Can Catholics resist persecution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Curious11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Curious11

Guest
Do Catholics have to choose death by martyrdom before any attempt at self defense in the face of persecution? Can you attack persecutors using arms proportionally if the government does not defend you and you have no other choice?
 
Last edited:
Curious11 said:
Do Catholics have to choose death by martyrdom before any attempt at self defense in the face of persecution? Can you attack persecutors using arms proportionally if the government does not defend you and you have no other choice?
Click to expand...
Catechism
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.
Click to expand...
2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.69

Infanticide,70 fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority.
Click to expand...
2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.71

Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone’s death, even without the intention to do so.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Okay, while this was a good answer and I thank you for it, I still have a couple of doubts. First, the catechism says that a civil authority can render an unjustified aggressor unable to cause harm, but say that this civil authority is the one to carry out that aggression or supports the aggressor’s actions. Can Catholics rebel or take matters into their own hands not killing but maybe detaining them, or must they act the way Paul and Peter did and allow themselves to get martyred?

Second, can you defend yourself if only your life and no one else’s is in peril?
 
Last edited:
It’s not an option. We are morally obligated to resist it, otherwise there’s a separation or division between our intellect and our will and our body.

Not good.

So we have to resist.

But most persecution will be in the little things, and these two we must resist with ingenuity, hope, confidence and cheerfulness…helping to redeem the world with Jesus, as forces try to persecute us.

There is the “red martyrdom”

But there’s also the “white martyrdom” of ordinary life.
 
Jesus told the apostles to go out and buy swords. When one of the apostles cut off the ear of one of the people who had come to take Jesus, he said, “enough,” but he did not rebuke the apostle. Then He went to His martyrdom. Both have their place.
 
Last edited:
He also said “rebuke the sinner”. Factor that in.

His own acceptance of the Cross undercuts your point. And clearly he set the example he wanted set, as St Stephen began a long line of “no greater love than to lay down one’s life for another”.

Who other, is greater than God?

Factor that in.
 
I have and I stand by my statement. If not, why the whole sword thing?
 
I am sorry. I thought you were on a “no resistance” point, but you’re not. My fault.

Jesus wasn’t the sort of pacifist that today’s “left” makes Him out to be.
 
He said " If you have a purse,take it…" In the same passage,and it was known that they had no individual purses but that Judas was in charge of " the" purse.
He was referring to the coming events where He would be " sold" and arrested .
In the passage when the apostles say there are " two swords",He says " That is enough! " meaning to stop that conversation.
We know that Jesus not once went against persons but objects.
If we read the Cathecism as a poster cited,self defense as stopping the aggressor really means to consider ways to stop other than kill straightaway .
There may be better explanations for sure,I will look for them later from Catholic sources.
 
Last edited:
This is getting into a very curious point.

By persecution, do you mean:
  • when a bad guy tries to steal your wallet?
  • when a bad guy physically attacks you because you’re Catholic?
Or are you leading to other forms of persecution, such as:
  • a group of bigots breaks church windows?
  • an employer decides not to hire you because you’re Catholic?
  • a court rules against you because you’re Catholic?
And what do you mean by ‘if the governement does not defend’?
 
Reminds me of an anecdote/joke about gunmen bursting into a church during service, yelling “Anyone does not want take a bullet for Jesus, get out!” And most everybody runs out except for the pastor and a few brave parishioners. Then the gunmen say, “Okay pastor, you can continue. The hypocrites are gone now.”

Usually used as an illustration about hypocrisy and not denying Christ.

Except that in this scenario, the proper, moral option, is to run. There is no hypocrisy in doing so because you actually had the option to do so, and doing so was not a denial of Christ.
 
Porthos, I’ve agreed and admired some of your other posts.

Please say more on your point about why this leaving would not be a denial of Christ…and why the need for “last resort / no other option” before giving up one’s life.

Something about your point doesn’t seem to square with Scripture (running from the cross, not taking it up…whoever denies me…whole heart, soul, mind, and strength).

The “no other option” would seem to create problems…does it extend to say a man and woman robbed…and they carry the woman off…but the man decides not to put it on the line? As far as his life is concerned…he has the option of not laying down his life for his wife.

