"Stand up for your rights!" -- And Those of Others

[MysticMissMisty]

Salvete, omnes!

When taking passages such as “turn the other cheek” and others which would seem to suggest that we are to suffer passively when faced with injustice, I would ask: Is it right to stand up for the rights of others when you see injustice committed against them? Is it right to stand up for your rights when you find them violated?

Most of you, I suspect, would state a firm “yes” to the first question, and probably a good number of you would speak a resounding “no” to the second.

Yet, we are told to “love our neighbor as ourselves”. We are not told to love ourselves less than our neighbor (as far as I know, anyway). We are not not to love ourselves but only to love our neighbor.

After all, wouldn’t doing this be somewhat a contradiction and against proper reason? What makes the “other” different from you besides the fact that he is the “other”? Don’t you have the same rights as the ones you’re defending for other people?

On the other hand, and once again, Christ does tell us to “turn the other cheek” and there are passages which seem to suggest that we should suffer injustices passively. If we should suffer injustices passively, doesn’t it make sense that others should do the same? If this is the case, what right have we to demonstrate even on their behalf if it is their duty to accept unjust suffering?

So, what is it to be?

If we are to passively accept injustice against ourselves, we must also passively accept injustice against others.

If we are to actively oppose injustice against others, we should then have a right to actively oppose injustice against ourselves.

What are we to do here? I am actually quite confused on this issue and would surely appreciate some clarification.

Vobis gratias.

 

[Antegin]

I am wrestling with this question as we speak. I have found over my many years that we all do things that offend, impede or frustrate others. Usually this is quite unintentional and maybe even unaware. We can sit and stew about this, or we can forgive, 70 times 70. We can turn the other cheek. Or we can offer it up for the outrages committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary for the conversion of sinners.

There are times when people are being abused and their rights denied. Now we have a right to protect ourselves and the duty to protect others. Wisdom is knowing when you are really looking at abuse and what is the best way to protect yourself or the other person.

Pray about this alot. This is Christianity 101 but it seems to take a lifetime to learn.

 

[St_Francis]

St Thomas Aquinas answers this (II, II, Q 188, Art. 3, Obj. 1) Reply to Objection 1. Not to resist evil may be understood in two ways. First, in the sense of forgiving the wrong done to oneself, and thus it may pertain to perfection, when it is expedient to act thus for the spiritual welfare of others. Secondly, in the sense of tolerating patiently the wrongs done to others: and this pertains to imperfection, or even to vice, if one be able to resist the wrongdoer in a becoming manner.

 

[TARRAT]

We are told to turn the other cheek, however when the centurion assaulted Jesus He did not offer the other cheek but confronted the one who assaulted Him. We don’t know what He would have done if He hadn’t been bound with rope but he verbally confronted his abuser. I think, with that in mind, it is appropriate always to stick up for what is right.

:twocents:

 

[MysticMissMisty]

St Thomas Aquinas answers this (II, II, Q 188, Art. 3, Obj. 1) Reply to Objection 1. Not to resist evil may be understood in two ways. First, in the sense of forgiving the wrong done to oneself, and thus it may pertain to perfection, when it is expedient to act thus for the spiritual welfare of others. Secondly, in the sense of tolerating patiently the wrongs done to others: and this pertains to imperfection, or even to vice, if one be able to resist the wrongdoer in a becoming manner.

Nice!!

So, then, do you agree that we do have a right both to stand up for ourselves and for others?

I mean, I tend to agree as well. However, I qualify it by saying we are not personally to hate the one who does wrong either to us or others. We must always keep that in mind when “sticking up” for ourselves/others. We cannot be rude/brash/etc, but I do believe we can be firm in defending our/others’ rights. It would indeed seem that Christ Himself, Whom we are to imitate, often stood up, maybe not for what we would today call “rights” but at least for what was “right”, indeed, rather firmly at times. (I’m thinking of many of His responses to the Pharisees, which certainly don’t seem to be all nice and cuddly…) Some might argue, though, that Christ, as God, had the right to speak/act in the way He did but that we ourselves, since we are to leave wrath to God, should not. Even so, we are told in another place to “be angry”, yet not to sin. How do we reconcile all these things with each other in the context of standing up for rights, sometimes in a firmly/assertive manner? After all, properly-directed anger can actually motivate us even further to right wrongs.

