www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Violence, self-defense, and the clergy

I do not think it is misplaced. Of course what you say is correct....but our Lord also instructs St Peter regarding the consequences for those who take the sword.

Is it proper to defend the helpless and innocent using force? I would....but I would try not to use deadly force.

“A soldier under authority shall not kill a man. If he is ordered to, he shall not carry out the order, nor shall he take the oath. If he is unwilling, let him be rejected. He who has the power of the sword or is a magistrate of a city who wears the purple, let him cease or be rejected. Catechumens or believers, who want to become soldiers, should be rejected, because they have despised God.”
(St Hippolytus Canon XVI: On professions)

Except once St Constantine took over that canon went into the trash bin.

No. Just showing the kind pacifism you claim for Orthodoxy isn't really followed. It is just to defend the helpless from unprovoked aggressors and I have never seen Catholicism or Orthodoxy teach otherwise.

Yes.....your comment to "de-canonize" an Orthodox saint was sarcasm (and rude). You used an Orthodox saint in an attempt to prove a point that is not valid.

After St Alexander Nevsky died, the people of Russia remembered him as the prince/warrior who became a peacemaker. He cloaked himself with the monastic robe....leading a penitential life as an ascetic. This is why he was canonized.

The Church has never canonized anyone for his military/combat skills, courage or heroic feats under fire, or achievements in war.

This is mistaken. Canons don't go to the trash bin. It is a wonderful glimpse at the mind of the early Church.

“The Church is an army which sheds no blood. In peace, not in war, we are trained. If you enroll as one of God’s people, heaven is your country and God your lawgiver. And what are His laws? You shall not kill, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. To him that strikes you on the one cheek, turn to him the other also.” (St Clement of Alexandria)

Dear Recluse,

Father Deacon Lance did not do what you are accusing him of. It was a manner of speaking.

(This doesn't mean that saints cannot be "de-canonized" - it certainly has also happened in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church, e.g. St Anna of Kashin whose sainthood was cancelled because, as she reposed, her hand was shaped in the Old Believer way for making the Sign of the Cross.)

St Alexander Nevsky (to whom I am actually distantly related and whose medal I wear constantly as my patron) is depicted as both a monastic and as a soldier, defending Rus' etc.

And while no one is glorified by the Orthodox Church for military feats, that someone participated in such feats and even killed others to defend the Church, one's country etc. is not considered something that would prevent one from being canonized.

And the Church canonizes the whole person. St Alexander did not repent of his taking up of arms to defend his Church and country - that would mean that he would have approved of his Church and country being overrun by those who would have enslaved them.

He did not become a monk to repent of that. He could have done penance before God for the deaths he caused, but it wasn't his intention to inflict death and suffering, only to defend in the only way possible.

A soldier kills , to be sure. But to actually like such killing - that is where real sin creeps in. I've met some veterans who told me they are doing penance because they liked the killing they did and are angry at themselves, and sorry, for liking it.

St Alexander became a great hero as a soldier, not as a monk. Swedish mothers in his time would get their disobedient children to behave by saying, "If you don't behave, Alexander Nevsky will come for you!"

My medal of St Alexander depicts him as a warrior with a sword - as well as with a halo.

He was no pacifist, but someone who fought to protect his people.

He would have made no apology for that.

The problem with pacifists is that they face the moral problem of allowing evil to inflict itself on the innocent if they refuse to use necessary physical force to prevent it.

I was going home one night late from work and in front of me was an elderly woman. It was dark. In the darkness, someone grabbed hold of her purse and a scuffle ensued. This happened very quickly. And the assailant began to hit her.

I stepped up, made a fist and hit that fellow as hard as I could (thought I broke my hand). The bandit made off and left her alone. She hugged me so hard amidst tears to thank me as my hand throbbed with pain, covered with that fellows blood.

I'm not proud of what I did. But there was no other way in that split second. I mentioned it in Confession, but my confessor told me not to be disturbed by it.

Alex

I always give everyone the benefit of the doubt.


He was canonized due to his great ascetism...not his military prowess.



If he killed....you can be sure he repented as a monastic...he finished his life in repentance as a monk.


If he killed...you can be sure that he repented as a monk



So it is not sin if you kill...but don't like it? Nonsense.


He was not canonized for his military feats.


That is superstition.


That is a later innovation. The early Icons depicted him in monastic robes.


Yes.....he was a great pacifist in imitation of Jesus Christ....living out his life as a monk with asceticism and repentance.


He does not need to make apology for being canonized as a great ascetic.

Dear Recluse,

You are quite combative for a pacifist!

As for the Swedish mothers - it can be an untrue story but not superstition.

It certainly is not nonsense to kill because one must. One is allowed to kill under certain circumstances. But to like it is forbidden. That is not nonsense. Just because someone disagrees with what you think is the way things are (and you tolerate nothing else) doesn't make it nonsense.

The fact that the Orthodox Church later did depict him as a soldier - so what are you saying here? That the Orthodox Church erred in this? The fact is that he is depicted as a soldier with a halo and a spear. His Liturgical service gives no indication that he was a "great" ascetic like the Desert Fathers and the like.

Are you questioning if he killed? You mean when he engaged in hand-to-hand combat and gave orders to others to fight?

Have you read his liturgical service? His military feats are mentioned. The service notes his monastic tonsure - but at no time does it mention that he did so to repent of his military defence of Orthodox Rus'.

But ask any Orthodox priest if he believes St Alexander Nevsky should not have taken up arms to fight the enemies of Orthodox Rus' - that he sinned in so doing. And you will have your answer.

The problem with pacifists is that they rely on others to defend the values of freedom etc. that they enjoy.

Pacifism can also be seen to approve of evil, the evil in those who attack others.

