In the Mission, Fr. Gabriel says,
"If might is right, then love has no place in the world." Is he
correct? Is loving others, both the victims and the
oppressors, achieved only through non- violent resistance? Can love for
enemies and neighbors prevail in the just war theory, or does the just war
theory emphasize love for the victim as being more important than the love for
enemies? Are Christians called to promote love, or are they called to be
stronger than the oppressor? Can love and might both be pursued?
The
Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraph 2309) states that for a war to be
just "the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of
nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated." In your opinion, in the film The Mission could the militaristic protection of the natives by some of the priests be called a just war? Did the priests have any chance of success? Were all the other options exhausted? If you believe that what they did was wrong, what would have been a better course of action?
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated." In your opinion, in the film The Mission could the militaristic protection of the natives by some of the priests be called a just war? Did the priests have any chance of success? Were all the other options exhausted? If you believe that what they did was wrong, what would have been a better course of action?
Both the film "The Mission" and the lecture by the guest speaker from Pax Christi gave us food for thought about what exactly the role of a Christian is in our violent world. Are we called to fight against forces that are clearly evil at times, or are all wars morally wrong? Are we called to protest injustice through means of non-violent resistance, or is this futile? Or are we to leave the world entirely, and try to stay "pure" through ignoring the pain around us?
Jason,
Eric, Joe, Evangeline, and Colleen (the super-group that transcends LC
divisions!) :)
The idea of non-violence is something that I personally struggle with because it's so hard to justify certain acts of violence and war. I have a hard time accepting that non-violence is always the answer, but at the same time I have a hard time accepting the idea that violence is a legitimate answer as well. I don't think that all wars are morally wrong. For example, I don't think that the Holocaust was something the Allies could have non-violently resisted. At the same time, however, I also believe that the atomic bombs used in World War II were completely unnecessary militarily. I think that if the natives in the Mission had had some true military assistance, then their "war" would have been just because they would have had a chance at winning.
ReplyDeleteAs Christians, we are called to be imitators of Christ. At no point in Jesus' life did he violently disobey authority. If Jesus did not want to die, he probably could have used his power to fight the Romans and Jews. But Jesus does not do this. Instead, He accepts his death. In His life, Jesus tells us that we have to love our enemies as well as our friends. This is really hard to incorporate into our lives. As Catholics - like Christ - we have to accept our death and the death of those we love; however, at times of great danger and oppression, what is one to do when one is oppressed and stripped of freedom? What about genocide, what is one to do when one is in a group that is the target of genocide? Is this person to accept their death by ruthless dictator and his soul-less posse? I will not answer that question but if one is to resist and try to change their situation, non-violent resistance is the higher moral option based on Christ's teachings (our call to love one another and God’s commandment that one shall not kill). However, I would say that in certain circumstances, intervention is absolutely necessary. For example, in World War II, the USA had to intervene in order to end an oppressive murderous regime. There are other circumstances in which intervention was necessary. In the 1990’s, the Rwandan and Yugoslavian genocides were circumstances in which intervention was justified because some outside force was necessary to end these conflicts. Christians are called to promote love above all else, but sometimes love may have to be war, in extreme circumstances. I think that all people want to believe that Father Gabriel’s quote is right, but it is hard to make this universal when war is necessary in extreme circumstances.
ReplyDeleteOh contrare, Andrew! What about when Jesus overturned the moneylender tables in the temple? That is definitely a physically violent response, and probably what first got Jesus on the Roman soldier's radar as a troublemaker. It is present in all four of the Gospels: Mark 11:15-19, Matthew 21:12-17, Luke 19:45-48, John 2:13-16.
DeleteI'd also like to point out John's gospel in particular, where he is actually portrayed making a WHIP in order to drive them out!!!
Jn2:15 "And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables"
So, (I can't believe I'm acutally saying this, as I hate playing Devil's Advocate) but was Jesus justified in reacting violently to the moneylenders?
In this situation, though Jesus may be acting with force, the force he is using does not endanger human life. I don't believe Jesus ever physically hurt anyone or made any attempts to kill anyone for any reason.
