The use of deadly force for self protection?

[Boxerdog]

I have heard Fr. Carapi talk about somone once threaten his life and he was had his colt .45 at hand for protection.

I have always wondered what the Church’s official position was on the use of deadly force and the role of the protection of others was?

 

[peso73]

I have heard Fr. Carapi talk about somone once threaten his life and he was had his colt .45 at hand for protection.

I have always wondered what the Church’s official position was on the use of deadly force and the role of the protection of others was?

I saw that Fr. Corapi episode too, I wish our local parish priests were as engaging to hear, but oh well. I believe since the church backs St. Augustine’s “just war” theory, of which I don’t know the details, but I would only imagine says that sometimes war is just I believe to defend one’s life or the life of others if no other means of preventing a person from harming the aforementioned self or others is available, one has the moral right to KILL KILL KILL !!! :knight2:

 

[ricko]

The use of deadly force to protect the life of yourself or others is justified or otherwise all our police and miltary would be in danger of loosing their soul. The JWs by the way do not believe in any kind of violence. I asked a friend of mine who was a JW that if a robber was going to kill his wife and kids would he use force to protect them? His answer was “No”.

 

[jemfinch]

The JWs by the way do not believe in any kind of violence. I asked a friend of mine who was a JW that if a robber was going to kill his wife and kids would he use force to protect them? His answer was “No”.

So much for tying up the strong man before robbing the house, eh?

Jeremy

 

[DL82]

One of the important things about the use of deadly force, and one of the most difficult disciplines of medieval knighthood, was to not take pleasure in the act of killing or in its anticipation.

This means that gun ownership is not technically a sin, nor is training to be proficient in its’ use, but being a gun-nut who enjoys spending an hour a week at the firing range imagining he’s blasting an intruder is probably dwelling with too much relish on the thought of taking another’s life. Same goes for martial arts practice - first train your conscience, then your body.

 

[pete_29]

1. Your life is just as valuable as theirs.
   1. You did not put them in the position where you had to use deadly force.
   2. Regret that you had to use deadly force, but don’t punish yourself for something that was ultimately their choice.

 

[Seatuck]

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Exodus 22:2-3

"If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed. "A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft.

In the dark there is a presumption that the robber is armed and dangerious – also help is not within ear shot. In the day, one can tell if the thief is armed and dangerious and help is within ear shot are the presumptions.

 

[DL82]

It all depends on your attitude, and your disposition, and the things you do to anticipate an outcome.

E.g. if you have the opportunity to shoot someone in the leg, and choose instead to shoot them in the head, that’s a problem.

If you have a gun under your bed, and you go to sleep each night with the front door unlocked hoping that this time you’ll get the chance to use it, that’s also a problem.

If you have the unfortunate need to shoot someone, and your immediate reaction is anything other than to call an ambulance and to pray for their soul, that’s also a problem.

If you go to the firing range every week and imagine your worst enemy standing in front of you as you unload a magazine into their chest, and then feel happy and de-stressed for getting that agression out, I’d say that’s a problem too.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

At the police academy, when we were talking about use of force, one big thing they teach is “the threat dictates the amount of force used”, meaning you do what is necessary to stop what the bad guy is doing. And if they are injured or killed because of it, then they were the ones who made the decision for it to end that way.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Brendan]

.

E.g. if you have the opportunity to shoot someone in the leg, and choose instead to shoot them in the head, that’s a problem.

The correct Catholic response is that one uses sufficent force to remove the threat to your ( or another’s) life. Once the threat has been stopped ( and only then) you cease the use of force, and, if possible, call for assistance (ambulance for the attacker)

It would be few circumstances where a ‘leg shot’ removes the threat, at best it only reduces it. At worst, it’s small, moving target and you would probably miss, which doesn’t reduce the threat at all.

Police are trained to aim at “Center Mass” (chest\body) which is the target most likely to reduce the threat.

 

[bilop]

E.g. if you have the opportunity to shoot someone in the leg, and choose instead to shoot them in the head, that’s a problem.

That’s a nice sentiment, but not accurate.

