Thomas Merton, Nonviolence and The Common Good
One of the most central tenets of Catholic Social Teaching is the priority of the common good. This principle is found most starkly in the ecclesiastical documents and encyclicals of the last fifty years, especially in Pope John XXIII’s Pacem in Terris (nos. 98-108), the Second Vatican Council’s Gaudium et Spes (nos. 26-32, 68-75), and Pope John Paul II’s Sollicitudo rei Socialis (nos. 35-40). As Jesuit Fr. Thomas Massaro of Boston College explains succinctly in his excellent book, Living Justice (2000), “To speak of the common good is to recognize that there are numerous proper goals in life beyond our own private benefits. Responsible people look for opportunities to contribute to worthy causes and to improve society in many ways, even when the benefits of this progress will go primarily to others…everyone has an obligation to promote the common good by making whatever contributions are necessary to improve the lives of others” (85).
Recalling this important theme of Catholic moral teaching, the priority of the common good over individual interests, we can take a look at one of the passages from Thomas Merton’s writing on Christian nonviolence. Here Merton presents the practice of nonviolence as necessarily arising from the context of seeking the common good.
Nonviolence is perhaps the most exacting of all forms of struggle, not only because it demands first of all that one be ready to suffer evil and even face the threat of death without violent retaliation, but because it excludes mere transient self-interest, even political, from its consideration. In a very really sense, he [or she] who practices nonviolent resistance must commit himself [or herself] not to the defense of his [or her] own interests or even those of a particular group: he [or she] must commit himself [or herself] to the defense of objective truth and right and above all of [humanity]. His [or her] aims then not simply to “prevail” or to prove that he [or she] is right and the adversary wrong, or to make the adversary give in and yield what is demanded (Faith and Violence, 14).
This was written around the same time that the concept of the common good was first being articulated in such words in the 1960s, but the insight of his writing continues to speak to us today in clearly prophetic terms as the notion of the common good becomes much more present in the Church’s formal teaching.
The Christian commitment to nonviolent action as opposed to the popular cultural push for the use of violent force is a central feature of seeking the common good. Can one claim to uphold the commitment to the Catholic moral tradition and support the use of violent force? Can any war be just? Or does war and violent force simply advance the partisan interest of a particular person or persons over against the collective interest of the common good?
March 27, 2012 at 9:15 am
Fair enough. But, let us therefore remember that there various forms of violence; and that ALL life is then sacred from the very moment of conception to natural death.
March 27, 2012 at 9:20 am
Good points, Matthew. True faith challenges those whose “pro-life” stance is simply an anti-abortion position. True faith challenges those whose “non-violence” stance is simply an anti-war/death penalty position.
March 27, 2012 at 9:23 am
Both of you guys have great points! I couldn’t agree more! Consistent Ethic of Life at all stages and for all members of the human family. Peace and good!
March 28, 2012 at 5:29 pm
And, just to clarify, I am slowing conceeding on the death penalty issue, however, greatly struggle with the anti-just war concept. As I told the the confirmation class, we are all a work in progress!
March 28, 2012 at 6:13 pm
The death penalty is interesting to me in that the roles of atheists and Fundamentalists seem to be reversed. Most ateists and Catholics oppose the death penalty.
For the atheist, the death penalty makes sense, because the punishment by way of terminating the killer’s life is the only “justice” the killer wil receive.
Yet for the true believer, it seems obvious that the death penalty is wrong. “Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, “I will repay.” Yet folks in the Bible Belt, who don’t seem to do much deep thinking, are rabid about practicing it.
Doesn’t make much sense, does it?
As for myself, I’m against the death penalty–but it’s for reasons pertaining to “the common good.” Personally I think there are things that some people have done that are so appalling tht it shocks the conscience not to remove them from life. Yet, on the other hand, the world seems to be gradually moving toward greater humanity. Obviously a good thing, and something that the abolition of the death penalty promotes.
I’m happy to see the world condemning Syria for the regime’s atrocities. Maybe someday. . .
March 29, 2012 at 9:15 am
Capital punishment does have an interesting complexity. I do find it odd the viewpoint of atheists. For me it would seem they would be more apt to support, as the base concept is to protect the “common good”, but I could be over-emphazing Hume.
As for me, I only recently started to swayed to the possibility of capital punishment (within the confines of temporal justice) as not being in keeping with Catholic “social teachings”. I attribute some to Deacon Dan, (but cannot espouse the OFM “total” concept), but a great deal to a talk given by Fr. Daniel Francis, CSsR in Annapolis. He relayed a story of a Catholic Nazi war criminal in Nurnberg. The Nazi wanted a priest to hear his confession. The tribunal officials finally found one — a old POLISH priest. The priest took three days to hear the man’s confession, and in the end, he gave him a blessing and absolved him.
Now, Fr. Francis retold this story not for any political agenda, but as an example to a group of young people, to demonstrate mercy, compassion, and true call and effort of a priestly vocation, which surprasses all temporal understanding and reason. It is the true essence and power of redemption, and what I believe should be rationale for injustice of capital punishment.
