Passivism/ Martyrdom vs. duty to defend oneself

[lobster]

Failure to perform a duty required of us is a sin of omission.

Since there is no requirement and especially no duty to kill when other means of allaying the situation are available. For example, fleeing the situation is a possibility. Doing nothing and simply letting the attacker kill you would be wrong. That is where you are confused.

If it involves grave matter, then it is a grave sin of omission.

You have not established that the Church requires one to kill their attacker.

The Church calls upon us to oppose evil whenever we can.

True.

One does not OPPOSE evil by fleeing from it but by confronting it.

Not true.

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.

By fleeing the situation, the evil is prevented from taking place. Therefore no sin of omission. If you are arguing that you must stop the evil intention of the attacker, that is impossible.

 

[lobster]

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.

Fleeing the situation or some other non-violent manner is also effective in stopping the evil from happening, just as would be talking the attacker down.

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.

Your duty is to not simply do nothing and let him shoot you. The Church nowhere specifies or makes obligatory the use of violent force to stop the action, nor that the action even be stopped. Only that the attempt is made, which includes effective means such as fleeing the situation non-violently.

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!

You are making up sins. Do you tell your kids if they are being attacked to stand up to their attacker and fight back instead of fleeing or else if they try and run and are shot dead they are going to hell?

 

[pnewton]

The Church teaches that this is a grave duty.

No, no, and no. Read it again, this time without changing the words. The Church says it can be a grave duty. If you contradict this again, I will not correct it and just leave it for all who understand English to see your error.

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?

I do not think the example of Jesus applies, which is good. After all Jesus did not come to clean the temple, but to die. He opposed evil by refusing to resist with force and was led like a lamb to the slaughter.

The second time around things will be different.

If we take the example of Jesus, sometimes evil is opposed forcefully, sometimes not.

 

[lizaanne]

After all Jesus did not come to clean the temple, but to die.

Of course He came to clean the temple! Everything He did was part of the divine plan. To say that something He did was not meant to happen is heretical.

If we take the example of Jesus, sometimes evil is opposed forcefully, sometimes not.

34 Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. 35 For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And as a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household.

We are required to fight for our Faith. We are also required to save and protect ourselves from harm and to do the same for others. Christ set the example for us - we are to fight when needed.

I’m sorry - running away when there is an opportunity to stop a violent act is not only sinful but cowardice. Even if you are ok with allowing yourself to be killed, to allow another to be killed when you have the opportunity to save them is unacceptable.

Honestly - do you really think it’s ok to just run around the corner and hide and watch someone shoot an innocent human being if you had the opportunity and the means to stop the act by shooting the assailant? I’m sorry but I don’t get that.

~Liza

 

[rpp]

Since there is no requirement and especially no duty to kill when other means of allaying the situation are available. For example, fleeing the situation is a possibility. Doing nothing and simply letting the attacker kill you would be wrong. That is where you are confused.

You have not established that the Church requires one to kill their attacker.

True.

Not true.

By fleeing the situation, the evil is prevented from taking place. Therefore no sin of omission. If you are arguing that you must stop the evil intention of the attacker, that is impossible.

You are the only one who is talking about killing. The issue is defending yourself using, the Catechism states in one of Sir Knight’s earlier posts, moderate force. The Catechism clearly states that deadly force may be used if needed

Your insistence that deadly force must be used is both wrong and not what is begin discussed.

By the way, most people who are shot survive the shooting. In fact, when viewed as a percentage, my guess would be that more people receive fatal injuries from an assault by a baseball bat than from being shot.

As for fleeing versus fighting, that really depends on the situation and partly on prudential judgment. If you are cornered in your house, is that really an option? Do you have a means of defending yourself? If not, then flight may be an option. Perhaps you are in a park and you see someone attacking your child? Are you going to sit there and wait until the attack is over or run away?

While passivity, in general, is not opposed to Church teaching, one cannot choose to ignore a part of the Catechism or Church teaching because they find it distasteful or hard. Church teachings are not inherently pacifistic; quite the opposite in some cases and this is one of them. As has been clearly stated, a grave duty requires us to act. The obligation of self-defense does not give us free-rein to use deadly force anytime we want, yet does not exclude it if that is what it will take to stop an attacker. What it does mean is that we cannot be idle (read: passive) when we or those we are responsible for (which can even include strangers) are confronted by one or more attackers. Flight, or possibly allowing yourself to be robbed, rather than fight, may be the more prudential course of action in certain circumstances. If your attacker is threatening you with a serious weapon, the only reasonable conclusion would be to assume they intend to use it unless you prevent them. Assuming that they are simply trying to frighten you or that the gun is empty is profoundly unwise. The number of people shot by “empty” guns or by those who are “just trying to scare” them is huge.

