I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. — John F. Kennedy, 35th President of the United States and a Roman Catholic
Yesterday I commented that pre-Constantine several of the Early Church Fathers had either serious doubts or were convinced that one could not be a Christian and either a soldier/policeman or a magistrate. Post-Constantine’s declaration of the Church as the State Church, Christians are immediately fully found within the armed forces and the judiciary. So, what changed? It is altogether too easy to make the classic Anabaptist Protestant argument that the Church fell with the arrival of Constantine on the world stage. But, that argument runs into two major problems. In order for that argument to be true, one has to argue that the Church Fathers of that time, several of whom had been tortured in the last throes of persecution, were now willing to throw away their beliefs on this subject for simple influence and pecuniary gain. One also has to argue that the entire Church was so amenable to that change that there is no record of any split or major argument about the entry of large number of Christians into the mechanism of the State. The other major problem is found in some other quotes from some of the same Church Fathers I quoted yesterday:
For those fighting in a righteous cause, and for the King who reigns righteously, that whatsoever is opposed to those who act righteously be destroyed. — a prayer of Origen
Without ceasing, for all our emperors, we offer prayer. We pray for life prolonged; for security to the empire; for protection to the imperial house; for brave armies…. — a prayer of Tertullian
Practice husbandry, we say, if you are a husbandman; but while you till the fields, know God. Sail the sea, you who are devoted to navigation, yet call the while on the heavenly pilot. Has (saving) knowledge taken hold of you while engaged in military service? Listen to the commander who orders what is right. — Saint Clement of Alexandria
Our fathers did not think that killing in war was murder. — Saint Basil the Great [Editor’s note: nevertheless, note strongly that Saint Basil counseled that soldiers should avoid taking communion for a “short time” after killing in war. That short time was a year.]
In the quotes above, one can read Tertullian and Origen praying for the Empire and for destruction to those who oppose righteousness. This certainly does not sound like a pure pacifist stance. Rather, this is a partially pacifist stance. Why is it partially pacifist? Let’s remember the Empire before Constantine. The oaths (sacramentum) that were taken by soldiers often included elements that would have been considered treasonous to Our Lord. More than that, a Roman soldier’s obedience to his commanders and to Caesar was supposed to come above all else. So, how could one take a sacramentum to obey Caesar above all else when one was taking the sacramentum of the Eucharist regularly and swearing that Jesus is Lord? A magistrate often took office based on oaths to the gods and attendant sacrifices. More than that, there is no doubt that some of the Church Fathers did truly question whether it was appropriate for a Christian, whose spiritual condemnation had been forgiven, to turn around and condemn someone to death. In the USA we are all too quick to declare that capital punishment is perfectly justified. We would do well to have some of the doubts that the Early Church Fathers themselves had and to consider capital punishment to be less than well justified.
So what changed? It would be a bit simplistic to say that the reason for the change was that under Constantine the idolatrous oaths and the sacrifices were done away with so that there was no longer a bar to service. But, it is also true that this was a major part of the change. And it is archeologically true that both in the East and in the Germanic areas we have pre-Constantine records of many Christian soldiers, including records of some military saints. The change was a bit more complex than that.
I think it would be fair to say that the Church univocally held death and killing, regardless of how “justified” or “necessary” to be against God’s original intention. Death itself is an enemy to be defeated, not a thing to visit upon others. More than that, though one can find several Church Fathers who talk about service in the armed forces of the Empire, one can find no Early Church Father who justifies self-defense by an individual. Rather, there is an univocal counsel that if “someone wants your shirt, give him your cloak as well.” And that if someone strikes you that you should turn the other cheek. It is clear that the attitude was that it would be better to die than to kill someone in individual self-defense. Killing is reserved as an unfortunate part of the service that a government through its military and its judiciary renders to its citizens. They may carry the sword for the protection of the good, but the individual is exhorted to essentially be a pacifist, unless in military or judicial service.
Even when it comes to military service in a Christian Empire, Saint Basil’s counsel, that a military person ought to abstain from communion for a year after killing someone in war, shows that the Fathers’ attitude was that while killing may be part and parcel of war, and not forbidden in the present dispensation, yet killing was not part of God’s desire and it should not be celebrated nor be considered to be a good thing. Just like God desired that no man should perish but have eternal life so should our attitude towards war be one of sadness over those enemies who do perish and lose their life.
There is one interesting place where that attitude still clearly remains and is enshrined in canon law. As a priest, should I kill someone in self-defense (and some would say even severely injure), I would no longer be allowed to officiate at the altar of God. Regardless of how justified self-defense might be considered for a non-clergyman, we are to hold to the older counsels. I cannot both be a priest who is an icon of Our Lord and of the Kingdom and a priest who has bloody hands. A priest, by canon law, must be a pacifist. He must allow himself to be killed rather than to defend himself. In that attitude, we point to the fact that killing is not God’s intention or desire.
As you can see, the stance of the Early Church Fathers towards the State was a much more complex stance than that which is often attributed to them. But, what does that have to do with us today. And, how does that apply to government service in a pluralistic society?
===MORE TO COME===
When we killed Bin Laden many people rejoiced, but I agree with what you have outlined above, that death is not God’s intention and even an enemies death is not a thing to rejoice.
I am inclined to agree with your position on self defense. I am curious though, what do you think about killing to protect family members under your care, particularly defenseless children?
When one reads about the early Christian martyrs, it is quite obvious that they let themselves, their wives, and their children be killed without a fight. One can then read of Desert Fathers who simply allowed themselves to be robbed without resistance. So, a personal pacifism seems to be the quite strong witness of the Church during those early centuries.
That norm was so strong that one of the early controversies was the Novatian controversy. Can a Christian who recants under pressure be readmitted to the Church? The answer was that they can be forgiven for recanting. Unfortunately, the issue of self-defense was not addressed then. Apparently one either died or recanted. There is no real good record of individuals resisting violently.
That changes completely when one gets to the level of nations. Armenia, the first Christian country in the world, resisted violently the attempts by one of the apostate Roman Emperors to conquer them. They won their war with mostly Christian troops.
That is what makes this subject so complex.
Complex indeed! Thanks for the response.