Morality of lethal force in self-defense

  • Thread starter Thread starter SpaghettiCowboy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SpaghettiCowboy

Guest
I’ve recently become somewhat intrigued with this topic, but I haven’t yet done any extensive reading or research.

The catechism is pretty clear, if perhaps a bit brief: https://www.catholic.com/qa/may-i-use-defensive-lethal-force The Church considers it lawful to use lethal force in self-defense, assuming that the use of lethal force is proportionate to the potential threat.

Let’s suppose I am a genuinely devout Catholic, as reasonably confident in my salvation as a Catholic may be. My life is under imminent threat from some assailant. Wouldn’t it be morally “better” to allow the assailant to succeed in killing me, since if I kill him-- in the act of his committing a mortal sin-- I am denying him at least the chance to repent, receive forgiveness, and save his own soul?
 
In the cases I have heard of where someone has done that, it is considered supernatural virtue.

So a person is permitted to use self-defense measures bit not necessarily obligated to.
 
It is better, see CCC 2306. Also in a V2 document the Church praises those who reject violence, even in self-defense. It is an optional virtue but it is better and morally “superior.” Similar to how celibacy is better than marriage, so also absolute pacifism in ones life is better than violence. Not obligatory, but better.
 
Last edited:
I don’t believe it is morally justified to allow yourself to be killed. And just because you are unwilling to defend yourself does not mean that your killer would repent of the act.
 
SpaghettiCowboy said:
Wouldn’t it be morally “better” to allow the assailant to succeed in killing me, since if I kill him-- in the act of his committing a mortal sin-- I am denying him at least the chance to repent, receive forgiveness, and save his own soul?
Click to expand...
You’re not a worse person for fighting for your life; the assailant made his own choice. Apart from that, unless his death is instantaneous, the assailant might still repent in his last moments.
 
Well many factor do play on that scenario.
Are you single, without family, wife, kids, etc.
If you have a wife and kids do you think you have the responsibility of staying alive to keep providing for them?
Or parents who depend from you.
The Commandment that is always invoked is “Thou shall not kill”.
But it is actually a bad translation.
The proper words are “Thou shall not murder”
There is big difference. Kill is taking a life but it is not taking into account the moral aspect. In fact you can kill a rabbit and then eat it.

That is not sinful, you are providing food, a good thing.

Murder on the other hand is taking an innocent life.
This is sinful. Only GOD can take an innocent life since HE is the creator of all. Hope this helps.

Peace!
 
2306 doesn’t say that a person should not defend himself:
[2306] Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death.104
Click to expand...
It seems to me that “make use of those means of defense available to the weakest” allows a person to defend himself.

I think that the question is somewhat of a false dichotomy - either I must allow myself to be killed or I must kill my attacker. This leaves out the possibilities of escaping or disabling your attacker.
 
It isn’t that you cant defend yourself, it is that those who choose not to “bear witness to evangelical charity” and “witness to the gravity of violence.”

It’s quoting the Pastoral Constitution of V2 paragraph 78:
“Motivated by this same spirit, we cannot fail to praise those who renounce the use of violence in the vindication of their rights and who resort to methods of defense which are otherwise available to weaker parties too, provided this can be done without injury to the rights and duties of others or of the community itself.”
Click to expand...
They are praising those who defend themselves but without violence, which often means just dying in a situation, as they would not even punch a person. This document from the USCCB goes over the same thing, see section 4 “the value of non-violence”: https://www.usccb.org/upload/challenge-peace-gods-promise-our-response-1983.pdf
  1. Moved by the example of Jesus’ life and by his teaching, some Christians have from the earliest days of the Church committed themselves to a nonviolent lifestyle. [45] Some understood the gospel of Jesus to prohibit all killing. Some affirmed the use of prayer and other spiritual methods as means of responding to enmity and hostility.
  2. Writing in the third century, St. Cyprian of Carthage struck a similar note when he indicated that the Christians of his day did not fight against their enemies. He himself regarded their conduct as proper: They do not even fight against those who are attacking since it is not granted to the innocent to kill even the aggressor, but promptly to deliver up their souls and blood that, since so much malice and cruelty are rampant in the world, they may more quickly withdraw from the malicious and the cruel.
  3. The vision of Christian non-violence is not passive about injustice and the defense of the rights of others; it rather affirms and exemplifies what it means to resist injustice through non-violent methods.
  4. Both find their roots in the Christian theological tradition; each contributes to the full moral vision we need in pursuit of a human peace. We believe the two perspectives support and complement one another, each preserving the other from distortion. Finally, in an age of technological warfare, analysis from the viewpoint of non-violence and analysis from the viewpoint of the just-war teaching often converge and agree in their opposition to methods of warfare which are in fact indistinguishable from total warfare.
Pacifists have no problem defending themselves, they just reject violence in it. This is not a command, but the Church praises and allows for people who feel it on their conscience to reject all violence, and defend themselves without it (which very often if you see this history of Christian pacifism, means just dying a violent death at the hands of aggresors. See especially the Anabaptist movement at times of their history, which the Bishops use as an example in the last linked document for what this non-violence means).
 
