| 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: |
| Turning the other cheek; is it obligatory, no ifs, no buts? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 18:14 (1,427 Views) | |
| OsullivanB | Thursday, 26. August 2010, 22:26 Post #106 |
|
I thought the debate was an attempt to ascertain authentic early Catholic teaching and examine where, if at all, modern Catholic teaching has modified or departed from it. John Stuart Mill still seems to me to have little light to shed on the interpretation of scripture or the development of Catholic thought on the subject, fun though he is. I hope you have recovered from your rofl. Take care. |
| "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 | |
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Thursday, 26. August 2010, 22:32 Post #107 |
|
Although it is by no means forbidden I don't think non-Catholic writers or thinkers are often cited on this forum as a guide to Catholic moral thinking. |
| "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 | |
![]() |
|
| moderator team | Thursday, 26. August 2010, 22:38 Post #108 |
|
The forum exists to exchange ideas, not to make and publish judgments about each other. |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Thursday, 26. August 2010, 22:40 Post #109 |
|
Here are some interesting quotations from sources who seem a tad more relevant than John Stuart Mill:
|
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Thursday, 26. August 2010, 22:47 Post #110 |
|
Deleted
Edited by Mairtin, Thursday, 26. August 2010, 23:13.
|
![]() |
|
| moderator team | Thursday, 26. August 2010, 22:52 Post #111 |
|
It wasn't you that was being protected. It was the forum. And now you're at it. It won't do. |
![]() |
|
| Poesy | Friday, 27. August 2010, 07:48 Post #112 |
|
We are all aware I think, that many of the parables or sayings of our Lord, are embedded in a rich natural and cultural milieu. That said, coming from the mouth of divine wisdom itself, they of course have a universal applicability for all times and places. It helps us though to appreciate the context and the particular customs of the time in how the people of that time would have literally undestood the meaning of the parable. Here follows an interesting analysis or apologetic on the point, which illustrates how for instance the people in 1st century in the Holy Land would have understood, 'turn the other cheek' ''Jesus clarifies his meaning by three brief examples. "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Why the right cheek? How does one strike another on the right cheek anyway? Try it. A blow by the right fist in that right-handed world would land on the left cheek Of the opponent. To strike the right cheek with the fist would require using the left hand, but. in that society the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. As the Dead Sea Scrolls specify, even to gesture with the left hand at Qumran carried the penalty of ten days' penance. The only way one could strike the right cheek with the right hand would be with the back of the hand. What we are dealing with here is unmistakably an insult, not a fistfight. The intention is not to injure but to humiliate, to put someone in his or her place. One normally did not strike a peer in this way, and, if one did, the fine was exorbitant (four zuz was the fine for a blow to a peer with a fist, 400 zuz for backhanding him; but to an underling, no penalty whatever). A backhand slap was the normal way of admonishing inferiors. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; men, women; Romans; Jews.'' Edited by Poesy, Friday, 27. August 2010, 08:03.
|
| Domine Jesu, noverim me . | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Friday, 27. August 2010, 08:32 Post #113 |
|
I'm not familiar with the writings of Walter Wink, Poesy, but I find the above a bit convuluted. I am much more taken with the simple, unadorned understanding of St. Iraneus when he said
|
![]() |
|
| Poesy | Friday, 27. August 2010, 08:48 Post #114 |
|
I think the Saint was referring to the latter stages of the Roman Empire when the profession of arms had been much neglected and decayed, so that the state could no longer defend its citizens against the barbarian incursions. Of course, the state has a legitimate right of self defence. Our Lord was not referring to that. If he had, he would have told the Centurian to go away and for the Romans to disarm themselves. When indeed, you could say there was a case for that, if ever there was one, because the Romans were oppressing the Jews at that time. No, He is referring to our conduct in life generally, where we are not to take insults to heart and to brood on resentments and not to retaliate. Indeed, if this was carried out as a practical programme, it would have the wonderful and beneficial effect of abolishing the legal profession and large parts of the law itself. Walter Wink, Catholic or not , I found the commentary very informative and gives an insight into biblical life and times. . Edited by Poesy, Friday, 27. August 2010, 09:10.
|
| Domine Jesu, noverim me . | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Friday, 27. August 2010, 09:04 Post #115 |
|
Not least when, according to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
|
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Friday, 27. August 2010, 09:15 Post #116 |
|
As mentioned in another thread, I have no issue with reading the views of non-Catholic theologians and now that you have brought Walter Wink to my attention, I may have a more detailed look at his works some time. I am wary, however, of any theologian - Catholic or non-Catholic - who seems to be at odds with the views of the Fathers of the Church. In this particular case, as already mentioned, I found his detailed analysis of right and left cheek, right and left hand, open and closed hand to be a bit convoluted. |
![]() |
|
| Poesy | Friday, 27. August 2010, 09:20 Post #117 |
|
Non-Catholic apologetics should perhaps be the subject of another thread, but I would like to add here I follow Catholic apologetics but I am open to non-Catholic intelligent insights and guided by the Holy Spirt. One non-Catholic apologetic I do like and have read is, John Stott is a very distinguished biblical scholar and teacher. Obviously we bear in mind that even John Stott has to be read with caution because he doesn't fully or really understand the sacraments and the whole economy of salvation through the Catholic Church. But I have found a lot of useful material especially dealing with St.John. Sorry to digress. |
| Domine Jesu, noverim me . | |
![]() |
|
| Anne-Marie | Friday, 27. August 2010, 09:49 Post #118 |
|
As a politican, I have always believed in not just the right, but the duty, to defend the nation and its values - with force if necessary. And as a Christian, I have always recognised that the supposed duty to the nation is nonsense. As a human with a brain, I recognise the contradiction of the two! Nations come and go - that is the way of this world. What nations get up to is not the concern of the Christian: the Christian is (or should be) concerned with loving God and neighbour, and with the salvation of his own soul. (I just wish that were as easy as it sounds!) Christianity continues (sometimes in depleted numbers) when persecuted - but continue it does. Martyrs have suffered and died that the Faith and the knowledge of God might continue, no matter what the world gets up to. It is not the role of the Christian to kill, even for God - didn't Jesus make just that point when Peter drew and used his sword??? For the record (and without any attempt to explain myself): Mairtin, I admire your calm and restraint when people say to you things about which they know nothing! Edited by Anne-Marie, Friday, 27. August 2010, 09:50.
|
|
Anne-Marie FIAT VOLUNTAS DEI | |
![]() |
|
| K.T.B. | Friday, 27. August 2010, 10:59 Post #119 |
|
I've been finding this discussion interesting because the "turning the other cheek" issue is something I've been personally grappling with for a while. I'm just wondering aloud, as it were, how the deliberate killing another human being fits into the knowledge that all human life is sacred and inviolable; that only God has the right to decide when life ends. If we accept that human life is sacred, that our lives belong to God and that only He decides when it ends, could it be acknowledged that the deliberate killing of an unjust aggressor is evil, perhaps sometimes a necessary one, but evil all the same? |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Friday, 27. August 2010, 16:21 Post #120 |
|
All actions have consequences K.T.B. If you kill it is against the 5th, but as Aquinas put it - if unintentional or unavoidable - the formal part of sin is zapped, only the material (consequential) element is answerable, which is tiny in most cases. PJD |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |






7:54 PM Jul 11