Passivism/ Martyrdom vs. duty to defend oneself

[Sir_Knight]

I believe it is just your application that has been questioned, not God. And from Michelle Arnold:

I do not think anyone is questioning this. There is a difference between “permissible” and “mandatory”.

The question was asked of her if Jesus was a pacifist and her reply clearly indicated that He was not. He wasn’t a Rambo but neither was He a punching bag either. Nor does He expect us to be a Rambo or a punching bag.

And as far as it being “mandatory” – we’ve been over this time & time again. The CCC instructs us that we have a GRAVE duty to protect ourselves. Failure to perform a grave duty is a grave sin of omission.

It has been argued that this right we have can be, not “must be”, “shall be” or even “is”, a grave duty but when I asked under what circumstances is it not a grave duty and who makes that determination? When is a person guilty of failing to perfom this duty and when is a person not guilty? No answers were supplied.

If a person is never guilty of not performing this grave duty, then the duty does not exist if one can never be guilty of not performing it. Again, under what circumstances is it not a grave duty and who makes that determination?

 

[pnewton]

If a person is never guilty of not performing this grave duty, then the duty does not exist if one can never be guilty of not performing it. Again, under what circumstances is it not a grave duty and who makes that determination?

The fact that circumstances exist is evident in the Catechism. One example were the early Christian martyrs who chose to be arrested and killed withour resistance. Sts. Maximillian Kolbe, St. Lawrence, the 188 Japanese martyrs of Nagasaki, also come to mind a little search will find a plethora of folks that refused to fight back and embraced death as a witness to their Faith, as did Jesus.

Likewise, there are many that simply must defend themselves and others: police, soldiers, guards, all must be true to their oath and have a grave duty for the lives of others. My opinion is that this also extends to parents, although that is just my opinion.

 

[Sir_Knight]

The fact that circumstances exist is evident in the Catechism. One example were the early Christian martyrs who chose to be arrested and killed withour resistance. Sts. Maximillian Kolbe, St. Lawrence, the 188 Japanese martyrs of Nagasaki, also come to mind a little search will find a plethora of folks that refused to fight back and embraced death as a witness to their Faith, as did Jesus.

Your examples are flawed. St. Maximillian Kolbe gave up his life for another prisoner when there was no other option. The same with the early Christian martyrs. They did NOT chose to be arrested and killed. They hid in catacomes. They said Mass in graveyards using candles. They did everything they could to preserve their lives. It was only when they were captured and had no means of escape, did they choose to give up their lives rather than deny Our Lord since Jesus said that he who acknowledges Jesus before man, Jesus will acknowledge before the Father and he who denies our Lord before man, Jesus will deny him before His Father.

Recall that when Paul was in prison and the angel released him from his chains, Paul did choose to remain behind and be put to death. He did everything to preserve his life.

Likewise, there are many that simply must defend themselves and others: police, soldiers, guards, all must be true to their oath and have a grave duty for the lives of others. My opinion is that this also extends to parents, although that is just my opinion.

Yes, parents have a DUTY to defend their children AND the CCC says that we have a GREATER duty to take care of ourselves than of others. Thus, if we are duty bound to protect our children, aren’t we under an even greater duty to protect ourselves?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Who’s making light?

Yours is an interesting interpretation. I don’t buy it, but perhaps you could explain:

Maybe you don’t buy it but Apologists on this board (who are very versed in our faith via study of scripture and church teaching) agree that Jesus was not a pacifist. If Jesus was not a pacifist, what makes you think that He would want His followers to be ESPECIALLY when He commanded them to buy a sword? A sword has only one purpose and that is to be used as a weapon. If Jesus did not intend them to use it as a weapon then that would have been extremely wasteful to purchase something that was never going to be used ESPECIALLY in light of our Lord’s strong support of the poor. The money used on a sword, if it was not to be used, could have been better spent on the poor.

Why did Jesus say, in Luke 22:38, that two swords were enough? (for 11 disciples?)

Two swords among 12 able-bodied men, who were also most likely equipped with walking staffs which could also be used as weapons to defend, would have been enough for them to defend themselves against a small band or robbers or a wild animal that they would likely encounter on the backroads between villages.

