You Shall NOT Kill!

[chaunceygardner]

But you seem to ignore the case raised where Jesus told his disciples to take up a sword when he sent them out.

No, not ignored. It is just that you are truly grasping at straws with this. I will give you four reasons (actually Jesus, his disciples and the Church will provide them).

Let’s look at the passage from Luke 22 in the NAB:

When I sent you forth without a money bag or a sack or sandals, were you in need of anything?" “No, nothing,” they replied.

He said to them, "But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one.”

First, The Church’s commentary says that this instruction by Jesus was “intended as figurative language about being prepared to face the world’s hostility”. This is consistent with the context of the entire passage.

Second, a reading of Acts, the various Epistles, and histories of early Christianity show a people who eschewed the “sword” and used the power of the Word and their faith to defend themselves, even to the point of accepting torture and execution rather than submit to pagan Rome or fight back with weapons.

Third, Jesus has Peter put his sword away at His arrest (John 18).

Fourth, the times and places where Jesus teaches about non-violence completely overwhelm your one example, which is not a command to use violence, even in self-defense. (see citations in next part)

So, basing any moral theology on this one passage is like walking on very, very thin ice. You have no support.

ByzCath:

Again, it is “you shall not kill”, its “you shall not murder”. There is a difference.

As has already been pointed out, that is not correct. I am not sure which Bible you may be referring to, but in looking at CATHOLIC versions (NAB, Douay-Rheims, New Jerusalem) I see “kill” consistently used. In the Catechism, “shall not kill” is consistently used. Specific Bible passages? How about Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5, Matthew 5 & 19, Luke 18, Mark 10, Romans 13, James 2. In each and every case, we see “you shall not KILL”.

Also, while what you say is true we can not believe that it killing in self-defense is an evil that is only allowed because of our fallen nature.

The Church teaches us that not only is self-defense acceptable, there are times where it is required. The Church can not Teach error (evil) nor can it lead us to sin.

“Self-defense” is required, you say? Perhaps, but then why didn’t the early Christian Martyrs fight back. Why didn’t the first Apostles preach violence to promote their cause?

And is killing in self-defense “required”? Allowed in limited circumstances, yes. But certainly not required. Such a teaching would be in direct conflict with Jesus and what the Church itself proclaims to be truth. And as you say, the Church can’t teach error. (But that is a whole other thread)

That’s a fact and sometimes we must submit our will to the Church that even though we do not understand why something is the way the Church teaches it and we feel that it is wrong we must know that this is not the case nor can it be the case.

YOU are the one who refuses to submit to the will of God! YOU are the one who fails to see and understand what the Church teaches. In fact, you are a wonderful example of my points about justifying our failures to live the Gospel and rationalizing our inability to be wholly Christian, a poster child for our “fallen nature”. I could not have invented you if I had tried. Thank you so very much for providing such perfect examples of the “hardheartedness” that Jesus preached about.

**"And he said to them, ‘You justify yourselves in the sight of others, but God knows your hearts; for what is of human esteem is an abomination in the sight of God.’ ” **Luke 16

**“As the Holy Spirit says: ‘Oh, that today you would hear his voice, Harden not your hearts.’ ” ** Hebrews 3

We are commanded to “hear His voice” and to obey it. My thesis is we consistently and obstinately refuse to do so.

 

[donsnow]

Okay correct me if I’m wrong but you seem to be implying that self-defense killing is a morally neutral act at best. Regardless, that’s still not enough to condemn it. You said so yourself that it may not be “wrong” even though it’s not “good”. Furthermore, which would you rather choose? To commit an act that is morally neutral such as killing to prevent one from killing or the clearly evil act of allowing such evil to happen?

I saw your signature. Child of Light, you are not alone in this dark patch:
Child of Light in darkness weeping,
Hear my song and be glad:
Just because you’re not good
Doesn’t mean you have to be bad. (We can repent and do well or do good).

Now, to your ending question. That’s why I sometimes carried a concealed sidearm when I drove cab, before there were concealed carry permits licenses and without a permit at that time. To protect myself from being killed (I had served as pallbearer to another night cabdriver, at his funeral and after that I started carrying). That’s also why I decided to work armed as a security guard from 2002 to 2006. In case of need to stop another person from being killed. However, in 2006 I saw that the posts I was working did not have other people present, and let my armed commission expire. I worked unarmed at night from then until April, 2009, when my employer let me go. So, yeah, I’ve seen both sides of it. I just don’t want to be in a position where I have to kill somebody.
I rely on Jesus Christ. I firmly believe that as long as I am careful, I will not die until the count of my alloted days is finished. I also believe, once that count is finished by God, Who gave/gives me life, nothing will prolong my days, except His grace.

 

[chaunceygardner]

And how do we know what Jesus taught? As Catholics, we look to the Church for the authentic explanation of his teachings. If you look to yourself as the primary source then I’m not sure how far the discussion will get if it becomes a disagreement between your personal interpretation and what the Catholic Church teaches.

Ender

I may have missed something along the way, but where did I ever talk about “personal interpretation” of anything? Or is that an assumption YOU wish to make, a knee-jerk reaciton to anyone who tries to look more deeply into the Words and Life of Jesus? If I was interpreting anything, it is the beliefs and actions of some Christians, and attempting to point out the inconsistencies between their behavior and their statements and that of the Church (and Jesus, too).

You ask, “How do we know what Jesus taught?” I think the great majority of the Christian world (and probably a majority of the whole world, no matter what religion) would say that we “know” by reading the Gospels. I would only be a “primary source” if I had been there. Don’t recall that I was.

Rather than what you call personal interpretation I AM using what the Church teaches and what Jesus clearly said (Please see my response to “ByzCath” for the details). I am perfectly willing to accept both.

I was responding to the questions the OP asked. My viewpoint is that as Christians we have consistently failed to live according to God’s Word, in particular to the commandment to “not kill”. The evidence for that is easy to see. I stated my view that while killing may sometimes be acceptable, it is never “good”, and I provided my reasoning. I said that we will all have to account for our beliefs and actions (I think that is also a Church teaching) and may find out on that day that God will question our obtuseness about such a straightforward commandment (at a minimum; after failing to abide by His initial commandment and then also failing to “get” a remedial lesson from Jesus, He may have little patience for our pathetic excuses).

Finally, I am confused about “discussing disagreements”. Isn’t that what forums are for?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

No, not ignored. It is just that you are truly grasping at straws with this. I will give you four reasons (actually Jesus, his disciples and the Church will provide them).

No, not grasping at straws. I am stating what the Catholic Church Teaches. I am sorry if you find that authentic Catholic Teachings being passed on on a Catholic Forum annoying.

First, The Church’s commentary says that this instruction by Jesus was “intended as figurative language about being prepared to face the world’s hostility”. This is consistent with the context of the entire passage.

What is “The Church’s commentarty”?

So, basing any moral theology on this one passage is like walking on very, very thin ice. You have no support.

I actually posted support from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Which I quess we could call one of the Church’s Commenataries.

Here they are again.

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.

See paragraph 2265 even states that it may be a grave duty (therefore required).

As has already been pointed out, that is not correct. I am not sure which Bible you may be referring to, but in looking at CATHOLIC versions (NAB, Douay-Rheims, New Jerusalem) I see “kill” consistently used. In the Catechism, “shall not kill” is consistently used. Specific Bible passages? How about Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5, Matthew 5 & 19, Luke 18, Mark 10, Romans 13, James 2. In each and every case, we see “you shall not KILL”.

These are english translations, please refer to the original languages if you wish to argue this point.

 

[chaunceygardner]

No, not grasping at straws. I am stating what the Catholic Church Teaches. I am sorry if you find that authentic Catholic Teachings being passed on on a Catholic Forum annoying.

How does your personal interpretation of one passage in the NT equate with the teaching of the Church? Please give us something from the Church that uses the quoted passage about the figurative use of taking a sword as support for not adhering to God’s fifth Commandment.

What is “The Church’s commentary”?

My error. I should have provided the citation to the NAB notes on that particular passage from Luke 22. Hope that helps.

I actually posted support from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Which I quess we could call one of the Church’s Commentaries.

Yes they are, and thank you again for supporting my point. If you read these carefully, you will see that the Church cautiously accepts the use of lethal force. Most of the references to “self-defense” in these paragraphs are about the use of physical force (not specifically killing) to repel an aggressor. Note this statement from #2264: "If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful." Like unnecessarily killing someone, perhaps?

You also fail to consider this earlier section of the Catechism, #2258:

**Human life is sacred **because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."

You could argue that a person may not be “innocent”, but unless you have direct and irrefutable evidence of that (he’s coming at you with a knife), what definition of innocent do you use? God may not accept your personal opinion on that come judgment day.

And how about this one, #2262:

In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, “You shall not kill,” and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies. He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.

Hmmm, didn’t we see those very same points in an earlier post? And doesn’t it seem to say your personal interpretation of Luke 22 is not in step with the Church?

In #2265, it doesn’t say “killing is a grave duty.” In fact, nowhere in that section is “killing” mentioned. It says “legitimate defense…can be a grave duty,” and later says " an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm." Which COULD result in killing them, but not necessarily.

These are english translations, please refer to the original languages if you wish to argue this point.

Are you saying that all of us that rely upon English and other vernacular translations are being misled? Who is doing the misleading? The Catholic Church? If your interpretation is correct, then why don’t Catholic Bibles and the Catechism use it? Based on your logic, that makes the Catholic Church imperfect…which is impossible…which therefore makes YOU wrong.

