For Greater Glory?

[Bubba_Switzler]

Bubba:

I’ll ask you, then. Do we have an obligation to self-defend?

God bless,
jd

Keep in mind that you are posing this quesiton to someone who is floundering on the more fundamental question at hand.

But I will answer on the basis of what I believe at the moment, with all intention to “form my conscience” properly when I have more evidence:

I would not say that we have an “obligation” to self-defend. I think it is entirely possible that someone might decide that their calling is to be a martyr in some cause. In the film there is a priest who chooses not to fight with the Cristados nor to run from the federales. He is led to his execution. While I would offer such a person aid in hiding, as the young Jose did in the film, I would not tell such a person that he was doing wrong. There is a place for martyrs. I would respect their choice.

But I am equally reluctant to criticize the priest who took up arms, either to defend others or even to defend himself.

Now an interesting spin on this question: what would you do if your child was the martyr? (Jose eventually chooses martyrdom, his father implores him to renounce the Cristados to save himself but this is complicated by the fact that the father supports the government.)

 

[tafan]

There is one more requirement of Just War, however, which refutes its application here:

“A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.”

mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm

My impression is that those who developed Just War theory explicitly rejected its application to rebellion.

Edit:

Rereading the wiki entry, it looks like I may have been relying on Thomas Aquinas’ antiquated definition. The definition you gave is more recent and does not include the criteria of legitimate authority.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory#Formally_described_Just_War

This requirement has historically been part of the Church’s just war doctrine. But it is not listed in the new Catechism, paragraph 2309. I have wondered why. I do know the just war doctrine originated as least as early as St Augustine, and it has at various times been modified. I have often suspected that it is not in the Catechism because of 20th century totalitarian regimes and the need for resistance against them at times. But that is my speculation. Nevertheless, it is certainly not listed now, and so the just war theory is certainly applicable in determining violent resistance against one’s government. Can you think of a better way of determining the morality of such actions?

 

[tafan]

Tafan:

Question: do we have an obligation to self-defend (up to and including the force used against us)?

God bless,
jd

No, the Church never tells us we have an obligation of violent action in self defense. I would certainly see scenarios where one would seem to be obligated, but that is up to our prudential judgment.

The only course of violence where there MAY be a requirement by the Church is outside of the scope of this thread. I will briefly describe it anyway, at the risk of thread drift. If one’s country is involved in a just war and the legitimate law of the country drafts one into service, since there is nothing immoral about the war of the draft we are bound to abide by our civil authority. I say MAY, because this is my logic in plugging together two different aspects of Church moral teaching.

 

[JDaniel]

Keep in mind that you are posing this quesiton to someone who is floundering on the more fundamental question at hand.

But I will answer on the basis of what I believe at the moment, with all intention to “form my conscience” properly when I have more evidence:

I would not say that we have an “obligation” to self-defend. I think it is entirely possible that someone might decide that their calling is to be a martyr in some cause. In the film there is a priest who chooses not to fight with the Cristados nor to run from the federales. He is led to his execution. While I would offer such a person aid in hiding, as the young Jose did in the film, I would not tell such a person that he was doing wrong. There is a place for martyrs. I would respect their choice.

But I am equally reluctant to criticize the priest who took up arms, either to defend others or even to defend himself.

Now an interesting spin on this question: what would you do if your child was the martyr? (Jose eventually chooses martyrdom, his father implores him to renounce the Cristados to save himself but this is complicated by the fact that the father supports the government.)

Bubba:

Let’s relegate the complicated stuff to the dust heap, for the sake of argument. Now, with all politics aside, are we obligated to self-defend?

If a burglar breaks into my home and I come home early and run into him, do I have an obligation to self-defend if he comes at me with a knife?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

No, the Church never tells us we have an obligation of violent action in self defense. I would certainly see scenarios where one would seem to be obligated, but that is up to our prudential judgment.

The only course of violence where there MAY be a requirement by the Church is outside of the scope of this thread. I will briefly describe it anyway, at the risk of thread drift. If one’s country is involved in a just war and the legitimate law of the country drafts one into service, since there is nothing immoral about the war of the draft we are bound to abide by our civil authority. I say MAY, because this is my logic in plugging together two different aspects of Church moral teaching.

Tafan:

How about a burglar, with a weapon, and a history of violence (even if such history is not known to us), who wants to leave no loose ends?

