Moral Reasoning: Legitimate Defense

[rfk]

I thought I’d raise a topic that is meant for discussion purposes only, i.e., to talk through the various theological issues. To make sure that there is no possibility to mistake my intent – and the intent of this thread – am I not advocating nor encouraging anyone to take illegal or violent action in any way whatsoever.

I was reading the Catechism on its discussion of the Fifth Commandment: You Shall Not Kill. Specifically, I was pondering the issue of Legitimate Defense (paragraphs 2263-2267)

The opening paragraph makes clear that it is legitimate to defend life, even if it takes the aggressor’s life.

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.”

In fact, it is more than legitimate, it can become a grave duty:

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…

After all, we “are our brother’s keepers”.

So the question of stopping abortionists from conducting business comes to mind. We have all heard about people who have used various violent means to try to stop abortion. It is obviously illegal under civil law – the abortionist has the legal right to conduct abortions.

But the Catechism also makes clear we have the grave duty to protect the unborn. Naturally, if we could protect them by converting the hearts of all our of citizens and reversing the law of the land, that would be the ideal(istic) case. But in the meantime, there are 4,000 babies murdered each day.

So, one could argue that killing an full-time abortionist that conducts abortions hour after hour, day after day, week after week, will save a lot of innocent lives. Or can one? After all, the Catechism also states:

2267 … 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.

So, may one can prevent the doctor from murdering innocents by non-lethal means? What does that mean? Rendering them physically incapable of performing the procedure? Not when the doctor can dictate a prescription for the morning-after pill. Terroristic threats? What means would constititute the “minimum use of force” that still enables saving a baby’s life?

Now, I know that every person I have known in the Pro-Life movement has decried any use of violence. For example, the Priests for Life website says (priestsforlife.org/brochures/ourmedia.html#inalienableday):

The right to life is inalienable. The State does not give it, nor can the State take it away.

Similarly, the duty to defend life is inalienable. The state does not give it, nor can the State take it away. The duty to speak the truth is inalienable. The duty to break the silence and to come out onto the streets is inalienable.

Pro-lifers are called to reject all violence in their activities. This movement has always been non-violent, and acknowledges that we may never do evil to achieve good.

So, I am placing this in the apologetics section because I am interesting people’s arguments pro/con. I am working this theme into a piece of fiction, and I am trying to look at the issue from every angle. Again, this is meant as discussion/debate of the Catholic moral principles involved, not as an encouragement to any illegal activity.

 

[Apologia100]

I have myself been stumped, and continue to be, at this conundrum. It appears that violence may well be the only way to save the thousands of innocent children from the calous and morally -devoid abortion providers. Here is an even more interesting twist. What if you find out that your wife is pregnant and secretly goes to an abortion mill. YOu find out the time and place and go there and find her on the table, but the procedure not yet begun. Do you have a legitimate right to use whatever level of force necessary to stop the provide from performing the abortion? I don’t mean legitimate in the secularly legal sense, I mean in the eyes of God? As the father, I have a right and a grave duty to protect the life of my unborn baby from a person who is considered an aggressor. If he threatens to have me arrested and will perform the procedure anyways, will destroying his equipment help? How about incapacitating him? WHat about my wife (who I now have serious issues with). I understand this situation is hypothetical, but I would like to hear people’s feedback on it.

 

[rfk]

Apologia100:

What if you find out that your wife … Do you have a legitimate right to use whatever level of force … As the father, I have a right and a grave duty to protect the life of my unborn baby from a person who is considered an aggressor.

Morally, I don’t believe that the issue of your child versus any innocent child makes any distinction. Similarly, your wife, or any wife, present the same moral issue. Interesting scenario, however.

 

[zange]

I’ve always understood “thou shall not kill” as “thou shall not murder.” What’s the difference? Well, I do (I admit) kill (flys, mosquitos, etc). But with humans, the distinction is that killing is simply the taking of life (sometimes legitimate, sometimes not), but murder is the illegitimate taking of human life. When life is taken in the context of legitimate civil authority (wars, capital punishment), it is usually not murder. (usually, because there are civil authorities–Hitler, for eg, who are morally incapable of being called “legitimate”). But when life is taken by individuals, it is almost always illegitimate, and hence murder. The exceptions are very narrowly tailored: the last and only resort to avoid an immediate attack of equal severity (rape, murder) of someone else. This is what our criminal law holds (disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, this is not legal advice).

However, our laws (wrongly, I believe) do not consider the fetus a human, and thus don’t consider abortion murder. They would consider the killing of someone who performs abortions murder. This can put us Catholics in a tight spot.

So, the real question is: what are your true motives for taking recourse to lethal violence? Are you willing to kill for other religious motivations, to protect human life in all contexts? How would such an act make you morally distinct from terrorists who kill human beings in the belief that their morality requires such acts? Will you likely save more lives by breaking the law and committing murder, or will your murderous example convince more people that the anti-abortion cause is a dangerous, lunatic fringe that decent people should stay away from? What kind of a statement does that make, to murder in order to prevent murder? Could you not save more unborn lives by working to change the laws and public opinion than by rashly murdering one man? And of course, WWJD? Somehow, I can’t see Jesus advocating the murder of men in order to save men. But that’s just me. Or is it?

