Passivism/ Martyrdom vs. duty to defend oneself

[Newbie2]

Split from the Concealed carry in Church? thread.

Without going into the legality or morality of carrying a firearm in church, I’d like to know how we draw the line of being a passivist in the face of injury or death or fighting to the last breath. I’d prefer not to discuss firearms in this thread, rather the moral theology of pretecting one’s self by whatever method and passivism/Martyrdom.

Is it a matter of whether or not one dies or is injured in defending or expressing one’s faith? Is it a matter of protecting one’s family/friends/even a stranger?

On one hand, it is said we have a duty to protect our own lives, on the other, the Martyrs of history went passively to their death without lifting a finger to defend themselves, and are venerated/hailed/respected for their Martyrdom.

I’m not sure where I stand on this issue…at one point in my life, I’d have not given a second thought to unhesitatingly killing someone in self-defense. Now I think I would hesistate. I guess one never really knows unless/until they find themselves in a life or death situation.

 

[Sir_Knight]

You seem to have an incorrect understanding of the concept of martyrdom. The church teaches us that we are to do all that we can to safeguard our lives. The earlier Christians didn’t just walk in to be eaten by the lions. They did all that they could to keep from being captured. It was only when they were caught and had no means of escape and the only way to save their life was to renounce Christ, that is when they accepted martyrdom

“Passivism” is not a Catholic concept because we are called upon to stand up to evil and not just stand idle’ly by and let it happen. I refer you to 1 Sam 15:10-23 where we read that God rejected Saul as King of the Jews for FAILING to use the sword in executing the King of Amalek – a very clear example where being a pacifist was not pleasing to God … and let’s not forget that Jesus was always in perfect agreement with His heavenly Father.

 

[Newbie2]

You seem to have an incorrect understanding of the concept of martyrdom. The church teaches us that we are to do all that we can to safeguard our lives. The earlier Christians didn’t just walk in to be eaten by the lions. They did all that they could to keep from being captured. It was only when they were caught and had no means of escape and the only way to save their life was to renounce Christ, that is when they accepted martyrdom

“Passivism” is not a Catholic concept because we are called upon to stand up to evil and not just stand idle’ly by and let it happen. I refer you to 1 Sam 15:10-23 where we read that God rejected Saul as King of the Jews for FAILING to use the sword in executing the King of Amalek – a very clear example where being a pacifist was not pleasing to God … and let’s not forget that Jesus was always in perfect agreement with His heavenly Father.

If the Church teaches that we “do all we can to safeguard our lives”, does that include, perhaps, lying about renouncing our faith to protect (their, the Martyrs in Rome) lives? If not, then there are exceptions, no?

I’m not sure it’s accurate to suggest that (all) the Early Christians did all they could to keep from being captured. They could have moved to a remote area of the Empire. I think some thought Martyrdom was noble.

I would point out that Christ told Peter to put away his sword after he cut off the ear of Malchus. Passivism? Did he want Peter to do all he could to preserve Christ’s life?

So if Jesus was always in perfect agreement with the Father, your example and mine don’t square.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Jesus MAIN purpose for coming to earth was to die for our sins. If He would have allowed Peter to “save” Him, that “purpose” would not have been accomplished. So using Jesus as an example in this case is not an apples to apples comparison.

However, let’s look at what Jesus said earlier. He commanded His followers to purchase swords for themselves EVEN IF they had to sell their coats to do so. Let’s remember that Jesus was a very strong supporter of the poor. He was constantly instructing people to give to and help the poor. Yet despite that, He tells His followers to sell their coats (if they have to) and not give it to the poor but to buy a sword for themselves if they did not have one – clearly showing that owning a sword was more important that giving that money to the poor.

A sword has only ONE purpose – to be used as a weapon … either offensively or defensively. If Jesus told people to buy a weapon, He clearly intended them to USE it AS a weapon if the situation required it. To instruct someone to buy a weapon and NOT use it would have been extremely wasteful and that money would have been better served if given to the poor.

 

[pnewton]

Let’s go to the book:

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

and

2311

Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way

Surely one can make the decision to renounce one’s own life in an act of public charity to another. After all, this is what Jesus did. However, such a one should never place themselves in the role of defense of another. If they do, they have a grave duty to defend the one to whom this obligation is due, even to the point of taking someone’s life.

Whether we consider the first choice martyrdom or not is largely irrelevant. In the end, God alone will judge.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Let’s read more of the book …

**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.” 65
**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.[ 66](http://www.kofc.org/un/catechism/getnote.action?par=2264&fnote=66) **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.

 

[pnewton]

Let’s read more of the book …

But no where in here does it say that one has a duty to defend oneself, only the *right *to do so. The two are very different matters. The only duty falls upon one who holds authority who has the duty to defend others. I do not think anyone questions legitimate self-defense, but it is not an obligation. One can eschew all violence even at the expense of one’s life.