God bless,
jd

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

This requirement has historically been part of the Church’s just war doctrine. But it is not listed in the new Catechism, paragraph 2309. I have wondered why. I do know the just war doctrine originated as least as early as St Augustine, and it has at various times been modified. I have often suspected that it is not in the Catechism because of 20th century totalitarian regimes and the need for resistance against them at times. But that is my speculation. Nevertheless, it is certainly not listed now, and so the just war theory is certainly applicable in determining violent resistance against one’s government. Can you think of a better way of determining the morality of such actions?

I am resisting the temptation to speculate, or to rest on my own opinion. My impression is that you are probably correct, the authority criteria originated with St Augustine, but almost certainly had broader support up until the 20th century. Ironically, the 20th century witnessed many unjust revoutions (which trace back to the French revoultion) and while I am no expert on Mexican history, the anti-Church Mexican constitution was a product of the 1917 revolution, all president Calles (an athesist) did, really, was to enforce it.

So I think we’ve narrowed the question down, at least with respect to violent revolution: did the current catechism intentionally discared the legitimate authority criteria? And, if so, how does it deal with the can of worms that is opened thereby? Is all else really just a matter of prudence?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Let’s relegate the complicated stuff to the dust heap, for the sake of argument. Now, with all politics aside, are we obligated to self-defend? If a burglar breaks into my home and I come home early and run into him, do I have an obligation to self-defend if he comes at me with a knife?

That is a somewhat different situation. The buglar is not a secular government and has no color of authority whatsoever. Even so, I would not say that you have an “obligation” to self-defend with violence. I’m not even sure I would say that a father has an obligation to use violence to defend his family, though I would have a very hard time rationaling that.

To give a concrete example, if a burglar broke into a church, with a knife, to steal the offerings or even to kill would it be immoral for the priest to allow it? I hesitate to say otherwise.

Now I personally would have no qualms about using violence to defend life or prevent bodily harm to myself, my family, or perhaps others (depending on the circumstances), but that’s not what you asked.

 

[fred_conty]

Bubba,
you categorized responses as follows:

1. Get along, go along.
2. Political and social activism.
3. Subversion.
4. Violent resistance.

I would like to add one:

1. Non-violent resistance.

I think Martin Luther King had it right in the 60’s.
He insisted, against many of his own arguing with him, to keep it peaceful, and take what’s coming.

Ghandi in India did the same thing, a man of peace.

Violence in any form seems invariably to beget more violence.

There is no law in Catholic doctrine that says we must defend ourselves (that I know of).

Having Mass is a non-violent act disobeying an unjust law.

In the 60’s and 70’s there were young boys who did not report to the draft board because they thought that the vietnam war was an unjust one, and in good conscience, they could not serve in that war.

I see nothing good in violence, but then I have never been tested …

Just a thought.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Bubba,
you categorized responses as follows:

1. Get along, go along.
2. Political and social activism.
3. Subversion.
4. Violent resistance.

I would like to add one:

1. Non-violent resistance.

I think Martin Luther King had it right in the 60’s.
He insisted, against many of his own arguing with him, to keep it peaceful, and take what’s coming.

Ghandi in India did the same thing, a man of peace.

Violence in any form seems invariably to beget more violence.

There is no law in Catholic doctrine that says we must defend ourselves (that I know of).

Having Mass is a non-violent act disobeying an unjust law.

In the 60’s and 70’s there were young boys who did not report to the draft board because they thought that the vietnam war was an unjust one, and in good conscience, they could not serve in that war.

I see nothing good in violence, but then I have never been tested …

Just a thought.

I included that under #2 but I think you can make a case for distinguishing political participation and social activism within the law and civil disobedience of the law. I only offered my categories to spur discussion. I’d rather see a papal categorization.

However, I think you need to be more serious about the nature of disobeying the law, especially clandestinly. While it’s true that no Catholic would see harm in, and would regard it in fact as a good (and peaceful, nonviolent act) to go to Mass, it was, in fact, an illegal act in Mexico in that period. That’s why I compared it to tax evasion. Tax evasion is also a non-violent crime.

Note that both MLK and Ghandi engaged in open disobedience of the laws and while they were not treated with kid gloves, nor were they killed for it. By contrast, priests and parisheners were killed for holding/attending mass in Mexico.

I’m not saying that peacful protest has no place but if you’re going to be a martyr, better to be so with open eyes and not let your last though be: “gee, I was peaceful, why are you killing me?”

 

[fred_conty]

I included that under #2 but I think you can make a case for distinguishing political participation and social activism within the law and civil disobedience of the law. I only offered my categories to spur discussion. I’d rather see a papal categorization.