Yes, the Catholic Church is correct in its teachings on abortion, and I do fully support these teachings. Respect human life from conception to NATURAL death.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

It is always possible to construct conundrums for ourselves on moral issues. Not everything is as clear-cut as, say, the question of abortion. But this is not new to the people of God.

In 2 Kings 5, at the end of the story of Naaman, the leper cured by Elisha, we read:

17 So Naaman told him, “Since you refuse, let me get some sacks of soil from your land – the amount that two mules can carry. I shall use it to build an altar to Yahweh, for I shall not offer
sacrifices to any other god but him. 18 But may Yahweh pardon me: when my king goes to the temple of his god Rimmon, he leans on my arm, and I bow down with him. May Yahweh pardon
me for this.” 19 Elisha answered, “Go in peace.” And Naaman went.

It is good to consider difficult moral questions before we are actually confronted by them, or ones like them. If we have truly worked to learn about what God would have us do, and have formed our consciences accordingly, we, like Naaman, can “go in peace.”

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[rfk]

zange:

… When life is taken in the context of legitimate civil authority … (versus) … when life is taken by individuals
…
However, our laws (wrongly, I believe) do not consider the fetus a human, and thus don’t consider abortion murder.

Yes, I made it very clear that civil law would prohibit any such actions. However, the Catechism also states:

1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, “authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.”

Boy, the “authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse” is surely appropriate to our society. And how about:

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . .

zange:

Will you likely save more lives by breaking the law and committing murder, or will your murderous example convince more people that the anti-abortion cause is a dangerous, lunatic fringe that decent people should stay away from?

This is a very interesting issue, in terms of which course of action has the least evil.

 

[Trelow]

I DECLARE WAR ON ABORTIONISTS!

hmm, would it fit eh just war doctrine?
Who wants to draft the Declaration of War?

 

[rfk]

Gerry Hunter:

But this is not new to the people of God.

In 2 Kings 5, at the end of the story of Naaman, the leper cured by Elisha, we read:

…: when my king goes to the temple of his god Rimmon, he leans on my arm, and I bow down with him. May Yahweh pardon me for this.”

Yes, but. (Funny how many sentences with my children start that way…)

First, do you think Elisha would have approved of Naaman if the issue was killing millions of innocents instead of simply bowing down. After all, one can bow down without worshipping. (Just cross your fingers, right!)

Second, we also have the very rich history of tens of thousands of martyrs over the last two millenia that refused to deny Christ and gladly accepted death instead. That serves as a powerful juxtaposition to 2 Kings 5.

 

[Apologia100]

Trelow:

I DECLARE WAR ON ABORTIONISTS!

hmm, would it fit eh just war doctrine?
Who wants to draft the Declaration of War?

Ooooo, Oooo, me, can I , please please please!

 

[Vincent]

Excellent thread!

I recommend the following articles which address this very issue:

First read “A Pro–Life Loss of Nerve?”

Then read “Serpents, Doves, and Abortion”.

 

[kjvail]

To answer:

What if you find out that your wife is pregnant and secretly goes to an abortion mill. YOu find out the time and place and go there and find her on the table, but the procedure not yet begun. Do you have a legitimate right to use whatever level of force necessary to stop the provide from performing the abortion?

Wouldn’t hesitate one second

I’m reminded of something Giuliani said last night:

And worse the terrorists also learned that their cause would be taken more seriously, almost in direct proportion to the barbarity of the attack.

Is there a lesson here?

I cannot honestly say that an individual that kills an abortionist is doing something that is wrong.

 

[frdave20]

just as a matter of clarification… isn’t the actual wording, You shall not murder, or commit murder. there is a subtle difference between “…not kill” and “…not murder”.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

rfk:

Yes, but. (Funny how many sentences with my children start that way…)

Yes, well I’m way too old to be one of those.

rfk:

First, do you think Elisha would have approved of Naaman if the issue was killing millions of innocents instead of simply bowing down. After all, one can bow down without worshipping. (Just cross your fingers, right!)

I somehow doubt that he would, don’t you?

rfk:

Second, we also have the very rich history of tens of thousands of martyrs over the last two millenia that refused to deny Christ and gladly accepted death instead. That serves as a powerful juxtaposition to 2 Kings 5.

And if a prophet of God had sensed (as prophets were able to do) that there were an element of denial in the act, would he have bid Naaman to “go in peace”? We do have to assume the prophet had a bit of discernment, don’t we?

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[rfk]

Vincent:

read “Serpents, Doves, and Abortion”.

Interesting series of articles. The following quote:

It seems, then, that we should refrain from using violence against those involved in abortion not because they do not deserve it (though of course we should in Christian charity assume that they do not), and not because of the fear of punishment (though such fear is not in itself dishonorable in this case), but instead because of the even worse public consequences that would follow from the use of such means.

