Here is a particular cannon concerning being involved in military activities for clergy. If someone found cannon for civilians too please post it. But I think that there isn’t one living the judgment to be involved in or not up to the individual. If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon is engaged in military matters, and wishes to hold both a Roman (i.e., civil) and a sacerdotal office, let him be deposed. For (render) “unto Caesar the things which are Caesars; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21), (Ap. cc. VI, LXXXI; cc. Ill and VII of the 4th; c. X of the 7th; c. XI of the lst-&-2nd; c. XVIII of Carthage.). Interpretation. In other Canons too the divine Apostles prohibit those in holy orders from engaging in the management of public affairs and from undertaking worldly cares, but in this one they also do likewise by saying: If any bishop or presbyter or deacon occupies himself with military matters — by which is meant, not the use of weapons or actual participation in warfare, but the management or handling of military matters, such as the distribution of rations to the soldiers, reception of their food, and other such business which is designated by civilians as military matters — and wants to have both jobs, to wit, that of exercising imperial Roman authority, and that of priestly and ecclesiastical functions, or what may be more aptly described as external and internal affairs, let any such dignitary of the Church be deposed if he fails to desist therefrom. For things and offices that belong to Caesar or to the emperor ought to be left to Caesar; or, in other words, they ought to be given to external and imperial, or royal, men : things and offices that are God’s, on the other hand, ought to be given in a similar manner to those to whom they belong, which is the same as saying, to divine and internal men, such as are bishops and presbyters and deacons. Read also the Interpretation of Ap. c. VI. In Christ Theophilus
Ok I just feel a certain point was missed in this thread, I was told by abouna, We are not to enlist in the army ourselves. We are however, if asked to serve in the army, obliged to go and perform the duties of the soldier, ONLY in the case of being asked, like if the country held a draft. Other than that, I was told NO COPTIC PERSON IS TO ENLIST IN THE ARMY.
[quote author=Hisservant link=topic=7564.msg99681#msg99681 date=1232715914] Ok I just feel a certain point was missed in this thread, I was told by abouna, We are not to enlist in the army ourselves. We are however, if asked to serve in the army, obliged to go and perform the duties of the soldier, ONLY in the case of being asked, like if the country held a draft. Other than that, I was told NO COPTIC PERSON IS TO ENLIST IN THE ARMY.
What about the condition where we are enlisted (by force!) because the country is at war, and the reason for war is immoral (i.e over a subject that is contentious and against our morals?). Do we still join the army then?
[quote author=QT_PA_2T link=topic=7564.msg99682#msg99682 date=1232716056] [quote author=Hisservant link=topic=7564.msg99681#msg99681 date=1232715914] Ok I just feel a certain point was missed in this thread, I was told by abouna, We are not to enlist in the army ourselves. We are however, if asked to serve in the army, obliged to go and perform the duties of the soldier, ONLY in the case of being asked, like if the country held a draft. Other than that, I was told NO COPTIC PERSON IS TO ENLIST IN THE ARMY.
What about the condition where we are enlisted (by force!) because the country is at war, and the reason for war is immoral (i.e over a subject that is contentious and against our morals?). Do we still join the army then?
Well having a draft is enlisting by force, you can't really say no, and whether the war is immoral or not, I guess it is our responsibility to serve our country, even if we don't agree, and God will make things right if that happens, we just have to trust Him.
I don't know how it is in your own countries, but in the UK during the last two wars when there was a draft of able-bodied men it was possible to state that you had a conscientious objection and serve in the Ambulance Corps or something like that. This was not an easy way out because those who were willing to go out between the trenches and rescue wounded men needed to be very brave indeed and a great many died.
Others did refuse to support the wars at all and were interned. It would seem to me to be morally commendable to serve in the Ambulance Corps under any circumstances. I find myself a little less sympathetic towards the conscientious objectors during the last two great wars who refused even that service because it does not seem to me that either of those wars were aggressive but were both defensive.
[quote author=Hisservant link=topic=7564.msg99699#msg99699 date=1232755617] [quote author=QT_PA_2T link=topic=7564.msg99682#msg99682 date=1232716056] [quote author=Hisservant link=topic=7564.msg99681#msg99681 date=1232715914] Ok I just feel a certain point was missed in this thread, I was told by abouna, We are not to enlist in the army ourselves. We are however, if asked to serve in the army, obliged to go and perform the duties of the soldier, ONLY in the case of being asked, like if the country held a draft. Other than that, I was told NO COPTIC PERSON IS TO ENLIST IN THE ARMY.
