Are you willing to kill for your faith?

All those who are willing to fight for others’ right to religious freedom, why aren’t you fighting now? Why aren’t you in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, North Korea, China or one of the many countries where thousands are being martyred? Are you only willing to fight for your own rights, American rights? If you are willing and strong enough to fight then these places badly need missionaries: evangelists, comforters, medical care, pastoral care, political lobbyists. All the terrible things happening in the world today are nearly identical to the OP.

We all need to remember to pray for our persecuted brethren. Will you pray with me?

Our Lady, Queen of Heaven, teach us peace we pray. Teach us to love our neighbour, to show the world the power of Christ. Teach us to foster peace in our lives. Send our persecuted brethren the help they need to succour them in the terrible hours they are enduring and bring many more souls to Christ, your Son. Amen.

Physically fighting in foreign lands without the support of your own country isn’t all that doable.

How do you obtain weapons in a foreign country where the majority will see you as the enemy (else there would be no persecution)? You can’t bring them with you; no country allows bringing AR15s or grenades through customs control, nor can you get them on commercial transportation. Oh yeah, maybe the drug-smuggling networks would help you. Right.

You’re aware that fighting in this way is illegal under US law (for those of youse guys who are American) and you would not be allowed back?

Fighting a war is brutally expensive; in the Crusades, noble estates were at times mortgaged so that noblemen could take part. Since none of youse own a castle, how would you be expected to fight?

ICXC NIKA

Actually, during the early years of WWII (when Britain was neutral) there were hundreds of Americans who went to Britain to join their fight against The Nazis. Even today, an American who joins The French Foreign Legion will not be punished for doing so.

I’m pretty sure it’s only illegal for Americans to join foreign resistance groups if its one the US Government considers a terrorist group. So while joining ISIS is a big No-No, joining the Free Syrian Army is probably acceptable (considering the US Government granted $123 million in non-lethal aid to the FSA).

specifics?

If it were the last recourse to prevent the death of my fellow Catholics, or anyone for that matter, Yes.

I’m willing to defend myself or others according to the Church’s teaching on just warfare.
I am not willing to kill for my faith.
Christ would not do that, (duh!) and neither would I (at least I hope I would not).

That’s what I meant.

I understand the title of my thread is confusing, but the purpose of it is to ensure that there is no mistake for what I meant.

If I worded my title as “Are you willing to fight for your faith?”, then everyone would assume I meant metaphorical fighting (protesting, boycotts, etc.). I wanted to be clear that I am referring to fighting in the literal sense. The Mexican Christeros (who prevented an anti-theistic dictator from turning Mexico into a Marxist State), the Papal Zouaves (who tried to prevent The Kingdom of Italy from siezng The Papal States in a shameless power-grab), and the Knights of St. John (who fought a historic battle in Malta, thereby preventing Genocidal The Ottomon Empire and their army of Child-Soldiers from invading Christian Europe) are all good examples of Catholics defending their faith and their church from evil forces.

  1. Noblemen were expected to raise armies as part of their bargain with their suzerain, not just join armies. Getting together 100 men and kitting them out would indeed be expensive. Ordinary men did join the Crusades. They just didn’t have the glory of riding a horse into battle or having the I names remembered. Fulcher of Charters was only an ordinary priest.
  2. Mortgaged? By whom? When banks didn’t exist?
  3. Although America seems obsessed with guns they are not the only way to fight a war, especially an ideological war. I say again, these places badly need missionaries: evangelists, comforters, medical care, pastoral care, political lobbyists as well as prayer. Are you putting in as much effort to fight this spiritual war as you would for a physical one. I don’t believe we care enough for those we can’t see and don’t go forth and do spiritual battle on their behalf.

The Provos never characterised themselv3es as explicitly Catholic in sense and many of their members were either lasped or nominal Catholics and Irish Republicanism has always had a strained and paradoxical relationship with the Church.

