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 (1,429 Views)
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Ok, how about this?

Luke 22:36-38
Quote:
 
But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword. For I say to you, that this that is written must yet be fulfilled in me: And with the wicked was he reckoned. For the things concerning me have an end. But they said: Lord, behold here are two swords. And he said to them, It is enough.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Clare
Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 14:32
Mairtin
Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 12:51
As far as I am aware, there was never any Church condemnation of events such as the bombing of Dresden or the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; I'd like to think that such actions would be unequivocally condemned nowadays.
I don't think the Church condoned those bombings either.

I guess the Popes in those days did not go in for making statements of the obvious whenever something terrible happened.
The Catechism explicitly states that "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." Either that teaching did not apply in the 1940s or else it did apply and the Church ignored her own teaching, take your pick.

Clare
 
Mairtin
 
There are also other changes e.g. in regard to capital punishment.

Which is still not condemned outright. So, no change. It is still allowed. Circumstances about its appropriateness may have changed, but that it is allowed in principle has not.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent virtually glorifies capital punishment, describing it as "an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment", quoting the words from David in support of it as a glorious thing and not specifying any particular restrictions on the legal authorities.

The CCC states "Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'

In terms of protecting the public, the alternative to capital punishment is imprisonment which is actually more difficult to impose today than it was in the past so what are these changes in circumstances to which you refer?,
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Clare
Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 15:15
Ok, how about this?

Luke 22:36-38
We don't know what the significance of that passage was, whether the swords were for self-defence - although two swords among at least 12 people doesn't seem like much defence - whether they were symbolic or whether Jesus just wanted them available for what was to happen later that night.

That is what we do know - that later that night, Peter used a sword to cut off a man's ear, that Jesus rebuked him, telling him to put away his sword as "Those who live by the sword will perish by the sword" and He immediately repaired the damage that Peter had done.
Edited by Mairtin, Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 16:26.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Rose of York
Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 12:33
Mairtin
Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 12:02
Rose of York
Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 11:30
Turning the other cheek boils down to my duty to assist that criminal if I learn that he is in need.
Where do you get that from, Rose?
From my conscience, formed initially at my mother's knee. I have not read a single Church document about the subject and feel no need to. Ir is glaringly obvious that retaliation breeds violence and hatred.

Christ told us what will happen if we do not forgive. On this particular point the guidance given in the Gospels suffices for me, some feel the urge to delve deeper, fair enough.
I am repeating my post, having been asked a question I answered. It disappoints me that there was no response.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

If we had 'Turned the other cheek' Hitler and his Third Reich would have ruled the world for some years.

*************

It was argued at the time that if the Atom Bombs had not been dropped the overal casualties of continuing the traditional battles and invasion over longer period would probably have been as great. Regarding Dresden, I suspect the US President was too sympathetic to Stalin's request. Winston Churchill, surprisingly, felt he had to agree - as he did over certain decisions like Berlin and Vienna being surrounded by the Soviet Occupied Zones.
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Mairtin
Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 16:14
The Catechism of the Council of Trent virtually glorifies capital punishment, describing it as "an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment", quoting the words from David in support of it as a glorious thing and not specifying any particular restrictions on the legal authorities.
The CCT doesn't tie itself in knots like the CCC does.

There is always the possibility that the CCT's take on these issues is actually superior to the CCC's.

:wh:

Compare the CCT's condemnation of usury:

Quote:
 
Among those who are guilty of robbery are also included persons who do not pay, or who turn to other uses or appropriate to themselves, customs, taxes, tithes and such revenues, which are owed to the Church or civil authorities.