What about the condition where we are enlisted (by force!) because the country is at war, and the reason for war is immoral (i.e over a subject that is contentious and against our morals?). Do we still join the army then?
Well having a draft is enlisting by force, you can't really say no, and whether the war is immoral or not, I guess it is our responsibility to serve our country, even if we don't agree, and God will make things right if that happens, we just have to trust Him.
Are you sure on that?
Let's say that the UK & US Governments were not at all happy with the number of McDonald's restaurants in Egypt, and therefore they wanted to make Egypt a democracy by removing Mubarak from power and removing any threat of us of developing WMD's (because we are close to Israel), and we have fireworks which could give us the idea of going further and developing WMDs. 10 years ago, such a scenario sounded absurd, but it seems now a typical way of thinking of these 2 governments. Let's say that they want to attack Egypt and thereby kill Coptic Christians.
What exactly would a Coptic UK citizen do in that scenario knowing that he is obliged to kill Egyptians, of which many of them are Copts??
If England decided to invade France to take it over then I would not consider that a justification for military service and would resist being drafted, indeed I would march in the streets with the many millions of others who thought it was not just.
If England was invaded by France then I would not resist the draft, unless my conscience was moved by some other factor.
These are broad brush statements of course. When Germany invaded France for the third time in 70 years in 1940 was it right or wrong for the British to resist German ambitions to conquer and enslave all of Europe? Personally I do not think so. Others could not in conscience take up arms against Germany and served in the Medical Corps or in other non-combatant roles, while others felt they could not be involved at all and were interned.
The choice is yours, mine, ours.
Do nothing which grieves your conscience. Pray, seek the advice of your Spiritual Father.
The reason I support the conflict in Iraq is that I do think it was just. If I did not then I would not have supported it. I certainly do not believe that everything any government does is good or democratic or just. I think that it was right to resist Germany in two wars. I htink it was right to resist Napoleon when he also sought to enslave all of Europe.
I do not think that Britain was right to be involved in the Suez crisis, or in the Zulu wars, or in most/all of the colonial conflicts. But if the West had chosen to go into Rwanda and fight against those who were massacring men, women and children then that would have been a good thing to do. I think it was right to go into Afghanistan and seek to end the Taliban regime. But if your conscience does not allow you to agree then go with your conscience.
We can never use the excuse 'I was only following orders'.
Here is the view of early Christians in participating in the army. It is a long document, 23 pages, but if someone is really interested or is considering getting into the army or knows someone who wants to get in the army it would be helpful. http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/doctrine/ecvowams.htm In Christ Theophilus
Comments
If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon is engaged in military matters, and wishes to hold both a Roman (i.e., civil) and a sacerdotal office, let him be deposed. For (render) “unto Caesar the things which are Caesars; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21),
(Ap. cc. VI, LXXXI; cc. Ill and VII of the 4th; c. X of the 7th; c. XI of the lst-&-2nd; c. XVIII of Carthage.).
Interpretation.
In other Canons too the divine Apostles prohibit those in holy orders from engaging in the management of public affairs and from undertaking worldly cares, but in this one they also do likewise by saying: If any bishop or presbyter or deacon occupies himself with military matters — by which is meant, not the use of weapons or actual participation in warfare, but the management or handling of military matters, such as the distribution of rations to the soldiers, reception of their food, and other such business which is designated by civilians as military matters — and wants to have both jobs, to wit, that of exercising imperial Roman authority, and that of priestly and ecclesiastical functions, or what may be more aptly described as external and internal affairs, let any such dignitary of the Church be deposed if he fails to desist therefrom. For things and offices that belong to Caesar or to the emperor ought to be left to Caesar; or, in other words, they ought to be given to external and imperial, or royal, men : things and offices that are God’s, on the other hand, ought to be given in a similar manner to those to whom they belong, which is the same as saying, to divine and internal men, such as are bishops and presbyters and deacons. Read also the Interpretation of Ap. c. VI.
In Christ
Theophilus
Ok I just feel a certain point was missed in this thread, I was told by abouna, We are not to enlist in the army ourselves. We are however, if asked to serve in the army, obliged to go and perform the duties of the soldier, ONLY in the case of being asked, like if the country held a draft. Other than that, I was told NO COPTIC PERSON IS TO ENLIST IN THE ARMY.