There are practical and ecomonical reasons, (much the same as pro-abortionist use saying there are already too many people in the world, or the “what if” scenarios), that make capital punishment logical. But, again that opens an entirely new discussion.
March 29, 2012 at 3:36 pm
>>Fr. Daniel Francis, CSsR in Annapolis. He relayed a story of a Catholic Nazi war criminal in Nurnberg. The Nazi wanted a priest to hear his confession. The tribunal officials finally found one — a old POLISH priest. The priest took three days to hear the man’s confession, and in the end, he gave him a blessing and absolved him. <<
–Absolution of sins most importantly forgives sins (and, when done before death, ensures one dies in a "state of grace", able to eventually enter heaven)–
Is that story supposed to impress me or depress me?
It seems horrible–and on many many levels. (Although I admit I'm not up-to-speed with knowing the rationale behind the concept and other theological details.)
March 30, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Both. I can only give you my personal insight after speaking and knowing Fr. Francis, CSsR.
The first has to do with the supernatural calling of a priest as in Persona Christe. We all know that the priest is a man, but when he is fulfilling the holy role of the sacraments, he rises above his mere temporal and human state. (BTW, this is one of the issues with post Vatican II). Fr. Daniel F, was challenging all of us to think about being able to attempt to separate ourselves from our temporal selves, “justice” and revenge. It is not an easy task.
The second point/question you bring up gets into the whole Hell and Purgatory discussion, and on that topic, I am certainly not qualified, nor is there enough space in a blog comment to unwrap that onion. Prehaps Deacon Dan, might use that as a future topic.
March 30, 2012 at 12:50 pm
I’m taking notes. These are interesting concepts and you all are obviously well-informed and thoughtful men. I need to follow this blog more–it’s an excellent (and free) education.
March 28, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Just to clarify, as well, I do not embrace non-violence in the way that Br. Dan does. We have discussed our differences. If somebody enters my house in the middle of the night with violent intentions, I could not in good conscience embrace non-violence as father or husband as the only solution.
March 28, 2012 at 10:33 pm
To Jared:
For whatever it’s worth, I think your position is entirely justifiable. Both Brother Dan and I are single, and that places us in a different position and perspective than someone like you who has a family to care for. And of course Brother Dan is a Franciscan, which is a much higher position than I have, to say the least. However, my lesser spirituality may allow me to be more sympathetic to your circumstances, in a practical and justifiable way.
I think in instances like this, it is necessary to turn to a moral authority of good and time-honored standing. So, since I’m studying matters related to issues of this type, I did some searching on the net. I also recalled a passage from the Bible.
The Biblical passage is:
42:012:039
“And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through.”
The two references I got on the net are these–
The first one is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, while the second one is from an article written by someone who believes it is wrong to kill in self defense, yet he also seems to, in an oblique way, concede that the duty a father has to his family is paramount.
Catholic Encyclopedia–
Everyone has the right to defend his life against the attacks of an unjust aggressor. For this end he may employ whatever force is necessary and even take the life of an unjust assailant. As bodily integrity is included in the good of life, it may be defended in the same way as life itself. It must be observed however that no more injury may be inflicted on the assailant than is necessary to defeat his purpose.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13691a.htm
From the second source–
In the New Testament, however, humanity is called to “live for righteousness” by not resisting evildoers. This distinction between justice and righteousness also appears in the works of Augustine and Aquinas. Augustine, for example, describes the law that permits individuals to kill highway robbers as being just while admitting that he “can’t think of any way to defend those who do the killing.” Similarly, Aquinas describes killing in self-defense as being lawful while suggesting that such action bars one from holy orders. Ramsey, unlike Augustine and Aquinas, does not address the question of justice but instead requires Christians to defend themselves whenever their failure to do so “would involve greater burdens or injury to others.”
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/thesis/spelman/spelman.pdf
I think it’s that last part that gives you the soundest foundation for your justification, for you are not a single person, responsible only for your own well-being, but rather you also have the obligation to prevent a burden from the loss of a husband and father upon your family.
>Christians to defend themselves whenever their failure to do so “would involve greater burdens or injury to others.”<
March 30, 2012 at 7:06 am
Please note that the version of The Catholic Encyclopedia you reference here is the 1917 version and considered entirely out-of-date. There were two subsequent revisions, the most recent in 2002. As for sources on this matter, I suggest looking at the Papal Encyclicals of John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI in addition to the USCCB’s seminal 1983 Document The Challenge of Peace and its 1993 text The Harvest of Justice is Sown in Peace.
March 30, 2012 at 7:59 am
Respectfully, just because something is old and/or dated from 1917, does not make it obsolete. It may be dusty. If that were that case, the Bible should not be considered. 1917 was a good year (other than WWI). Cannon Law of the Church was established following the papacy of SSPX.
