I saw someone steal the eucharist.

[JReducation]

I’m pretty certain our Lord** would** advocate the use of violence if necessary to protect the Sacrament. Neither our Lord nor the Catholic Church advocate absolute pacifism.
I’m pretty disgusted with your sarcastic use of “host police” and your inverted commas around “protect”, and I’m not exaggerating at all.

If I saw someone walking away with the Host I would do **whatever it takes **to prevent or avert the desecration of the Eucharist. Up to and including, (God grant me the courage!) a fight to the death in the extremely unlikely event that this should prove necessary if all other attempts at persuasion, threats or coercion had failed.

In the history of the Church there have been several people, both lay and clerical, who have given their lives in attempts to prevent the Blessed Sacrament being desecrated. The lay people didn’t ask their priest’s permission first. The Church calls them martyrs for the Faith.

Saints have died defending the Eucharist. They did not, however, threaten the lives of their opponents. This has to be made clear.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Acolythus_sum]

I will report this breach of Catholic teaching to the moderator. This is an unjustifiable defense of violence.

You continue to say that the poster’s position is his own opinion and is not a Catholic teaching… yet you do not allow his opinion equal weight with anyone else’s opinion (i am not equating Church teaching with opinion here). Even if you disagree (and I do as well, but not as strongly as some others here), is this a reason to report him to the mods?

 

[joandarc2008]

You continue to say that the poster’s position is his own opinion and is not a Catholic teaching… yet you do not allow his opinion equal weight with anyone else’s opinion (i am not equating Church teaching with opinion here). Even if you disagree (and I do as well, but not as strongly as some others here), is this a reason to report him to the mods?

Do you realize the man you are addressing is a Religious Brother with extensive post graduate degrees in theology so I am pretty sure if he tells you that it is that far in violation of Catholic teaching you should take his word for it - would you like a link to a place that lists his credentials?

 

[Acolythus_sum]

Do you realize the man you are addressing is a Religious Brother with extensive post graduate degrees in theology so I am pretty sure if he tells you that it is that far in violation of Catholic teaching you should take his word for it - would you like a link to a place that lists his credentials?

When I first posted that it would be “a close call”, i hadn’t thought it over. I would follow S. Tarcisius’ example without (God willing) question, but killing over the desecration of the Host would, i agree, be unwarranted. However, some physical violence may be appropriate in some cases (such as in the case of a few months ago, when a Spanish priest slapped a boy who threw the Host on the ground).

However, my last post was meant to express (warranted) surprise that someone’s opinion was “shot down”, so to speak, without any refutation. Merely “this is his opinion, and I will report it to the mods.”

 

[joandarc2008]

When I first posted that it would be “a close call”, i hadn’t thought it over. I would follow S. Tarcisius’ example without (God willing) question, but killing over the desecration of the Host would, i agree, be unwarranted. However, some physical violence may be appropriate in some cases (such as in the case of a few months ago, when a Spanish priest slapped a boy who threw the Host on the ground).

However, my last post was meant to express (warranted) surprise that someone’s opinion was “shot down”, so to speak, without any refutation. Merely “this is his opinion, and I will report it to the mods.”

It is because that someone that was speaking was a Religious addressing a lay person that was off in leftt field. This is when you need to stop, take a deep breath, and put it into context.

 

[Acolythus_sum]

It is because that someone that was speaking was a Religious addressing a lay person that was off in leftt field. This is when you need to stop, take a deep breath, and put it into context.

I respect the religious monasteries/orders immensely (and am currently discerning the monastic life), but this does not mean that one person’s opinion should be regarded as better than another’s based upon their personal characteristics (grace of state or otherwise). That is a species of ad hominem attack. If an argument is made and adequately supported, that is different.

 

[JReducation]

You continue to say that the poster’s position is his own opinion and is not a Catholic teaching… yet you do not allow his opinion equal weight with anyone else’s opinion (i am not equating Church teaching with opinion here). Even if you disagree (and I do as well, but not as strongly as some others here), is this a reason to report him to the mods?

The issue is not whether I’m a religious or not. The issue is that one must qualify. If one has a position that is in conflict or outside of the position of the Church, in fairness to others who are not Catholic or not well educated in the faith, one must qualify that this is a personal opinion. When we present something as the thing that Catholics should do, we must be very careful, especially if the position involves violence. We can never lead others to beleive that the Catholic Church justifies violence.

The Church recognizes that there are times when a people must defend themselves or defend others who are vulnerable and unable to defend themselves. That’s not really violence, because you’re the victim. But the way that this position is being presented is inconsistent with the Church’s teaching on the dignity of human life and the defense of the Eucharist.

