"Thou shall not kill" question

[Eric_Hyom]

I have had a few formative experiences on this subject and would like to share them, and then express my views.

First, in Washington DC, I have seen what happened when the government took away guns (from the 1970s - 2008). Basically, the criminals came in from MD and VA and robbed and killed defenseless people. Please look it up yourself and ponder the loss of life.

Whenever people have guns, then there will be deaths, that just seems unavoidable. This is a Catholic forum, so we should seek a God answer to the problem.

About twenty years ago, the friend of a minister in Jamaica, was shot and killed by a gang of kids on drugs. The minister said what is the church doing to help these kids, and the answer was nothing. He prayed for a solution, and as a result a group of unarmed parishioners prayed, then went out to search for these armed gangs.

It must be incredibly daunting to confront poor kids with guns and high on drugs, but this church started to have a profound affect on them. From those original encounters, the Street Pastor Organisation grew, I think there are now over fifteen thousand volunteers in different parts of the world.

I have been a street Pastor for eight years, and we do encounter a lot of violence, we walk in the middle, and we witness change, I am only 66, I love being out with our oldest lady in the group, she is almost eighty, and no one messes with her.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I’ve always found it tough to argue against the sentiment in the John Prine song Your Flag Decal Won’t Get You Into Heaven Anymore: “Now Jesus don’t like killin’, no matter what the reasons for”

I would also like to point out that slavery was considered a subject on which Catholics were allowed to have a legitimate diversity of opinion not that long ago.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

“Now Jesus don’t like killin’, no matter what the reasons for”
.

Agreed.

I would also like to point out that slavery was considered a subject on which Catholics were allowed to have a legitimate diversity of opinion not that long ago

If I want to go and help homeless people, I don’t have to justify this to anyone, I don’t have to quote scripture that is in favour of helping homeless people.

However, if I wanted to start slave trading, and become rich in the process, then I would need to try and justify myself. There are passages in the Bible that talk about slavery, because it was already happening, but slavery is wrong.

It seems that anything you don’t have to justify to other people, then you are on the right track, things you need to justify, lead you towards sin.

 

[Ender]

Jesus called the people who came to arrest him, ‘friend’ They then seized Jesus, so I would call Peter’s action defending an innocent man, and Jesus even replies that those who live by the sword die by the sword. This does not sound like Jesus is in favour of self defence.

Cardinal Bellarmine is a Doctor of the Church so his opinion on the matter should be of more than casual interest. It doesn’t mean he was automatically right about everything but he should be given the benefit of the doubt unless you can point to another church document that contradicts him.

Given that the church has always recognized that a person has a right to defend himself even to the point of causing the death of his attacker, it should be clear that the church recognizes the legitimacy of self defense, and if the church accepts it we should assume it would be acceptable to Christ as well.

Ender

 

[Frankenfurter]

I would also like to point out that slavery was considered a subject on which Catholics were allowed to have a legitimate diversity of opinion not that long ago.

That is simply not correct. I realize it is off topic but it is an erroneous statement that needs correcting.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM

In summary, the source you provide was written by a Bishop who disagreed with the Pope. There were many who disagreed. But since the 1400’s the Popes have made it clear that slavery is not permitted.

For example, the first papal statement concerning slavery given in the link I provided states:

“And no less do We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their pristine liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands … who have been made subject to slavery (). These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money.”

I see that the Catholic church was ahead of the world on this issue.

And just because some bishops didn’t like it, their opinion does not represent that of the Catholic church when the Pope clearly says where the church stands.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Not sure what this means. Buy a sword, so that you’ll never use it? Really?

Very much the same as buy a nuclear bomb, and never use it.

Taking that to mean that He was against self-defense just flies in the face of logic…

It would be good if we brought guns and bombs, and never used them, in the same way as we buy big nuclear bombs, and holefully never have to use them again.

 

[Ender]

"Gorgias:

Buy a sword, so that you’ll never use it?

Very much the same as buy a nuclear bomb, and never use it.

Since you ignored the comment by Cardinal Bellarmine I’ll try again. Here is what Aquinas said on the matter.* Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists *Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], “it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.” *(ST II-II 64,7)The church has never believed that self defense is immoral, rather she has always acknowledged it to be legitimate.

Ender

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Since you ignored the comment by Cardinal Bellarmine I’ll try again. Here is what Aquinas said on the matter.* Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], "it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense." (ST II-II 64,7)The church has never believed that self defense is immoral, rather she has always acknowledged it to be legitimate.

Ender

It wasn’t a case of ignoring your comment, I just replied to a different post. But you do seem to have left this out from your last post…

Given that the church has always recognized that a person has a right to defend himself even to the point of causing the death of his attacker,

Now I wonder what scripture could be used to justify such a stance, even to the death of the attacker. And I wonder how this complies with the greatest commandments, of which we can do nothing greater.

