Relationship and responsibility

[alitaptap]

I now ask both of you to answer the question I posed before.
Would you stand back and not try to defend a family member against attack.

OK. Honestly my answer is “No”.

One last question: To what extent are we responsible for the well-being of our enemies?

 

[thistle]

OK. Honestly my answer is “No”.

One last question: To what extent are we responsible for the well-being of our enemies?

It depends what you mean.

If we are at war we are allowed to bombard and kill them.

If the enemies are captured POW’s then even from a secular standpoint (not only a Christian position) they must be treated properly.

 

[thistle]

Where is the Biblical evidence to support your answer?

Are you advocating violence? It seems that enemies are excluded from your love.

Excuse me but can you read my post properly.
The above quote I gave you is from the Catechism. It is not my opinion. It is not my teaching. It is the Church teaching which you and I must accept.
Are you saying you reject the Church teaching?

Further you have still not said if you would stand by and do nothing if someone was attacking a family member. Would you try to defend a family member being attacked?

 

[alitaptap]

Obviously you and Alitaptap do not know the Church teachings:

I’m here to learn.

It depends what you mean.

If we are at war we are allowed to bombard and kill them.

If the enemies are captured POW’s then even from a secular standpoint (not only a Christian position) they must be treated properly.

Understood. Thank you for your response, thistle.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Are you saying you reject the Church teaching?

Are you saying you reject the moral teaching of Jesus?

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by thistle
Are you saying you reject the Church teaching?

Church teaching and Christ’s teaching are not contradictory. The one flows directly from the other.

Defence of ones self, or of others does not preclude “Loving” one’s enemies and desiring that such “enemies” be saved and admitted into heaven.

Church teaching expresses this “balancing act” of doing what needs done in the defence of self and others without excess. That is to say, once the attack is defeated, we must not continue attack, or to to hold the defeated attacker in contempt.

Peace
James

 

[sinnerdexter]

The way in which we can be sure we are in union with Him (Christ) is for the man who claims to abide in Him to conduct himself as He did (1 Jn 2:5-6)

“… love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.” – Matthew 5:44

Jesus who said it, did it. He died for us while we were still sinners. He loved us while we were still “enemies.” In fact, His literal enemies who crucified Him He forgave on the cross!

Church teaching and Christ’s teaching are not contradictory. The one flows directly from the other.

Well, please show me how the above (in red font) and the below (in red font) are not contradictory.

**Legitimate defense **

CCC 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.”

CCC 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.

CCC 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 you can see the Church not only teaches you may use deadly force (if necessary) to defend yourself or family aginst an attacker, but you have a grave duty to defend against an attacker. In other words you may not stand back and watch someone attack and injure, kill, rape one of your family.

Does He really mean that we should love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you? Or is this His manner of speaking in exaggerated ways to get to us see the importance of loving? I will concede if anyone can give reasonable/acceptable explanation that specific statements above are not contradictory because it seems to me that the other one is against the teaching of Jesus.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Excuse me but can you read my post properly.

thistle, I defend/attack ideas not persons.:hug3:

I love you thistle

 

[sinnerdexter]

It depends what you mean.

If we are at war we are allowed to bombard and kill them.

If the enemies are captured POW’s then even from a secular standpoint (not only a Christian position) they must be treated properly.

Please help me locate the ifs and buts or conditions in the above moral teaching of Christ?

 

[JRKH]

The way in which we can be sure we are in union with Him (Christ) is for the man who claims to abide in Him to conduct himself as He did (1 Jn 2:5-6)

Jesus who said it, did it. He died for us while we were still sinners. He loved us while we were still “enemies.” In fact, His literal enemies who crucified Him He forgave on the cross!

Well, please show me how the above (in red font) and the below (in red font) are not contradictory.

Does He really mean that we should love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you? Or is this His manner of speaking in exaggerated ways to get to us see the importance of loving? I will concede if anyone can give reasonable/acceptable explanation that specific statements above are not contradictory because it seems to me that the other one is against the teaching of Jesus.

Sinnerdexter,
First of all let me aplaud your stance. Yours is an uncommon but more Christlike one.

To you specific question about contradition between Christ’s intruction to Love our enemies and the Catachism’s instructions regarding defense - I’ll try to just make a couple of points.

1. I see nothing in the Catachism that permits us to “hate” our “enemy”.
2. I see nothing in the Catachism that allows us to “attack” our “enemy”.
3. I see nothing in the Catachsim that forbids us from praying for our “enemy”.

What I do see in the Catachsim are carefully worded boundaries. “Rules of engagement” if you will. For instance:
CCC 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."
The bolded and underlined section demonstrates that the intent is to preserve life, the death of the aggressor is not. Therefore we wish to subdue an attackor without killing him if possible.
CCC 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: **
Again note, by what is bolded and underlined, that while defense of the innocent is perfectly legitimate, the death of the aggressor is to be avoided. The use of a “Lethal blow”, must be forced upon the defendor as an unavoidable last resort.
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.
The bolded above clearly demonstrates the Law of Love. Only the “necessary force” to halt the attack is lawful. Love for our enemy seeks to preserve his life so that he might have the opportunity to repent.

I hope you get the idea here. Nothing in the above forces us to hate, nor prevents our praying for our enemies.
As an example - Let us look at the attempt on JP II many years ago. The attacker was subdued by the use of force, but not killed, the Pope came and spoke with him and prayed with him. This simple example shows both proper use of force in defense of the innocent and also the ability to Love, forgive, and pray for an “enemy”.

Hope this helps.

Peace
James

 

[mommamaree]

The way in which we can be sure we are in union with Him (Christ) is for the man who claims to abide in Him to conduct himself as He did (1 Jn 2:5-6)

Jesus who said it, did it. He died for us while we were still sinners. He loved us while we were still “enemies.” In fact, His literal enemies who crucified Him He forgave on the cross!

Well, please show me how the above (in red font) and the below (in red font) are not contradictory.

Does He really mean that we should love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you? Or is this His manner of speaking in exaggerated ways to get to us see the importance of loving? I will concede if anyone can give reasonable/acceptable explanation that specific statements above are not contradictory because it seems to me that the other one is against the teaching of Jesus.

Breaking up a fight is not the same as attacking an enemy. If someone was attacking my sibling, or especially my children, I would definitely step in to do what I could to defend my loved one, and stop the attack, even if it cost me my life. We are not to sit idly by and watch our loved ones get beaten to death or raped, just in order to avoid injury to the aggressor. This moral dilemma is not about making oneself into an aggressor; the question was about whether or not we would stand in defense of our loved one, and whether we would also stand in defense of a stranger being beaten.

When Jesus saved a woman from being stoned to death for adultery, did he step in and stand between her and her attackers, or did he just stand nearby praying for a change of heart in her enemies? No, he stepped in and confronted them with all of his authority. We may not have Jesus’ authority, but we still have the right and responsibility to defend both ourselves and those who are under our care, including siblings and especially children.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Sinnerdexter,
First of all let me aplaud your stance. Yours is an uncommon but more Christlike one.

We are asked by Jesus to become perfect like the Father. Is it possible for us, limited human beings, to become perfect as the Father?

To you specific question about contradition between Christ’s intruction to Love our enemies and the Catachism’s instructions regarding defense - I’ll try to just make a couple of points.

1. I see nothing in the Catachism that permits us to “hate” our “enemy”.
2. I see nothing in the Catachism that allows us to “attack” our “enemy”.
3. I see nothing in the Catachsim that forbids us from praying for our “enemy”.

What I do see in the Catachsim are carefully worded boundaries. “Rules of engagement” if you will. For instance:
CCC 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."
The bolded and underlined section demonstrates that the intent is to preserve life, the death of the aggressor is not. Therefore we wish to subdue an attackor without killing him if possible.
CCC 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:
Again note, by what is bolded and underlined, that while defense of the innocent is perfectly legitimate, the death of the aggressor is to be avoided. The use of a “Lethal blow”, must be forced upon the defendor as an unavoidable last resort.
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.
The bolded above clearly demonstrates the Law of Love. Only the “necessary force” to halt the attack is lawful. Love for our enemy seeks to preserve his life so that he might have the opportunity to repent.

So this is not against the teaching of Christ.

Question: Can you we do anything (e.g. defense) to hurt our relations with others without at the same time hurting our relationship with God?

I hope you get the idea here. Nothing in the above forces us to hate, nor prevents our praying for our enemies.
As an example - Let us look at the attempt on JP II many years ago. The attacker was subdued by the use of force, but not killed, the Pope came and spoke with him and prayed with him. This simple example shows both proper use of force in defense of the innocent and also the ability to Love, forgive, and pray for an “enemy”.

I got your point but was also thinking that Catechism’s instructions regarding defense was written because people were so unteachable. I remember Pharisees asked Jesus, “Is it against the law of man to divorce his wife?” he answered them, “What did Moses command you?”, “Moses allowed us”, they said, “to draw up a writ of dismissal and so to divorce.” Then Jesus said to them, “it was because you were so unteachable that he wrote this commandment to you…”. Please let me know if this example is not applicable.

 

[JRKH]

We are asked by Jesus to become perfect like the Father. Is it possible for us, limited human beings, to become perfect as the Father?

I do not believe that Christ would set a bar so high that it cannot be reached. Therefore I must say that it is “possible”. But please note that terms “can” and “possible” are far different than “will” and “probable”.
Forgetting the past, we can look forward and say - “Yes I will be perfect from here on out.” If we remain “perfect” then we have achieved what Christ asked. If we do not remain “perfect”, if we fail, then we must repent, pick ourselves up and forget the past and look forward and say…

 

[o_mlly]

Anger, a passion of the irascible facutly, leads us to violence. Anger, as a passion, is neither good not evil in itself. Rather the passion moves us to actions which are good if the action is to eliminate evil which we hate or actions which are evil if the action is to eliminate good.

We justly hate evil for it is the absence of God’s goodness. Violence emanating from anger intended to eliminate evil is a morally good action.

 

[o_mlly]

Let me try that again.