However, I think you need to be more serious about the nature of disobeying the law, especially clandestinly. While it’s true that no Catholic would see harm in, and would regard it in fact as a good (and peaceful, nonviolent act) to go to Mass, it was, in fact, an illegal act in Mexico in that period. That’s why I compared it to tax evasion. Tax evasion is also a non-violent crime.

Note that both MLK and Ghandi engaged in open disobedience of the laws and while they were not treated with kid gloves, nor were they killed for it. By contrast, priests and parisheners were killed for holding/attending mass in Mexico.

I’m not saying that peacful protest has no place but if you’re going to be a martyr, better to be so with open eyes and not let your last though be: “gee, I was peaceful, why are you killing me?”

Bubba thanks for your reply.

It dosen’t make any difference to God why a person was killed, peaceful or “eyes open”.
But don’t you think those people in Mexico knew the consequences?

I remember reading a book by a former Russan communist who was part of a home force that went out nights to break up bible reading sessions of Protestants. He went to one home, and they used bats on people. There was a young women there who he was taken back by her beauty. She too was beaten. The people were warned not to do it again, and the communists left.

Then a short few days later, they were called out again and went to the same home. There she was again, and again she took a beating. This so impressed him that he began to wonder what would make someone like her be so firm in doing this. It made a lasting impression which started him thinking towards God. He later made his way to freedom to Canada and told his story.

We never know who will benefit from what is done. I guess it is the choice of the person themselves as to how they see their faith working, or how they don’t see their faith working. I know one thing, those Protestants, our brothers, thought their faith important.

Just a thought.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Bubba thanks for your reply.

It dosen’t make any difference to God why a person was killed, peaceful or “eyes open”.
But don’t you think those people in Mexico knew the consequences?

I remember reading a book by a former Russan communist who was part of a home force that went out nights to break up bible reading sessions of Protestants. He went to one home, and they used bats on people. There was a young women there who he was taken back by her beauty. She too was beaten. The people were warned not to do it again, and the communists left.

Then a short few days later, they were called out again and went to the same home. There she was again, and again she took a beating. This so impressed him that he began to wonder what would make someone like her be so firm in doing this. It made a lasting impression which started him thinking towards God. He later made his way to freedom to Canada and told his story.

We never know who will benefit from what is done. I guess it is the choice of the person themselves as to how they see their faith working, or how they don’t see their faith working. I know one thing, those Protestants, our brothers, thought their faith important.

Just a thought.

We’re not really disagreeing on much here. I’m going to speculate on how God sees maters but my point was simply that there is a difference between being a martyr and being a victim. If you think that being peaceful will keep you away from harm, as the admonition that “violence in any form seems invariably to beget more violence” tends to imply then you may be rudely surprised. I don’t think that woman you described above was so naive but many are. Conversely, I don’t think that one can universally declare that violence causes net harm, particularly when it is directed against violence. In the classic example, I don’t think Russia made Hitler any more violent by fighting back against the invasion of Russia.

It is an interesting question as to when martyrdom is the appropriate response. Did, for example, the Cristado rebellion actually accomplish anything that would not have been better accomplished by open defiance and martyrdom by Catholics in Mexico? Is that purely a prudential choice or does the Church have something more specific to teach on this than those four points listed above?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’m going to do some research on the open question: what happened to the Just War requirement of legitimate authority and what does its (apparent) removal imply for the range of possible responses for members of society to social injustice?

In the mean time, here is an article on the “soft” persecution that democratic societies are beginning to dabble in:

spectator.org/archives/2012/12/04/the-apostolic-nuncio-explains

icl.nd.edu/assets/84679/religious_freedom_persecution_martyrdom_nd_vigano.pdf

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Here are some additional sources:

newadvent.org/cathen/15546c.htm

Note that New Advent says: “The right of war lies solely with the sovereign authority of the State.”

leonardooh.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/eth7630-just-war-rebellion-and-the-american-revolution-john-keown-and-modern-critiques-on-whether-the-war-of-independence-was-just/

This is a Protestant source but chapter 2 explicitly addresses the relationship between Just War and Just Rebellion in the context of judging the American Revolution (which, it should be noted, began with considerable civil organization on the part of the Americans owing to their colonial and municipal institutions).

And, of course:

catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine

 

[fred_conty]

Bubba,thanks for you thoughts,
I hope I didn’t give the impression that “violence always begets more violence” that I meant there would be no violent retalliation for acting on this. If I did, I apologize.

What I meant to indicate is that we shouldn’t use violence in these situations, peaceful civil disobedience, or peaceful demonstrations.

