Learned a little about the Sacred Heart icon (Catholic). It's apparently seen as a symbol of divine love and set in households so that that burning love can be emulated. They say love can keep you on the path to virtue, and prevent one from lapsing into sin.

But often love is used as an argument for universalism, tolerance for bad behavior, acceptance of migrants, welfare, and the like.

Can a Christian make the argument that love begins with one's home and emanates out from that? That just as love motivates you to protect your loved ones from invaders, it might also motivate you to protect your people, country, or heritage? That love, even divine love, might lead you to act in aggression or intolerance of certain people or behaviors?

Or is it pretty much all love thy invader?

Learned a little about the Sacred Heart icon (Catholic). It's apparently seen as a symbol of divine love and set in households so that that burning love can be emulated. They say love can keep you on the path to virtue, and prevent one from lapsing into sin. But often love is used as an argument for universalism, tolerance for bad behavior, acceptance of migrants, welfare, and the like. Can a Christian make the argument that love begins with one's home and emanates out from that? That just as love motivates you to protect your loved ones from invaders, it might also motivate you to protect your people, country, or heritage? That love, even divine love, might lead you to act in aggression or intolerance of certain people or behaviors? Or is it pretty much all love thy invader?

(post is archived)

Register or login to comment!

Also since the mod here has been inactive for a while, I’m going to sticky this becuase I think it’s a good question and would like to see people answer it.

If the mod sees this and disagrees they can feel free to override me.

Will make another comment making an argument post coffee.

You're throwing a lot out here, but it seems to be oriented around asking if Christianity allows for self-defense. Am I close?

[–] Ivan [OP] 0 pt (+0|-0)

Yes. In my roundabout way of asking, that is what I'm asking.

> Legitimate defense

> 2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

> 2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

> - If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66

> 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

> 2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

> 2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

> If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

> Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

The above is a copy/paste from the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, Part Three, Life in Christ available from the Vatican regarding the specific subject of legitimate defense. It should elaborate on how Roman Catholics should interpret the fifth commandment. The link provided provides you with the entire chapter if you desire full elaboration. That will also include footnotes.

Any questions?

That is a very watered down and extremely misunderstood version of the Sacred Heart. It is not an "icon" in any way, it is a commissioning of families to dedicate living their life to a specific set of 12 values, along with a feast, and mediation of Christ. It stems from the feast of Corpus Christi. You can't extrapolate any theories (like you just tried to do) without first understanding what the Sacred Heart is.

First: There is a novena for the Sacred Heart. A novena is an ancient tradition of devotional praying consisting of prayers repeated for nine successive days or weeks. ... In the Catholic tradition, much used novena prayers include doctrinal statements in addition to a personal petition. Here is the Sacred Heart novena.

Second: Here are the twelve values:

I will give them all the graces necessary for their state of life.

I will give peace in their families.

I will console them in all their troubles.

I will be their refuge in life and especially in death.

I will abundantly bless all their undertakings.

Sinners shall find in my Heart the source and infinite ocean of mercy.

Tepid souls shall become fervent.

Fervent souls shall rise speedily to great perfection.

I will bless those places wherein the image of My Sacred Heart shall be exposed and venerated.

I will give to priests the power to touch the most hardened hearts.

Persons who propagate this devotion shall have their names eternally written in my Heart.

In the excess of the mercy of my Heart, I promise you that my all powerful love will grant to all those who will receive Communion on the First Fridays, for nine consecutive months, the grace of final repentance: they will not die in my displeasure, nor without receiving the sacraments; and my Heart will be their secure refuge in that last hour.

Third, here is a great devotional that explains the more about the traditions: https://sacredheartdevotion.com/

Fourth, I don't know where you pick up "love thy invader"? Jesus says "love thy neighbor" but the context is completely different. The Bible repeatedly tells us to arm and guard our mind, spirit, families, homes, and boarders.

Luke 10:19 "Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you."

Isaiah 1:17 "Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause."

Ephesians 6:11 "Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil."

[–] Ivan [OP] 0 pt (+0|-0)

I took some liberty with love thy invader. I know those aren't Jesus' words, but it seems to be the common (perhaps twisted) interpretation that popular opinion favors. If my question was offensive it wasn't meant to be. What I'm fishing for are some Christian reasons for Christians to show backbone and denounce weakness carried out in the name of love.

I do appreciate you citing some bible passages with your answer. I'd say the Luke and Ephesians quotes, while they evoke warlike imagery, seem to be referencing the battle of good against evil rather than protection of your bloodline or your people's interests (unless you define migrants masquerading as refugees to take advantage of welfare states as scorpions and snakes or schemes of the devil). Isaiah seems to be encouragement to deal with people fairly, which is good, but doesn't quite address self-defense.

Does the term icon not refer to a religious work of art? Is there a finer distinction?

I'm curious what do you think the intended message was when Jesus was turning over tables in the temple? Personally I see that as a defense of something. The question I'd ask is what? I have my answer but I'll keep it until I'm ready to write a full response to the original question.

Jesus made a whip. Drove them out. Could argue the temple is his or at the very least, his father's house.

John 2:15

15Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.