Catholic "Just War" Doctrine vs JW Pacifist Doctrine

by rocketman 49 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • rocketman
    rocketman

    Having been a practicing Jehovah's Witness for 30 years, I had been exposed to their pacifist doctrine, which taught that Christians were not to enlist in armies or participate in warfare on any level. This doctrine was later modified somewhat to allow for non-military "alternative" service as a matter of conscience.

    I had always thought of the JW doctrine as lofty. It was based on Bible verses such as Isaiah 2:4 and Matthew 26:52. The idea was that, if all people were Jehovah's Witnesses, carnal warfare would be eliminated. In fact, one anecdotal experience often related in JW talks about warfare was that of a JW who supposedly called at the door of someone who related that they had lost a son in battle. The JW supposedly said "if all people were Jehovah's Witnesses, your son would still be alive today".

    But the fact is, not all people are Jehovah's Witnesses. And, though I bought into the lofty ideal behind this JW teaching, one thing bothered me: It was idealistic, but not entirely practical. For example, aggressive people and nations do exist. At times, such aggressors must be confronted. A foremost example is Adolf Hitler's Germany during World War II. Hitler turned Germany into an aggressor nation with global aspirations. In fact, Jehovah's Witnesses themselves were victims of that aggression, having been condemned to concentration camps along with Jews, Gypsies and others.

    Interestingly, another anecdotal story often related by JW public speakers is that God may have used the Allied forces in WWII to free the Witnesses from the concentration camps, in much the same way that He supposedly used the Persian forces to free Israelites from captivity in Babylon in the 6th century BC. The question raised by that suppostion in my mind was 'if everyone was a pacifist, where would the deliverance have come from?'

    Back to Hitler's Germany, from where would salvation have come if not for the Allied forces? What would the world be like had Hitler been left to pursue his goals unchecked? One thing is sure - religions like that of Jehovah's Witnesses would not enjoy freedom to practice their faith.

    Indeed right up to the present time, aggressive nations and people (including terrorist groups) exist which at times must be confronted. To me, the Jehovah's Witnesses teaching, lofty as it was, failed to address this. Lately, I've been reading up on the Catholic doctrine of "Just War", which is explained here. The Catholic doctrine holds that, while there are Bible principles aimed to ensure peace, there are also principles which show that war may be, regrettably, necessary at times.

    To me, the Catholic doctrine of Just War may better address the realities of the world we live in. If there is some drastic change in the future, such the second coming of Christ, then, yes, war should be a thing of the past. But for now, war is a sad reality, never to engaged in lightly or for the wrong reasons, but at times necessary nonetheless**.

    http://http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp

    ** The viewpoint I am presenting is not a statement of support for the current war in Iraq. The Iraq War, in my opinion, is much more complex than that of WWII, in my mind anyway. I do not wish to address the differences at this time, though it should be noted that I am not totally against the current war either. However, I will say that the Persian Gulf War matches WWII a bit more closely, in my view.

  • JH
    JH

    Good post Rocketman. If we had to always "wait on Jehovah", many people would suffer for long periods of time. I think that war is sometimes necessary. I think that if everyone was a JW, there would still be confrontations and frictions between them, since they also are imperfect.

    Many JW's enjoy freedom today, thanks to brave poeple who gave their lives for them indirectly. They will never talk about this of course, but will rather say, Jehovah did this.

  • A Paduan
    A Paduan

    A man passes by someone being raped and killed - does he ?

    1. Stop the perpetrator with the required force
    2. Offer himself also, in support
    3. Denounce the perpetrator and (1)
    4. Denounce the perpetrator and (2)
    5. Hide or run away
    6. Pray
    7. Do nothing because he's personally a pacifist
    8. Say how bad people are, and move on
  • czarofmischief
    czarofmischief

    The whole pacifist thing is exactly why they got into bed so quickly with their UN lovers. The UN (specifically, members within it that seek domination) is terrified of the US / UK military and knows that they need to erode the passion for democratic freedoms in those two countries if they are to acheive their commie world domination. ergo, the WT was ripe for recruitment into the U.N. boudoir - by preaching their pacifism as being God's approved status, how many capable, intelligent, dedicated warriors of democracy have they prevented from taking their place in the ranks of the West?

    If a man individually chooses to be a pacifist, or even anti-war, that's fine by me. We need them to serve as "brakes" on the rush to war that can overwhelm reason. My state was founded by Quakers whose pacifism should have never bee nconfused with apathy - there are a few million freed slaves that owe their liberty to the efforts of Quakers.

    But the WT's stance is so obviously intended to undermine democratic resistance to the UN's new world order bull - shyte that it makes me puke.

    CZAR

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    Good post. I don't believe JW's have ever been willing to associate with the term "pacifist" though?

    However, IMO the current war will never be anything that could be considered a "just war".

  • TD
    TD

    Six is right. In some respects, JW's are functional pacifists, but they are not pacifists idealogically and actually eschew the term.

    Here are three of many quotes in their literature:

    "Jesus had given his disciples counsel: ?You heard that it was said, ?Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.? However, I say to you: Do not resist him that is wicked; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him.? (Mt 5:38, 39) Here Jesus was not teaching pacifism or denying the right of self-defense from bodily harm, but he was teaching that a Christian does not need to pay back blow for blow, retaliating, taking vengeance." (Insight Volume I, page 429)

    "Were Jehovah?s witnesses today to claim to be pacifists, it would mean for them to denounce all the pre-Christian witnesses of Jehovah who took up arms to uphold Jehovah?s universal sovereignty and his theocratic nation of Israel. But this denunciation we cannot make." (The Watchtower, "Why Jehovah's Witnesses Are Not Pacifists" February 1, 1951)

    "True Christians love peace. They stay completely neutral in the world?s military, political, and ethnic conflicts. But, strictly speaking, they are not pacifists. Why? Because they welcome God?s war that will finally enforce his will on earth?a war that will settle the great issue of universal sovereignty and rid the earth of all enemies of peace once and for all." (Awake! May 8, 1997 page 23)

  • Yerusalyim
    Yerusalyim

    Interesting post, and a good point brought out, the JW's are not true facists. I've not yet met the JW who claims they would not defend family and home from an intruder...which is what true pacifism would entail. No, they are anti-government. They don't like military and police forces...because it suits their purpose, nothing else.

    Six,

    That's one of the neat things about being Catholic, we can disagree on which wars are "Just Wars" and which aren't. In Catholicism, ones INFORMED conscience outweighs church doctrine and dogma.

  • rocketman
    rocketman

    Good point TD. I used the term Pacifist in a looser sense, one of those "for lack of a better word" (or term) situations. Frankly, I'm at a loss as to a one-word description of their stand when it comes to war.

  • TD
    TD

    Hey Rocketman,

    I understand completely. There is no good word to describe the JW stance, although "Hypocritical" does come to mind.

  • XQsThaiPoes
    XQsThaiPoes

    I think it has toto with the nutral soverign state of the Watchtower. If you government is not in a war and declared nutral it would be wrong to drag your country into it. I know americans didn't listen in ww1 and ww2 and when early anyway under other nations. I assume if the watchtower every issues a formal declaration of war people would wish we were "pacifist". It is not like JW would fight for their country. They all despised their governments and patriatage. We would end up doing things that most armies would consider fraternization and would execute us for. JW can't have it both ways. They can't forsake their own government and join another exclusively. Remember the watchtower is a political party. Do you think a communist american would fight for america in korea or veitnam? It would be counter productive to their cause unless they were a spy.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit