You’ve done with my post what you did with the words of Jesus- pulled them our of context and used them to support a pre-existing belief. Let’s take your post line by line, as you did mine.
Nowhere in your attachment does it say that the story is untrue and an internet search shows dozens of sites which claim that it is truthful.
Every one of those “dozens of sites” quotes the same book, usually with slightly different details. That book (the one highlighted on my screenshot) is the only source for this apocryphal story, and it admits to livening up the story for entertainment purposes. Read page 3 of the book if you have it. What Butler’s lives does is the same thing as New Advent- it ignores the story completely. That doesn’t mean it’s untrue, but given the nature of the book, the nature of the Passionist resistance to the movement to have him named “patron of gun owners”, and the dearth of evidence about this story, it indicates that it is likely not true. Add to that the fact that he was two years from his death by tuberculosis and the story is so unlikely that it’s almost laughable. One version that you can find on the internet claims that he wrestled the guns form the holsters of nearby soldiers. How can you do that two years from death by tuberculosis?
Remember- just because it’s on the internet doesn’t mean it’s true.
Yes, they died for their faith. No one is disputing that.
Again here, you miss the point. You interpretation of this scripture (note: yours not the Church’s- you do not have the authority to interpret scripture) implies that we should be goading our enemies, which goes much farther than defending ourselves from them. My statement is meant to show the stark difference in what you are saying versus what the Church proclaims.
Bingo! That is what started this entire series – The catechism is explicit on this matter. We’re even allowed to use lethal force to defend ourselves. Further discussion is not necessary. The matter has been addressed.
No, the matter has not been addressed, it’s been avoided. The scriptural passage in question does not mean what you say it means. There is a huge difference between the self-defense allowed by the catechism and the intentional embarrassment promoted by your personal and illegitimate interpretation of the words of the incarnate God. There is nothing similar between 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:” and your position of embarrassing the oppressor or even tricking him into more open aggression.
Your position seems to be informed by the highly suspect liberation theology. I repeat what I ended my last post with, which you have ignored completely. Jesus’ words are a radical call to nonviolence, peace, and love- not a snide call to provoke more violence, strife, and hatred. It’s not about “reclaiming your place” or “changing the structure of power”. No, that just doesn’t jive well with the rest of his words about cultivating humility, loving your persecutors, and most of all, seeking first the Kingdom of God, rather than respect from men.
We are not called to goad our oppressors into further action, to reclaim our dignity from them, or to embarrass them. Our dignity is inherent due to our nature as creatures made in the image of God- no oppressor can claim that from us, and there is therefore no reason to reclaim it. We are permitted to defend ourselves, but not to do what you say. It is not the role of the Christian to taunt, but to love.