In short, it is an unrealistic, ridiculous proposition.

The website you link is a ridiculous one as well which offers a one-sided, tendentious view of the Fathers and of Scripture.

The same Lord Who preached non-violence is also the same Lord Who made a whip and threw the money-changers out of the Temple. Turning the other cheek did not mean that He couldn't ask the man who struck His Face why he did so. (The idea that we can predict what Christ will do is also nonsense.)

Pacifists offer a ridiculously simplistic view of the world which is unrealistic. In the case of St Alexander Oslabya - he actually LEFT his monastic cell to do battle in which he did kill the enemies of his Church and country.

And you would say what to this? That he sinned in killing and returned to his cell to do penance? Does that not indicate that there was, in those circumstances, a moral justification for killing?

Alex

I cannot imagine seeing such a thing from our Sacred Scriptures.


It is nonsense to indicate that it is okay to kill....as long as you don't like it.



Your insults to not affect me, sir.


I am saying that he was canonized for his asceticism...and early Icons depicted him as a monastic.


That is not how he was originally depicted.


His military prowess was not the reason for his canonization. It was the fact that he lived out his life as an ascetic in repentance that he was canonized. Sorry if you cannot accept this.


I am saying that as a monk...you can be sure that he was deeply repentant for the sin of taking human life.



Surely you are capable of making an argument without attempting to denigrate and insult the person with whom you are conversing, eh?



Yes.


Yes.


I absolutely guarantee you that he was repentant for all his sins as a monastic....including the taking of human life.


I have asked many Orthodox priests if taking human life is a sin.....under any circumstance....and I have received my answer.


Christ did not justify killing...neither did his apostles....neither did the holy martyrs. One can defend the values of freedom without violence and killing.


I believe that it is your proposition that is ridiculous....that it is okay to kill...as long as you don't enjoy it. I have never heard of such a thing!


That is a ridiculous defence!!! Christ did not shed others' blood when he did this. In fact, it helped to finalize the fact that his own blood would be shed for our sins.



Yes....without killing him.


I don't have to predict that Christ did not kill. In fact, He preached against it.


Peace and love and forgiveness through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is not unrealistic.


I have never heard of this saint...read his story....or researched his life. But I pray that he repented for any killing that he committed.

Listen, If you want to justify killing in war, by subscribing to the “just war theory"...you have free will to do so. I believe that it was Blessed Augustine that began such a notion and it was expounded upon by Thomas Aquinas and Robert Bellarmine. It was never elevated to dogma in your Church. I think it is rather dishonest to use someone like St Alexander Nevsky to further that agenda. The saints were not infallible...they were sinners like you and I. But St Alexander reposed as a monk in repentance....that is a fact. Furthermore, I am sure that our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ would not subscribe to the “just war theory.” And of course, I have free will to believe that.


“We who formerly murdered one another now not only do not make war upon our enemies but, that we may not lie or deceive our judges, we gladly die confessing Christ.”
(St Justin Martyr,I Apol. 39)

Dear Recluse,

I apologise for calling you boorish etc. - I should not have said that.

Is it your position that Christians cannot under any circumstances take up arms to defend their country?

That is what it all comes down to.

Alex

Thank you Alexander, this is a good and honest question. I will try to answer it as honestly as I can.

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God."

I do not think there is any such person as a pure pacifist in this world. We are terrible sinners being bombarded by the terrible passions from every angle. But I believe in peacemakers. I am somewhat informed on Church history...and our little debate has been played out in many arenas over vast periods of time. I am aware that there are soldier saints. And I am aware that there are many martyr saints. And there have been soldiers who died as martyrs. I know that the West developed a theory of "just war" and the East took a stance more like war being a "necessary evil" (but evil nonetheless). I know that the early Church Fathers were almost exclusively against war and killing....even involuntary killing. I know that murder is looked upon as the greater sin than involuntary killing (as in cases of war and/or self defense). I also know that the consensus of Fathers continued to view involuntary killing as a sin that was still in need of repentance and confession.

But I can only speak for myself here....so please forgive me if it has seemed that I was condemning anyone who believed otherwise. I would like to believe that I would not bear arms and go to war. I would pray that Christ would give me the words needed to fight the good fight on a spiritual front. I would like to believe that if attacked, I could defend myself and/or my family without using deadly force (I have much experience in the martial arts). I would like to believe that if confronted with a situation that may cost me this earthly life, I could die as a martyr confessing Christ. I am saying, "I would like to believe," because I do not know how I would react until I am placed in such a situation.

Sometimes I think that my faith is strong....but in reality....it is weak. But I must continue to trust in Christ and try to do His will.

Having said all of this, I do not begrudge anyone who thinks differently on this subject than myself. I am not the one who sits in judgment on such things...God forbid.

I did not mean to offend anyone. Please forgive me.

R

And now my friend, after many rounds of debate, I am going to attempt to succinctly answer your question.

Canon 83 of the Holy Apostles
"If any Bishop, or Priest, or Deacon is engaged in military matters, and wishes to hold both a Roman (i.e.; civil) and a holy office, let him be deposed. For "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s" (Matthew 22:21).

Dear Recluse,

Thank you very much for your comprehensive answer!

And I do not begrudge anyone the right not to bear arms in an armed conflict.

In fact, depending on the conflict, it could be that a Christian must oppose bearing arms.

God bless, Alex

The succinct answer is -- no.

Alex,

This has always been the rub (i.e. the place where things just don't fit together as neatly as we'd like): since the average Christian will typically have little or no knowledge regarding the real international situation, the "just war" doctrine grants that he has a right--if not an obligation--to trust his leaders in such matters. The problem is that in practice, this virtually guarantees that the leaders will have their way--no matter how unjust their real motives might be.


Peace,
Deacon Richard