Moral Reasoning: Legitimate Defense

[rfk]

The discussion of civil war, along with the mention of John Brown, brought to mind that book, “April 1865: The Month That Saved America”.

His main thesis is Robert E Lee was faced with the choice of ordering his men to take to the hills and begin guerrilla warfare, or to surrender. He chose surrender and provided the leadership that caused other generals to surrender as well. Jay Winik makes a compelling case that that this country would probably have never recovered from the horrors of guerrilla warfare, and uses the atrocities that occurred in Missouri as an example.

So perhaps that is a fitting example for this argument.

 

[rfk]

asquared:

well, this thread is going to get us on the FBI’s watch list.

Perhaps, but I’ve also made it quite clear that this thread is simply to discuss the theology involved and it never meant to encourage illegal activity. Personally, I have a family to raise; I am not going to do anything that places my children’s welfare in jeopardy.

asquared:

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.

You’ve made statements, but you haven’t made an argument. “There is no way to justify”? Why not? “You cannot … claim self-defense unless it is an immediate situation of attack”? How proximate does “immediate” need to be? The hose in the doctor’s hand? Walking into the clinic? Driving to work? Resting after a hard week’s work before starting in again on Monday?

“you are not someone who should presume to be outspoken on pro-life issues.” Who is presuming anything? I am simply trying to have a discussion.

asquared:

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.

I don’t know the historical facts well enough to render a judgment on the morality.

 

[Apologia100]

That is probably because Robert E. Lee was a man of honor who understood that continued resistance would only hurt the people he was trying to lead. A leaders first priority is the welfare of the people he leads.

rfk:

The discussion of civil war, along with the mention of John Brown, brought to mind that book, “April 1865: The Month That Saved America”.

His main thesis is Robert E Lee was faced with the choice of ordering his men to take to the hills and begin guerrilla warfare, or to surrender. He chose surrender and provided the leadership that caused other generals to surrender as well. Jay Winik makes a compelling case that that this country would probably have never recovered from the horrors of guerrilla warfare, and uses the atrocities that occurred in Missouri as an example.

So perhaps that is a fitting example for this argument.

 

[Steven_Merten]

rfk:

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.

Hello rfk,

Though I am a Catholic, I do believe in studying the bible to understand God’s will for me as the Protestants do. I do understand the centuries, possibly milleniums, of Catholic opposition to this concept.

I grew up in the sixties and seventies during the UN Vietnam War. From the Catholic pulpit war was always preached as evil. On the streets protestors spit on our Veterans. My father, uncles and cousins all fought in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. From the age seven to seventeen I was greatly burdened trying to understand God’s will on when I should kill. When I asked my priest about the draft and war, he made me out as a coward and told me I had to go to war. He said when I came back, the Church would help me with all the evil I had done. Where was Thomas Aquinas in the sixties and seventies when we needed him?

Abandon by Church leaders in my plight to understand God’s will on when to kill, I turned to my God. I spent tens of thousands of hours over the decades seeking out Jesus and The Father’s will on when to kill. Thus Throwing Stones is the product of my search www.geocities.com/athens/forum/3325/stones.html

As I began to read, pray and study the bible, I noticed the many times that Jesus instructed us to obey the commandments to go to heaven. Going to Mass every Sunday I had never heard this from my priests. They mostly taught that “love” is now the rule and obedience is out. For ten years I then counted the times a priest taught us to obey the commandments. Never once did any priest teach Jesus words to obey the commandments to go to heaven. When ever they came up in the readings the priest would speak around them or opposite to what Jesus said. Thus my I Love You, God teaches people Jesus’ teachings on obedience to the commandments as the way we love God and the importance of attaining love for God to go to heaven through Jesus. www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

When discussing God’s will on when to kill in our modern age with Catholics, Protestants or others, bringing up Thomas Aquinas’ has very little impact. When you talk about Jesus will on when to kill, now that carries some weight.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten

 

[Pug]

I think Apologia raises a good point by focusing the setting to a child for whom he is responsible. The quote says:

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.

So being a father of the child in question seems to matter, compared to being just a person who cares about children in general. Though, I think the passage 2265 has a flavor of civil authority, you know, the govenment, not the individual.

 

[Ghosty]

But at what point do we accept the fact that the civil government is not doing its job, and is, in fact, illegitimate because of that? Does the Church condemn the American Revolution, a war over taxation and representation? As Catholics we are to recognize legitimate authority, but just because a government holds power does not make it legitimate.

If the government outlawed Christianity, would we abandon it because of governmental authority? Of course not! If the government legalized rape and murder in the streets, would we stand by as our neighbors were ravished? Of course not! We are dealing with a government that not only allows, but actively and forcefully protects the murder of millions of infants. Is that any less attrocious, or any less against our Catholic understanding of legitimate government?