 

[Sir_Knight]

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.

As a father and husband, I am responsible for the lives of my family. Taking it further, are we not our brother’s keeper? Doesn’t Christian charity call upon us to come to the defense of those who can not or are not able to defend themselves?

And if we have a duty to defend others, then don’t we have the same duty to defend ourselves since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s?

 

[chain]

I believe that self defense is a moral obligation. I believed this before I was a husband and a father - mostly because I felt it was an obligation to do God’s will, which would be difficult if I was no longer breathing. Others may feel it is God’s will to simply surrender to another’s will…

Likewise I feel that if I was given the ability to defend myself, refusing to do so and expecting a favorable outcome would be putting God to the test.

I also feel it is my moral duty to teach those who I am responsible to protect, to protect themselves. And fwiw, I also volunteer teaching others in my community - for while I might not be directly responsible for them, everyone’s safety in a community is linked together.

 

[pnewton]

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.

Let us bold elsewhere.

*2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. *
**
No one has suggested that it can not be a grave duty in many situations. However, to answer you questions, the rest of the catechism which allows for a nonviolent philosphy coupled with the fact that this section is qualified as a possibility only means that this is no absolute. We should grant others the freedom of conscience we would want them to grant us, since the Church has acknowledged both sides to this.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Let us bold elsewhere.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.

No one has suggested that it can not be a grave duty in many situations. However, to answer you questions, the rest of the catechism which allows for a nonviolent philosphy coupled with the fact that this section is qualified as a possibility only means that this is no absolute. We should grant others the freedom of conscience we would want them to grant us, since the Church has acknowledged both sides to this.

The Church teaches that this is a grave duty. Failure to perform a grave duty is a grave sin of omission and if done with knowledge, would be a mortal sin.

How is the determination made whether the person failed to perform this grave duty or merely took a nonviolent approach?

If left to the individual, then everyone could convince themselves that they are excused from this grave duty because they are taking the nonviolent approach.

A grave duty can not be so easily dismissed.

 

[Newbie2]

The Church teaches that this is a grave duty. Failure to perform a grave duty is a grave sin of omission and if done with knowledge, would be a mortal sin.

How is the determination made whether the person failed to perform this grave duty or merely took a nonviolent approach?

If left to the individual, then everyone could convince themselves that they are excused from this grave duty because they are taking the nonviolent approach.

A grave duty can not be so easily dismissed.

So, lemme get this straight. A guy points a gun at you, and you are pointing a gun at him. It’s your duty to shoot him under penalty of mortal sin?

 

[Sir_Knight]

If someone is pointing a gun at you and you have done nothing to provoke the situation (you haven’t broken into his house, etc.), then the logical conclusion is that he intends to do you harm. In which case, you not only have a right but a grave duty to protect yourself (CCC2265).

Are there consequences in our failure to perform that which is required of us? Let’s look at our “duty” to go to Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of obligations. The Church teaches that we have a grave duty to attend Mass and failure to do so without just reason is a grave sin of omission.

Therefore it stands to reason that if we fail to perform the grave duty of protecting ourselves, we would also be guilty of a grave sin of omission.

 

[lobster]

So, lemme get this straight. A guy points a gun at you, and you are pointing a gun at him. It’s your duty to shoot him under penalty of mortal sin?

If someone is pointing a gun at you and you have done nothing to provoke the situation (you haven’t broken into his house, etc.), then the logical conclusion is that he intends to do you harm. In which case, you not only have a right but a grave duty to protect yourself (CCC2265).

And so would you consider a “non-violent” attempt at fleeing the situation even if one is unsuccessful to be a mortal sin of omission, rather saying one was grave duty bound to take the violent approach and shoot and kill the attacker?

 

[Newbie2]

If someone is pointing a gun at you and you have done nothing to provoke the situation (you haven’t broken into his house, etc.), then the logical conclusion is that he intends to do you harm. In which case, you not only have a right but a grave duty to protect yourself (CCC2265).

Perhaps he only intends to rob you. Perhaps the gun isn’t loaded. Also logical possibilities, no?

Are there consequences in our failure to perform that which is required of us? Let’s look at our “duty” to go to Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of obligations. The Church teaches that we have a grave duty to attend Mass and failure to do so without just reason is a grave sin of omission.

Therefore it stands to reason that if we fail to perform the grave duty of protecting ourselves, we would also be guilty of a grave sin of omission.

So it’s a grave duty to shoot the other person? While we don’t know his or her intent, suppose they do mean no harm and are just out to rob you?

You didn’t answer my question. Are you saying that if "a guy points a gun at you, and you are pointing a gun at him. It’s your duty to shoot him under penalty of mortal sin? "

And so would you consider a “non-violent” attempt at fleeing the situation even if one is unsuccessful to be a mortal sin of omission, rather saying one was grave duty bound to take the violent approach and shoot and kill the attacker?