DeleteI like how Andrew equates the peace of Christ (even in the face of violent persecution) to the peace the catholic Church is trying to promote. I also like Anika's link to the golden rule because i think it gets to the heart of the matter. If we are supposed to acknowledge that Christ made every person with intense love in his image, we also are called to love every person with a transcendant divine agape love. in this light it is hard to justify killing a beloved creation of God in whom Christ dwells, no matter the circumstance. It would seem the just war doctrine is very pacifist, but I think it rightly corresponds to the Church's teaching on the dignity of every human life.
That being said Catholics uphold martyrs and admire characters who take radical stands to fight injustice. Going to war for what you believe can set a noble prescedent for future generations especially when fighting against an evil that would not otherwise be stopped. As in the mission, the natives were not only fighting for themselves but for a race of people that may have been eliminated. They were fighting against an injustice that would be seemingly unopposed and accepted for the future if no one fought back. By fighting they show opposition, which may influence others to evaluate the situation and join/believe in the cause.
While this may be bold stand for one's faith, it is not just. The principle of the dignity of life always comes first. As we saw there are other ways of displaying disagreement boldly (nonviolent protest) without harming human life. In effect only the War that prevents a greater threat to human life and is just.
One problem I have with these prerequisites for just war is this notion that there's "serious prospects of success." Does this requirement negate the Christian value of faith? A significant moment for me in the movie was when Father Gabriel refused to bless Fr. Roderigo, saying that if his ways were right, God would already have given him his blessings. I'm not saying he shouldn't have died, and they should've succeeded, but are we simply to ignore his faith and feelings of righteousness?
ReplyDeleteI like the examples Andrew and Lauren gave; I agree that there are certain situations wherein doing nothing/not fighting is a sin in itself.
I've tried applying the golden "Love thy neighbor as you love yourself" commandment to this. You wouldn't want to kill or fight your neighbor, or have them fight you - so it would make sense not to have war. But at the same time you would want to defend your neighbor and have them defend you...right? It all depends on who you look to as your neighbor (which should be everybody, which makes this all the more complicated).
I agree with both what Lauren and Andrew have already stated. The idea of non-violence is hard to completely buy in to because of certain situations when intervention was/is necessary to stop injustices/mass murders in the world. Love is always the answer, as Jesus taught; however, we must sometimes differentiate between loving the victim more than the aggressor and take action, either non-violent resistance or just war, to ensure justice. I agree with Andrew that non-violent resistance is more along the lines of Christ's teachings than is just war because of the law stating that we shall not kill; however, sometimes non-violent resistance is not effective. In The Mission, I don't think we could call it a just war because I don't think the natives/the priest truly believed they could win the fight.
ReplyDeleteI think the actions of the fighting priests was just. I think they had a prospect of winning the fight. Had Roderigo's booby trap worked on the commander as he had intended, the other attackers likely would have stopped, as they did not want to attack the village in the first place. They attempted to stop the attack by having the cardinal visit the village, but it failed. Although they failed, they acted with the best of intentions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anika about the "prospects of success" component. Sometimes it does not look like a war can be won, but something changes the tide. For example, if you apply just war theory to the story of David and Goliath then you end up with David not even trying.
ReplyDeleteAlso, while nonviolence is an integral part of fighting aggression there is something to be said for standing up for yourself. Depending on how nonviolence is being used, the absence of action could appear to be appeasing the aggressive side which would only add fuel to the fire. You have to be very clear in your nonviolent message that you don't agree with the aggressor and that you are acting in protest. Nonviolence is a very tricky practice because the wrong message could very easily be portrayed.
