are insensible, nor of irrational animals, which form no part of human society.

Execution Of Criminals

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. 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. 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.

Killing In A Just War

In like manner, the soldier is guiltless who, actuated not by motives of ambition or cruelty, but by a pure desire of serving the interests of his country, takes away the life of an enemy in a just war.

Furthermore, there are on record instances of carnage executed by the special command of God. The sons of Levi, who put to death so many thousands in one day, were guilty of no sin; when the slaughter had ceased, they were addressed by Moses in these words: You have consecrated your hands this day to the Lord.

Killing By Accident

Again, death caused, not by intent or design, but by accident, is not murder. He that killeth his neighbour ignorantly, says the book of Deuteronomy, and who is proved to have had no hatred against him yesterday and the day before, but to have gone with him to the wood to hew wood, and in cutting down the tree the axe slipt out of his hand, and the iron slipping from the handle struck his friend and killed him, shall live. Such accidental deaths, because inflicted without intent or design, involve no guilt whatever, and this is confirmed by the words of St. Augustine: God forbid that what we do for a good and lawful end shall be imputed to us, if, contrary to our intention, evil thereby befall any one.

There are, however, two cases in which guilt attaches (to accidental death). The first case is when death results from an unlawful act; when, for instance, a person kicks or strikes a woman in a state of pregnancy, and abortion follows. The consequence, it is true, may not have been intended, but this does not exculpate the offender, because the act of striking a pregnant woman is in itself unlawful. The other case is when death is caused by negligence, carelessness or want of due precaution.

Killing In Self Defence

If a man kill another in self defence, having used every means consistent with his own safety to avoid the infliction of death, he evidently does not violate this Commandment.
Edited by Clare, Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 21:46.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anne-Marie

Clare
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 21:44
The Catechism of the Council of Trent list types of killing which are lawful.

Quote:
 
Exceptions:

Killing In A Just War

In like manner, the soldier is guiltless who, actuated not by motives of ambition or cruelty, but by a pure desire of serving the interests of his country, takes away the life of an enemy in a just war.

Furthermore, there are on record instances of carnage executed by the special command of God.
Trouble is, Clare, determining what - if anything - makes a war just.

Travel to somewhere like Bezier in France and discover what the papal army got up to... massacring everyone in the town, Catholics included - supposedly by order of a pope.
I doubt anyone other than the blind or stupid would suggest that what papal armies got up to could be anything other than evil.
Anne-Marie
FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Clare
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 21:07
And yes, who rules the country does matter.

I'm rather speechless that you think it has no bearing on bringing Christ to people.
So why do you think Jesus didn't encourage his fellow citizens to rebel against their Roman oppressors? Why do you think that the Christian leaders during the first three centuries instructed their followers not to rise against the persecution they were suffering? How come our Church during that period had growth rates we can only envy nowadays?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
pete

Quote:
 
Jesus was born, grew up and preached His "turn the other cheek" message in a country that had been invaded. When he talked about loving ones enemy, I'd imagine that their Roman oppressors were the first enemy to come into the minds of most Jews listening to Him

It wasn’t the Romans that betrayed him; It wasn’t the Romans that shouted Crucify him, Crucify him; it was the majority of Jews themselves, they were his greatest enemy. His dislike of the Scribes and Pharisees was obvious and Jesus didn’t turn his cheek when whipping the buyers and sellers in the temple and over turning their tables. This was an act of rage carried out by the Prince of Peace Himself. So if Jesus used violence against His enemies, I’m sure he never intended His Church not to show some sort of resistance against evil.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

It sounds like you don't know very much about how a whip is used, Pete.

Maybe you can answer my question that Saundthorp ignored - how many of the money changers were physically hurt or even actually struck by Jesus?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Anne-Marie
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 22:21
Clare
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 21:44
The Catechism of the Council of Trent list types of killing which are lawful.

Quote:
 
Exceptions:

Killing In A Just War

In like manner, the soldier is guiltless who, actuated not by motives of ambition or cruelty, but by a pure desire of serving the interests of his country, takes away the life of an enemy in a just war.

Furthermore, there are on record instances of carnage executed by the special command of God.
Trouble is, Clare, determining what - if anything - makes a war just.

Travel to somewhere like Bezier in France and discover what the papal army got up to... massacring everyone in the town, Catholics included - supposedly by order of a pope.
I doubt anyone other than the blind or stupid would suggest that what papal armies got up to could be anything other than evil.
Generally it is the anti-church types who drag up Papal misdeeds of the past, in the hope on scoring points against Catholics and our Church.

Whatever individual Popes have done, has no bearing on what is right and what is wrong in the eyes of God.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
pete
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 22:36
His dislike of the Scribes and Pharisees was obvious and Jesus didn’t turn his cheek when whipping the buyers and sellers in the temple and over turning their tables. This was an act of rage carried out by the Prince of Peace Himself. So if Jesus used violence against His enemies, I’m sure he never intended His Church not to show some sort of resistance against evil.
Jesus disapproved of the behaviour of the Scribes and Pharisees. That does not mean he disliked them, he loved all prople, and because of his love for them he pointed out the error of their ways.

