Just War, Non-Violence, and The Mission

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?

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 Mission

Nonviolence seems to be a major theme in the movie, The Mission. It is a means of priest to interact with the local Native Americans as well as an approach that appeases both parties. The Native Americans learn from the missionaries while the priests learn and repent through working with the Native Americans.

Another theme in the movie is just war. This movie is during the time period in which the Spanish were taking over the Americas. Was the capture of the Native Americans just? Just war in the Catholic Church has guidelines that go as followed: war can only be waged for a just reason and not for punishment or the mere sake of war, one injustice suffered by one party must greatly outweigh the other, the war must be waged by a public authority, the evil being committed by one party must be less than that of war, a last resort and the sole purpose of the war must be the only flaw corrected in the opposing society. Then in war there are other requirements: the attacks may only be waged on combatants, action may only be taken when necessary, prisoners of war must be treated justly and advantage should not be taken of the prisoners.

The Spanish settlers did not seem to have a just cause for capturing and attacking the Native Americas, nor did they treat them fairly, however early settlers seems to be highly affiliated with the Catholic Church as seen in the parade. How did they justify the war they waged on the Native Americans? Was the attack on the Native Americans justified? What do you believe were requirements for the settlers to wage war on the Native Americans? Why do you think the Native Americans accepted the priests so readily when they had witnessed and experienced what the settlers were capable of?

Throughout the movie thus far there are also symbols such as Mendoza carrying the bag up the hill as his own personal cross just as Jesus did. What other symbols have you noticed at this point in the movie? What do you think the message of the filmmaker is through these symbols? Do they serve as parallels to Christianity and, if so, how?

-Caitlin Twomey and Haley Finn

Vatican II: Gateway to the Golden Age of the Church Today

As we have talked much in class about the the church in reform, we see now that Vatican II was probably the most radical and necessary reform the Church has ever seen. It defined the church, described its mission in the world, reformed the liturgy, and explained how to interpret scriptures. Here are summaries of some of the major documents of the council. 

LUMEN GENTIUM: THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH 

The Church sought to define itself as the sign of unity with God on earth as established by Jesus Christ and carried on through tradition. It is the body of Christ the people united to Christ so intimately that they are the image Him on this earth. The Church is the hand and feet of Christ in whom Christ resides and through whom Christ works on this earth. Because of this identity in the love of Christ, they are called to holiness and love for all of humanity. 

GAUDIUM ET SPES: THE CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD 

Gaudium et Spes emphasize the dignity of every human person. It stresses the necessity for the Church to reach out to all of humanity and to proclaim Jesus Christ and the salvation he brings to the ends of the earth. Under the guidance of the Spirit, the Church is to be a witness to the truth. These themes allow Vatican II to open the door to all sorts of interreligious dialogue in hopes of reconciliation with all Christians and even all people. It hopes for and urges movement toward a united community of all humanity guided by the Spirit and rooted in a love for Jesus Christ. All of humanity is potentially the Church. 

SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM: DIVINE LITURGY

Vatican II also made the Church more accessible and easily understandable for the everyday Catholic. The entire liturgy was retranslated so that masses could be said in the native languages of the people.  This revolutionized and personalized the liturgical experience for Catholics. 

DEI VERBUM: SCRIPTURE

As we read earlier this semester, the council explains how the Christian should read and interpret Scripture. We recall that it affirms scripture's nature as God's writing through the pens of men and that it calls for a particular reading of scripture in light of the context and intention of the author and the context of the Sacred tradition. 

The Council also promulgated other documents concerning social media, ecumenism, the eastern rite of the Church, missionary activity, religious freedom, the ministry of priests, bishops, Christian education, educating priests, Jewish-Christian relations, and the role of the laity. 

As you can see Vatican II clarified and defined the beliefs, traditions, identity, and purpose of the Catholic Church.  

Why was Vatican II necessary? 

How have the changes of Vatican II affected your own experience or opinion on the Church? 

In light of the reform of Vatican II, how would you define reform? Clarification, revision, change, adjustment to circumstances? 

Also, in light of Vatican II and our recent reform of the Roman Missal, (in the spirit of the Church is always in need of Reform) do you see places in the Church that are in need of reform? (i.e. women's involvement in the church, papal ruling, gay rights, abortion, contraception, education, social justice....)

How adequately do you feel Catholic Church councils respond to the changing of the times and how well do you think the public is informed in the matters of defending and refuting the Catholic Church?

Jackie and Amber

 

Contrast Benedict’s idea of the monastic life with Merton’s view.  Merton seems to be frustrated with monastic life, yet he does follow Benedict’s Rule as he goes about his Firewatch – he prays and reflects as he does his work.  Though Merton seems to have a negative view of the monastery, Benedict’s Rule clearly influences his prayer life profoundly. 