What about the condition where we are enlisted (by force!) because the country is at war, and the reason for war is immoral (i.e over a subject that is contentious and against our morals?). Do we still join the army then?
[quote author=Hisservant link=topic=7564.msg99681#msg99681 date=1232715914]
Ok I just feel a certain point was missed in this thread, I was told by abouna, We are not to enlist in the army ourselves. We are however, if asked to serve in the army, obliged to go and perform the duties of the soldier, ONLY in the case of being asked, like if the country held a draft. Other than that, I was told NO COPTIC PERSON IS TO ENLIST IN THE ARMY.
What about the condition where we are enlisted (by force!) because the country is at war, and the reason for war is immoral (i.e over a subject that is contentious and against our morals?). Do we still join the army then?
Well having a draft is enlisting by force, you can't really say no, and whether the war is immoral or not, I guess it is our responsibility to serve our country, even if we don't agree, and God will make things right if that happens, we just have to trust Him.
Others did refuse to support the wars at all and were interned. It would seem to me to be morally commendable to serve in the Ambulance Corps under any circumstances. I find myself a little less sympathetic towards the conscientious objectors during the last two great wars who refused even that service because it does not seem to me that either of those wars were aggressive but were both defensive.
Peter
[quote author=QT_PA_2T link=topic=7564.msg99682#msg99682 date=1232716056]
[quote author=Hisservant link=topic=7564.msg99681#msg99681 date=1232715914]
Ok I just feel a certain point was missed in this thread, I was told by abouna, We are not to enlist in the army ourselves. We are however, if asked to serve in the army, obliged to go and perform the duties of the soldier, ONLY in the case of being asked, like if the country held a draft. Other than that, I was told NO COPTIC PERSON IS TO ENLIST IN THE ARMY.
What about the condition where we are enlisted (by force!) because the country is at war, and the reason for war is immoral (i.e over a subject that is contentious and against our morals?). Do we still join the army then?
Well having a draft is enlisting by force, you can't really say no, and whether the war is immoral or not, I guess it is our responsibility to serve our country, even if we don't agree, and God will make things right if that happens, we just have to trust Him.
Are you sure on that?
Let's say that the UK & US Governments were not at all happy with the number of McDonald's restaurants in Egypt, and therefore they wanted to make Egypt a democracy by removing Mubarak from power and removing any threat of us of developing WMD's (because we are close to Israel), and we have fireworks which could give us the idea of going further and developing WMDs. 10 years ago, such a scenario sounded absurd, but it seems now a typical way of thinking of these 2 governments. Let's say that they want to attack Egypt and thereby kill Coptic Christians.
What exactly would a Coptic UK citizen do in that scenario knowing that he is obliged to kill Egyptians, of which many of them are Copts??
If England decided to invade France to take it over then I would not consider that a justification for military service and would resist being drafted, indeed I would march in the streets with the many millions of others who thought it was not just.
If England was invaded by France then I would not resist the draft, unless my conscience was moved by some other factor.
These are broad brush statements of course. When Germany invaded France for the third time in 70 years in 1940 was it right or wrong for the British to resist German ambitions to conquer and enslave all of Europe? Personally I do not think so. Others could not in conscience take up arms against Germany and served in the Medical Corps or in other non-combatant roles, while others felt they could not be involved at all and were interned.
The choice is yours, mine, ours.
Do nothing which grieves your conscience. Pray, seek the advice of your Spiritual Father.
The reason I support the conflict in Iraq is that I do think it was just. If I did not then I would not have supported it. I certainly do not believe that everything any government does is good or democratic or just. I think that it was right to resist Germany in two wars. I htink it was right to resist Napoleon when he also sought to enslave all of Europe.
I do not think that Britain was right to be involved in the Suez crisis, or in the Zulu wars, or in most/all of the colonial conflicts. But if the West had chosen to go into Rwanda and fight against those who were massacring men, women and children then that would have been a good thing to do. I think it was right to go into Afghanistan and seek to end the Taliban regime. But if your conscience does not allow you to agree then go with your conscience.
We can never use the excuse 'I was only following orders'.
Peter
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/doctrine/ecvowams.htm
In Christ
Theophilus