To this class also belong usurers, the most cruel and relentless of extortioners, who by their exorbitant rates of interest, plunder and destroy the poor. Whatever is received above the capital and principal, be it money, or anything else that may be purchased or estimated by money, is usury; for it is written in Ezechiel: He hath not lent upon usury, nor taken an increase; and in Luke our Lord says: Lend, hoping for nothing thereby. Even among the pagans usury was always considered a most grievous and odious crime. Hence the question, "What is usury ?" was answered: "What is murder?" And, indeed, he who lends at usury sells the same thing twice, or sells that which has no real existence.


with the CCC's brief mention of it:

Quote:
 
2269 ... Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
As my efforts to join in this thread, and to widen the scope with the aim of it being a group debate, have been futile I now withdraw.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

When I was in the army four or five of us got into a discussion on political events. A keen supporter of Stalin criticised Neville Chamberlain for having made a pact with Hitler. I countered what about the Molotov - Ribbentrop pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany? He said that was to allow the USSR to prepare for any attack by Germany. I then replied that Chamberlain's pact allowed us to build-up our forces. The supporter of Stalin was so incensed he made as if to attack me. I naturally flinched but otherwise didn't react. There could have been a real set to. Did that qualify for "Turning the other Cheek"? On a personal basis the command can easily be carried out. But when it comes to others, eg members of the family, being attacked or aggressive governments then we would be right in making an exception.
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Derekap
Thursday, 26. August 2010, 16:34
But when it comes to others, eg members of the family, being attacked or aggressive governments then we would be right in making an exception.
Derek, like you, I would defend my family to the death but it continues to bother me that I can't find that verse in the Bible that says "turn the other cheek ... except when a member of your family is attacked."

In this thread, I have been trying to distinguish between what is the instinctive human thing to do and what is actually our Christian duty to do; I get the feeling that, as in many things, the two are very different.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Derekap
Wednesday, 25. August 2010, 16:46
If we had 'Turned the other cheek' Hitler and his Third Reich would have ruled the world for some years.
If Christianity had continued as it did for the first three centuries, pehaps we might not have had Hitler or his Third Reich.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

In the absence of any other takers ....

Rose of York
 
On this particular point the guidance given in the Gospels suffices for me, some feel the urge to delve deeper, fair enough.

And that thinking too is fair enough, Rose.

It is impossible for any one of us to get to grips with every aspect of Church teaching. Some things we will more or less ignore because they don't impact on our lives and other things we will accept at face value. Some things really get to us and we can't leave them alone, like a dog with a bone.

For what it's worth, this particular topic falls into that last category for me for two reasons.

The first one is that, for various reasons that I do not want to go into, I have a very intense interest in the specific area of turning the other cheek and forgiving our enemies.

On a wider level, I was intrigued a couple of years ago to read that whilst Pope Benedict is regarded as a Traditionalist, he is far from being what that is generally regarded as "Traditionalist" in forums like this; his interest is not in winding the clock back to pre-Vatican II, it is in returning to the very early days of the Church. Always liking to know what may be ahead of us, I decided to educate myself on the early church and how it differed from today. To be honest, the more I read, the more astounded and disturbed I became about just how far our Church has actually moved from its earliest roots. This whole area of the concept that violence in general and the killing of other people in particular being acceptable is just one example where I see us having allowed the original message of Christ to become buried in a morass of human compromise and bureaucracy.
Edited by Mairtin, Thursday, 26. August 2010, 19:48.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Mairtin
Thursday, 26. August 2010, 18:52
Derekap
Thursday, 26. August 2010, 16:34
But when it comes to others, eg members of the family, being attacked or aggressive governments then we would be right in making an exception.
Derek, like you, I would defend my family to the death but it continues to bother me that I can't find that verse in the Bible that says "turn the other cheek ... except when a member of your family is attacked."
Sola Scriptura again.

This isn't rocket science, Mairtin.

We are to bear wrongs patiently when we are wronged ourselves, but it is hardly Christian to stand by and watch someone else being wronged.

Am I my brother's keeper? Yes.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Clare
Thursday, 26. August 2010, 19:57
This isn't rocket science, Mairtin.
For something that isn't rocket science, it seems incredibly difficult to actually give a reasonable justification other than muttering about common sense and Church teaching.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Clare
Thursday, 26. August 2010, 19:57
Sola Scriptura again..
For some reason I had gained the impression that you shared my belief that we shouldn't expand beyond what scripture says unless there is good reason to do so.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

Mairtin wrote:

"If Christianity had continued as it did for the first three centuries, pehaps we might not have had Hitler or his Third Reich."

The larger an organistion or society becomes the harder it is to ensure all its members adhere to it rulings or teachings.
Derekap
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