If you are going to insist that I am not permitted to defend myself or others, I will keep that in mind if you call for help. I would never want to anything against your wishes. On the other hand, if it is your child, I will not hesitate to come to their aid, even if you would not.

 

[rpp]

No, no, and no. Read it again, this time without changing the words. The Church says it can be a grave duty. If you contradict this again, I will not correct it and just leave it for all who understand English to see your error.

Yours is the incorrect interpretation. Why, because there are situations where self-defense may not be required in order to avoid harm or property loss. However, in those circumstances where there is real danger, then self-defense and the defense of those we are responsible for, becomes a grave duty. Not all situations rise to that, hence the use of the word “can”.

Here are two examples. You are in a park with your 9 year old son. You look up from your book and see that he is being confronted by a couple of bullies. You get up, walk over and calmly tell the bullies to get lost. That is a situation where self defense is not needed and a physical fight would be seriously wrong.

A second example. Same park, same son. You look up from your book only this time you see some creep dragging your 9 year old son to the bushes and he is covering his mouth so your son cannot call for help. You approach and the creep sees you and tries to move away even faster with your son. You realize he is heading to the parking lot. No time to call the police, flight is not an option. Either you act, or it appears your son is going to be kidnapped. This is a case where you now have a grave duty to somehow defend your son, and you may quite probably have to use physical force to do. Whether you are carrying a gun, a knife or whatever, you are morally required to act. (Not to mention, your parental instincts will have kicked in and you will not be thinking about the morality of it. You will instinctively know that you must act and that instinct is, in this case morally correct.)

Neither of these situations is unrealistic.

Additionally, I would caution you not to focus so heavily on one word in one sentence. That is a common error that Sola Scriptura Protestants make when interpreting Holy Scripture. Rather, you must take in the entire context not just of that one sentence, but the entire section in the Catechism. This is what Sir Knight did and why he quoted the three paragraphs from the Catechism rather than that one sentence.

I do not think the example of Jesus applies, which is good. After all Jesus did not come to clean the temple, but to die. He opposed evil by refusing to resist with force and was led like a lamb to the slaughter.

The second time around things will be different.

If we take the example of Jesus, sometimes evil is opposed forcefully, sometimes not.

This is a very poor example and does not actually apply to the topic of self defense. Oh, and as another poster pointed out, Jesus most certainly did cleanse the temple. And He used a weapon (a whip) to do it.

 

[rpp]

*{snip}

*I’m sorry - running away when there is an opportunity to stop a violent act is not only sinful but cowardice. Even if you are ok with allowing yourself to be killed, to allow another to be killed when you have the opportunity to save them is unacceptable.

Honestly - do you really think it’s ok to just run around the corner and hide and watch someone shoot an innocent human being if you had the opportunity and the means to stop the act by shooting the assailant? I’m sorry but I don’t get that.

~Liza

You make an excellent point. While I believe there are some cases where retreat may be more prudent, one must be careful not to be motivated by cowardice!

Very few people are ashamed of those who stand their ground. Very few people who stand their ground are ashamed of doing so. Can the same be said about those who run and hide?

 

[KathleenElsie]

Since there is no requirement and especially no duty to kill when other means of allaying the situation are available. For example, fleeing the situation is a possibility. Are you sure or do you say OOPS I guessed wrong at the funeral of a loved one? It is not always possible to excape safely. Doing nothing and simply letting the attacker kill you would be wrong. That is where you are confused.

I have read through each and every post two times and some of the three times. Not once did anyone say to use deadly force as a first resort. What has been said was to use the force necessary to protect yourself and the others you can be held responsible for. Those that have the means to protect others are expected to do so in the safest and best way available to them at the time of danger.

You have not established that the Church requires one to kill their attacker.

The Catholic Church does not require you to kill an attacker. It does expect you to protect yourself and those you are required to protect. As in your neighbor (defined the same way Jesus defined neighbor), family and self.

By fleeing the situation, the evil is prevented from taking place. Therefore no sin of omission. If you are arguing that you must stop the evil intention of the attacker, that is impossible.

If you can remove yourself and those you are responsible for safely then by allmeans do so. Many have thought wrongly that they could do this and the results have been tragic.