It briefly summarizes the point that zange was making: that violence will make things worse instead of better.

 

[rfk]

frdave20:

just as a matter of clarification… isn’t the actual wording, You shall not murder, or commit murder. there is a subtle difference between “…not kill” and “…not murder”.

I don’t think parsing whether the word is kill or murder makes any difference to the main point of the discussion: whether stopping abortion through violent means is justified.

 

[buffalo]

We are to try to stop government first through the legitimate means we have. That is voting and overturning bad laws.

Short of that a deep polarization will take place and possibly lead to civil war.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello RFK,

When you read Mark 7 you get the feeling that Jesus would be offended if Church leaders “nullified” God’s law to put to death those who curse father or mother. When you read John 8 “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, you get the feeling that Jesus wants all Old Testament stoning commandments abolished. Then when you read Matthew 18 you get the feeling Jesus would have had us tie mill stones around clergy child molestors and drown them in the depths of the sea.

I think that Jesus and the Father gave us extremes in all directions and it is we who must center ourselves within these opposing extremes. Not all people who curse their parent should be put to death and putting to death adulterers should not be ruled out as an option if the faith of the body of the Church is at stake.

I think that there were probubly evils like passing children through the fire (infantcide) happening in the vacinity of Jesus. Jesus did not grab a sword and start killing the perpatrators. Jesus was not a police officer, judge or member of the Sanhedrin either. We also cannot deny the scriptures where Jesus and the Father tell us to use physical deadly force (stoning those who cuse parents) or spiritual deadly force (holding sins bound).

I think that God is counting on His Church to combine all of God’s teachings to make the difficult decisions as to when to use force and when not to use force to attain the best Christian outcome.

I think that in the present atmosphere for Christians to start killing abortion doctors would severly cripple the Church as would stoning those who curse their parents.

NAB MARK 7:9

He went on to say: "You have made a fine art of setting aside God’s commandment in the interests of keeping your traditions! For example, Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and in another place, ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall be put to death.’ Yet you declare, If a person says to his father or mother, Any support you might have had from me is korban’ (that is, dedicated to God), you allow him to do nothing more for his father or mother. That is the way you nullify God’s word in favor of the traditions you have handed on."** **

---

NAB JOHN 8:4
“Teacher,” they said to him, “this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. In the law, Moses ordered such women to be stoned. What do you have to say about the case?” (They were posing this question to trap him, so that they could have something to accuse him of.) Jesus bent down and started tracing on the ground with his finger. When they persisted in their questioning, he straightened up and said to them, “Let the man among you who has no sin be the first to cast a stone at her.”** **

---

**NAB MAT 8:5 **
**"Whoever welcomes one such child for my sake welcomes me. On the other hand, it would be better for anyone who leads astray one of these little ones who believes in me, to be drown by a millstone around his neck, in the depths of the sea.**Peace in Christ,Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[rfk]

Steven Merten:

When you read Mark 7 …

… Then when you read Matthew 18

NAB JOHN 8:4

Steven, I think you are falling into the classic Protestant trap of picking out some Bible verses and giving them your own interpretation to make an argument.

Why? There is already 2000 years of Church teaching on the subject of legitimate defense – the topic has already been well defined and supported. Frankly, I’d rely on St. Thomas Aquinas’ Bible exegesis to support legitimate defense before I’d rely upon you pulling out 3 verses. The Catechism is quite clear on proper Church teaching, and it cites the Summa Theologica and Donum Vitae.

 

[asquared]

well, this thread is going to get us on the FBI’s watch list. There is no way to justify the cold blooded murder of an abortion doctor, the bombing of a clinic, assaults on people entering clinics, in the name of defense of life. You cannot kill a potential murderer and claim self-defense unless it is an immediate situation of attack. If your thinking has led you to condone outright murder you do not understand Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life and you are not someone who should presume to be outspoken on pro-life issues.
Was John Brown justified in the Harpers Ferry raid because in his mind he was asking against slaveholders? A lot of the anti-slavery people at the time thought so.

 

[rfk]

buffalo:

We are to try to stop government first through the legitimate means we have. That is voting and overturning bad laws.

So, we’ve waited over 30 years and 45 million lives so far. How long do you think it appropriate to wait?

buffalo:

Short of that a deep polarization will take place and possibly lead to civil war.

This is an argument worth dicussing. I used to believe that it would be harmful to the country should we simply be able to get enough Senators to ratify enough Presidential Supreme Court nominees, and simply overturn Roe v. Wade. Without changing the hearts and minds of the country to build a large consensus against abortion, I agree that such a move would be deeply polarizing.

However, I get back to the 4,000 babies per day issue. Time is a precious commodity that these children do not have.

For argument’s sake, let’s assume that violent resistance to abortion led to “deep polarization … and … civil war”. Is civil war a worse evil? After all, we kill more babies every year than the total number of war deaths the United States has sustained in all the wars of our history combined.