 

[Gorgias]

Very much the same as buy a nuclear bomb, and never use it.

You very greatly misunderstand the doctrine of “Mutual Assured Distruction”, then. It’s more like “buy a nuclear bomb, so that your enemies never use theirs.”

Deterrence means “I’m threatening to use my bombs against you – and you better realize, buddy, that I’ll do it! – so you better not fling your bombs at me…”! So… you’re condoning the use of weaponry as an honest threat? And that, then, is what you’re suggesting Jesus was teaching??? Again: eisegesis.

It would be good if we brought guns and bombs, and never used them, in the same way as we buy big nuclear bombs, and holefully never have to use them again.

We “never use nuclear bombs” because the devastation created through their use is too great. You can’t really compare a gun and a nuclear bomb – unless you’re trying to be facetious.

 

[Gorgias]

Now I wonder what scripture could be used to justify such a stance, even to the death of the attacker.

Remember, of course, that as Catholics we believe that the Deposit of Faith includes (but is not limited to) Sacred Scripture. The Apostolic Teaching of the apostles and their successors is likewise part of God’s teaching to us. With that in mind, we look to the Church’s teachings as found in the Catechism (I’ve taken the liberty to underline the parts that answer your question directly):

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.”

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.
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.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

You’re welcome.

And I wonder how this complies with the greatest commandments, of which we can do nothing greater.

It does – explicitly! “Love your neighbor as yourself”, remember? Self-defense is a means of loving your neighbor who is the victim of unjust aggression! As it turns out, you’re right! There is Scripture that justifies self-defense! Thanks!!!

 

[JapaneseKappa]

That is simply not correct. I realize it is off topic but it is an erroneous statement that needs correcting.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM

I see that the Catholic church was ahead of the world on this issue.

And just because some bishops didn’t like it, their opinion does not represent that of the Catholic church when the Pope clearly says where the church stands.

Yours is actually the misinformed position. Early opposition to slavery (like the one you cite) mostly had two goals:

1. Prevent the enslavement of Catholics.
2. Help missionary efforts (it’s hard to convince people of your religion’s kind benevolence when you immediately enslave them.)

For example, Pope Paul III explicitly authorized trade in Muslim slaves in the 1500s, and explained that the earlier opposition to slavery was on technical grounds (i.e. the slaves were not taken as part of a just war, and were not enemies of Catholicism). I will also point out that two Catholic priests (Francisco de Jaca and Epiphane de Moirans) were excommunicated in 1681 for preaching against slavery-as-it-was-practiced in Cuba.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

You very greatly misunderstand the doctrine of “Mutual Assured Distruction”, then. It’s more like “buy a nuclear bomb, so that your enemies never use theirs.”

Deterrence means “I’m threatening to use my bombs against you – and you better realize, buddy, that I’ll do it! – so you better not fling your bombs at me…”! So… you’re condoning the use of weaponry as an honest threat? And that, then, is what you’re suggesting Jesus was teaching??? Again: eisegesis.

The same logic applies to swords, you buy a sword and you have the advantage, I buy a sword, and we have a kind of stalemate.

We “never use nuclear bombs” because the devastation created through their use is too great. You can’t really compare a gun and a nuclear bomb – unless you’re trying to be facetious.

Millions of people are shot by guns, and just because guns kill small numbers at a time, we overlook their devastation in the hands of millions of people. There are enough guns to kill every man, woman and child on the planet, there are enough nuclear bombs to do the same job, whats the difference.

In fact, we should be more scared of guns than nukes, because people use guns.

 

[Brendan]

Now I wonder what scripture could be used to justify such a stance, even to the death of the attacker. .

1 Samuel 17:49

Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground

 

[mikekle]

Jesus called the people who came to arrest him, ‘friend’ They then seized Jesus, so I would call Peter’s action defending an innocent man, and Jesus even replies that those who live by the sword die by the sword. This does not sound like Jesus is in favour of self defence.

Matthew 26
50 Jesus replied, “Do what you came for, friend.”[d]

Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51 With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

You bring up a good point, it does seem to appear that Jesus prefers someone to NOT defend themselves or others, even if it is in a self defense situation, I mean, who among us would actually just willing let a group of people come take you away if you were totally innocent…common sense tells us that we should indeed fight back, but maybe Jesus was just referring to THAT situation, meaning, HIS situation, if the prevented him from being arrested, things could not play out as God intended, so…

 

[Gorgias]

The same logic applies to swords, you buy a sword and you have the advantage, I buy a sword, and we have a kind of stalemate.