Only God can change ones heart and thus the intention to do evil.

I know of no one that carries a weapon that has the intention of killing others. I know many that their first choice is to avoid danger and not place themselves and their loved ones in a place where there can be no retreat. Yet it does happen, and when it does we are never expected to not protect ourselves and those we are responsible for.

When it comes to force, that force should only be what is necessary to protect self and others.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Of course He came to clean the temple! Everything He did was part of the divine plan. To say that something He did was not meant to happen is heretical.

We are required to fight for our Faith. We are also required to save and protect ourselves from harm and to do the same for others. Christ set the example for us - we are to fight when needed.

I’m sorry - running away when there is an opportunity to stop a violent act is not only sinful but cowardice. Even if you are ok with allowing yourself to be killed, to allow another to be killed when you have the opportunity to save them is unacceptable.

Honestly - do you really think it’s ok to just run around the corner and hide and watch someone shoot an innocent human being if you had the opportunity and the means to stop the act by shooting the assailant? I’m sorry but I don’t get that.

~Liza

Well said. Thank you.

 

[AdriannaJean]

Here are my two cents:

Martyrdom only applies when someone is faced with the choice of death or renouncing their faith. If I am being mugged and I choose not to fight against my attacker and I get killed I am not a martyr, I am a murder victim, and a stupid one at that.

Our lives are a precious gift from God and we are supposed to safeguard them. But use of lethal force in self-defense is only justifiable when our lives our in danger. You can’t kill someone because they grabbed your purse and ran for it. We can only kill in a “kill or be killed” situation.

Though, that being said, I would say it is a personal choice. If my only choices were “kill the person who is trying to murder me” or “be killed” (so, for some reason or another I couldn’t fight them off enough to just hurt them and run away) depending on the situation I might choose to be killed. And I say this because if I were to kill someone while they were in the act of trying to murder me, their soul can’t be in a good state. It’s practically sending them straight to hell. Whereas if I were to die instead, I would have a better shot at Heaven and it would give them more time on Earth to find God and repent. Though, the situation would change drastically if I had a family to care for.

I wouldn’t say that there are any hard-and-fast rules regarding this. It would change from person to person and from situation to situation. So, for instance, if you knew this person was going to kill you and then blow up L.A. then it would be better to kill them. That being said, when faced with death everyone has a right to use lethal force as self-defense. However, I would not say it is a duty in every circumstance.

 

[budgie2]

I am a pacifist but the choice for me is basically would I prefer to be killed than kill? Even if I kill to save my own life I still have to die at some point with the knowledge that I have broken the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”. If I am killed then I may die innocent. I might be prolonging my life here on Earth at the expense of my afterlife in certain cases although I can understand how in certain circumstances a person would kill to defend family and children rather than themselves. I don’t know how I would stand on this issue.

Even if you have broken the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, all sins can be forgiven by receiving Confession and absolution by a priest. I really need to have a strong faith in the afterlife and resurrection to be prepared to give up my life now for the sake of heaven and eternal life in the same manner as Jesus. There’s also the Just War Theory.

 

[Sir_Knight]

The CORRECT translation is “Thou shall not Murder” … to intentionally take an innocent life – someone who is trying to harm you is NOT an INNOCENT person and defending oneself would not be a sin even if one is forced to deal a lethal blow because one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 64, 7, corp. art.).

There are numerous examples in the Bible where God commanded the people to KILL …

• Lev 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever [he be] of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth [any] of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
• Lev 20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood [shall be] upon them.
• Lev 24:23 And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.
• Num 14:10 But all the congregation bade stone them with stones. And the glory of the LORD appeared in the tabernacle of the congregation before all the children of Israel.
• Num 15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

… if the commandment was not to kill, then God would have been instructing the people to break the commandments that He just gave them. No. God does not contradict Himself. The commandment is not to murder – intentionally take an innocent life.

Furthermore, in 1 Sam 15:10-23 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.

So by failing to preserve your life when you had the ability and opportunity to do so, your final actions in this life may actually be displeasing to God.

 

[Newbie2]

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?

Ridiculous conclusion. If someone is shooting at me, I’ll run. That does not mean I don’t oppose the shooter’s action. I’ll to try to find someone qualified i.e. the police, who is.

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.