Why did Jesus tell Peter to put away his sword after he cut off Malchus’ ear?

Because Jesus came into this world to die for our sins and Peter’s actions, if allowed to continue, would have prevented that from happening.

Jesus lived with these men for three years. He knew that Peter carried a sword. Why did He never rebuke Peter for doing so when He rebuked him for other things that He felt were wrong. If the sword was wrong to be used, why didn’t our Lord tell Peter to sell the sword and give the money to to poor? Maybe because Jesus believed in self defense and in having the means by which to ensure that self defense.

Does it mean that we should all go out and buy guns? Under penalty of sin?

What do you think?

1. *]We have a GRAVE duty to protect ourselves and others.
   
   *]Failure to perform a grave duty is a grave sin of omission.
   
   *]A grave duty needs to be performed with the BEST means POSSIBLE. Not second or third best but the BEST.
   
   *]The best means of personal self defense in most cases is with a gun.
   … Draw your own conclusion.

 

[Newbie2]

My conclusion is that you’re very mistaken if you think it’s a mortal sin to not purchase and carry a firearm, as this is supported nowhere in Catholic theology. Fortunately, not many seem to be buying this bizarre notion.

I really do feel sorry for you if you live in constant fear of losing your life.

Not much else to say…

 

[pnewton]

Your examples are flawed.

** That** is why I will post no more examples for you and was reluctant to do so to begin with. I knew it was a mistake and I knew what your answer would be.

I just encourage all here to ignore people who proport to speak for the Church and lay greater burdens of sin upon their fellow Christians than the Church does. This problem hasn’t changed since the days Christ walkrd Judea.

 

[Sir_Knight]

** That** is why I will post no more examples for you and was reluctant to do so to begin with. I knew it was a mistake and I knew what your answer would be.

I just encourage all here to ignore people who proport to speak for the Church and lay greater burdens of sin upon their fellow Christians than the Church does. This problem hasn’t changed since the days Christ walkrd Judea.

If my conclusions are incorrect, provide the evidence. Show WHERE the error is and WHY. Otherwise do not encourage people to sin by not performing the duties that the Church expects and requires of them.

 

[Sir_Knight]

My conclusion is that you’re very mistaken if you think it’s a mortal sin to not purchase and carry a firearm, as this is supported nowhere in Catholic theology. Fortunately, not many seem to be buying this bizarre notion.

Show me where the error is …

1. 
   *]We have a GRAVE duty to protect ourselves and others.
   *]Failure to perform a grave duty is a grave sin of omission.
   *]A grave duty needs to be performed with the BEST means POSSIBLE. Not second or third best but the BEST.
   *]The best means of personal self defense in most cases is with a gun.
   
   … I was kind enough to number the steps for you.
   

   I really do feel sorry for you if you live in constant fear of losing your life.

   It isn’t fear of losing my life but the desire to not displease our Lord by failing to perform the duties that His Church teaches that we have.
   

   Not much else to say…

   +1.

 

[melensdad]

I’m very late to this thread (feel like I missed the invitation to the party) but it strikes me as very odd what some people are writing about equating passivism and martyyrdom here.

While it is clear that we should not be violent in our natures, and while it is clear that martyrdom may lead to salvation, I see no logical connection to handing ourselves over to the slaughter by a CRIMINAL.

Martyrdom is something reserved for religious persecution. Getting killed by an attacker does not make anyone a martyr. It is only when we are murdered for not renouncing our religion under a religious persecution that we attain the status of martyr.

But then there is passivism and that is not something that I see in our Gospels, in fact it appears that our Lord was anything but a passive person. He stirred the pot and riled the authorities in many ways. He made people uncomfortable in their actions and deeds with his words and works. That is not passive.

Now as to the duties that Sir Knight speaks of, those are, in our Catechism, described as grave duties. I believe slightly differently than Sir Knight, but generally along the same lines. We have an obligation to protect innocent life. We can do this in many ways, we can carry a gun to protect our families, we can structure our lives in such away as to remain as far from harm as possible, we can do a lot of things. But each positive action to remain safe should be reasoned and considered. On the other hand, we should not walk around in ignorance and presume we are safe, nor do I see any gospel that speaks of allowing the unjust to take our lives. To embrace our enemy does not mean that we allow a criminal to beat us to death and steal our goods, it means we forgive them for their evil deeds.

But in no way do we look at martyrdom and connect it to simple criminal/violent acts in society. That is not martyrdom.

 

[pnewton]

Otherwise do not encourage people to sin by not performing the duties that the Church expects and requires of them.

The Church doesn’t, you do. The Church allows for pacivism as an option. I do not encourage people to sin. You are adding an extra burden of sin.

Now, have we both begged the question enough? I too can talk in circles. I think the logical disconnect in your belief is perfectly clear for anyone with a basic understanding of English.

 

[pnewton]

Show me where the error is …

1. 
   *]We have a GRAVE duty to protect ourselves and others.
   *]Failure to perform a grave duty is a grave sin of omission.
   *]A grave duty needs to be performed with the BEST means POSSIBLE. Not second or third best but the BEST.
   *]The best means of personal self defense in most cases is with a gun.

1. 
   Easy
   1. Not true. The Church no where has said this.
   2. An assumption not based in fact. You gave one example (Mass attendance) but a general axiom can not be drawn from one example it is true.
   3. True
   4. An opinion.

 

[pnewton]

I’m very late to this thread (feel like I missed the invitation to the party) but it strikes me as very odd what some people are writing about equating passivism and martyyrdom here.

Let me help you play catch up. I do not disagree one iota with anything you have said. It is very sound. The issue here is that Sir Knight is adamently insistent that anyone who does not agree with him and act as he does is committing mortal sin. I have a serious problem with this huge expansion and condemnation of all who seek peace even at the expense of one’s life.

And I have problem resorted to violence more than anyone here to defend others. In many situations, I do have a grave duty to defend myself and others. Yet I do not go armed.

 

[Sir_Knight]

The Church doesn’t, you do.

The CHURCH does via OFFICIAL Church teaching as found in the CCC.

The Church allows for pacivism as an option.

If so, then under what conditions does a person FAIL in their grave duty to protect themselves? How is that determination made?

I do not encourage people to sin.

Yes you do by telling them to ignore the responsibility that the CCC clearly says that we have,

You are adding an extra burden of sin.

What else is too much of a burden? Sleeping in once in a while instead of going to Mass EVERY Sunday under penality of mortal sin? The fact of the matter is the Church teaches that we have certain duties & responsibilities and failure to perform those duties & responsibilities is sinful.

Now, have we both begged the question enough? I too can talk in circles. I think the logical disconnect in your belief is perfectly clear for anyone with a basic understanding of English.

Right back at ya.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Easy

1. Not true. The Church no where has said this.

Guess you haven’t been paying attention to what has been said in this thread. See CCC2265 --* “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.”* Additionally, in CCC2264 we see – “one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s”

1. An assumption not based in fact. You gave one example (Mass attendance) but a general axiom can not be drawn from one example it is true.

Why would it be sinful to fail to perform one duty and not sinful to perform another duty? If there is no consequence to not performing a duty, then the duty is not binding and does not exist but it DOES exist, therefore there has to be consequences to not performing it. The consequence is sin.

1. An opinion.

An opinion supported by fact. Soldiers, police officers, etc.; whose job it is to get into harms way rely on a firearms as their main means of personal self defense. If a firearm is not the best possible means of personal self defense, then why do some many folks rely on it?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Let me help you play catch up. I do not disagree one iota with anything you have said. It is very sound. The issue here is that Sir Knight is adamently insistent that anyone who does not agree with him and act as he does is committing mortal sin.

And you keep twisting around what I say in an attempt to create a strawman arguement which you can attack in order to prove your incorrect point. Nowere have I said that people would be committing a MORTAL sin. I said that they would be committing a GRAVE sin. Only if it was done with complete knowledge would it then be a MORTAL sin and that depends on the individual and the circumstances involved which I do not presume to judge and neither does the CCC.

I have a serious problem with this huge expansion and condemnation of all who seek peace even at the expense of one’s life.

Then your problem is with Church teaching.

And I have problem resorted to violence more than anyone here to defend others. In many situations, I do have a grave duty to defend myself and others. Yet I do not go armed.

Here is my reply to that …

We can do this in many ways, we can carry a gun to protect our families, we can structure our lives in such away as to remain as far from harm as possible, we can do a lot of things. But each positive action to remain safe should be reasoned and considered.

… a duty needs to be both prepared for and executed with the best means possible – I believe that I’ve said this over and over again.

 

[pnewton]

Guess you haven’t been paying attention to what has been said in this thread. See CCC2265 --* “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.”* Additionally, in CCC2264 we see – “one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s”

This is called proof-textings. One can not glue two teachings together and make a third, expecially one that contradicts other teaching.

Then your problem is with Church teaching

Can we start another circle of begging thei question?

For those that don’t get this, since we are talking about what Church teaching is, this statement is hilariously circular.

And you keep twisting around what I say in an attempt to create a strawman arguement which you can attack in order to prove your incorrect point.Nowere have I said that people would be committing a MORTAL sin. I said that they would be committing a GRAVE sin.

This was not intentional. I will use your term next time.

 

[Sir_Knight]

This is called proof-textings. One can not glue two teachings together and make a third, expecially one that contradicts other teaching. .

When nationally famous Apologist John Salza does this …

*Matt. 12:32 – Jesus says, “And anyone who says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but no one who speaks against the Holy Spirit will be forgiven either in this world or in the next.” Jesus thus clearly provides that there is forgiveness after death. The phrase “in the next” (from the Greek “en to mellonti”) generally refers to the afterlife (see, for example, Mark 10.30; Luke 18.30; 20.34-35; Eph. 1.21 for similar language). Forgiveness is not necessary in heaven, and there is no forgiveness in hell. This proves that there is another state after death, and the Church for 2,000 years has called this state purgatory.
*

… is he “proof-textings”? The point is CCC2264 clearly says that we do – “one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s”. Do we or do we not have a grave duty to protect others? CCC2265 says that we do – “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.” That is NOT creating a new teaching but forming a logical conclusion based on EXISTING teaching just as John Salza established the proof for purgatory from what was said.

As was said earlier, we have a duty to protect innocent life and that INCLUDES our own.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Editted to add:
Incorrect Proof-texting would be …

A man dissatisfied with his life decided to consult the Bible for guidance. Closing his eyes, he flipped the book open and pointed to a spot on the page. Opening his eyes, he read the verse under his finger. It read, “Then Judas went away and hanged himself” (Matthew 27:5b) Closing his eyes again, the man randomly selected another verse. This one read, “Jesus told him, ‘Go and do likewise.’” (Luke 10:37b)

… I am pulling references from the SAME passage which deals with the SAME subject matter. Jesus often used a proof text. Once was when he was being tempted of the devil in the wilderness. Satan misapplied Scripture to coax Jesus to sin. The devil was guilty of the “silly game of scissors and paste,” or wresting the Scriptures. Jesus answered Satan with the correct use of Scripture.

Another time Christ made use of proof-texting was in his answer to the Pharisees on the question of marriage, divorce and remarriage. “Have ye not read,” said Jesus. Other instances of the Lord proof-texting include Matthew 13:14-15; Mark 12:35-36; Luke 4:16-21; Luke 6:1-5; Luke 24:27 and John 7:37-38.

 

[pnewton]

This is the correct order. The first deals with “a man”. The second, “the defense of the common good.” No need to embelish or add to this conclusions which the Church does not.

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.
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.

 

[Sir_Knight]

2264 tells us that we are to take greater care of ourselves than others. 2265 says that we not only have a right but a grave duty for those that are responsible for the lives other others BUT if we are to take greater care of ourselves than of others, than it stands to reason that we have a duty to protect ourselves as well.

If you need to be spoon-fed that, then I don’t know what to say.

And, if what you say is true, it would bring into question why Jesus instructed His followers to purchase weapons.