As I said before and others have said it too, many saints have given their lives protecting the Eucharist. This is acceptable to the Church. The Church does not endorse violence. That’s a whole different position. You can’t say that God allows you to kill in order to defend the Eucharist. This is not what the Church teaches. If you want to say this, then you must say that this is your belief. It is wrong to say it as if it were a position held by the Church, becaues it’s not the case.

That’s what I find so disconcerting. Who I am has nothing to do with this. Any Catholic would find it disconcerting to have others walk away believing that Catholics teach that violence can be used. This has been a problem since the birth of the Church. People have often used violence and justified themselves using the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[joandarc2008]

The issue is not whether I’m a religious or not. The issue is that one must qualify. If one has a position that is in conflict or outside of the position of the Church, in fairness to others who are not Catholic or not well educated in the faith, one must qualify that this is a personal opinion. When we present something as the thing that Catholics should do, we must be very careful, especially if the position involves violence. We can never lead others to beleive that the Catholic Church justifies violence.

The Church recognizes that there are times when a people must defend themselves or defend others who are vulnerable and unable to defend themselves. That’s not really violence, because you’re the victim. But the way that this position is being presented is inconsistent with the Church’s teaching on the dignity of human life and the defense of the Eucharist.

As I said before and others have said it too, many saints have given their lives protecting the Eucharist. This is acceptable to the Church. The Church does not endorse violence. That’s a whole different position. You can’t say that God allows you to kill in order to defend the Eucharist. This is not what the Church teaches. If you want to say this, then you must say that this is your belief. It is wrong to say it as if it were a position held by the Church, becaues it’s not the case.

That’s what I find so disconcerting. Who I am has nothing to do with this. Any Catholic would find it disconcerting to have others walk away believing that Catholics teach that violence can be used. This has been a problem since the birth of the Church. People have often used violence and justified themselves using the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you - that was much more well put.

 

[Acolythus_sum]

Thank you - that was much more well put.

Agreed.

 

[Petergee]

Some people here seem to have radically misunderstood my comments. It is appalling that one has even jumped to the outrageous conclusion that my comment is contrary to Catholic doctrine, and the even more outrageous accusation that I had said anything contrary to CAF rules.

I did not advocate simply shooting dead someone who innocently didn’t know that he isn’t allowed to steal a Host. My reference to being prepared to kill or be killed was just that. e.g. if a saw someone steal a Host, I would first politely ask him, then if that failed move on to friendly persuasion, coercion, nonviolent physical restraint etc only if it proved necessary and then only if he continued to resist to the point where he threatened to take my life, would I take his. This is perfectly in accord with Catholic doctrine.

If you saw someone steakling a Tabernacle at gunpoint and you happened to have a gun, would you not challenge him and if necessary shoot him in order to make him stop?

I repeat the Catholic Church has never advocated absolute pacifism, nor does she do so now. She does not in principle oppose capital punishment. She merely in practice in modern states advocates great prudence in its use. She endorsed the launching of wars to protect the Holy Places from desceration. The Blessed Sacrament is greater than any Holy Place. Catholics have indeed used violence to defend the Blessed Sacrament, without any criticism of their actions by the hierarchy.

 

[Newbie2]

I think you guys are rather looking at this from a rather American-centric or Euro-centric point of view. Why don’t put yourself in one of those Iraqi Churches that are being taken hostage by Islamic terrorists and ask yourself what you will do to protect the Holy Body and Precious Blood?

Some people here seem to have radically misunderstood my comments. It is appalling that one has even jumped to the outrageous conclusion that my comment is contrary to Catholic doctrine, and the even more outrageous accusation that I had said anything contrary to CAF rules.

I did not advocate simply shooting dead someone who innocently didn’t know that he isn’t allowed to steal a Host. **My reference to being prepared to kill or be killed was just that. e.g. if a saw someone steal a Host, I would first politely ask him, then if that failed move on to friendly persuasion, coercion, nonviolent physical restraint etc only if it proved necessary and then only if he continued to resist to the point where he threatened to take my life, would I take his. This is perfectly in accord with Catholic doctrine. **

So you would kill someone for threatening to take your life??? Seriously? Such is not self-defense, and that is where you are in serious error.

If you saw someone steakling a Tabernacle at gunpoint and you happened to have a gun, would you not challenge him and if necessary shoot him in order to make him stop?

No. You have no moral or legal authority to kill someone except in self-defense.

I repeat the Catholic Church has never advocated absolute pacifism, nor does she do so now.

We’re not talking about absolute pacifism. Most of us are with you up until you would get violent.