The only time you should be using deadly force (shooting) is if you or someone else are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

In that situation, you must act in a decisive way so as to disable the attacker as quickly as possible. This means shooting at the center of mass (chest/belly) which has the least chance of missing. You continue firing until the attacker is disabled.

It would be irresonsible and stupid to aim for a leg, or a head for that matter. You’ll likely miss, and the attacker will be able to do harm.

God Bless

 

[Brendan]

I I have always wondered what the Church’s official position was on the use of deadly force and the role of the protection of others was?

You are permitted, but not required, to use force to defend your own life. If you have a resonsibility towards the life of another ( parent, spouse, etc) you have have a Canonical DUTY to use force if necessary to preserve their lives.

There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God’s Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one’s own life and the duty not to harm someone else’s life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self. This can only be done in virtue of a heroic love which deepens and transfigures the love of self into a radical self-offering, according to the spirit of the Gospel Beatitudes (cf. Mt 5:38-40). The sublime example of this self-offering is the Lord Jesus himself.

Moreover, “legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State” (CCC 2265). Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.45

Pope John Paul II
Evangelium Vitae - 55

 

[anamchara]

I have heard Fr. Carapi talk about somone once threaten his life and he was had his colt .45 at hand for protection.

I have always wondered what the Church’s official position was on the use of deadly force and the role of the protection of others was?

Oh Lord, why am I not surprised

 

[bluerose]

Same goes for martial arts practice - first train your conscience, then your body.

I agree. In our TKD school, the emphasis is on AVOIDING conflict and using the skills that are taught to get away from danger (in other words, once you disable and/or disarm an aggessor, you get yourself and others away and notify the authorities. You don’t stand over him kicking him in the head or ribs until he’s dead.)

In our women’s self-defense class, we are taught to FIGHT BACK if we are attacked, even by an armed aggressor. This goes against the former advice to “give the aggressor what he wants” (whether your wallet or whatever else he’s after ) because too many women gave up their wallets and their bodies and ended up dead as well. My husband (a 3rd degree black belt and instructor) asked me what I would do if I was ever attacked. I told him I’d fight like hell to get away and, if I couldn’t, then try to leave as many marks on the guy as possible.

And pray to St. Maria Goretti.

 

[PenguinsFan]

1. Your life is just as valuable as theirs.
   1. You did not put them in the position where you had to use deadly force.
   2. Regret that you had to use deadly force, but don’t punish yourself for something that was ultimately their choice.

Plus, I believe instinct would kick in. Fight or flight, and if someone broke in to harm my wife or kids, a natural reaction would be to protect, even if that meant death to the intruder. I don’t have a gun, my wife doesn’t want it in the house. It’s an ongoing discussion we have.

I’m not saying I wouldn’t feel sorrow for harming or killing another human being, but if they were intending on harming my family, I would do what I needed to do, to protect them.

In Christ,
PF

 

[Brendan]

I have heard Fr. Carapi talk about somone once threaten his life and he was had his colt .45 at hand for protection.

BTW, were you aware that St. Gabriel Possenti actually did something similar.

IN 186o, the town in which his seminary was located in was attacked by some of Garibaldi’s bandits. The proceded to burn the town and threaten the inhabitants.

Prior to entering the seminary, St. Gabriel was an accomplished marksman, so he went into the down and was able to grab two pistols.

Using the pistols, and his marksmanship skills, he was able to drive the bandits away from the town.

That is why he is the Patron Saint of Handgun users. I have a medal of his on my holster.

 

[po18guy]

I have heard Fr. Carapi talk about somone once threaten his life and he was had his colt .45 at hand for protection. I have always wondered what the Church’s official position was on the use of deadly force and the role of the protection of others was?

It is not sinful to defend innocent life. Thus, even the death penalty is allowable under limited circumstances. Christianity is not a suicide pact.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Sanctus_Paladin]

1. Your life is just as valuable as theirs.
   1. You did not put them in the position where you had to use deadly force.
   2. Regret that you had to use deadly force, but don’t punish yourself for something that was ultimately their choice.

amen

 

[vern_humphrey]

From the Catechism:

**Legitimate defense **

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."65

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.66

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.

(My emphasis)