I agree with everything that was said above. However, I disagree that the war in the Mission was unjust. Despite knowing that they would lose the war, the livelihood and survival of a people was at stake. It was in self-defense that the war was fought, not out of greed like the Spanish and Portuguese. Slavery would have come to the people if they had simply conceded, and ultimately they would be over worked and die in suffering. It was death or death for this people, though. Standing up to the Portuguese and Spanish did not resulted in a similar outcome, death. It was definitely an unjust war for the Portuguese and Spanish. What Jesus thinks here is something only he could answer I think. I think he would have wanted the priests to stand up against injustice to their fellow man in charity and love for God’s people and kingdom. It would be up to the person, though. I am sure that none of the priests or natives went into this fight without consulting God in prayer. Whether that makes fighting right or wrong is a difficult concept to address.
ReplyDeleteSo it is a choice between the people's livelihood and their lives. Father Gabriel was actually being a realist, becauce he knew that even if they defeated the Portugese in this battle, they would simply bring up even more soldiers. (Expanision and Manifest Destiny are quite relentless, doncha know...) And we saw how the slaves that Roderigo originally captured did not actually live badly: they were house servants, but then, perhaps they were just lucky...
DeleteIn general, I agree with what you're saying: I think Roderigo and the others fought because they knew that no one else would come to their aid. So it was a legitimate self-defense, and even though their chances were slim, I woudn't call it an unjust war. Not sure I would call it a Just War either. After all, the Natives refused to flee, which was always an open option to them. Maybe not in their eyes, but their frustration with the settlers made it so they would not give up their homes and livelihood.
I think the best choice they had was to flee, and they simply didn't take it.
I do not believe that all wars are morally wrong. Many people think that wars are completely unnecessary and although I would agree that some wars throughout history have been completely unnecessary and that some conflicts could have been dealt with differently, I still think that sometimes violence is just. Violence is especially just in the case of self defense, in my opinion. In The Mission, for example, when the natives heard that if they did not leave the mission then they would be attacked, they decided to fight back. I think that they were completely just in doing this because they wanted to defend their right to live and worship how they pleased and had a right to fight for what they believed in. It would be foolish for them to just run away or stand around and do nothing. If you really believe in something then I believe you have the right to fight for it and in some cases the fight must contain some violence to emphasize your point. As long as you have good reason to fight and enough restraint to control how much violence you use so that it is appropriate to the situation, war is just.
ReplyDeleteWhen my brother and I were little, my mom would constantly be telling us to "knock it off, fighting doesn't solve anything. Use your words and talk it out." She couldn't possible have known just how thick-skulled a nine-year-old older brother could be, or she would never have suggested non-violence as a legitimate option for problem solving; sometimes the only thing that works is a five-year roundhouse kicking him in the face. But this also doesn't mean that I didn't love my brother--he was my absolute best friend. I know its a pretty substantial stretch to relate the fights of little kids to Just War Theory, but I think there is something here that's worth exploring.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest danger from my brother that ever threatened me was tickling (the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain); I had told him time and time again that I hated it and he had to stop, but he wouldn't listen (all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective); he was pretty skinny so I knew I could take him if it came to it (there must be serious prospects of success), but he was bigger enough that I couldn't do serious damage (the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated). In my little five-year-old mind, all the criteria for waging a just war had been met. Christopher lost a baby tooth in that fight, but he never tickled me again.
When the fight is between nations, or as we saw in The Mission, the matter is not so easily resolved. In The Mission, the agression of the Portuguese was clearly unjust, and if the further criteria for Just War were met, they woud have every right to defend themselves by force. But the questions of whether they had a strong chance of success and whether their fighting would increase the risk of violence to the women and children, in my opinion, were too much in the grey for their counter-violence to be sancionable. In this case, the evils done by them (killing the soldiers and inciting them to greater violence against the mission, which resulted in the slaughter of all the people) were more grave than the evils that would have befallen them if they had peacefully withstood the invasion. However, that wouldn't have been their only option: they could have, for instance, run away from the Mission, gone father north to territory beyond the grasp of the Portuguese and sought protection from Spain again.
Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." (Gaudium et Spes, Isaiah 2:4, CCC 2317)
Great analogy...hahaha. Totally can relate. :)
DeleteI agree with Schultz that the suffering in the Mission was going to occur anyway;it was a case of self-defense. It was death fighting for standing up for human dignity or death through suffering and degradation. In fact, they even tried non-violent resistance with adoration and that didn't work. I'm not so sure non-violent resistance works in the face of violence. If the agressors has already committed acts of violence against you to the point where your life is threatened, I don't think non-violently resisting and just letting yourself be taken is just either.
ReplyDeleteI think that in the film, both the priests who fought and the Fr. Gabriel were right. Both were trying to defend the Natives in what they thought was the most effective means possible. In a case the theirs where there are women and children who will die, not just fighting men (and even the men if the priests were not there had much less advanced war technology, and so would have been mowed down anyways)we're looking at a case where there will be wholesale slaughter. If not, the other option was for these people to be enslaved, which is completely against all notions of human dignity. In a case like this, I don't think a possibility of success should be necessary to try and defend people. Even if they did not succeed in saving their lives, the priests gave the natives a chance at a dignified death. The men went down fighting; I think the two priest's knowledge of enemy tactics helped them put up a better defense then they would have otherwise. But I think what Fr. Gabriel did was even more important and necessary. By having the women and children singing and appealing to God, the enemy soldiers lost their drive to kill them. Even though it didn't save them, it humanized them (remember how earlier in the film, someone at the meeting refered to the boy soprano as a "trained beast"?) I think if Fr. Gabriel hadn't used religious symbolism when facing the Spanish soldiers, the undefended town would have been raped and maybe not a single person would survive. When considering the consequences of not acting, I think it would have been extremely wrong for the priests not to help in any way they could.
ReplyDeleteI find the issue of just war versus non-violence particularly complex. Despite various defenses of non-violent resistance as an effective means of resolving conflict, in the vast majority of cases throughout history the non-violent groups end up being beaten, oppressed, and even slaughtered. In the Mission this happened to the Fr. Gabriel and the natives who joined them in active non-violent resistance. On the other hand, Rodrigo and the natives and other priests who fought with him were also unable to prevent the destruction of the village and the enslavement or death of the natives. The difference between their two approaches was that fighting back seemed to actually have a chance, however slight, of success. Usually when conflict comes to a point where violence is being considered, then the only chance of surviving is being prepared to defend yourself.
ReplyDeleteAs Christians, I think this brings us to the terrible choice we witnessed in the Mission. Either you are prepared to destroy the lives of those who would destroy yours—at the cost of taking from those people the chance of saving their souls—or you allow them to destroy you and the values on which you were willing to stake your life—with only the small hope that they will see the evil of their actions and cease. Even if your motive isn’t the preservation of your own soul or life, but the spread of good throughout the world, you still come across this dilemma: is it a better witness to Christ to kill others to prevent mass injustice or to allow yourself to be killed, hoping that the injustice isn’t that horrible an evil?
There are many good points to each side, which is why I’m unsure of the answer, but I lean towards just war. How can we hope for justice in the world if everyone who promotes it is dying for its sake, and therefore unable to speak on its behalf?
I have to agree with the current pope who says that, in today's society, there is no such thing as a just war.
ReplyDeleteHowever, with reference to the events that occurred in the film: at first I felt that Roderigo and the other Jesuit priests who took up arms to protect the Guarani were fighting a just war. However, on further reflection about the situation, I think that Fr. Gabriel was right in saying that: "If might is right, then love has no place in the world." A Christian is called to follow God's will and, as Fr. Gabriel also said in the film, "God is Love!". It makes sense to me that he would react this way, because he truely believed this. I think that the other friars were acting like justice-makers rather than men 'of the cloth'. Another thing that made me change my opinion is that, although I don't think that the other friars were wrong in taking up arms, the other options were not all exhausted. The one thing at the end of the movie that struck me was the scene were the Guarani are singing and the soldiers pause for several moments before their captain is able to push them to destroy the mission. That pause, I think, could have made the difference had not Roderigo and his helpers laid the first blow by killing one of the soldiers. I think that if they had peacefully resisted, the outcome would have been much different. Certainly, not as many people would have died. Then again, they would have been enslaved; this is a really difficult thing to think about, and I'm still not sure who was 100% correct in their decisions.