I’m not with you on this point yet…please elaborate when you have time.
 
Well, in all honesty I was thinking of your brave brothers in faith living in Muslim countries that are continously persecuted for following Jesus. It doesn’t seem like the government is interested in protecting them from persecution. Would Catholicism allow these people to act like vigilantes, i.e. if they identify an attacker can they use arms to detain him on their own premises or otherwise use the minimum violence necessary to stop him from doing it again?
 
jfz178 said:
Jesus told the apostles to go out and buy swords. When one of the apostles cut off the ear of one of the people who had come to take Jesus, he said, “enough,” but he did not rebuke the apostle. Then He went to His martyrdom. Both have their place.
Click to expand...
This is correct.

There are a lot of saints who were canonized after dying in the Cristero War in Mexico.
Some of them offered no resistance and just peacefully went to their martyrdom.
Some of them engaged in passive resistance or underground activities.
Some of them fought back until they were captured and martyred.

I would say it’s probably easier to become a saint if you offer no resistance and just let yourself be killed, but it is not an absolute requirement.
 
Sure. In the theoretical anecdote, the gunmen were not asking anyone to deny Christ, only to stay if they were willing to become martyrs. But other than that, they had the ability to protect themselves without denying Christ. This is different, from say, offering a pinch of incense to the Emperor or walking on a crucifix as an act of renouncing Christ. Because one still has the obligation to protect one’s life, if there’s an open door that allows you to escape a hail of gunfire, that itself is a morally neutral action, and can licitly be taken. If you have a gun, you can even fire back.

Now, if the gunmen barricaded the doors and made the condition for release an act of apostasy (e.g. renounce Christ or we’ll kill you), that’s another story entirely.
 
Thank you.

I often think that it’s in the little that we deny Christ and His Gospel…and that over time it’s our avoidance of conflict that has led to a decay of civility, and especially the freedom that Christians have in sharing their faith or providing alternatives to popular activities today (avoiding discussions about abortion, divorce, affairs, the unraveling of genders, etc.).

Could it be that “we had another option other than witnessing to the truth” has led to a certain pusillanimity among Christians?

There is a need to use all the virtues…prudence helps us decide.

But I am still not “with” the idea of avoiding pain or death unless as a last resort.
 
We can all theorize and reason all we want, but when the situation happens, we may have moments to decide how we will react. We don’t know until it happens, and when the gunman is bursting through the door, no one is going to have time to think matters through.

I am sure the Lord will take into account each person’s state of mind and the stresses placed on them when they are making their individual choice. I’d like to think that I would be willing to just die for my faith, but as no one has burst through the door with the gun or knife yet, I do not know for sure what would happen, what I would do, if I would try to fight or what my reaction would be. I hope the Lord would have mercy on me regardless of what I did.
 
I would run, not being sure if Christ is calling me to die for Him or even if I would be dying for Him in this situation. My mind would be on the safety of my brothers and sisters and staying alive
 
Everyone should read up on the St. James Massacre in South Africa. Four communist rebels came into a church with about 1,000 people in it. They started throwing grenades that had nails packed around them and firing R4 assault rifles. It was later discovered that their intent was to set the church on fire with cans of gasoline and then be in the parking lot to shoot people as they fled the building. The were hoping for about 500 casualties.

One missionary, Charl van Wyk, fired back at the four using a Rossi 5-shot snub nosed revolver that he had a permit for. He managed to hit one of the attackers in the hand from a distance of about 50 feet, which was amazing given the situation and the gun. That one hit caused the cowards to flee the church and go to plan B and stake out the parking lot. Mr. van Wyk went out another exit, flanked them and began firing at them in the parking lot, which caused them to jump in their car and flee the scene.

While tragically 11 people were killed and 58 wounded, that was far short of the 500 casualties the rebels had hoped for, thanks to the actions of Mr. van Wyk. I have heard him speak. He is an amazing guy, who later survived another gun battle with rebels using only a concealed pistol.
 
Last edited:
It’s refreshing to see some sensible posts get a word in before the sadomasochistic types flood the thread with their love of un-necessary suffering and warped logic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top