Passivism/ Martyrdom vs. duty to defend oneself

[Sir_Knight]

In context of the post you were replying to, you see nothing extreme in shooting a thief in the back as he runs away with your purse. After all, if he gets away, do you believe you are now responsible for the people he kills after the fact? Because of your sin of omission to shoot him in the back? Also do you believe an immoral act is permissible when it could result in good? In this case, he will not be able to rob or harm anyone else?

You are good at twisting things around – that is a desperate sign of somebody who either knows that they are wrong and knows that they can not argue their position on it own merits.

Where did anybody say anything about shooting somebody in the back as they run away? It was said that we are duty bound to stop an attacker when we are in IMMEDIATE danger AND have the ability & opportunity to do so.

If the aggressor is running away from you, you are no longer in immediate danger from him.

 

[Sir_Knight]

So did Jesus commit a mortal sin by failing to preserve His life from His attackers? He had the means, ability, and opportunity to do so.

A sin is an offense against God. Being God, Jesus could not sin for it is impossible for anyone to offend themselves. You can embarasse [sp] yourself but you can not offend yourself. It can not be done.

Further more, Jesus’ main purpose was to DIE for our sins in order to open the gates of heaven. No other human can make that claim – therefore, defending one’s life becomes of utmost importance. Only if there is no way out, can we give up our life FOR the faith.

When Paul was in jail and the angel came to free him, he didn’t stick around so he could be killed for the faith, he got out of there.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I was referring to post #37, where general cowardace and suicidal tendencies were attributed to my position. Perhaps I misunderstood the criticism.

By the way, in post #45, I may have been a bit too subtle by saying “Let’s start again”, in which I meant I’d like to restate my position/comments in order to perhaps be more clear and not rehash what I’d written. Perhaps a bit too subtle?

Any comments on my post #45, SR?
Newbie2;5280741:

Let’s start again:

If a bad guy were to rob me at gunpoint, I’d give him my wallet. Anyone have difficulty with that one?

OK.

I choose not to carry a weapon to defend myself. OK with that too?

OK

If I were alone (not with my family or friends) and a bad guy started shooting at me, I’d run.
Any problem with that?

OK

If a guy shot me, and I couldn’t run away, I’d stand and fight, having no other choice. OK with that one too?

OK

If a bad guy were robbing a store, at gunpoint, and I had the opportunity to put myself in harm’s way to stop him, definitely at risk to my own life, I’m not sure if I would do it or not. How about that one?

OK

If my family were being attacked, I’d do whatever I could to protect them. Surely no problem there.

OK

If I were ever beaten up, I would not change my mind and opt to carry a firearm. If I lived in a dangerous neighborhood, I’m not certain if I would or not.

I feel if I follow the above notions, I am not guilty of any sort of mortal sin of omission, am not a coward, am looking after my life and the lives of my family and fellow man reasonably well.

Anyone disagree?

• I choose not to carry a weapon to defend myself. OK with that too?

Jesus commanded His followers to purchase a weapon EVEN IF they had to sell their coat to do so. Further more, the CCC teaches that we have a GRAVE duty to protect our lives. A “grave” duty is to be fulfilled by the best means possible and in most cases one will be able to protect oneself better with a weapon than without one.

• If I were alone (not with my family or friends) and a bad guy started shooting at me, I’d run.
  Any problem with that?

Running away IF other means are available to you is also wrong because we are to oppose evil.

• If I were ever beaten up, I would not change my mind and opt to carry a firearm. If I lived in a dangerous neighborhood, I’m not certain if I would or not.

Problem is that we can not choose when and where an attack upon us may take place. A person living in a “bad” neighborhood with a very high crime rate may never be exposed to any crime while a person living in a “good” neighborhood with an almost non-existant crime rate might be touched by crime. For that reason, we prepare for the worst while hoping for the best.

 

[budgie2]

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.

Is it cowardice to be prepared to be put to death through refusal to fight? A pacifist is prepared to face death. This is Christian martyrdom. A lot of early Christian martyrs were solders who “deserted” the Roman army.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Christian martyrdom is somebody who is prepared to face death FOR THE FAITH. Based on how God rejected Saul as King of the Jews for FAILING to use the sword in executing the King of Amalek in 1 Sam 15:10-23, we can conclude that being a pacifist was NOT pleasing to God.

 

[lobster]

You are good at twisting things around – that is a desperate sign of somebody who either knows that they are wrong and knows that they can not argue their position on it own merits.

I point you back to posts 33 and 34. I was responding to post 34. That will show that there is no twisting things around on my part, and you are desperately trying to advance your case using ad-hominem attacks. That is the true sign of desperation when your argument is loosing its footing.

Where did anybody say anything about shooting somebody in the back as they run away? It was said that we are duty bound to stop an attacker when we are in IMMEDIATE danger AND have the ability & opportunity to do so.

If the aggressor is running away from you, you are no longer in immediate danger from him.

Check it out. Its right there in 33. Further, it is in that context that I made my reply, which you tried to discredit.

 

[mapleoak]

Then I guess that the Church made a mistake in making St. Monica a saint because it was said that it was through her prayers to God for her son that St. Augustus turned from his wicked life-style.

Note that the Church has never claimed that God forced St Augustus to be ‘good’. He simply does not change peoples intentions. He makes sufficient grace for conversion available, and it is we who choose whether to accept it or not. Again, it is heresy to say that God revokes His gift of free will. After if God changed someones intention to make him love Him, eternal life would be meaningless. Heaven and Hell are choices we freely make.

She is even quoted to have said on her death bed – " … My God hath answered this more than abundantly … ".

Yes, she was correct. God bestowed more abundant graces than one she asked for.

But according to you, those prayers had no impact whatsoever.

And you claim I twist things around as when ones argument has no merit in itself. I maintain that it is heresy to say that God can force a persons will.

And I guess that when the Church tells us to pray for someone’s conversion, that is also “heresy” because according to you, God “will never change someones intention”.

Another example of twisting things around. No it is not heresy to pray for someone’s conversion. Yes it is heresy to say that God changes someones intention. That would amount to revoking His gift of free will. Was this saint wrong in what he wrote:
St Thomas Aquinas:

Now what is compelled or violent is from an exterior principle. Consequently it is contrary to the nature of the will’s own act, that it should be subject to compulsion and violence: just as it is also contrary to the nature of a natural inclination or movement.

and:

God Who is more powerful than the human will, can move the will of man, according to Proverbs 21:1: “The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord; whithersoever He will He shall turn it.” But if this were by compulsion, it would no longer be by anact of the will, nor would the will itself be moved, but something else against the will.

 

[lobster]

Then I guess that the Church made a mistake in making St. Monica a saint because it was said that it was through her prayers to God for her son that St. Augustus turned from his wicked life-style.

Note that the Church has never claimed that God forced St Augustus to be ‘good’. He simply does not change peoples intentions. He makes sufficient grace for conversion available, and it is we who choose whether to accept it or not. Again, it is heresy to say that God revokes His gift of free will. After if God changed someones intention to make him love Him, eternal life would be meaningless. Heaven and Hell are choices we freely make.

She is even quoted to have said on her death bed – " … My God hath answered this more than abundantly … ".

Yes, she was correct. God bestowed more abundant graces than one she asked for.

But according to you, those prayers had no impact whatsoever.

And you claim I twist things around as when ones argument has no merit in itself. I maintain that it is heresy to say that God can force a persons will.

And I guess that when the Church tells us to pray for someone’s conversion, that is also “heresy” because according to you, God “will never change someones intention”.

Another example of twisting things around. No it is not heresy to pray for someone’s conversion. Yes it is heresy to say that God changes someones intention. That would amount to revoking His gift of free will.

Was this saint wrong in what he wrote:
St Thomas Aquinas:

Now what is compelled or violent is from an exterior principle. Consequently it is contrary to the nature of the will’s own act, that it should be subject to compulsion and violence: just as it is also contrary to the nature of a natural inclination or movement.

and:

God Who is more powerful than the human will, can move the will of man, according to Proverbs 21:1: “The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord; whithersoever He will He shall turn it.” But if this were by compulsion, it would no longer be by anact of the will, nor would the will itself be moved, but something else against the will.

