The Catholic Book Club discussion

Mahoney says that the order of charity demands that legitimately constituted authorities protect those under their care from violence, tyranny, and aggression... Christ's praise for the Roman centurion... is hardly compatible with pacifism. He also quotes Soloviev in favor of 'just war' and against pacifism. Do you agree with this view? If yes, why? If not, why?

The chapter on Solzhenitsyn's huge series of novels (The Red Wheel) is very interesting. It tells about the Russian Revolution and is intended as a defense of modern states and nationalities against Tolstoi-style pacifism.

As I have said before in other discussions, I am not a pacifist. Just for the record, C.S. Lewis wasn't either. As proof, his essay Why I am not a pacifist, collected, for instance, in The weight of glory.

I think Mahoney's attack on Tolstoi's pacifism is well-founded.

Chesterton also criticized the pacifism.

Manuel wrote: "The chapter on Solzhenitsyn's huge series of novels (The Red Wheel) is very interesting. It tells about the Russian Revolution and is intended as a defense of modern states and nationalities agains..."

This chapter was, as well as Soloviev’s, the best in the book.

I haven't read this chapter yet, but a pacifist can agree that the state has a responsibility to protect its citizens and yet affirm that violent means of protection are never right.
I don't see why the assertion that no war is just means advocating "peace at any price" (Introduction)

Jill wrote: "I haven't read this chapter yet, but a pacifist can agree that the state has a responsibility to protect its citizens and yet affirm that violent means of protection are never right..."

How could Ukraine defend against the Russian invasion without violent means?

If you let me participate it is not the same pacifism that irenism. The first could be positive the second never.

other examples of taking arms in defense is the Criteria in Mexico and the Catholic groups, Flange et al, that defended the Church during the Spanish Civil War.

Thanks for saying the last example. There are a lot of lies against the national army in the spanish this war it was not a war between democracy and totalitarism both armies was totalitarian even more the Republic than the National. But the first wanted to eliminate the Catholic Church 6000 religious were murdered among them 13 bishops. This is very important that the foreign People understand it.

Jill wrote: "I haven't read this chapter yet, but a pacifist can agree that the state has a responsibility to protect its citizens and yet affirm that violent means of protection are never right.
I don't see wh..."

Regarding your first point, are you suggesting that the State has the responsibility to do wrong to protect its citizens, or that it can always protect its citizens from harm intended by men moved to violence through non-violent means? Assuming the first, then your point on not seeing the connection between just war and the idea that there are prices too high to be paid for peace, would seem to be the same; that while war to defend or obtain peace may be required, even such a war would be unjust. Am I understanding you correctly?

Fonch wrote: "Thanks for saying the last example. There are a lot of lies against the national army in the spanish this war it was not a war between democracy and totalitarism both armies was totalitarian even m..."

For those interested, Mine Were of Trouble, by Peter Kemp, gives a good deal of background at the level of an individual Brit who fought for the Nationalists on those grounds.

I don't think it's ever right/necessary to do wrong.

Jill, what would be right/necessary for Ukrainians to do? If Russia invades them and says they will continue killing unless the eastern part of Ukraine is annexed to Russia, do you think their only response should be to relinquish that region? And how about the Ukrainians who live there and don’t want to be Russians (and will be mistreated by Russians if they annex it?)

Jill, sometimes it's necessary to choose the lesser evil.

Thanks John. I did not know this book.

Saint Thomas Aquinas defends the fair fight and the School of Salamanca. The precolombine was defended but Spain was not forced to give up to America. Spain was the only country who discuss if the conquer was right, or not. Neither country discussed the right of the conquest.

Jill wrote: "I don't think it's ever right/necessary to do wrong."

You are, I believe, assuming that violence is always wrong. But consider this situation:

My wife and I are walking down a street. Suddenly, in front of us, a man starts shooting people at random. I take out a gun and shoot and kill him, saving many lives. Have I done wrong?

Clearly there is some justification for self-defense/protection of others, though it would be preferable to shoot his shooting arm rather than to kill. My criticism comes earlier: Don't carry a gun!! Every gun increases the potential for harm, intended or unintended.

Jill wrote: "Clearly there is some justification for self-defense/protection of others, though it would be preferable to shoot his shooting arm rather than to kill. My criticism comes earlier: Don't carry a gun..."

You lost me there. If your goal is to disable the threat, one needs to aim at large mass. In that situation, chances are you are so pumped full of adrenaline that shooting at an arm is not likely. Carrying a gun can SAVE lives of innocent bystanders. An armed society is a polite society.

In Europe citizens are not armed but the police are, so self-defense is delegated. A totally unarmed society would be indefense and dominated by the law of the strongest.

I preffer not having a weapon i would be a problem for me or the rest of the People 🤭😅 i am ever touching all. I usually be critic with Europe but in this thing i think that Europe is right.

Jill wrote: "Clearly there is some justification for self-defense/protection of others, though it would be preferable to shoot his shooting arm rather than to kill. My criticism comes earlier: Don't carry a gun..."

Ah, then I can be nothing but a witness or a victim when the evil doer starts killing. That's your solution? And you criticize me for putting myself in position to intervene and save lives?

Manuel wrote: "In Europe citizens are not armed but the police are, so self-defense is delegated. A totally unarmed society would be indefense and dominated by the law of the strongest."

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. And what happens when the people you need protection from are the police?

John wrote: "And what happens when the people you need protection from are the police?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal) :-)

In fact, every solution to the problem will be flawed, due to the fact that we are tainted by original sin. That's the reason I am not a pacifist.

Patrick, the U.S. has FAR more homicides, suicides and "accidental" shootings than any other nation on earth, and the sheer number of guns is a major reason. Guns may be used to protect, but they're designed to kill. That's God's prerogative, not flawed human beings'.

Jill wrote: "Patrick, the U.S. has FAR more homicides, suicides and "accidental" shootings than any other nation on earth, and the sheer number of guns is a major reason. Guns may be used to protect, but they'r..."

Decades ago guns were just as prevalent. Many schools in the West and Midwest had gun clubs. Students who went hunting after school would sometimes bring their rifles to school in their cars if they were going hunting straight from school and gun violence was drastically less than it is today. Guns didn't change, but the culture has. But now that we live in a more violent society, with many trying hard to reduce policing (at dreadful cost to the poor), your solution is to disarm the law-abiding?

You also ignore the fact that the US also has high rates of stabbings and beating deaths. I suggest you are worried about the wrong problem.

In Europe the topic of weapons is a bit different.