Yes, would you?

Again, while one cannot know another’s intent for certain. a guy is robbing you at gunpoint. What is the better outcome:

1. You pull out your gun, and one or both of you gets shot and killed, or at least this is the likely outcome.
2. You hand over your wallet and nobody gets hurt.

Seems like from your previous answers, you claim that it’s a duty to the point of mortal sin of omission to do #1. Unless I misunderstand.

 

[lobster]

Yes, would you?

Again, while one cannot know another’s intent for certain. a guy is robbing you at gunpoint. What is the better outcome:

1. You pull out your gun, and one or both of you gets shot and killed, or at least this is the likely outcome.
2. You hand over your wallet and nobody gets hurt.

Seems like from your previous answers, you claim that it’s a duty to the point of mortal sin of omission to do #1. Unless I misunderstand.

I was questioning the idea that it is a mortal sin to flee the situation in a non-violent manner as I do not believe it is. I also believe that to interpret the CCC paragraph as meaning one has a grave duty to act in a violent manner with deadly force lest he commit mortal sin is a ‘grave’ misterpretation of the passage.

 

[Newbie2]

I was questioning the idea that it is a mortal sin to flee the situation in a non-violent manner as I do not believe it is. I also believe that to interpret the CCC paragraph as meaning one has a grave duty to act in a violent manner with deadly force lest he commit mortal sin is a ‘grave’ misterpretation of the passage.

I agree.

 

[Sir_Knight]

And so would you consider a “non-violent” attempt at fleeing the situation even if one is unsuccessful to be a mortal sin of omission, rather saying one was grave duty bound to take the violent approach and shoot and kill the attacker?

Nobody ever said anything about “killing” the person but merely stopping him. Doesn’t the Church teach us to OPPOSE evil when ever we can? Does one OPPOSE something by running away from it or by confronting it?

When Jesus saw the evil that was being done in the temple, did He take a “non-violent” approach or did He overturn tables and physically throw those doing the evil out of the temple?

 

[Sir_Knight]

So it’s a grave duty to shoot the other person?

It is a grave duty to stop the evil that the other person is doing if we have the apportunity and ability to do so.

While we don’t know his or her intent, suppose they do mean no harm and are just out to rob you?

If they mean you no harm, then they would not have threatened you with a deadly weapon. What is the purpose of their weapon if not to use harm or threat of harm to perform an evil act?

You didn’t answer my question. Are you saying that if "a guy points a gun at you, and you are pointing a gun at him. It’s your duty to shoot him under penalty of mortal sin? "

If someone is pointing a gun at you and you have done nothing to provoke the situation, then the logical conclusion is that he intends to do you harm and if you can stop him, you SHOULD because Church teaching states that you have a DUTY to do so. Given the fact that you’re life is in potential danger, you have a GRAVE duty to do so. What is the consequence in failing to perform a GRAVE duty? It is a GRAVE sin!

Again, while one cannot know another’s intent for certain. a guy is robbing you at gunpoint.

No, none of us can know for certain what another person’s intent MAY be but we can make REASONABLE judgements based upon their actions. If they threaten us with violence, we can reasonably conclude that they indent to cause us violence.

What is the better outcome:

1. You pull out your gun, and one or both of you gets shot and killed, or at least this is the likely outcome.
2. You hand over your wallet and nobody gets hurt.

Or, you can hand him you wallet and he may not want you to be able to ID him to the police and he may kill you anyway. And he may go off and rob & kill others because of your FAILURE to stop him when you had the opportunity to do so. Not only would your failure cost you your own life but perhaps the lives of others who might not have the opportunity and/or ability when confronted by him.

Seems like from your previous answers, you claim that it’s a duty to the point of mortal sin of omission to do #1. Unless I misunderstand.

Your failure to stop him if you have the ability and opportuntity to do so is a failure to oppose evil and is a sin of omission. If your life is at risk, then it involves grave matter and failure to perform that duty would be a grave sin of omission.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I was questioning the idea that it is a mortal sin to flee the situation in a non-violent manner as I do not believe it is. I also believe that to interpret the CCC paragraph as meaning one has a grave duty to act in a violent manner with deadly force lest he commit mortal sin is a ‘grave’ misterpretation of the passage.

• *]Failure to perform a duty required of us is a sin of omission.
  
  *]If it involves grave matter, then it is a grave sin of omission.
  
  *]The Church calls upon us to oppose evil whenever we can.
  
  *]One does not OPPOSE evil by fleeing from it but by confronting it.
  
  *]Thus, failing to stop an evil, if we have the opportunity and ability to do so, is a failure to perform the duty required of us – a sin of omission.
  
  … please explain how and at what point this “grave misrepresentation” was made so that we can all learn from it. Thank you.