Therin lies the qualification: “ability”. I can try to wrestle a gun from a guy when I am unarmed. I have the ability to do so. But is there any guarantee that I will be successful? Of course not. The qualification is ridiculous. If I have a weapon, does that mean I have the “ability” to stop a bad guy? Maybe, if I can shoot straight under stress. Maybe not. Can I draw my weapon faster than the bad guy can pull the trigger? And can I handle the psycological ramifications of having caused the death of another human being?

Sorry, it’s not as simple as “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.”

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?

Ah, then we are obligated to shoot someone who merely threatens us? Your story changes…

How many people have been robbed at gunpoint but left unharmed? Carjacked and left unharmed? I’m not in law enforcement, but it would seem that a thief would want to take the easy way out…take what they want and get away.

You’re claiming that we are under the obligation to shoot the bad guy, or disarm him if we are “able” under the penalty of mortal sin. That’s ridiculous.

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!

Bull. Why do police tell people to hand over their wallets if confronted with an armed robber? The LOGICAL CONCLUSION, I assume based on their experinece, is that the thief wants to take the easy way out, i.e. rob you and leave quickly.

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.

Not necessarily. Why do police have negotiators, then? If the assumption that every bad guy with a gun is going to shoot someone, why do they try to talk the bad guy into giving up if the reasonable assumption is that he’s going to shoot? Why do they not just act immediately?

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.

You take Spiderman and The Incredibles too seriously…

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.

Using that simplistic logic, if you own a firearm, your failure to patrol the streets at night is a failure to oppose evil is a sin of omission. By not ridding the world of bad guys, you put your own life at risk and the lives of others at risk. You are guilty of a mortal sin of omission.

Scenario: You have a weapon. A bad guy robs you at gunpoint. By your logic, he is defacto intending on harming you. You hand him your wallet (as law enforcement would suggest) and he runs away. You figured that you could not pull out your weapon faster than he could pull the trigger. Your only way of stopping him is shooting him in the back as he’s running away. This is your obligation under the penalty of mortal sin??

That’s one of the more mistaken misinterpretations of church teachings I’ve read here on the CAF. Sorry, but your logic takes the notion of the duty to preserve one’s own life to a ridiculous extreme.

 

[lizaanne]

That’s one of the more mistaken misinterpretations of church teachings I’ve read here on the CAF. Sorry, but your logic takes the notion of the duty to preserve one’s own life to a ridiculous extreme.

I see nothing extreme about protecting myself or others from harm.

Christ was extreme. The Gospel is extreme. Dying on a cross for something you didn’t do is extreme.

Protecting life is not extreme - it is expected.

~Liza

 

[chain]

I suspect many who feel self defense is a duty, also feel an obligation to protect their “neighbors”. Once I saw a statistic on it, but now it is only a slight memory - but it is almost guaranteed that if you flee, the robber/mugger/burglar will find another victim. Likewise, there was a VERY high probability, that the criminal will eventually kill during one of those subsequent activities. Without intervention (usually incarceration), this type of criminal activity escalates.

Anyway, stopping rather than fleeing saves the next victim. Are you responsible for your neighbors death because you fled?

 

[budgie2]

The CORRECT translation is “Thou shall not Murder” … to intentionally take an innocent life – someone who is trying to harm you is NOT an INNOCENT person and defending oneself would not be a sin even if one is forced to deal a lethal blow because one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 64, 7, corp. art.).

There are numerous examples in the Bible where God commanded the people to KILL …

• Lev 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever [he be] of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth [any] of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
• Lev 20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood [shall be] upon them.
• Lev 24:23 And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.
• Num 14:10 But all the congregation bade stone them with stones. And the glory of the LORD appeared in the tabernacle of the congregation before all the children of Israel.
• Num 15:35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

… if the commandment was not to kill, then God would have been instructing the people to break the commandments that He just gave them. No. God does not contradict Himself. The commandment is not to murder – intentionally take an innocent life.

Furthermore, in 1 Sam 15:10-23 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.

So by failing to preserve your life when you had the ability and opportunity to do so, your final actions in this life may actually be displeasing to God.

It is true that the Old Testament is very violent but I personally don’t read it very often and base my words and actions on Christ who is Lord of the Prophets and did not physically strike anybody although he damaged furniture and said if you live by the sword then you will die by it. Although this may seem extreme to some people the greatest damage that can be done to us is damage to our soul not to our body as we will be resurrected from the dead and have eternal life on Earth. Christ also said “Do not fear those who can destroy the body but fear God who can destroy the body and soul in hell.” If you die as a pacifist then you are a martyr then you should go to straight to heaven and be with Christ. Out of love of neighbour Christ did not kill as he wished to give his enemies the chance to repent and inherit eternal life. Killing somebody does not give them the chance to repent. I don’t know what your law is over there in the US but overhere killing is not permitted in self-defence as far as I know and firearms are prohibited.

