ANNE Rampa’s article “Loving enemy, crux of Christian revolution” (Sunday Guest, CL 3/6/12) is absolutely correct as far as it goes.
For example there is no doubt that any Christian woman finding herself in an attempted rape and murder situation, as happens almost daily in Africa and the Middle East, is entitled to practise non-violence, as defined in Anne’s article.
Should she lose her life as a result of this outrage, some would even argue that this was a bonus for eternity.
However what is a parent to do where a similar horrible outcome is directed at their young, innocent children?
Should they have the means of violent defence, say guns, and then choose not to use them because of Christ’s words, are they then neglecting their parental duty to protect their children?
Does that mean that Christ’s teaching on non-violence, as described in the above article, “trumps” other Church teaching on the duties of parents towards children?
I know that the theological issues raised by Christ’s words on non-violence have been contentious for more than a thousand years and will continue to be contentious for many more thousand years.
GEORGE SZYLKARSKI
Graceville, Qld