However, I still think that today we are called to resist non-violently because of how different society has become. With the weaponry created, there is no chance of a just war existing; therefore, we can only resist no-violently. Any other means would be more damaging than helpful.
I agree with Laura's comment that more often than not, fighting does not always solve the problem. It is often the negotiation and discussion that results in final resolutions. However, I also see the other side of the issue in which resistance is needed in order to protect ourselves. In the perfect fantasy world, everyone would be able to resist non-violently and no one would be hurt. However, realistically, force is needed at times to make a defense. For example, the natives in The Mission had to fight back at some point; otherwise, they all would have been wiped out instantly. Secondly, like in The Mission, sometimes non-violent resisting just isn't enough to save everyone.
ReplyDeleteThis has probably already been said, but oh well. I think that the priests and natives were absolutely right in their resistance. They could have run and perhaps lived free, at least a while, but they would have been forsaking not only their home, but also their faith. Some things are worth defending and I believe this is one of them. Now, as to whose action was better--Fr. Rodrigo's or Fr. Gabriel's I'm so sure. If I was in their position I know that I would resist, but I don't know if I would try to do so peacefully or violently. Yet, I think that I would lean more towards Fr. Rodrigo. The scene where Fr. Gabriel is walking with the villagers, holding high the Holy Eucharist amidst the bullets and death has a profound beauty to it. However, I believe that Fr. Rodrigo's approach had a greater likelihood of success and it to had a kind of beauty to it. Violent resistance is sometimes necessary. That is not to say that might is right, but perhaps sometimes it is necessary.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the idea that weaponry has become too "advanced" and thus takes out far too much in collateral damage. I come from a military city. There are huge bombs, to be sure, but there are also incredibly precise mechanisms that take out only one tiny target. War, if used to protect the innocent and as a last resort, does have a "place". Note, I do not say that it is natural or even right in its essence: instead, war can be morally acceptable if it stops other morally-devastating actions. It's been brought up in the previous comments: no one would say that WWII was "unjust" in that non-violence would have been better. Laying blanket statements over conflicts and condemning all as unjust is not right. Certainly, some are immoral, but others are incredibly necessary. To take Laura's example, it's sometimes necessary to show love in a non-"nice" way. Similar to WWII, surely one would not say that the Allies were not loving the poor by entering the war and stopping the massacres and genocides. Granted, the mass bombings were not good and should have not been done, but besides those, I think that the point can be proven that war is necessary to promote human dignity if a society is completely destroying human dignity.
ReplyDeleteJason, i agree with your second point in that un-justness can exist within a just-war. some might argue, as you mentioned, that WWII was a just war, necessary in order to stop hitler and Stalin. yet certain episodes are most definitely not: the bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Lanconia incident, along with various other non-civilian attacks.
DeleteJason, I like your comment and I think we must keep in mind human dignity if we are to discuss war. Any time a person is used as bargain or harmed for an unjust reason, they are reduced to less-than-human. They are treated as a pawn to be sacrificed for some greater (and usually very idealistic) cause. Yet the problem with "greater" causes is that they often fail to take into account the truth of reality. To bomb a city full of civilians, you have to ignore the immeasurable value of those lives, a problem that starts if you ignore the value of your own. To attack preemptively you have to ignore the fact that you're not all knowing and that every situation brings unforseeable complications and trials with it. In short, just war involves the humility to accept your own place in the world, not as all-knowing peacekeeper or judge, but as fellow citizen and fellow human with your neighbors.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lauren. There are situations where violence seems to be the only means to reach a greater peace. However this does not justify the magnitude of some of the violence that has gone on through the years. For example I agree with Lauren's statement about the atomic bomb being unnecessary to win the war.
ReplyDeleteWhether the priests had any success is debatable, but I believe they did . There was nothing more that they could do in the time and place they were in and they led by example which is very admirable. The bishop and Portugal learned that actions like this are not necessary and portray the country in a bad light. The sacrifice may have saved other missions.