Perhaps in the case of “leaving the wrath to God”, Jesus was merely warning us against too quick and misdirected wrath and saying that God’s Wrath, because it is neither of these, is very often superior to that of man? Then, in the case when the disciples wanted to bring fire down upon a city, perhaps they were, in their hearts, offended because of some matter of pride and literally bore some degree of hatred for thei inhabitants of that town, neither of which Jesus would’ve been too pleased with. He, therefore, advised them, in that case to leave room for the wrath of God. In other cases, however, we may express anger, rightly-directed, (some would call it “righteous indignation”) at wrongs done as a motivator toward its rectification.

Still, what of the Pauline passages that seem to suggest that we should just lie down and suffer under ill-treatment? Might he have just been saying here that, if you can’t get someone who is ill-treating you to change, then you should just bear it instead of trying to resist it? And/Or, that we shouldn’t react toward the person in hatred by, say, mouthing off about the way they’re treating us just out of that hatred, pride or some other sinful motivation? I mean, perhaps Paul wasn’t thinking specifically of this, but maybe what he was referring to were situations where the person doing the wrong would seem to the one to whom the wrong is done to be incorrigible.

Any responses to all this? Thoughts? Insights? Agreements? Disagreements?

 

[St_Francis]

Nice!!

So, then, do you agree that we do have a right both to stand up for ourselves and for others?

I mean, I tend to agree as well. However, I qualify it by saying we are not personally to hate the one who does wrong either to us or others. We must always keep that in mind when “sticking up” for ourselves/others. We cannot be rude/brash/etc, but I do believe we can be firm in defending our/others’ rights. It would indeed seem that Christ Himself, Whom we are to imitate, often stood up, maybe not for what we would today call “rights” but at least for what was “right”, indeed, rather firmly at times. (I’m thinking of many of His responses to the Pharisees, which certainly don’t seem to be all nice and cuddly…) Some might argue, though, that Christ, as God, had the right to speak/act in the way He did but that we ourselves, since we are to leave wrath to God, should not. Even so, we are told in another place to “be angry”, yet not to sin. How do we reconcile all these things with each other in the context of standing up for rights, sometimes in a firmly/assertive manner? After all, properly-directed anger can actually motivate us even further to right wrongs.

Perhaps in the case of “leaving the wrath to God”, Jesus was merely warning us against too quick and misdirected wrath and saying that God’s Wrath, because it is neither of these, is very often superior to that of man? Then, in the case when the disciples wanted to bring fire down upon a city, perhaps they were, in their hearts, offended because of some matter of pride and literally bore some degree of hatred for thei inhabitants of that town, neither of which Jesus would’ve been too pleased with. He, therefore, advised them, in that case to leave room for the wrath of God. In other cases, however, we may express anger, rightly-directed, (some would call it “righteous indignation”) at wrongs done as a motivator toward its rectification.

Still, what of the Pauline passages that seem to suggest that we should just lie down and suffer under ill-treatment? Might he have just been saying here that, if you can’t get someone who is ill-treating you to change, then you should just bear it instead of trying to resist it? And/Or, that we shouldn’t react toward the person in hatred by, say, mouthing off about the way they’re treating us just out of that hatred, pride or some other sinful motivation? I mean, perhaps Paul wasn’t thinking specifically of this, but maybe what he was referring to were situations where the person doing the wrong would seem to the one to whom the wrong is done to be incorrigible.

Any responses to all this? Thoughts? Insights? Agreements? Disagreements?

I believe you mentioned elsewhere that you just starting to learn the Catholic faith? So, first, be patient. Much of what the Church teaches is subtle, and is usually trying to keep us in the middle of the road: Don’t go too far this way; don’t go too far that way. There’s usually lots of room for moral action in the middle, and the most prudent course there often depends on the situation.

Some of this issue you bring up has to do with authority. A person in authority *must *admonish or take action against a subordinate who is behaving badly. A subordinate generally needs to approach admonishing a superior very carefully, definitely in private, using established channels, if there are any. And equals can admonish, if they have a reasonable expectation that it will help.

