So, if the command to "love your enemies" is taken as an absolute rule by Christians, they become pacifists who will ignore their conscience which would allow them to kill Nazis because doing that would result in less harm to humanity..
That's a very fair criticism of this ethical stance - but the key operative wording here would be,
an absolute rule.
One can embrace the compassion of the philosophy, as the ideal which should be pursued in the interests of forging a better world, without applying it in an absolutist way so as to make of it a kind of "
non-violent fundamentalism" that turns people into doormats at the hands of their oppressors.
Ghandi, for example, was not an 'absolutist' when it came to non-violence - i.e. a pacifist but rather a pragmatic believer in non-violent resistance (inspired by Jesus's teachings in the Sermon on the Mount, Jainism and Vedanta), who regarded violence as "unlawful" in principle but as an act of bravery, relative to cowardliness, for some people in certain defensive contexts.
He indeed stated:
Between Cowardice and Violence | Gandhi's views on Peace, Nonviolence and Conflict Resolution
I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor.
He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully [....]
Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right.
In Christianity, we've tended to oscillate between a Gandhian pragmatism and uncompromising absolutism, depending upon the theological branch in question.
Persecuted Christian communities in the Roman Empire constructed an underground
catacomb network, for instance beneath the city of Rome, where they could practise their faith in secret without molestation (often using hidden hand gestures and signs, such as drawing the fish symbol in sand) during times when local governors took action against them or Empire-wide persecutions were ensuing.
The Roman martyrs never protected themselves with violence but rather died without harming their persecutors in return. They were "Anti-jihadis", so to speak, non-violent extremists.
But this is where we get to the pacifist discussion and its a very complicated issue.
Early Christianity was far more radical and absolutist when it came to non-violence. Around A.D. 150, St. Justin Martyr said that Christians of his time “
refrain from making war upon our enemies” and would rather die than take a life in self-defense (“First Apology,” 1.39).
St. Ambrose of Milan (c. 340–397), another church father, reiterated the same:
Philip Schaff: NPNF2-10. Ambrose: Selected Works and Letters - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Hence we infer that a man who guides himself according to the ruling of nature, so as to be obedient to her, can never injure another. If he injures another, he violates nature, nor will he think that what he has gained is so much an advantage as a disadvantage.
And what punishment is worse than the wounds of the conscience within? What judgment harder than that of our hearts, whereby each one stands convicted and accuses himself of the injury that he has wrongfully done against his brother?
For if there is one law of nature for all, there is also one state of usefulness for all. And we are bound by the law of nature to act for the good of all. It is not, therefore, right for him who wishes the interests of another to be considered according to nature, to injure him against the law of nature.
I do not think that a Christian, a just and a wise man, ought to save his own life by the death of another; just as when he meets with an armed robber he cannot return his blows, lest in defending his life he should stain his love toward his neighbour.
The verdict on this is plain and clear in the books of the Gospel...Christ would not be defended from the wounds of the persecutor, for He willed to heal all by His wounds.
He did, however, make the exception that it was a duty to defend other people from violence through the use of proportionate force:
"Ambrose of Milan argued that when a Christian confronts an armed robber, he may not use force in self-defence, "lest in defending his life he should stain his love for his neighbour". However, if the armed robber attacked a neighbour, the Christian, in fulfilling his duty to love others, had a moral obligation to defend the innocent victim [...] The principle of charity thus places on a believers a major duty to care for others, allowing, as a last resort, limited, proportionate force to halt injustice"
(International Ethics: Concepts, Theories, and Cases in Global Politics p.110)
To be fair, this often was combined with passive resistance but it still tended to be absolutely uncompromising.
But killing someone - even in self-defense- has always been prohibited for Catholic priests and monastics; a priest is not supposed to strike back. If he does it to save someone else, this is noble, but the fact still remains that he took a life. Under the old canons, if a priest kills someone who is threatening his life - even by accident - he is deemed irregular and can no longer serve i.e. handle the Eucharist.
Pope St. Pope Nicolas the Great [Nicolas I, Dist. 1, can. De his clericis] in his Decretals (858 CE) ruled plainly:
“Concerning the clerics about whom you have consulted Us, those, namely, who have killed a pagan in self-defense, as to whether, after making amends by repenting, they may return to their former state, or rise to a higher degree; know that in no case is it lawful for them to kill any man under any circumstances whatever.”
As St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) explains in his medieval Summa:
Aquinas on warfare and self-defense | Gerald W. Schlabach
Now warlike pursuits are altogether incompatible with the duties of a bishop and a cleric, for two reasons...All the clerical Orders are directed to the ministry of the altar, on which the Passion of Christ is represented sacramentally.
Wherefore it is unbecoming for them to slay or shed blood, and it is more fitting that they should be ready to shed their own blood for Christ, so as to imitate in deed what they portray in their ministry. For this reason it has been decreed that those who shed blood, even without sin, become irregular.
Now no man who has a certain duty to perform, can lawfully do that which renders him unfit for that duty. Wherefore it is altogether unlawful for clerics to fight...
Prelates ought to withstand not only the wolf who brings spiritual death upon the flock, but also the pillager and the oppressor who work bodily harm; not, however, by having recourse themselves to material arms, but by means of spiritual weapons
Many people who have killed in self-defense are still haunted by nightmares about what happened due to the psychiatric effect of ending another person's life, even if you couldn't avoid it and even though no sin attaches for so doing.
According to Catholic and Orthodox Christian theology, in the ideal pre-fallen world, killing would have been absolutely forbidden under all circumstances; since even in self-defense, killing ends the existence of a human being created in God's image and willed into existence by Him. As Saint Agobard (799-840), archbishop of Lyons, put it: “
Whoever spills human blood, His (God’s) blood is spilled as well: For man is made in the image of God”.
In the fallen world, its understood that the laity must make compromises with evil and so they are not held to this (for the vast majority unrealistic) standard but in the early church, it seems almost (or rather effectively all) Christians were held to this standard.
Among the Amish and some other Christian sects, this teaching is still universally binding. They are completely and utterly non-violent even in self-defence, they simply cannot harm another living soul even if the assailant means to kill them.
For Catholic and Orthodox laity today, though, retaliating with force or arms in self defense is never "ok" but it has to be done sometimes. Clergy are still held to the much higher standard.
I think its probable that Ghandi - since he called even 'justified' self-defence violence "unlawful" - may have done this himself if in such a situation, even if he didn't expect it of others because of his pragmatism and compassion for the hard comprises with the realities of life that ordinary laity must make.
But if asked, do I think that Christ would ever have killed someone or injured them even in self-defence? Honestly, I believe he wouldn't have and didn't.