 

[lobster]

Just as one does not look for work at the last minute when all of the money ran out, one does not take steps to protect his family at the last minute when somebody is kicking in the door and the phone line has gone dead. In both cases, the responsible thing to do is to prepare before hand and failure to do so IS a sin.

Now the nitty gritty. Failure to be prepared for an armed gunman breaking into your house. Okay, if I make a back exit door does that suffice. Which weapon do I need to meet the requirement of being prepared? A sling shot, a hand gun, a 22, or a bazooka? Would a baseball bat be considered meeting your teaching the requirement of being prepared for an armed gunman in your house. How about no weapons at all but a course in stealthy movements and slight of hand to outmaneuver and subdue the attacker.
Does the requirement to be prepared stop at being prepared for a gunman? Shouldn’t we also be prepared for the bad guy who steals a grater and starts plowing down the neighborhood (has happened) so that we don’t find ourselves in mortal sin?

 

[lobster]

Lobster: So did Jesus commit a mortal sin by failing to preserve His life from His attackers? He had the means, ability, and opportunity to do so.

A sin is an offense against God. Being God, Jesus could not sin for it is impossible for anyone to offend themselves. You can embarasse [sp] yourself but you can not offend yourself. It can not be done.

So what other things are we NOT to imitate of the way of Christ. Clearly, you are saying if we do as He did, we would be sinning.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I point you back to posts 33 and 34. I was responding to post 34. That will show that there is no twisting things around on my part, and you are desperately trying to advance your case using ad-hominem attacks. That is the true sign of desperation when your argument is loosing its footing.

Check it out. Its right there in 33. Further, it is in that context that I made my reply, which you tried to discredit.

I must have missed it. Please quote where it was said that we should go after somebody and shoot them in them back and as far as “you are desperately trying to advance your case using ad-hominem attacks”, you are talking entirely about yourself.

Provide the URL where somebody said that we should shoot people in the back as they are running away and I’ll retract that statement – otherwise, you’ve been caught in your lie.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Note that the Church has never claimed that God forced St Augustus to be ‘good’. He simply does not change peoples intentions. He makes sufficient grace for conversion available, and it is we who choose whether to accept it or not. Again, it is heresy to say that God revokes His gift of free will. After if God changed someones intention to make him love Him, eternal life would be meaningless. Heaven and Hell are choices we freely make.

Yes, she was correct. God bestowed more abundant graces than one she asked for.

And you claim I twist things around as when ones argument has no merit in itself. I maintain that it is heresy to say that God can force a persons will.

Another example of twisting things around. No it is not heresy to pray for someone’s conversion. Yes it is heresy to say that God changes someones intention. That would amount to revoking His gift of free will.

Was this saint wrong in what he wrote:

and:

You are splitting hairs. God changes someone by giving them the grace to change is STILL changing the person because if God didn’t provide the grace, it wouldn’t happen.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Now the nitty gritty. Failure to be prepared for an armed gunman breaking into your house. Okay, if I make a back exit door does that suffice. Which weapon do I need to meet the requirement of being prepared? A sling shot, a hand gun, a 22, or a bazooka? Would a baseball bat be considered meeting your teaching the requirement of being prepared for an armed gunman in your house. How about no weapons at all but a course in stealthy movements and slight of hand to outmaneuver and subdue the attacker.
Does the requirement to be prepared stop at being prepared for a gunman? Shouldn’t we also be prepared for the bad guy who steals a grater and starts plowing down the neighborhood (has happened) so that we don’t find ourselves in mortal sin?

A grave duty requires us to be prepared with the BEST means POSSIBLE – otherwise it can not be considered to be a ‘grave’ duty if we use second best or third best or don’t prepare at all.

In MOST cases, but not all, that will be with a firearm which is why the police, whose job requires them to get in harms way a lot of the time, carry a firearm as the most effective means of personal defense.

