Legetimizing Use of Force

[77Nick777]

Hello,
My question is about the use of violence, ONLY defence of others, or self defence-

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
Can you tell me if this this to be taken literally? I can understand if it is. But, some may say that it isn’t. Violence should Never be used, unless it is a last resort…Is what the Catholic Church teaches, right?
If what Jesus sayed is not to be taken “literally”, is there another message that He spoke that legetimizes the use of necesary force?

Thank You & may God bless!

 

[Timothysis]

It is recognized that all human beings have a right to be secure in their own person. There is absolutely nothing wrong in defending your own life or the life of someone who is helpless. In fact, Justice demands as much.

 

[otjm]

Hello,
My question is about the use of violence, ONLY defence of others, or self defence-

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
Can you tell me if this this to be taken literally? I can understand if it is. But, some may say that it isn’t. Violence should Never be used, unless it is a last resort…

Not exactly. The Church allows the use of force, and it is to be reasonable to the circumstances.

In other words, if someone comes on your property threatening you, forcefully removing them by the collar would be generally permitted. If they are threatening you with serious physical harm and/or death, and you are not able to defend yourself adequately by lesser force nor protect yourself by leaving the scene, you may meet such threat with greater force up to and including causing their death.

You probably will not find exact quotes of the above, and that is not determinative as Christ did not answer all moral questions and their permutations exactly. Moral Theology derives from Christ, and it also takes into account the moral code as given through the Old Testament; and is the result of the contemplation of the Church on Scripture and Tradition.

 

[diggerdomer]

Hello,
My question is about the use of violence, ONLY defence of others, or self defence-

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
Can you tell me if this this to be taken literally? I can understand if it is. But, some may say that it isn’t. Violence should Never be used, unless it is a last resort…Is what the Catholic Church teaches, right?
If what Jesus sayed is not to be taken “literally”, is there another message that He spoke that legetimizes the use of necesary force?

Thank You & may God bless!

The use of violence may be morally acceptable in situations such as you note by Catholic teaching. However, the use of violence is never REQUIRED according to Catholic teaching.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The use of violence may be morally acceptable in situations such as you note by Catholic teaching. However, the use of violence is never REQUIRED according to Catholic teaching.

DD,
Can you explicate that last bit some more? What do you mean, exactly, that violence is never required?

Thanks,
VC

 

[diggerdomer]

DD,
Can you explicate that last bit some more? What do you mean, exactly, that violence is never required?

Thanks,
VC

I mean violence is never required.

What questions or doubts does that raise for you? Thanks.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I mean violence is never required.

What questions or doubts does that raise for you? Thanks.

I was just wondering, since I can see that principle as true in regard to self-defense, but the OP also mention defense of others, where one might have an obligation or duty to provide legitimate defense (and this may entail or require violence)?

That was where my line of thought was taking me.

VC

 

[diggerdomer]

I was just wondering, since I can see that principle as true in regard to self-defense, but the OP also mention defense of others, where one might have an obligation or duty to provide legitimate defense (and this may entail or require violence)?

That was where my line of thought was taking me.

VC

My understanding of the Catholic moral tradition is that the use of force/violence may be justified in specific circumstances; but, never required.

I am not aware of any Catholic teaching that says violence/force/killing is required. If you know of such teaching, please share. Thanks.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

DD,

I had my eye on this section of the catechism:

[2265](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2265.htm’) Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. . . .

VC

 

[diggerdomer]

DD,

I had my eye on this section of the catechism:

[2265](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2265.htm’) Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. . . .

VC

thanks

 

[GratefulFred]

St Augustine wrote the following principles about 1,500 years ago. As you see, he dealt with war and not individual personal safety. But these Principles deserve to be in our minds with the dangers on this world and they can guide us on our personal safety.

Principles of the Just War

• A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
• 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.
• A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient–see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right” intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
• A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
• The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
• The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
• The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

 

[otjm]

St Augustine wrote the following principles about 1,500 years ago. As you see, he dealt with war and not individual personal safety. But these Principles deserve to be in our minds with the dangers on this world and they can guide us on our personal safety.

Principles of the Just War

• A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
• 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.
• A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient–see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right” intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
• A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
• The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
• The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
• The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

Your last bullet is interesting in that we now see numerous instances where the enemy specifically uses civilians as a defense - in other words, military targets are no longer isolated from the population.

and to anyone who is interested, George Weigel has written on Just War Theory; he was roundly criticized by “peacenicks” who have no clue whatsoever of just war theory or the Church’s moral stance on it. Some of his writing was about the Iraq war, and while one may disagree with some of the basic premises “on the ground”, his analysis of the theory itself is well worth the read.

 

[Padua_Minded]

Unfortunately people with different political agendas will spin Just War theory, but here is an incomparably good overview from a highly regarded SSPX moral theology professor, Fr Iscara:

sspx.org/against_sound_bites/just_war.htm
sspx.org/against_sound_bites/might_is_not_right.htm
sspx.org/against_sound_bites/humanistic_pacifism.htm