He was justifiably angry, his father's house, a holy place, was being desecrated. The Gospels do not say his rage was uncontrollable.

Matthew, Chapter 21
12* And Jesus entered the temple of God * and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. 13* He said to them, "It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer'; but you make it a den of robbers."
Quote:
 
Mark, Chapter 11
15* And they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons; 16 and he would not allow any one to carry anything through the temple.
[/quote]
Quote:
 
John, Chapter 2
14* In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers at their business. 15 And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. 16* And he told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; you shall not make my Father's house a house of trade."

Quote:
 


Jesus drove out the money changers with a whip. If I were in a group of people, and a person with authority came with a whip and ordered us to leave, he/she would not need to make contact with the whip, I would leave. Evangelists do say Jesus made physical contact with the furniture, overturning it. There is no record of people being injured or even contacted with the whip. I should think the personality of Jesus emanated authority, people would go at his command. His action drew attention to the wrongness of what was going on. It would not be forgotten in a hurry.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

Rose
 
Whatever individual Popes have done, has no bearing on what is right and what is wrong in the eyes of God.

I think there is a distinction here between the personal misdeeds of Popes and those things which they formally undertook in the name of Christ and his Church. The Albigensian Crusade, to which Anne-Marie refers, was undoubtedly an example of the latter and not the former. I think she is right that we need to examine what our predecessor Church did in order to understand it today.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
OsullivanB
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 23:08
Rose
 
Whatever individual Popes have done, has no bearing on what is right and what is wrong in the eyes of God.

I think there is a distinction here between the personal misdeeds of Popes and those things which they formally undertook in the name of Christ and his Church.
Whatever Popes did as individuals or in the name of the Church does not help me grasp when and in what circumstances a Christian should follow the instruction "turn the other cheek", or the circumstances in which we need not.

Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

They did what they did because the Church/they taught what it taught. Some of us do find it helpful to see and discuss how the Church has interpreted and acted on these moral issues in the past. It is at least arguable (and is my opinion) that all the crusades, European and Eastern, are material to any consideration of the doctrine of just war, which is in turn a significant aspect of the question of when, if ever, violence is compatible with Jesus's teachings. If nothing else, they illustrate the difficulties we can get into when we start adding to the Gospels to fill a perceived gap.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anne-Marie

OsullivanB
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 23:08
I think there is a distinction here between the personal misdeeds of Popes and those things which they formally undertook in the name of Christ and his Church. The Albigensian Crusade, to which Anne-Marie refers, was undoubtedly an example of the latter and not the former. I think she is right that we need to examine what our predecessor Church did in order to understand it today.
Thank you, OSB. you understood exactly my point.
It often fascinates me that those who talk most, often have least comprehension of what is being discussed!
Anne-Marie
FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anne-Marie

Clare
 
It is what the Church teaches. I do not make it up. I accept it...
The Church was established by Jesus among other things to interpret His message.

Where this becomes confusing, Clare, is that you accept what the Church teaches when it suits you...
and when it doesn't (such as supporting SSPX, which the Church condemned for years)...
you simply ignore the Church...
decreeing that the Church is wrong...
because you know better!

It really does make it very hard to accept your arguments as enjoying any reason or consistency....
Anne-Marie
FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anne-Marie

Rose of York
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 22:50
Whatever individual Popes have done, has no bearing on what is right and what is wrong in the eyes of God.
How could you possibly say that, Rose???

It is what individual popes have said and done - be it encyclicals, excommunications, wars, whatever - that determines what we, as Catholics, have to accept or be in error.
It is EXACTLY what individual popes do (and have done) that informs us of what is Catholicism... and which we accept and submit to... or reject, oppose and denounce.

Even worse for your argument, Rose... if what popes get up to has no bearing on "what is wrong in the eyes of God", then bang goes papal infallibility, the right of popes to teach, and just about everything else that makes Catholicism Catholicism!

What popes get up to in the name of the Church, has EVERYTHING to do with it.
For the record, Rose, I AM a (Catholic) Christian.
Edited by Anne-Marie, Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 07:29.
Anne-Marie
FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Mairtin
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 22:24
Clare
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 21:07
And yes, who rules the country does matter.

I'm rather speechless that you think it has no bearing on bringing Christ to people.
So why do you think Jesus didn't encourage his fellow citizens to rebel against their Roman oppressors?
Ah, we're onto what He didn't do again!
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Incidentally, turning the other cheek doesn't just cover physical violence.

It covers being wronged in general.

So, Mairtin, if you believe it is an obligatory commandment, admitting of no exceptions, then that means, if I misrepresent something you have said, you are obliged not to argue back, ever!

But, obviously, it does not oblige, and there are exceptions.

Although, there have been saints who were calumniated and who did not attempt to set the record straight, preferring to turn the other cheek. St Gerard Majella springs to mind.

It may be the more perfect thing to do, but it is not obligatory.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic »
Add Reply