If one is legally prohibitted from owning a firearm, then that is obviously not the best means POSSIBLE for that person. If you can protect your family better with a back door exit better than with a firearm, then that would be the best means possible for you. If I have a bad guy coming up the stairs in the middle of the night and I have to get my wife and children out of harms way, I don’t see how it would be possible to escape without having to confront him and thus that wouldn’t be the best means possible for me.

Nobody is saying that we have to kill the other person or even have a gun to defend ourselves with. What is being said is that accroding Church teaching:

1. 
   *]We have duty to oppose evil if we have the opportunity and ability to do so and fauilure to perform this duty is a sin of omission.
   
   *] We have a GRAVE duty to protect ourselves and others from danger and harm – since it is considered a “grave” duty, the best means possible need to be employed, otherwise it can not rightfully be a GRAVE duty and failure to perform this grave duty is a grave sin of omission.
   
   … Now, where is your objection?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Lobster: So did Jesus commit a mortal sin by failing to preserve His life from His attackers? He had the means, ability, and opportunity to do so.

So what other things are we NOT to imitate of the way of Christ. Clearly, you are saying if we do as He did, we would be sinning.

We are not to offend God by our thoughts, words or deeds. Based on how God rejected Saul as King of the Jews for FAILING to use the sword in executing the King of Amalek in 1 Sam 15:10-23, we can conclude that being a pacifist was NOT pleasing to God.

 

[lobster]

Rehash:
"Newbie2 in post 33:

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 in post 34:

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

Lobster:

In context of the post you were replying to, you see nothing extreme in shooting a thief in the back as he runs away with your purse.

Sir Knight:

You are good at twisting things around – that is a desperate sign of somebody who either knows that they are wrong and knows that they can not argue their position on it own merits. Where did anybody say anything about shooting somebody in the back as they run away? It was said that we are duty bound to stop an attacker when we are in IMMEDIATE danger AND have the ability & opportunity to do so.

Lobster:

I point you back to posts 33 and 34. I was responding to post 34. That will show that there is no twisting things around on my part, and you are desperately trying to advance your case using ad-hominem attacks. That is the true sign of desperation when your argument is loosing its footing.

I must have missed it. Please quote where it was said that we should go after somebody and shoot them in them back and as far as “you are desperately trying to advance your case using ad-hominem attacks”, you are talking entirely about yourself.

Provide the URL where somebody said that we should shoot people in the back as they are running away and I’ll retract that statement – otherwise, you’ve been caught in your lie.

The evidence speaks for itself. If you choose not to retract your statement, then I suppose it is you who has been caught in your lie.

 

[pnewton]

We are not to offend God by our thoughts, words or deeds. Based on how God rejected Saul as King of the Jews for FAILING to use the sword in executing the King of Amalek in 1 Sam 15:10-23, we can conclude that being a pacifist was NOT pleasing to God.

… in that one situation. Disobedience to God is never pleasing. We also have the example of Ai. If God tells one to do something, it must be done.

 

[lobster]

You are splitting hairs. God changes someone by giving them the grace to change is STILL changing the person because if God didn’t provide the grace, it wouldn’t happen.

So you agree that God does not change someones will. He can provide the necessary grace to make someone receptive to changing their intentions, but ultimately, they must accept that grace. After all, to refuse God’s gift of grace is to sin, is it not?

 

[lobster]

In MOST cases, but not all, that will be with a firearm which is why the police, whose job requires them to get in harms way a lot of the time, carry a firearm as the most effective means of personal defense.

So I am committing a mortal sin by not having a firearm in my house. Should I repent, make haste to buy one, and then go to confession?

If one is legally prohibitted from owning a firearm, then that is obviously not the best means POSSIBLE for that person. If you can protect your family better with a back door exit better than with a firearm, then that would be the best means possible for you. If I have a bad guy coming up the stairs in the middle of the night and I have to get my wife and children out of harms way, I don’t see how it would be possible to escape without having to confront him and thus that wouldn’t be the best means possible for me.

