Home About Writers Categories Recent Issues Subscribe Contact File Transfer





Charlie Traffas
Charlie Traffas has been involved in marketing, media, publishing and insurance for more than 40 years. In addition to being a fully-licensed life, health, property and casualty agent, he is also President and Owner of Chart Marketing, Inc. (CMI). CMI operates and markets several different products and services that help B2B and B2C businesses throughout the country create customers...profitably. You may contact Charlie by phone at (316) 721-9200, by e-mail at ctraffas@chartmarketing.com, or you may visit at www.chartmarketing.com.
Religion
2007-04-01 08:09:00
Is it ever right to go to war?
When our family gets together, like we did over Christmas, our discussions sometimes get heated about whether our troops ought to be going overseas to fight or not. I know the Bible says somewhere “an eye for an eye,” but it also says something about “turning the other cheek.” How can we determine the proper answer to this question?
This question opens a minefield, through which I shall tread carefully in view of the current political situations, while explaining Jesus’ teaching in the words cited. Let me begin by quoting the biblical contexts. In the Old Testament book of Exodus (21:22- 24), after receiving from God the Commandments, Moses taught: “When men have a fight, . . . if injury ensues, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, etc.” And in Leviticus (24:19-20) Moses told the Israelites: “Anyone who inflicts an injury on his neighbor shall receive the same in return: limb for limb, eye for eye, tooth for tooth! The same injury that a man gives another shall be inflicted on him in return.” In the New Testament our Lord and Teacher Jesus cited and replaced that teaching of Moses with his new teaching, recorded in St. Matthew’s Gospel (5:38-39): “You have heard the commandment: ‘An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.’ But now I tell you: do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you. When a person strikes you on the right cheek, turn and offer him the other cheek.” The law of retaliation (tit for tat) goes back to the earliest code of laws, the Code of Hammurabi, and was passed down into the Law of Moses. Far from being a savage and bloodthirsty law, it is the beginning of mercy. It’s original aim was: the limitation of vengeance. In the earliest times the blood feud and vendetta were characteristic of tribal society. If a man of one tribe injured a man of another tribe, then ALL the members of the injured man’s tribe were to take vengeance on ALL the members of the tribe of the man who committed the injury. This law deliberately limits vengeance! It prescribes that only the man, who committed the injury, is to be punished, and his punishment must be no more than the equivalent of the injury he has inflicted, and the damage he has done. Seen in its historical setting, this law of Moses is not a savage law, but a law of mercy. Further, this law of Moses was never carried out literally. The Jewish interpreters of the law argued correctly that to carry it out literally might in fact be the reverse of justice: because it might involve the displacement of a good eye or a good tooth for a bad eye or a bad tooth. Very soon the injury done was assessed at a monetary value, and the Jewish law carefully laid down how the damage is to be assessed. There are other glimpses of mercy in the Old Testament: “You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against your own people” (Leviticus 19:18). “If you enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink” (Proverbs 25:21).“Do not say, I will do to him as he has done to me” (Proverbs 24:29). But Jesus, with the authority of God, changed that law: because retaliation, however controlled and restricted, has no place in the life of God’s people. Jesus says that, if anyone smites us on the right cheek, we should turn and offer him our other cheek also. Here there is far more than a mere matter of blows on the face. Suppose a right-handed man is standing in front of another man, and wants to hit him on the right cheek. How is he to do it? Unless he goes through a complicated contortion, he can hit the other man’s cheek only in one way: with the back of his hand. According to Jewish rabbinic law, to hit a man with the back of the hand was twice as insulting as to hit him with the flat of the hand. So what Jesus is saying is this: “Even if a man directs at you his most calculated insult, you must not retaliate and you must not resent it.” Jesus also said that we are to love our enemies, and do good to those who hate us. Unfortunately, through the centuries many Christians have failed in this matter. On the other hand, the Fathers of the Church, who learned from the disciples of Jesus, taught that each person has the right to defend himself and his family and home and guests in his house: from the attacks of an unjust aggressor. This principle was extended to a person’s community and town and country. The divine Commandment “Thou shalt not kill” forbids any private individual from undertaking violence against another person, except an unjust intruder or aggressor. The conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The Catholic Church teaches (Catechism, n. 2309): “Governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed. The gravity of such a decision requires that it conform to the rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. These are: 1) the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation must be lasting, grave, and certain; 2) all other means of putting an end to it must be shown to be impractical or ineffective; 3) there must be serious prospects of success; and 4) the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern weapons weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.” In your family discussions, you might consider each of these conditions “about whether our troops ought to be going overseas to fight or not.” Certainly, our country was attacked by unjust aggressors on September 9, 2001, just as it was on December 7, 1941 by unjust aggressors. In both cases the legitimate authorities, who have responsibility for our common good, declared war. The war against terrorists everywhere is continuing. Regardless of what excuses they offer, all terrorists are enemies of God and of decent people everywhere. Terrorism is an invention of the devil: to disturb and destroy God’s handiwork in creation and man’s development. The terrorist leaders have made it clear that they intend to destroy us and our civilization. In the end it’s either them or us. Terrorism must be restrained and eliminated wherever possible! Our troops are going overseas to fight for good peoples oppressed by criminals, e.g. Al Qaeda and the Taliban, who were not elected, but (like Saddam Hussein) who seized power through murder and unjust aggression.
 
The Q & A Times Journal accepts no responsibility for unsolicited manuscripts or photographs.Materials will not be returned unless accompanied by a stamped, self-addressed envelope. Thank you.
 
Wildcard SSL Certificates