Self-defense

[Black_Jaque]

I see my other thread is beginning to drift away from the Catholic Church’s position on gun-control into the normal debate over gun control. If you’re posting on that thread, please start new topics if you want to drift.

Someone brought up an interesting thought, that I would like to see some discussion on.

Is it possible that in the act of legitimate self-defense you are actually doing a good for the aggressor - even if you kill the aggressor?

A very good argument for pacifism is that you may be more confident of your own salvation than that of your attacker. Thus by accepting death you would buy time for your aggressor to repent.

However, if you choose to defend yourself you would be acting legitimately. However in allowing the attacker to proceed, would be allowing them to commit murder. Thus by killing them you at least prevented them from committing one mortal sin.

 

[thistle]

QUOTE by Black Jaque

That is why pacifism is heretical and immoral.

UNQUOTE

Nobody else has jumped in yet so I’ll get going. First I don’t understand why you kept talking about pacifism in the other thread when the topic was gun control.
Pacifism to me simply means somebody unwilling to take up arms and serve their country in war when called upon. I am not a pacifist and would gladly serve my country if called upon, although at 57 years old I guess that’s not likely now!
Pacifism has nothing to do with private citizens owning guns or not.
However, although I am not a pacifist I am curious to know where you get your information that pacifism is a heresy. It must mean there is a Church teaching stating that. Can you tell me where to look?

 

[DreadVandal]

Absolute pacifism would be heresy in that it is against the Church’s teaching that one has an obligation to defend one’s country if it is just to do so.

On the main issue, I would say that acts which seem harmful can actually be helpful. For example, Socrates points out in the Crito that one who is a true friend to another would turn him into the authorities if that other person were committing wicked crimes. Why? because the worst evil is to have injustice in the soul. If the worst evil is to have injustice in the soul, then the worst thing that could happen to a criminal would be to avoid punishment. An act which is just toward the criminal would be an act of love since it is done for the good of the criminal.

 

[thistle]

Absolute pacifism would be heresy in that it is against the Church’s teaching that one has an obligation to defend one’s country if it is just to do so.
On the main issue, I would say that acts which seem harmful can actually be helpful. For example, Socrates points out in the Crito that one who is a true friend to another would turn him into the authorities if that other person were committing wicked crimes. Why? because the worst evil is to have injustice in the soul. If the worst evil is to have injustice in the soul, then the worst thing that could happen to a criminal would be to avoid punishment. An act which is just toward the criminal would be an act of love since it is done for the good of the criminal.

How about the war in Iraq? Your president deemed it just but the Church deemed it unjust.

 

[DreadVandal]

thistle:

How about the war in Iraq? Your president deemed it just but the Church deemed it unjust.

Well, I don’t want to turn this into an Iraq war thread. It seems unclear to me whether the war is just or not. I would leave it to the individual consciences of people. And the Church did not officially proclaim the war unjust. The view of most prelates is that it is unjust, but this is not an official Church proclammation.

 

[JMJ_Theresa]

Black Jaque:

I see my other thread is beginning to drift away from the Catholic Church’s position on gun-control into the normal debate over gun control. If you’re posting on that thread, please start new topics if you want to drift.

Someone brought up an interesting thought, that I would like to see some discussion on.

Is it possible that in the act of legitimate self-defense you are actually doing a good for the aggressor - even if you kill the aggressor?

A very good argument for pacifism is that you may be more confident of your own salvation than that of your attacker. Thus by accepting death you would buy time for your aggressor to repent.

However, if you choose to defend yourself you would be acting legitimately. However in allowing the attacker to proceed, would be allowing them to commit murder. Thus by killing them you at least prevented them from committing one mortal sin.

Interesting thought. We are suppose to oppose evil in every form. I know that a premature violent death for myself would lead to a lot of suffering for my children and my husband. Plus, I am hoping to become more Christlike in my own preparation for death. In this age of terrorism, unfortunately, more and more citizens will be called upon to be citizen soldiers. I remember reading in Israel, a waiter pulled out a gun and shot a suicide bomber before he could kill the families in the restaurant. We can’t be responsible for the state of a criminal’s soul. We have guns (in the gun safe) for hunting, but no guns for personal protection. Maybe we should rethink it. We also have small children.

However, I have always applied the “give 'em time to repent” argument to capital punishment.