I can think of hypothetical situations where I would murder for my faith. I wouldn’t kill to defend myself, but I would to protect someone else. Many Catholics are unaware that there are entire Christian families who have been killed in gas chambers in North Korea, and in a situation like that I wouldn’t hesitate to murder. I guess I’m only 99% a pacifist.:shrug:

theguardian.com/world/2004/feb/01/northkorea

Just to be clear, the situation you describe is not “murder”. It would fall under self defense, defense of others, just warfare, etc…

xNoOnex;13587046] …
If Catholics were forced underground and began a guerrilla war against any Western superpower, they would have to make allies if they had any hopes of succeeding and overthrowing the government. And who currently opposes Western governments? Islamic radicals, Russia, China, South American drug cartels.

Where do you think this Catholic insurgents get their weapons? You’re not going to be able to walk into Wal-Mart and pick up military grade armaments needed to win a war. But the South American drug cartels would be more than willing to smuggle them the weapons they need. A modern day “war” would be violent, bloody and would require alliances with immoral forces to have any chance to succeed.

So I will repeat. No, I would kill for my religion. I would not kill for anything. I would protest, face imprisonment, go on hunger strikes but I would not raise a weapon or join a rebellion that would have to share a metaphoric bed with folks that good Catholics shouldn’t associate with.

Quite right “xNoOnex”, and perfectly in line with Bible Doctrine - “Turn the other cheek…” etc.

When Jesus made the following statement:

“For he that is not against you, is for you.” Mark 9:40 (Douay-Rheims Holy Bible),

I believe that He was referring to a person that was similarly disposed toward his fellow men as Our Lord Himself. Jesus was not necessarily advocating an alliance with them as such.

Protector.

“Turn the other cheek” is not about waging war. Waging a just war is not sinful, on the contrary, sometimes it is absolutely necessary. When Jesus talked about turning the other cheek he was referring to personal insult not to waging war against oppressors and tyrants.

When Jesus made the following statement:
I believe that He was referring to a person that was similarly disposed toward his fellow men as Our Lord Himself. Jesus was not necessarily advocating an alliance with them as such.

Protector.

Again, “he who is not against you is for you” has nothing to do with alliances in war. He was talking about not rejecting those who are outside his Church who believe in him or who have good intentions, but seeing them as allies in the fight (spiritual fight) against evil in the world.

When reading Scripture context is vital. :slight_smile: We cannot clip verses out of context in order to support agendas, no matter how noble we feel the agenda might be. Christianity is not an idealism–it is living in God as he directs through his Church, who alone has the authority to decide matters of faith and morals, such as what constitutes a just war and when we are obliged to use force to defend ourselves and others.

Della;13611097] “Turn the other cheek” is not about waging war. Waging a just war is not sinful, on the contrary, sometimes it is absolutely necessary. When Jesus talked about turning the other cheek he was referring to personal insult not to waging war against oppressors and tyrants.
Again, “he who is not against you is for you” has nothing to do with alliances in war. He was talking about not rejecting those who are outside his Church who believe in him or who have good intentions, but seeing them as allies in the fight (spiritual fight) against evil in the world.


Della;13611097] “He was talking about not rejecting those who are outside his Church who believe in him or who have good intentions, but seeing them as allies …”


Presumably then that would exclude the following:-

xNoOnex;13587046] … “Islamic radicals, Russia, China, South American drug cartels…”

Of course xNoOnex;13587046, should stand ready to defend that statement in view of the Russian Orthodox Church.

xNoOnex;13587046] …If Catholics were forced underground and began a guerrilla war against any Western superpower, …they would have to make allies if they had any hopes of succeeding and overthrowing the government. …
…And who currently opposes Western governments? Islamic radicals, Russia, China, South American drug cartels.

Della;13611097] … “When reading Scripture context is vital. :slight_smile: We cannot clip verses out of context in order to support agendas, no matter how noble we feel the agenda might be.”

Very true Della, but I was NOT supporting any agenda as you suppose. I was in fact supplying a Scriptural quotation to question the statement from "xNoOnex " that:-

xNoOnex;13587046]…If Catholics were forced underground and began a guerrilla war against any Western superpower, they would have to make allies …And who currently opposes Western governments? Islamic radicals, Russia, China, South American drug cartels…

I was merely pointing out that Jesus was saying that, those who although they had not been commissioned by Christ Himself, but were in fact engaged in the same “just war” were to be considered friends, but He certainly was not condoning alliances with those who, although not necessarily directly opposed to the work of the Disciples, were never-the-less not to be considered “one of us”, as the saying goes. And by tne way I don’t have Agendas, I have faith in the Scriptures.