This is definately a worthy discussion. I’m not necessarily advocating some kind of violent uprising; prudence should dictate the proper course of action. I would definately argue, however, that the U.S. government has, at the very least on some issues, fallen far outside the realm of legitimate authority, and violated its civil contract with the people it’s supposed to serve, espescially the aborted children. If this was merely a matter of isolated cases, it would be different, but it’s a matter of law and legal force being put to use directly against God and the people that make up the population. If Catholics recognize the good in deposing Saddam Hussein, why do they fail to recognize the hypocrisy of supporting a government that has actively supported the murder of millions more than he was ever able to?

Again, I stress prudence, but this is an issue I think everyone should have their nose rubbed in, espescially American citizens like myself.

 

[Pug]

Ghosty:

But at what point do we accept the fact that the civil government is not doing its job, and is, in fact, illegitimate because of that?

Excellent question. Since I presume most of us here are still paying our taxes, we still de facto think the U.S. government is legitimate.

If the government legalized rape and murder in the streets, would we stand by as our neighbors were ravished? Of course not!..Again, I stress prudence, but this is an issue I think everyone should have their nose rubbed in, espescially American citizens like myself.

No, and that is what is so horrible about abortion to me. I feel like it is a holocaust, a mass slaughter. People are dying, murdered left and right, yet everyone goes on like normal. It is like some awful nightmare. When I do think about it, I am overwhellmed.

One thing that must be considered is, say there were a revolution over abortion. Would the resultant society surely be more just? Perhaps people feel American society is mostly just and so should stay put.

 

[rfk]

Pug:

No, and that is what is so horrible about abortion to me. I feel like it is a holocaust, a mass slaughter. People are dying, murdered left and right, yet everyone goes on like normal. It is like some awful nightmare. When I do think about it, I am overwhellmed.

It is overwhelming. When I think of 45 million abortions – not to mention the millions and millions of abortions we’ve exported to the 3rd World – I cannot comprehend that the United States could be a party to such rampant evil. We are in the same moral class as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

 

[tuopaolo]

Here’s what Fr Heribert Jone in Moral Theology says. Fr Jone is an “approved author” and so his work is supposed to have some authority. This is no. 215 (p. 140):
II An unjust aggressor may be killed if the following conditions are verified:

1. The goods to be defended must be of great value.

Such goods are: life, integrity of one’s members, chastity, temporal goods of great value . . . One may defend the life and possessions of others even as he may defend his own.
So defending the life of an unborn child would meet this criterion.
2. The aggression must be actual and unjust . . .

a) Actual aggression is an imminent or practically present assault which cannot be evaded.

Self-defense is, therefore, allowed not only when actually covered by the bandit’s gun, but when the assailant reaches for his knife or revolver, sets his dog on one, summons his accomplice; not however, if there is question merely of threatened or anticipated attack . . .
I think is the key criterion to consider. It seems that killing an abortionist while he is just having breakfast at home would not be allowed since the aggression is not “imminent” or “practically present assault.” I guess it would be allowed if the abortionist were grabbing the tools with which he is about to kill a baby. We would probably never be in a circumstance where we are in the proximity of an abortionist who is grabbing his abortion tools.
b) Unjust aggression is had when the assault is at least materially unwarranted.

Therefore, one may also kill an insane or intoxicated person in self-defense.
So even if the abortionist doesn’t know that what he is doing is wrong, his action still meets this criterion.
3. The defense must be moderate, i.e., the assailant must not be injured more than is absolutely necessary to insure self-protection known as “moderamen inculpatae tutelae” or moderation of blameless defense.

. . . Killing is unlawful if the assailant can be rendered harmless by wounding him . . .
So if injuring or otherwise incapacitating an abortionist prevents the abortion one is trying to stop then one must limit one’s self to that means. One could argue that killing an abortionist stops not just one abortion but a whole lot of abortions, but then we run into criterion 2a which specifies that the assault must be “imminent” or “practically present.”
N.B. There is generally no obligation to defend one’s self when this is possible only by killing the assailant.

. . . There may be a duty of charity to defend others (wife, children, parents, relatives) against an unjust aggressor. Officers of the law, etc., may be obliged to defend others against unjust aggression by reason of their office.
It seems that if the person is your child then that may affect whether you have a duty of charity to defend him or her. It also seems that if the defense involves killing the assailant then generally those no obligation to kill him. I’m not sure why that is, but it makes sense to me. Unfortunately this book doesn’t explain much why things are so.

 

[rfk]

tuopaolo:

a) Actual aggression is an imminent or practically present assault which cannot be evaded.

Thanks for the thoughful quote.

It would seem to me that an full-time abortionist who has a history of killing X number of babies, day after day, week after week could fit the category of “practically present”.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

The thing you have to keep in mind is that people’s consciences may be affected by the fact that abortion is legal. That’s the root of the problem - our laws endorse abortion and provide police protection for it.

Greg