Anger, a passion of the irascible facutly, leads us to violence. Anger, as a passion, is neither good not evil in itself. Rather the passion moves us to actions which are good if the action is to eliminate evil or evil if the actions are to eliminate good.

We justly hate evil for it is the absence of God’s goodness. Violence emanating from anger intended to eliminate evil is a morally good action.

 

[JRKH]

Let me try that again.

Anger, a passion of the irascible facutly, leads us to violence. Anger, as a passion, is neither good not evil in itself. Rather the passion moves us to actions which are good if the action is to eliminate evil or evil if the actions are to eliminate good.

We justly hate evil for it is the absence of God’s goodness. Violence emanating from anger intended to eliminate evil is a morally good action.

Be careful here - The Catachsim states that we are not to use evil to try and defeat evil.

Also recall that Christ Himelf says that he who grows “angry” with his brother will be liable to judgement. Can we say then, based on this, that Anger is, “neither good (or) evil in itself”?

Negative passions carry into more negative passions and negative actions. Thus they are to be avoided. Positive “passions”, the desire to Love and give and serve, on the other hand lead into positive actions that can thwart the negativity of others.

Peace
James

 

[o_mlly]

Be careful here - The Catachsim states that we are not to use evil to try and defeat evil.

Also recall that Christ Himelf says that he who grows “angry” with his brother will be liable to judgement. Can we say then, based on this, that Anger is, “neither good (or) evil in itself”?

Negative passions carry into more negative passions and negative actions. Thus they are to be avoided. Positive “passions”, the desire to Love and give and serve, on the other hand lead into positive actions that can thwart the negativity of others.

Peace
James

CCC #1767 In themselves passions are neither good nor evil. They are morally qualified only to the extent that they effectively engage reason and will. Passions are said to be voluntary, “either because they are commanded by the will or because the will does not place obstacles in their way.” It belongs to the perfection of the moral or human good that the passions be governed by reason.

"Righteous versus Unrighteous Anger (CCC #2302-3)

Anger is a desire for revenge. Anger is the passion (emotion) by which a man reacts to evil, real or apparent, and seeks vindication of his rights, that is, justice. By itself the passion is neither moral or immoral, but becomes so by reason or its being ordered or disordered - that is, reasonable according to the circumstances. An ordered anger is directed to a legitimate object, and, with an appropriate degree of vehemence. An inordinate anger is directed either to an illegitimate object, or, with an unreasonable vehemence. As St. Thomas Aquinas notes, vice may be by defect, as well as excess. So, the presence of evil should provoke a righteous anger, which if absent constitutes a sinful insensibility.

Consider the just anger of the Lord to the presence in the Temple of the money-changers and the action He took (John 2:13-17). Provoked by this offense against His Father, Jesus formed whips and drove them from the Temple. Righteous anger, and the acts which flow from it, intend the correction of vice (both for the good of the individual sinner and the common good), the restoring of the order of justice disturbed by sin, and the restraint of further evil.
ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm

 

[JRKH]

CCC #1767 In themselves passions are neither good nor evil. They are morally qualified only to the extent that they effectively engage reason and will. Passions are said to be voluntary, “either because they are commanded by the will or because the will does not place obstacles in their way.” It belongs to the perfection of the moral or human good that the passions be governed by reason.

"Righteous versus Unrighteous Anger (CCC #2302-3)

Anger is a desire for revenge. Anger is the passion (emotion) by which a man reacts to evil, real or apparent, and seeks vindication of his rights, that is, justice. By itself the passion is neither moral or immoral, but becomes so by reason or its being ordered or disordered - that is, reasonable according to the circumstances. An ordered anger is directed to a legitimate object, and, with an appropriate degree of vehemence. An inordinate anger is directed either to an illegitimate object, or, with an unreasonable vehemence. As St. Thomas Aquinas notes, vice may be by defect, as well as excess. So, the presence of evil should provoke a righteous anger, which if absent constitutes a sinful insensibility.

Consider the just anger of the Lord to the presence in the Temple of the money-changers and the action He took (John 2:13-17). Provoked by this offense against His Father, Jesus formed whips and drove them from the Temple. Righteous anger, and the acts which flow from it, intend the correction of vice (both for the good of the individual sinner and the common good), the restoring of the order of justice disturbed by sin, and the restraint of further evil.
ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm

Thanks for the references and clarifications.

Peace
James

 

[sinnerdexter]

Be careful here - The Catachsim states that we are not to use evil to try and defeat evil.

True. Jesus himself said, “Those who use the sword are sooner or later destroyed by it” (Mt 26:52)

We should be relative pacifists.

 

[o_mlly]

True. Jesus himself said, “Those who use the sword are sooner or later destroyed by it” (Mt 26:52)

We should be relative pacifists.

If you, as an unjust aggressor, resist my efforts to compel you to stop the evil that you do to the point that I must use violence upon you to bring about that end, then my act toward you is medicinal and comes from charity.

Catholics are not “People of the Book” but “People of the Word.” The Church, through its Magisterium, interprets authoritatively Scritpure and Tradition. To take from scripture one verse and elevate it as controlling of all other verses is the basis of heresy (from the Greek “hairesis” to choose).