Sorry, I just see a difference between being persecuted and being a doormat.
 
SpaghettiCowboy said:
Wouldn’t it be morally “better” to allow the assailant to succeed in killing me, since if I kill him-- in the act of his committing a mortal sin-- I am denying him at least the chance to repent, receive forgiveness, and save his own soul?
Click to expand...
Mark 12:34 And when Jesus saw that [he] answered with understanding, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.”
Click to expand...
Great topic and great discussion!

The morality of this scenario is even clearer if we assume that the aggressor is someone you love, for example, a son or daughter.

A parent in this awful scenario may well choose to let the son or daughter live, in the hope that the child (or young adult child) would have the chance to repent, live well, and be saved. It would be an act of love and a tremendous witness to faith.

We are supposed to love our enemies, right? Can we love our enemy like that?
 
Last edited:
You’ve moved the goalposts. The original question was about self defense (and the false dichotomy that it is kill or be killed). You are adding the element of self sacrifice to it, which is another subject all together (and still suffers from the false dichotomy). I do not believe that it is morally correct to simply let a person kill you because you hope that he will repent. If you stop him, he will not have to repent of killing you because he didn’t.
 
I don’t dispute what you’re saying. You position is prudent and justifiable.

There are plenty of other threads that say kill the aggressor and let God sort it out. This one is different and I’m enjoying it. Why don’t you let down your guard – we’re all friendly here – and work with us on this hypothetical examination of radical Christian love?
 
Beryllos said:
Why don’t you let down your guard – we’re all friendly here – and work with us on this hypothetical examination of radical Christian love?
Click to expand...
How is it love to allow another to sin? To allow a person to kill you is allowing him to commit a mortal sin (no pun intended).
 
MikeInVA said:
How is it love…
Click to expand...
Need you ask? The love is in saving a life. The aggressor is a human being, made in the image and likeness of God, loved by God. If he repents, there will be rejoicing in heaven (Luke 15:7, 15:10).

Of course it’s not a sure thing that my killer will repent. It’s an act of faith, hope, and love.

Also it seems likely that a mortal sin has already been committed before the killing. We may assume that the aggressor is in mortal need of repentance before he pulls the trigger.

I say give him a chance.
 
Last edited:
Beryllos said:
The love is in saving a life.
Click to expand...
Who’s life? You are losing your life.
Beryllos said:
Also it seems likely that a mortal sin has already been committed before the killing. We may assume that the aggressor is in mortal need of repentance before he pulls the trigger.
Click to expand...
No. If the killer decided at the last moment not to kill then he did not commit a sin.
 
Great dialogue. @MikeInVA, We’ve each put forth our position. I’m going to take a break.
 
Last edited:
MikeInVA said:
40.png
Beryllos:
Why don’t you let down your guard – we’re all friendly here – and work with us on this hypothetical examination of radical Christian love?
Click to expand...
How is it love to allow another to sin? To allow a person to kill you is allowing him to commit a mortal sin (no pun intended).
Click to expand...
That’s one of the mysteries isn’t it? God clearly allows us to sin and we know it is out of love.
 
Inquiry said:
God clearly allows us to sin and we know it is out of love.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you’ve got it wrong. God gave us free choice, and will hold us accountable for our choices in our day of judgement.
 
MikeInVA said:
And just because you are unwilling to defend yourself does not mean that your killer would repent of the act.
Click to expand...
Or that he would stop at killing you. If you use force to stop him, you may prevent multiple other people from being victimized.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top