Was Jesus a Pacifist?
No. Was he then a Just War guy? No.

Actually, Jesus never articulated a position on state use of lethal force. An argument from Scripture can be constructed to validate either position. Consider the ambiguity of his disarming of Peter at Gethsemane. Some see here a pacifist gesture; others note that the fact that his number one follower was armed up to the day before his death indicates a tolerance, if not an endorsement, of forceful self-defense. A broader framework or philosophy is needed to evaluate the use of lethal force.

The pacifism of Christians of the first few centuries is no more conclusive since they were removed from positions of state responsibility and were systematically and brutally persecuted by the Roman Empire. It is obvious that such a repressed, powerless minority could hardly evaluate in a positive light the use of lethal force by the state.

Since Constantine, when Christians first assumed positions of governmental authority, the mind of the Church has consistently taught the Natural Law doctrines of the right to self defense and the Just War Theory. This teaching was further endorsed by the Vatican II and has not been retracted. As a matter of fact, recent Vatican statements on humanitarian intervention on behalf of genocide victims have brought refreshment and renewal to the doctrine. So, the Catholic Church is a just war, not a pacifist church.

Violence

Webster’s Dictionary defines violence as “exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse.” The operative and defining phrase here is the one indicating the intention to injure or abuse. Contemporary usage expands the term to include verbal, psychological, emotional and social violations. So, we can understand violence as the use of force (of any kind) to violate or harm another. Clearly then we can distinguish non-violent (protective) from violent force. With this clarification the mind of the Church is clear: non-violent force, even lethal if necessary, is permissible and even required for the protection of the innocent and of a just social order.

Police killings, warfare and capital punishment are all uses of lethal force, but not necessarily or essentially violent. The intent and circumstances determine whether such use of force is violent or not. Current discussion of the death penalty is particularly confused on this point since it is commonly seen as violent. Church teaching is lucid: if prudential decision finds that circumstances require use of capital punishment, then it is not violent since the intention is to protect, rather than to harm or violate. By sharpest contrast, other actions are inherently and always violent: rape, abortion, genocide, targeting of non-combatants, and torture. The principle of double-effect is at work here: just as surgical amputation of a gangrene arm is an act of healing, not violence, because the intent is to save, so the use of deadly force to protect life is a peaceful, not a violent act.

Just Use of Force

Just use of force is distinguished from violence by:
1. Authority: it is exercised by a supra-personal, state agent; not an individual. This is a fundamental distinction: all genuine authority is Godly and this applies especially to the use of protective force. It is the polar opposite of personal violence. The distinction between the personal level (turn the cheek) and the societal or governmental is of utmost importance.
2. Obedience: the immediate agent is not self-serving, but obedient to a higher will. Violence is usually an explosion of personal rage or a mimetic, irrational group happening. By contrast, just force is done in obeisance to authority and order.
3. Rational, not impassioned. It springs not from anger, fear or agitation, but from a truthful and objective decision and a just intention to protect life. As such it is controlled and limited by rigorous moral boundaries and criteria.
4. Loving: the goal is to protect or restore the common good. Just force even requires love of the violator and is directed to stop his abuse, not to abuse him.

Consider, for example, a swat team called into a sniper/hostage situation. After attempts at negotiation, the sniper continues to kill hostages. The commander instructs his best rifleman to shoot the sniper. He kills him. Was that swat shot violent? No! It was lethal but not violent as the intention was to stop the violence. It was directed by the proper authority; it was done in obedience, not in self will; it was rational and directed to a restoration of peace; it was limited and controlled so it did not spiral out of control; and its intent was to stop the violation, not harm the violator.

This same logic applies to a wide range of cases. If the swat team applies non-violent force that is in reality peace-making, the same can apply to: spanking of a malicious, disobedient child; forceful breaking up of a fist fight; US entry in WWII; and humanitarian intervention to stop genocide.

By this logic, the most non-violent and noble professions are surely the police and the military. They are responsible for protecting the peace; they risk their own lives in confronting violators; they are expected to encounter violence at its very worst and use just force to restrain it without themselves becoming violent. Indeed, these and the related vocations of prosecutor, dean, sheriff, security guard, and disciplinarian at whatever level...these are quintessentially peace-making and sacrificial callings. We need to honor these careers; groom our most talented young men for them; and be constantly grateful for the Godly protection they afford us.