She does not in principle oppose capital punishment. She merely in practice in modern states advocates great prudence in its use. She endorsed the launching of wars to protect the Holy Places from desceration. The Blessed Sacrament is greater than any Holy Place. Catholics have indeed used violence to defend the Blessed Sacrament, without any criticism of their actions by the hierarchy.

Give one instance of where someone has killed another over defending a host and has not been condemned. There are none. You simply go too far, which of course is your right to express your opinion, but do not mislead others into thinking that deliberately killing someone over a host is morally acceptable.

First moral principle, as has been pointed out: One can never do evil to achieve good. You have a tough time convincing anyone that killing or even giving a beat-down to someone is not an evil act.

As has been pointed out now several times, it is acceptable to give one’s life in martyrdom, but not to take anothers.

 

[joandarc2008]

Dont’ lump my comments in with Petergee’s. I was simply stating that the people on here that were minimizing the comments were out of control. What we have in the case of the Iraqi Churches are martyrs. When we look to the Beatitudes we are told - Blessed are those that are persecuted because of My name. I would also submit to you Peter that many of those “wars” were extremely misunderstood. If you go back to the Crusades it was St Francis that first begged the soldiers on the Christian side not to fight and then tried to convince the Saracens of the same.

 

[Newbie2]

Dont’ lump my comments in with Petergee’s. I was simply stating that the people on here that were minimizing the comments were out of control. What we have in the case of the Iraqi Churches are martyrs. When we look to the Beatitudes we are told - Blessed are those that are persecuted because of My name. I would also submit to you Peter that many of those “wars” were extremely misunderstood. If you go back to the Crusades it was St Francis that first begged the soldiers on the Christian side not to fight and then tried to convince the Saracens of the same.

Sorry, didn’t mean to. You made a good point about what a martyrdom and I wanted to highlight it, but I didn’t do a good job.

 

[joandarc2008]

Sorry, didn’t mean to. You made a good point about what a martyrdom and I wanted to highlight it, but I didn’t do a good job.

No problem I understand how these tags work sometimes which is not well

 

[Petergee]

You have no moral or legal authority to kill someone except in self-defense.

I respect your right to hold that opinion, but please don’t claim that this is Catholic doctrine or that to dissent from your opinion is to deny Catholic doctrine. And in any case in the example scenarios I mentioned, any taking of an assailant’s life would indeed be in self-defence.

As I said I am merely pointing out what would be one’s duty in the extremely unlikely event that such a scenario would arise. If it ever came to that in my case, then knowing me I would probably chicken out and give up.

 

[Acolythus_sum]

I respect your right to hold that opinion, but please don’t claim that this is Catholic doctrine or that to dissent from your opinion is to deny Catholic doctrine. And in any case in the example scenarios I mentioned, any taking of an assailant’s life would indeed be in self-defence.

As I said I am merely pointing out what would be one’s duty in the extremely unlikely event that such a scenario would arise. If it ever came to that in my case, then knowing me I would probably chicken out and give up.

The segment you quoted IS Catholic doctrine…I don’t have time right now to look up the appropriate paragraphs in the CCE…maybe someone else could?

 

[joandarc2008]

The segment you quoted IS Catholic doctrine…I don’t have time right now to look up the appropriate paragraphs in the CCE…maybe someone else could?

Sure - and it does spread to the defense of the defenseless but it is the immediate - this is why in most cases the death penalty is not longer morally licit. This is excerpted from the fifth commandment:

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

 

[Petergee]

Sure - and it does spread to the defense of the defenseless but it is the immediate - this is why in most cases the death penalty is not longer morally licit. This is excerpted from the fifth commandment:

Please point out where in that passage, or anywhere else in any official statement of Catholic doctrine, it says that there is never any moral or legal authority to kill someone except in self-defence.

 

[joandarc2008]

Please point out where in that passage, or anywhere else in any official statement of Catholic doctrine, it says that there is never any moral or legal authority to kill someone except in self-defence.

It does not it says self-defense or defense of others - see 2265 - it also talks about Just War. But your example is not covered. May I suggest you look at the actions of our own Saints and how they protected the Eucharist.

ewtn.com/library/mary/tarcisi.htm

 

[Petergee]

It does not it says self-defense or defense of others - see 2265 - it also talks about Just War. But your example is not covered. May I suggest you look at the actions of our own Saints and how they protected the Eucharist.

ewtn.com/library/mary/tarcisi.htm

Yes, I hope I would have had the courage to do the same if I was an unarmed boy carrying the Blessed Sacrament confronted with a gang of thugs armed with clubs and stones. The story does not take anything away from the points I have made here, but rather enhances them.