But one *can *tolerate the bad behavior and offer it up instead, if no one else is harmed. There’s a lot of room for a prudential decision wrt ourselves, but not so much with others, as St Thomas points out. Notice, too, that he says that bearing wrongs done to ourselves is very meritorious, while at the same time, it is not required.

The Church has traditionally spoken more in terms of duties than of rights, and this will often make things more clear.

 

[St_Francis]

Nice!!

So, then, do you agree that we do have a right both to stand up for ourselves and for others?

So, there are times when we have a duty to act against a wrong, if we are a superior, or to protect others if we can. But we do not have a *duty *to do so for ourselves–we can choose to do so or choose not to.

I mean, I tend to agree as well. However, I qualify it by saying we are not personally to hate the one who does wrong either to us or others. We must always keep that in mind when “sticking up” for ourselves/others. We cannot be rude/brash/etc, but I do believe we can be firm in defending our/others’ rights.

Here again your thinking is in line with St Thomas Aquinas’s He says much the same here in his discussion about self-defense, which I think is Q 6.

It would indeed seem that Christ Himself, Whom we are to imitate, often stood up, maybe not for what we would today call “rights” but at least for what was “right”, indeed, rather firmly at times. (I’m thinking of many of His responses to the Pharisees, which certainly don’t seem to be all nice and cuddly…) Some might argue, though, that Christ, as God, had the right to speak/act in the way He did but that we ourselves, since we are to leave wrath to God, should not. Even so, we are told in another place to “be angry”, yet not to sin. How do we reconcile all these things with each other in the context of standing up for rights, sometimes in a firmly/assertive manner? After all, properly-directed anger can actually motivate us even further to right wrongs.

Yes, some of Christ’s actions were definitely taken as the result of His authority.

Some among us can balance the anger and action well, others not so much. So this is an area, when the wrong is done to ourselves, where we have no obligation and where we must tread carefully.

Perhaps in the case of “leaving the wrath to God”, Jesus was merely warning us against too quick and misdirected wrath and saying that God’s Wrath, because it is neither of these, is very often superior to that of man? Then, in the case when the disciples wanted to bring fire down upon a city, perhaps they were, in their hearts, offended because of some matter of pride and literally bore some degree of hatred for thei inhabitants of that town, neither of which Jesus would’ve been too pleased with. He, therefore, advised them, in that case to leave room for the wrath of God. In other cases, however, we may express anger, rightly-directed, (some would call it “righteous indignation”) at wrongs done as a motivator toward its rectification.

In this area, intention is very important: a bad intention can render an otherwise moral act sinful. (St Thomas mentions this in his discussion of the just war.)

Still, what of the Pauline passages that seem to suggest that we should just lie down and suffer under ill-treatment? Might he have just been saying here that, if you can’t get someone who is ill-treating you to change, then you should just bear it instead of trying to resist it?

It is sometimes a duty to bear the wrongs. For instance, Christ told Peter to put away his sword in the garden of Gethsemane imo because Peter was resisting *authority. *(I am sure St Thomas goes into this more thoroughly somewhere because Socrates (whom St Thomas calls The Philosopher in the Summa) went into it in the Apology.)

If one can get a person to change through peaceful means, that is a moral option. If one can escape the wrongs (by changing jobs or the like), that is another moral option. However, disrupting the social order would need a proportionate reason for doing so and would have to have exhausted other recourses.

And/Or, that we shouldn’t react toward the person in hatred by, say, mouthing off about the way they’re treating us just out of that hatred, pride or some other sinful motivation? I mean, perhaps Paul wasn’t thinking specifically of this, but maybe what he was referring to were situations where the person doing the wrong would seem to the one to whom the wrong is done to be incorrigible.

Any responses to all this? Thoughts? Insights? Agreements? Disagreements?

 

[PolarGuy]

I respond thus: it’s much simpler than what Aquinas said (although he’s got a lot to say that is correct). Stronger than Aquinas, doctrine, or whatever, is the natural law written on our hearts, by God the author of all life (and the natural law) and that natural law tells us to protect ourselves and others.