T
The_Chicken
Guest
I mean, what are the church positions? Like if you are going to be killed, is it ok to kill for defending your life?
- Status
T
teachccd
Guest
Yes as long as it is truly self defense. It would be a sin against charity for your own life if you allowed someone to take it. If using equal force results in the death of the one trying to kill you then his death was the result of your efforts to maintian your life. In this light you actually did not kill but a death resulted from what was required to save your life. There is a difference…Hope this helps…teachccd 
T
Tedster
Guest
I think our Lord and Savior might disagree with this statement. Would you care to elaborate? Am I reading it wrong?
A
agangbern
Guest
I find sense withTedster’s question. Jesus Christ allowed himself to be killed, he did not raise a self-defense.
T
The_Chicken
Guest
I see there’s debate about the subject. Really, we were told “if someone hits you on one side of your face, turn the other for them to hit it too” or something like that. Maybe it means we should not resist violence by any means. Any other ideas?
L
Leopard
Guest
If you are going to eat the chicken, certainly.
T
teachccd
Guest
Jesus gave up His life for the salvation of mankind. It was not just a senseless murder as most murders are. Yes, I will stay with the fact that if you allow someone to spit in your face or ultimately kill you you are not protecting the most precious thing that God has given you…your life. And to just allow someone to senselessly take this most precious gift from you is a sin of charity against yourself. This does not include martyrs who chose to die for their beliefs. Does my distinction of senseless murder now make sense??
T
teachccd
Guest
Precisely my point. Jesus allowed Himself to be killed. This was essential within the context of His being the ultimate sacrifice for mankind. Self defense (the term) cannot even be used in this situation since He is not defending Himself. It is by His death and resurrection that He defends us from sin and ultimately reconciles us back to the Father. I hardly would compare this to a burglary where an innocent store clerk dies for no reason other than some thug needs a fix…God Bless…teachccd
T
The_Chicken
Guest
haha, that was a good one!If you are going to eat the chicken, certainly.
So back on topic, is it ok, depending on the circumstances? Doesn’t the church have any official position?
Y
YACatholic
Guest
Okay, going to the authority. From the Catechsim of the Catholic Church:
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.
So, if a man punches me in the face and I shoot him, I would be guilty of murder. However, if he pulled a knife on me (and I believed an attack was inevitable) and I stab him, I am not guilty of murder. I did not intend to kill him. I hoped he would be disabled for an amount of time, and lived in order to repent of his sin. However, my act of stabbing the aggressor was an act of preservation of my own life. Not an attempt to rob someone of the gift of their humanly life. It seems pretty straightforward to me. I welcome your responses. Have a great day!
God Bless,
YACatholic:thumbsup:
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.
So, if a man punches me in the face and I shoot him, I would be guilty of murder. However, if he pulled a knife on me (and I believed an attack was inevitable) and I stab him, I am not guilty of murder. I did not intend to kill him. I hoped he would be disabled for an amount of time, and lived in order to repent of his sin. However, my act of stabbing the aggressor was an act of preservation of my own life. Not an attempt to rob someone of the gift of their humanly life. It seems pretty straightforward to me. I welcome your responses. Have a great day!
God Bless,
YACatholic:thumbsup:
P
pnewton
Guest
There is another point. If one is a postition of protecting others, it is a wrong not to kill someone, if killing that person is necessary for the protection of innocent third party.
T
The_Chicken
Guest
That’s clear enough for me. Thanks!!
T
teachccd
Guest
I thought that that is what I pretty much said in my previous posts (post #2) but oh well…
A
Abbadon
Guest
So i want to be a sniper, it has math, problem solving and skill. But the downside it kills people. As for everyone in armies as well is it okay to kill? Snipers often kill first…
J
Joyousguard
Guest
Sometimes it depends on the exact nature of the circumstances. War becomes a bit tricky sometimes when talking about morality. While there are certain moral guidlines that must be always followed there is not always a broad mathmatecial forumula covering all instances.
In war, self defense or defense of another is the reason soldiers kill. This can be a very broad interpretaion and can lead to abuse in legal sense but not a moral sense for you can never hide your intentions from God. Soldiers and snipers shoot to save lives, not take them. They aim to defend themselves and other through their actions not attack the innocent. Soldiers use only the necessary force required for the situation. This is what a soldier should truly hold in their hearts. They do not kill because they can, they kill beacuse they do so for the safty of others and the hope that there actions will bring an end to the conflict sooner.
I believe it was Augustine who said that if a man is so horrified by taking a life even in defense of himself he is not required to do so and may accpet his own death.
Look to the “Just War Theory” for a bit more help with this dilema.
J
Joyousguard
Guest
Although it is meant for war and thus the macro it can help when discussing certain individual actions as well.
Just War Theory:
"1. Just cause-
The reason for going to war needs to be just and can therefore be recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: “Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations.”
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
5.Probability of success-
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
Just War Theory:
"1. Just cause-
The reason for going to war needs to be just and can therefore be recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: “Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations.”
- Comparative justice-
While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes. - Legitimate authority-
Only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
5.Probability of success-
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
- Last resort-
Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted. - Jus in bello-
Once war has begun, just war theory also directs how combatants are to act:
(Jus in bello) - Discrimination-
Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of discrimination. The acts of war should be directed towards the inflictors of the wrong, and not towards civilians caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military target and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against ordinary civilians. Some believe that this rule forbids weapons of mass destruction of any kind, for any reason (such as the use of an atomic bomb). - Proportionality-
Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. The force used must be proportional to the wrong endured, and to the possible good that may come. The more disproportional the number of collateral civilian deaths, the more suspect will be the sincerity of a belligerent nation’s claim to justness of a war it initiated. - Minimum Force-
Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction. It is different from proportionality because the amount of force proportionate to the goal of the mission might exceed the amount of force necessary to accomplish that mission. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory)
K
Kathrin
Guest
Really?!
I kind of felt it had to be the other way around.
K
Kathrin
Guest
I was thinking about that too.
Let’s say, what if it’s not me who’s in danger, but maybe my mother or father? Or a child? Or just SOMEbody?
Kathrin
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
In the middle ages the Popes did urge the Catholic Church to attack the Muslims. That means its ok to kill people in times of war.
M
mpb74
Guest
Gospel of Luke 6:22
Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you and insult you and reject you as evil on account of the Son of Man!
I’ve always understood this as accepting persecution for following Christ and for spreding the Gospel.
- Status