Della;13611097] Christianity is not an idealism–it is living in God as he directs through his Church, who alone has the authority to decide matters of faith and morals, such as what constitutes a just war and when we are obliged to use force to defend ourselves and others.

In your view Della, were the Crusades to be considered, ***"a just war " ***?

Christianity is not an idealism–…

So very true Della —It is living in God as he directs through His WORD as contained in the Holy Scriptures - as in:-

" For the word of God is living and effectual, and more piercing than any two edged sword; and reaching unto the division of the soul and the spirit, of the joints also and the marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12 (Douay-Rheims Holy Bible)

It is a direct reference to Christ as the Living Word of God - accessed not as you state:-

"through his Church "

…as being an organisation with a mandate from Christ to be the sole arbiter in the questions of “faith and morals”, and the granting, or denying of Salvation by virtue of rules (not contained in the Scriptures), namely “the sacraments.”

Christ talks to us through the Scriptures - And He says:-
" …I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me." John 4:16.
It would seem, dear friend in Christ, that we have wandered some distance away from the OP, but thank you for your post Della.

Protector.

What we should all get from the Crusades IMNAAHO is that, although an armed struggle may **if victorious, **be advantageous to the Church, it still may not be the will of God.

In the absence of prophets to lead in a “holy war” and until we see crosses in the sky, such struggles should be left in the past.

And while “turning cheeks” is not per se about oppression and tyranny, the accompanying teaching about “extra miles” is specifically about that situation. The extra mile was not originally about walking out of your way to help someone in need, but about being pressed into service, in the manner of Simon of Cyrene.

No one, particularly Americans, likes the idea of oppression or tyranny; but there are worse things. Our LORD and His cohorts lived their lives under what we would call oppression and tyranny. Ending human lives in a situation that did not ultimately require it would be infinitely worse.

ICXC NIKA

It depends on what form the persecution took…if it was a non violent persecution…ie…putting sanctions on Christians and Christianity etc then no…I would publicly protest though by not obeying whatever directive they made against my faith…but if protesting was met with physical violence then yes…I would be willing to defend my faith and that of fellow Christians in those circumstances.

It’s not clear that xNoOnex was referencing the Russian Orthodox Church, rather I believe he was referring to the oppressive nature of the Russian government, but if he cares to clarity, that’s fine with me. :slight_smile:

Very true Della, but I was NOT supporting any agenda as you suppose. I was in fact supplying a Scriptural quotation to question the statement from "xNoOnex "

I’m sorry, I was writing in general terms, not meaning you personally. :tiphat:

I was merely pointing out that Jesus was saying that, those who although they had not been commissioned by Christ Himself, but were in fact engaged in the same “just war” were to be considered friends, but He certainly was not condoning alliances with those who, although not necessarily directly opposed to the work of the Disciples, were never-the-less not to be considered “one of us”, as the saying goes. And by tne way I don’t have Agendas, I have faith in the Scriptures.

Jesus didn’t mention warfare of any kind in that passage, which was my main point only. :slight_smile:

In your view Della, were the Crusades to be considered, ***"a just war " ***?

Well, the original intention–to protect Holy Land pilgrims, Christian and Muslim alike, against the ravages of the Ottoman Empire were all right, but like many wars before and since, there were abuses. There was more than one engagement/wave in the history of the Crusades. To discuss the whole issue is beyond our current scope of discussion.

So very true Della —It is living in God as he directs through His WORD as contained in the Holy Scriptures - as in:-

It is a direct reference to Christ as the Living Word of God - accessed not as you state:-
…as being an organisation with a mandate from Christ to be the sole arbiter in the questions of “faith and morals”, and the granting, or denying of Salvation by virtue of rules (not contained in the Scriptures), namely “the sacraments.”

Christ talks to us through the Scriptures - And He says:-
" …I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me." John 4:16.
It would seem, dear friend in Christ, that we have wandered some distance away from the OP, but thank you for your post Della.

Protector.

I never engage in “dueling” Scripture quotations to prove anything. It’s a pointless exercise, IMO. Taken as a whole, the NT, in particular, certainly does tell us that the Church is the arbiter of faith and morals for her faithful. Which is all I have to say on that topic. :slight_smile:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.