March 30, 2012 at 8:09 am
Unfortunately, Matthew, that is not true — particularly as both canon law (as you mention) and theology, more relevantly, are concerned. You cannot rely on a text that was published decades before the Second Vatican Council and the progression of magisterial teaching on Catholic Social Thought. If you want to consult The Catholic Encyclopedia, use the most recent edition that actually reflects the current teaching of the church.
March 30, 2012 at 12:18 pm
In reference to Catholic Encyclopedia, fair enough. Any non-authoritative document/collection etc, should be the most current.
However, on the underlying point, it is unfortunate that we will agree to disagree. My point, while presented flippantly, was that just because something is dated pre-Vatican II or post, does not make it either obsolete or “gospel” (not in reference to the Gospels.) That is (IMHO) the joy, mystery, and beauty of our Church.
In fact why is that so many of the teachings of the saints, especially the Doctors of the Church, St. Augustine, St. Thomas, St. Francis, considered so important, and all of these lived well before all “modernity” by today’s definition.
Now, one knows at least part of my faith journey. I am far from being a traditionalist or sedevacant, but I also firmly believe that the spirit of Vatican II, has led to the some misteps. I am ever so grateful to JPII and Benedict XVI, moreover our Faith, but I also appreciate SSPX and others who have guided the Church.
March 30, 2012 at 12:43 pm
Hah-hah
I admit that my knowledge on much of these issues is limited–very limited. For instance, I know nothing of Vatican II, JPII, Benedict XVI, Cannon Law of the Church, and the papacy of SSPX.
You can however count on me being honest in my statements — I might be wrong about something — but it won’t be because I’m being intentionally dishonest.
So, the agreeing or disagreeing is just coincidental.
As far as, “why is that so many of the teachings of the saints, especially the Doctors of the Church, St. Augustine, St. Thomas, St. Francis, considered so important. . .”
Like Plato and Aristotle, they laid the foundation for all further discussions on these topics, did they not?
March 30, 2012 at 1:04 pm
Correct. And, although we may be coming from different directions, we are at least on the same map, hopefully the same date
!
March 30, 2012 at 7:47 am
Wow. Thank you so very much for this.
March 30, 2012 at 10:14 am
I have to echo Mathew M.’s sentiment. Yet, I’d go a step further and say that time-honored sources are the best. I agree that refinements canbe made, but “entirely out-of-date” makes someone like me think: What’s the use in studying?
I tried learning pogramming a while back, but I found it far too annoying, because they kept changing the rules every six months.
There are not ten commandments in the Old Testament–there’s over six hundred of them. Some are so incredibly obvious–and of such a nature that I can’t even alude to them on this thread. I will say though that even gorillas (the moral ones anyway) abide by many of the commandments.
Years ago I read an economics book, and the author had the kind of sense of humor that I like. He said one definition of economics was “Common sense made difficult.” And indeed, some of it was. Hhe-heh.
I have that site in decent shape, in case anyone wants to check it out. I’m open to suggestions for improving it.
http://astudyoftheoldtestament.wordpress.com/
March 30, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Mr. Miller et al. I believe we may be on the verge of great Apocalypse, if we agree too much!!!
March 30, 2012 at 8:55 pm
Donald–thanks for your thoughtful response that I enjoyed reading. I truly detest violence and I am way too sensitive–the news makes me misty-eyed on a nightly basis. In terms of non-violence, exceptions must be made for defense and the refusal to use force in certain situations is sinful. I have never been able to get a straight answer to this question from a person who rejects the use of deadly force in all situations: What should the passengers on flight 93 done on 911? They knew with certainty that the plane was going to be used to slam into a building and kill countless others. When I have asked this in the past, I have only gotten rhetoric about mid-eastern politics. I really believe that the passengers were heroes and had no other moral option than to use force against their hijackers. Killing a human person is always evil, but it is sometimes a lesser evil than the refusal to kill.
March 28, 2012 at 11:08 am
>Can any war be just? Or does war and violent force simply advance the partisan interest of a particular person or persons over against the collective interest of the common good?<
The American Revolution is my favorite example of a just war. I don't think any group made a better case that their cause was just than the Founding Fathers. Those documents, it seems to me, are a high water mark in human history.
The founders considered the armed conflict merely an unpleasant necessity to the government they wished to establish. That in itself was a unique perspective, and unfortunately one that is rare.
March 28, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Mr. Miller, don’t look to much at the stars, planets, or moon, and stand-by fore the Earth may shake…..I agree with you whole heartedly, and there are other examples, but, I won’t push too much of the moment. Be well!
March 28, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Hi Matthew,
I found “the Earth may shake” in Isaiah. Didn’t haveany luck with the “to much at the stars, planets, or moon, and stand-by” part.
Okay. You can push the point later if you like. : )
So long for now. . .
March 28, 2012 at 7:28 pm
Sorry, I was being smart. No Biblical reference, just making fun that perhaps from a more pegan viewpoint, all the stars and planets must be in alignment, if we were to be in full agreement on a point. (smile).
March 28, 2012 at 7:34 pm