I would advise you to pray the Chaplet to the Divine Mercy aswell as concentrate on the Gospel as only Christ is God himself and the prophets are lesser to him. We can only get to heaven by the Gospel and through Christ.

 

[rpp]

Ridiculous conclusion. If someone is shooting at me, I’ll run. That does not mean I don’t oppose the shooter’s action. I’ll to try to find someone qualified i.e. the police, who is.

Newbie2, there is a word that describes your attitude here. Here is a hint, it is not courage.

The fact that you are promoting cowardice, in your close-minded suicidal manner is se5riuosly opposed by Church teaching. Using your logic, there would be no such thing as a just war and being a police officer would be a moral evil. Obviously since you do not think that way, you are not applying your logic correctly. If you want to run and hide, if you want your family to be victimized by attackers, that is your choice. However, do not try to claim that cowering in a closet while your wife is being raped is a moral good.

 

[rpp]

I am a pacifist but the choice for me is basically would I prefer to be killed than kill? Even if I kill to save my own life I still have to die at some point with the knowledge that I have broken the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”. If I am killed then I may die innocent. I might be prolonging my life here on Earth at the expense of my afterlife in certain cases although I can understand how in certain circumstances a person would kill to defend family and children rather than themselves. I don’t know how I would stand on this issue.

Even if you have broken the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, all sins can be forgiven by receiving Confession and absolution by a priest. I really need to have a strong faith in the afterlife and resurrection to be prepared to give up my life now for the sake of heaven and eternal life in the same manner as Jesus. There’s also the Just War Theory.

Defending oneself or others, even to the point where you must use deadly force to stop an attack, does not violate the fifth commandment which say we are not to murder. However, refusing to defend yourself or others, and you or they are harmed or killed, would mean that you have violated that commandment by refusing to act. What you describe is not passivism, but cowardice. Remember, most self-defense situations do not require the use of deadly force.

 

[pnewton]

The fact that you are promoting cowardice, in your close-minded suicidal manner is se5riuosly opposed by Church teaching.

Then how do you explain St. Maria Goretti? Or Jesus at Calvary, as far as that goes? Or any of the myriad of martyrs who eschewed violence in the name of Jesus, even at the cost of their life?

The catechism allows for pacifism as a matter of conscientious objection:

2303 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
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

Pacifist have no claim to call for all to follow their conscience, but those that choose to exercise violence in the proper call to justice should not call people of peace “cowards.”

 

[rpp]

Then how do you explain St. Maria Goretti? Or Jesus at Calvary, as far as that goes? Or any of the myriad of martyrs who eschewed violence in the name of Jesus, even at the cost of their life?

The catechism allows for pacifism as a matter of conscientious objection:

Pacifist have no claim to call for all to follow their conscience, but those that choose to exercise violence in the proper call to justice should not call people of peace “cowards.”

St. Maria Goretti was a victim of an attempted rape and was murdered. Her attacker was a much larger 16 year old boy and she was a petite 12 year old girl. She did not have the capacity to defend herself.

The comparison of the redemptive suffering of Christ on the cross is so inappropriate as to border on blasphemous. Neither you, nor anyone else has answered the point that Christ Himself used violent means to eject the money-changers and merchants from the Temple. He also told His disciples to arm themselves with swords, literal swords.

Do not confuse self-defense with violence; they are quite different. The people who are best at defending themselves and those they are responsible for are inherently non-violent people. People prone to violence are usually the worst at self defense as they are often too volatile to do so in moderation and self-control. Self-control is critical in effective self-defense. Authentic self-defense does not seek to fight, but to end a threat, attack or fight.

The parts of the Catechism you quoted made a very important point, one’s pacifism cannot intrude on the rights of others. If your child is being attacked, the claim that you are a pacifist as the reason you did not defend your son would not be reasonable as your son has a right to have his parents to defend him when he is imperiled.

As I stated before, while pacifism is not opposed to Church teachings, as in nearly all things, moderation is required. Just as the grave duty of self defense and the defense of others does not mean that we are all have to arm ourselves and become a vigilante mob roaming the streets looking for bad guys.