At the current time we are discussing this, there are christian men and women on streets peacefully demonstrating against abortion. I can see down the road where there might be some physical retalliation to them even tho they may not expect it. Just as the man who killed the abortion physician. This probably took this physician by surprise as it did many of us.

Now if a war breaks out, that is a very different situation requiring other considerations.

Just some thoughts.

 

[tafan]

I’m going to do some research on the open question: what happened to the Just War requirement of legitimate authority and what does its (apparent) removal imply for the range of possible responses for members of society to social injustice?

In the mean time, here is an article on the “soft” persecution that democratic societies are beginning to dabble in:

spectator.org/archives/2012/12/04/the-apostolic-nuncio-explains

icl.nd.edu/assets/84679/religious_freedom_persecution_martyrdom_nd_vigano.pdf

I will be interested in your results. I have gone and read all of the relevant parts of the Summa towards this. Aquinas is very clear that a just war can only be declared by the soveign power, he reiterates that more than once. However, he also has a section on sedition.

On the question of if sedition is always a mortal sin (which he answers in the affirmative) there is the following objection : "Objection 3. Further, it is praiseworthy to deliver a multitude from a tyrannical rule. Yet this cannot easily be done without some dissension in the multitude, if one part of the multitude seeks to retain the tyrant, while the rest strive to dethrone him. Therefore there can be sedition without mortal sin. ".

In his reply to this objection, he answers ""Reply to Objection 3. A tyrannical government is not just, because it is directed, not to the common good, but to the private good of the ruler, as the Philosopher states (Polit. iii, 5; Ethic. viii, 10). Consequently there is no sedition in disturbing a government of this kind, unless indeed the tyrant’s rule be disturbed so inordinately, that his subjects suffer greater harm from the consequent disturbance than from the tyrant’s government. ".

So Aquinas would not apply the just war doctrine to violence against one’s government. He would call this sedition (unless the government is tyrannical). Which brings us back to the original post, when it is allowed? And he says it is not allowed if the tyrant’s subjects will suffer greater harm from the seditious acts than what they are suffering already.

I would say that one can take his comments on sedition and pretty much map them directly onto two of the current Catechism’s just war requirements, maybe all four of them if I study his answers on discord and strife a little greater, which I will do.

newadvent.org/summa/3042.htm sedition
newadvent.org/summa/3040.htm war
newadvent.org/summa/3041.htm strife
newadvent.org/summa/3037.htm Discord

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Bubba,thanks for you thoughts, I hope I didn’t give the impression that “violence always begets more violence” that I meant there would be no violent retalliation for acting on this. If I did, I apologize.

What I meant to indicate is that we shouldn’t use violence in these situations, peaceful civil disobedience, or peaceful demonstrations.

We are definitely in agreement here. I’m sorry if I overreacted to your use of the phrase but there are some who seem to believe that violence is always a matter of retaliation for violence. The early Christian martyrs did nothinig more than witness to Christ and that was enough to get then killed.

At the current time we are discussing this, there are christian men and women on streets peacefully demonstrating against abortion. I can see down the road where there might be some physical retalliation to them even tho they may not expect it. Just as the man who killed the abortion physician. This probably took this physician by surprise as it did many of us.

Now if a war breaks out, that is a very different situation requiring other considerations.

Just some thoughts.

What arouses my curiosity is the whole range of possible responses of which outright war is but the most extreme example. The Cristado rebellion offers an interesting historical example for second guessing but there are many other situations that we can examine and evaluate including our own (see the above article).

Abortion is certainly an interesting example but it’s all to easy to protest and go home knowing that you are not an abortionist. But what happens when Catholic institutions and businesses are required by law to provide abortions? Protest as you send the check?

I’ve been following that discussion on EWTN and all I’ve heard so far is that this is a hard question and that theologians are thinking hard about it. But it seems to me that this is just part of a much larger question of how a Catholic lives in an increasingly non-Catholic world.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

So Aquinas would not apply the just war doctrine to violence against one’s government. He would call this sedition (unless the government is tyrannical). Which brings us back to the original post, when it is allowed? And he says it is not allowed if the tyrant’s subjects will suffer greater harm from the seditious acts than what they are suffering already.

I would say that one can take his comments on sedition and pretty much map them directly onto two of the current Catechism’s just war requirements, maybe all four of them if I study his answers on discord and strife a little greater, which I will do.

Excellent thoughts. I will go back and read him on this. “Sedition” is such an ugly word but maybe it is the appropriate path to explore. I used the word “subversion” in my categorization to mean something short of war.