If you were to apply Benedict’s Rule to your own life, would your soul feel closer to God in different situations during work and rest as Merton, or do you feel that you would experience more of the frustration of Merton?

What are the difficult questions that Merton asks during the Firewatch, and is he expecting a direct answer from God or divine inspiration to seek his own answers in accordance with our course topic, Faith Seeking Understanding?

St. John Cassian vs. St. Benedict

St. John Cassian's reading is about how people can improve their process of prayer, or how they can do it more effectively. For example, he says that "the aim of every monk and the perfection of his art tends to continual and unbroken perseverance and prayer." In addition, he says that people should rid their minds of any distracting or sinful thoughts and wordly temptations. Their prayers should be pure and genuine and could be more valuable if they are short and silent to prevent those distractions from invading the process.

St. Benedict talks about how monks should live in such a way to ultimately make their way to heaven. He emphasizes peace and doing good as an aim of life, perseverance in avoiding sin and other evil deeds, and being truthful and sincere.

Contemplate the following quotes from St. John Cassian and St. Benedict, respectively:
"For it rests on such foundations, then though heavy storms of passions break over it, though mighty torrents of persecutions beat against it like a battering ram, though a furious tempest of spiritual foes dash against it and attack it, yet not only will no ruin overtake it, but the onslaught will not injure it even in the slightest degree."

"That is why the Lord says in the Gospel: Whoever hears these words of mine and does like them is like a wise man who built his house upon rock; the floods came and the winds blew and beat against the house, but it did not fall: it was founded on rock."

How are the thoughts of St. John Cassian and St. Benedict similar and different with regards to prayer as expressed in the above quotes? Do you think that they are both inspired by the same passages in the Bible? Do you think that they would reach the same conclusion about what makes a prayer effective for an individual? So what do you think - can a person pray effectively without a strong foundation of faith?

Posted By: Lucy Downey, David Bond, and Lindsay Byrnes

Athanasius & the Word

Athanasius proved to be a key spokesperson at the First Council of Nicaea, where the Church officials wrote down the original versionof the Nicene Creed, and is considered a Doctor of the Church in the Roman Catholic Church. He is well known for his defending the Church against Arianism.

Within the chapters 1-3 Athanasius eludes greatly to theidea of the divinity of Jesus. One could even say that he is the light within the darkness. The darkness is that found in the hedonism of humanity and He is there to be the guiding light to bring all back to His flock. In addition, Athanasius also noted the great detail of the saving actions of Christ not only in his eventual death and resurrection but also his connection to God’s will through the Word that came to be the foundation of creation.

In section 8, Athanasius states that “No part of creation had ever been without Him Who, while ever abiding in union with the Father, yet fills all things that are. But now He entered the world in a new way.” Do you think that this is evident of Deist, Interventionist, or Sustained Creation. Please explain.

In section 16, Athanasius says, “the Word submitted to appear in a body in order that he as man might center their senses on himself and convince them through his human acts that He himself is not man only, but also God” From this quote, do you think Athanasius views Jesus from a Gnostic perspective, or is he fighting against the Gnostic perspective? If he is arguing from a Gnostic perspective, how does that affect his view of the Incarnation?

In section 17, Athanasius says, “The Word was not hedged in by his body, nor did his presence in the body prevent his being present elsewhere as well. When he moved His body He did not cease also to direct theuniverse by His mind and might. No.” In your opinion, is this view compatible with the idea of the Incarnation according to the Church?

Posted by: Mary Cieslak, Brooks Reagan, Brendan Zaleski

Mark vs. John: The Gospel Showdown

The way the texts of Mark and John approach the Gospel narrative is very different. Mark begins straight away with John the Baptist, the baptism of Jesus and the temptation in the desert, whereas John’s gospel begins with a profound theological statement of Christ’s preexistence and incarnation as the Word of God. The prologue of John’s gospel clearly states what other gospels such as Mark lead you to discover. What theological significance can we draw from the manner in which these two introductions are written? How does the use of induction versus deduction affect the way we approach the rest of each text? As in how does knowing that Jesus is God influence how we read the Gospel of John as opposed to how we read Mark?

While the beginnings of these texts may seem vastly different, there are also important parallels and likenesses that can help us better understand the theology behind the two Gospels. Neither begins with a birth narrative, and both go from the stories of John the Baptist to the ministry of Jesus in Galilee. Why is it so important that both Gospel writers chose this as the starting point for their respective narratives?

Considering that these texts are written by two different authors (or two different schools of authors) drawing from different sources, how does this enlighten the conversation?

Courtesy of Samantha Bognar and Laura Rothgeb