Okay, given that, is having the gun locked in a gun cabinet downstairs or upstairs more morally correct. If you and your family are upstairs and the gun is downstairs and the intruder is hastening up the stairs with a gun, did you commit a mortal sin by not being adequately prepared. Maybe the mortal sin is in not having a gun freely accessible in every room which is not under lock and key?

 

[pnewton]

I asked this question before but I’ll ask it again … why would you think that the failure to perform the grave duty of going to Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligations a grave sin but the failure to perform the grave duty of protecting oneself not a grave sin?

If the fact that the Church teaches that the failure of going to Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligations is a grave sin, and the Church does not teach that failure to protect oneself is not, is not sufficient, I do not know what is. However, your second premise is flawed, was flawed and will continue to be flawed everytime you misquote it. From your own quote:

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

---

This quote only says that this right we have can be, not “must be”, “shall be” or even “is”, a grave duty. Words mean something. This particular word makes this a conditional sentence. There is clause (that means something also)" … for one who is responsible for the lives of others." This is not to be taken universally. If that was the case, it would read something like, “… for we are responsible for the lives of others” or “since all are responsible for others.” It does not say this. We simply can not twist the words of the Church to suit our own agendas. We must sit as the students of the Church, not the teachers.

One reason I am particularly frustrated with the examples given here are that they fall into the area that the Church does assign grave duty; a parent protecting a child, a soldier protecting his countrymen, or anyone else who has taken an oath and a position in which we are “responsible for the lives of others.” This will continue to be a strawman. No one is disagreeing with this, just the illogical leap away from the Church teaching of allowance for pacifism and insisting instead that all submit to their own twist of this teaching.

 

[Newbie2]

• I choose not to carry a weapon to defend myself. OK with that too?

Jesus commanded His followers to purchase a weapon EVEN IF they had to sell their coat to do so.

This is a misinterpretation of scripture. That was not his point at all. He also said that he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.

Further more, the CCC teaches that we have a GRAVE duty to protect our lives. A “grave” duty is to be fulfilled by the best means possible and in most cases one will be able to protect oneself better with a weapon than without one.

Your interpretation. The CCC makes no mention of a weapon.

• If I were alone (not with my family or friends) and a bad guy started shooting at me, I’d run.
  Any problem with that?

Running away IF other means are available to you is also wrong because we are to oppose evil.

I stated the terms. I bad guy is shooting at me. I am protecting my life by running away. I am opposing evil by calling the police. Still problematic?

• If I were ever beaten up, I would not change my mind and opt to carry a firearm. If I lived in a dangerous neighborhood, I’m not certain if I would or not.

Problem is that we can not choose when and where an attack upon us may take place. A person living in a “bad” neighborhood with a very high crime rate may never be exposed to any crime while a person living in a “good” neighborhood with an almost non-existant crime rate might be touched by crime. For that reason, we prepare for the worst while hoping for the best.

I guess then I’ll need to constuct a nuclear bunker, and stockpile food and ammunition? Kim Jong’s nukes are getting ready to rain on the USA. Or is that going to far?

Better yet to construct an electric fence with concertina wire and get the kids lessons in the martial arts and spend some quality time on the gun range.

OK, that’s heavy on the sarcasm. I feel for people who have to face the threat of violence daily. But it seems to me that your position is extreme. Taking reasonable measures to protect oneself and one’s family are fine, but we have no obilgation to arm ourselves as you seem to suggest, implicitly, at the very least. If someone feels at risk and chooses to do so, fine with me. I don’t expect them to feel a need to protect me.

Back to the premise of this thread, it seems to me that there needs to be a balance between trusting in the Almighty when it comes to what happens to us and making reasonable efforts to protect ourselves. It seems to me that the “We are mandated by the CCC to carry a weapon” suggestion or implication, the “We should stand and fight everytime, because we are mandated to fight evil” and the “running away is cowardly” positions suggest that we can do things to protect ourselves that the Lord cannot. IMHO, anyway, for what it’s worth.