Surely, though, some Catholic theolgian has taken this up since TA?! I have yet to find anything from a Catholic source and what I have found seems to be focused on questions of war by the state (e.g. judging the Iraq war). One source said that the newer cachetism raised the bar on just war and elaborations seem to presume that the subject is war by state, not a relaxation of the requirement of legitimate authority.

Obviously we can go about developing our own theory but where is the Chruch on this?!

 

[JDaniel]

That is a somewhat different situation. The buglar is not a secular government and has no color of authority whatsoever.

Bubba:

What color of authority do soldiers of a foreign government have on our soil? Unless, it was our government that put them there.

Even so, I would not say that you have an “obligation” to self-defend with violence. I’m not even sure I would say that a father has an obligation to use violence to defend his family, though I would have a very hard time rationaling that.

I can tell you that the Church says that we have an obligation to self-defend, up to but not in excess of the force used, or to be used against us.

To give a concrete example, if a burglar broke into a church, with a knife, to steal the offerings or even to kill would it be immoral for the priest to allow it? I hesitate to say otherwise.

That’s a little different. Priests are not usually known for their exceptional physical prowess. Besides, they have so many other things to consider, which includes the dispatch of a soul that might be in mortal sin.

Now I personally would have no qualms about using violence to defend life or prevent bodily harm to myself, my family, or perhaps others (depending on the circumstances), but that’s not what you asked.

Yeah. that’s pretty much what I wanted to know!

Now, another question, if you don’t mind.

If I have an “obligation” to self-defend, then do I also have a concomitant “duty” to do so?

God bless,
jd

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

What color of authority do soldiers of a foreign government have on our soil? Unless, it was our government that put them there.

That’st the wrong comparison, though. Just War is, presumabley, fine and dandy for dealing with foreign invasion.

The critical question here is what color of authority do solidiers or police of the local government have killing people for attending Church? The answer, in the case of Mexico at that time, is: quite some.

I can tell you that the Church says that we have an obligation to self-defend, up to but not in excess of the force used, or to be used against us.

That’s a little different. Priests are not usually known for their exceptional physical prowess. Besides, they have so many other things to consider, which includes the dispatch of a soul that might be in mortal sin.

Yeah. that’s pretty much what I wanted to know!

I think the problem was that you used the word “obligation” wrongly. If there were an obligation to self-defend then it would be especially wrong for priests not to do so, since they are setting an example. It’s not simply that priests (or women and children) are usually not good at it.

Now, another question, if you don’t mind.

If I have an “obligation” to self-defend, then do I also have a concomitant “duty” to do so?

I’m guessing that you mean by “obligation” a right, per above, otherwise the question is redunent. I’ve been arguing against either a general obligation or a duty to self-defend while acknowledging a right to do so. Even a priest has a right to self-defense.

 

[JDaniel]

That’st the wrong comparison, though. Just War is, presumabley, fine and dandy for dealing with foreign invasion.

Bubba:

At, or about, the time I was asking that question, the trend seemed to be more on invasion from without, or, at least, that’s the way I interpreted it. Sorry for the confusion.

The critical question here is what color of authority do solidiers or police of the local government have killing people for attending Church? The answer, in the case of Mexico at that time, is: quite some.

Providing. Providing they are defending the common good of the citizenry they serve.

I think the problem was that you used the word “obligation” wrongly.

No. I intended to use it that way. I have additional questions to ask that revolve around “obligation.”

If there were an obligation to self-defend then it would be especially wrong for priests not to do so, since they are setting an example.

Depending upon the setting.

It’s not simply that priests (or women and children) are usually not good at it.

Of course. But, the gente need someone who they can turn to - for many things, in such a struggle.

I’m guessing that you mean by “obligation” a right,

No. I mean by “obligation” precisely the same as I would mean if I were to say, “We have an ‘obligation’ to protect our environment.” I.e., we are obliged by God to do so, IOW.

I’ve been arguing against either a general obligation or a duty to self-defend while acknowledging a right to do so. Even a priest has a right to self-defense.

But such a “right” may well be in conflict with the Church. So, it’s not “right” that I am winding down to. “Rights,” to my way of thinking, are those things that we accord to others, or possess, precisely because they are accorded to us, or by us. I have a right to quench my thirst in your stream, but you have a right to no trespass. Now, one right seems that it should trump the other, correct?

“Obligation,” OTOH, involves what we ought and must do, if we are able, to conserve the priorities of “life.” Such as, for example, shooting a person who you see as someone about to shoot another. That is the self-defense of another, which is “self-defense” taken wider.

God bless,
jd