No, the same logic does not apply. You buy a nuke, and the reason I want one is because, if you use it, you not only kill me, but everybody I know in town. That’s a huge (and substantial!) difference…

There are enough guns to kill every man, woman and child on the planet, there are enough nuclear bombs to do the same job, whats the difference.

C’mon… “what’s the difference”? Seriously??? Hillary would be proud of you. uch:

The difference is, if you pull one trigger, you might kill one person. If you drop one nuke, you will kill millions. If you can’t see the difference in that, I’m not sure what I can say to help you see it…

 

[Eric_Hyom]

1 Samuel 17:49

Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground

There were a number of times that people came to arrest Jesus, if he had a sword, then he could have defended himself. But it seems that Jesus lived more by the greatest commandments, and chose to escape capture instead of defending himself.

It seems that Jesus never carried a sword to defend himself with, so why would he ask his disciples to take two swords to the Garden of Gethsemane, if he was not going to use one himself?

Jesus knew at the Last Super, that his time had come, he knew he was going to give himself up, it seems that he didn’t want his disciples to defend him, so why did he even bother to say two swords are enough.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

No, the same logic does not apply. You buy a nuke, and the reason I want one is because, if you use it, you not only kill me, but everybody I know in town. That’s a huge (and substantial!) difference…

The stupidity of war, we ban chemical and biological weapons that kill indiscriminately, but its ok for some countries to have nukes. Then these bully countries try and limit who else can have nukes.

C’mon… “what’s the difference”? Seriously??? Hillary would be proud of you. uch:

The difference is, if you pull one trigger, you might kill one person. If you drop one nuke, you will kill millions. If you can’t see the difference in that, I’m not sure what I can say to help you see it…

If only one person pulled a trigger, then I would totally agree with you.

How many people have been killed by nuclear bombs?

How many people have been killed by guns?

You should live more in fear of guns, they are actually used to kill, millions of people pull triggers.

 

[Frankenfurter]

Yours is actually the misinformed position. Early opposition to slavery (like the one you cite) mostly had two goals:

1. Prevent the enslavement of Catholics.
2. Help missionary efforts (it’s hard to convince people of your religion’s kind benevolence when you immediately enslave them.)

For example, Pope Paul III explicitly authorized trade in Muslim slaves in the 1500s, and explained that the earlier opposition to slavery was on technical grounds (i.e. the slaves were not taken as part of a just war, and were not enemies of Catholicism). I will also point out that two Catholic priests (Francisco de Jaca and Epiphane de Moirans) were excommunicated in 1681 for preaching against slavery-as-it-was-practiced in Cuba.

There is nothing wrong with those 2 goals. You seem to imply that those are bad goals. We must realize that slavery was very real, and that the church worked within an economic world that needed slavery to exist. She was the only institution that spoke out in defense of the oppressed. Pope Paul III wrote one of the clearest defense of slaves in America, along with King Charles. Of course though, the Spanish ignored these decrees and enslaved the Indians anyway.

When people are viewed as having no souls, and being animals, they are treated very poorly. The church made it clear that people are never to be treated that way since they indeed have souls and are equal. Slavery is rationalized by those who would say that people are just animals. The Catholic church always went against that notion formally and in writing. I can find no other institution speaking out for the souls of the individuals. Everyone else seemed to be just concerned with their own greed and lust for exploitation.

 

[Ender]

Now I wonder what scripture could be used to justify such a stance, even to the death of the attacker. And I wonder how this complies with the greatest commandments, of which we can do nothing greater.

Regardless of what you believe scripture says, do you accept that the church has taught, and teaches today, that self-defense is legitimate even to the point of killing the attacker (if this cannot reasonably be avoided)?

Ender

 

[Frankenfurter]

Part of the nuance of the second amendment is that it is assumed that guns are needed for self defense against invaders, so that we can raise an army from the civilian population, and being a well armed militia, they are a legitimate force. A true defense.

If the threat of invaders becomes diminished to the point below the threat of random acts of terror from people directly, then perhaps we need to rethink this amendment.

The defensive aspect of the amendment is in synch with biblical teaching. But what if the amendment causes directly more harm by arming criminals, psychos and terrorists? Then we must look at it differently.

Please understand that a gun is not a defensive weapon. It is offensive. That is part of the problem and why I think that Jesus would see guns as something that escalates violence rather than protects and defends from it.

To become a Christian nation however, means that we need to amend the constitution and remove guns from the entire nation. I pray that we can reach that point sometime. In the meantime we need gun training for all and to make it criminal to allow guns into the hands of the unqualified. Guns are a responsibility AND a right. If we can do that properly, we may never need to have a ban on guns since the random violence would go down naturally and we could maintain our secondary nation defense without also hurting ourselves in the process. I think Jesus would be fine with that. But I am also sure that he mourns when innocents are gunned down.