Are the translations we use “wrong”? Here is what the preface to the NAB says about the process involved in bringing out this edition:

From the original and the oldest available texts of the sacred books, it aims to convey as directly as possible the thought and individual style of the inspired writers. The better understanding of Hebrew and Greek, and the steady development of the science of textual criticism, the fruit of patient study since the time of St. Jerome, have allowed the translators and editors in their use of all available materials to approach more closely than ever before the sense of what the sacred authors actually wrote.

One other point (apparently minor to you): We don’t have the ORIGINAL language versions of the Gospels. We have translations and copies of translations. If you can produce a legitimate original language Gospel you will go down in Church history.

Despite our disagreements, Brother David, I do wish you the peace of Christ’s love and many blessings on Thanksgiving Day and always.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I think part of the problem is that we are talking to the side of each other rather than talking to each other.

Let state somethings to clarify what I am saying and see what you think.

Killing is an evil, but not all who kill commit an evil act, this is due to the philosophical principle of double effect.

Self defense is not an evil. Self defense needs to use the amount of force necessary to defend one’s self or another. It can end in the death of the attacker but that does not mean that the person defending them self committed an evil act,

This is what the Church Teaches and is what I believe to be a fact.

So while all killing is an evil, not every person who kills is guilt of an evil act.

 

[chaunceygardner]

I think part of the problem is that we are talking to the side of each other rather than talking to each other.

Let state somethings to clarify what I am saying and see what you think.

Killing is an evil, but not all who kill commit an evil act, this is due to the philosophical principle of double effect.

Self defense is not an evil. Self defense needs to use the amount of force necessary to defend one’s self or another. It can end in the death of the attacker but that does not mean that the person defending them self committed an evil act,

This is what the Church Teaches and is what I believe to be a fact.

So while all killing is an evil, not every person who kills is guilt of an evil act.

I do agree with your statements, and I agree that what you state above is what the Church teaches.

Would you agree with me that many people “stretch” that teaching to allow for killing beyond the need of defending against an aggressor? Beyond what the Church teaches is acceptable?

Also, do you agree that Jesus took the commandment to a higher level, as the Catechism #2262 says? That Jesus applied the fifth commandment to anger, holding a grudge, and seeking vengeance? (Which makes sense, because it ties directly in to the 2nd commandment, which Jesus placed as critical to truly being His disciple).

The sad truth is that we (humanity as a whole and many people who say they are Christian) have not done a very good job in living according to that commandment and, even more so, to the stricter commandment of Jesus. That appeared to be the point of the OP and the reason for asking what we didn’t understand and why.

This issue has been on my mind and has affected my life for many decades. If it appeared I was disagreeing with the teaching of the Church in this matter, I was not presenting my thoughts clearly enough. What raises my blood pressure is that “we” seem to be so obtuse when it comes to understanding this teaching and applying it as Jesus told us to.

Peace.

 

[donsnow]

Hi, ByzCath and chauncygardner -

I agree with both of you. Yes, Jesus Christ taught that anger et al was a big a sin as killing; so did His father through His prophets in the OT. And, I agree that some people decide in their hearts to kill in self-defense, before any dangerous situation in their lives (“I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by six.”
That quote referring two a twelve person jury and six pall bearers does infer a prior decision to kill in self-defense.

So, I see the good and bad of lethal force in self-defense. In defense of another, since I have decided to go sans firearms the remainder of my life, begs what if another died because I did/could not kill their attacker? That’s a hard question with a hard answer: there’s the resurrection and the person killed will rise again from the dead in the future.

Just my two cents worth.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

In our society we honor those who put themselves at risk to defend and protect others. We honor even more those who give their own lives so that others may live, who make the “the greatest sacrifice”. We are not honoring the fact that they may have had to harm or even kill someone, but that they were responding to a higher call, putting their own lives in jeopardy for the love of others.

My issue is when we go beyond what Jesus taught and how HE lived to justify actions that are neither in self defense nor acceptable within a Christian ethic. I attribute that to our human weakness and our failure to understand and truly accept the Gospel.

See the problem is to what extent should we limit acts to being that of self defense or acceptable within a Christian ethic? Furthermore, must we truly feel remorse at having to kill? What if the person killed was a mass murderer? What if that person was Hitler? Should we feel sorry for him? After all the atrocity they had done without repentance?

 

[Ender]

I may have missed something along the way, but where did I ever talk about “personal interpretation” of anything?

I used the term in the same context you used it in a reply to ByzCath. If you accept Catholic explanations of Scripture then we don’t have a problem … so long as you quote something the Church has actually said.

You ask, “How do we know what Jesus taught?” I think the great majority of the Christian world (and probably a majority of the whole world, no matter what religion) would say that we “know” by reading the Gospels.

Protestants accept personal interpretation of the Bible; Catholics do not. I rely on the Church’s interpretation and I was trying to clarify your position.

You could argue that a person may not be “innocent”, but unless you have direct and irrefutable evidence of that (he’s coming at you with a knife), what definition of innocent do you use?

The normal definition is: someone who has been found guilty in a fair trial. It’s not really complicated. I understand the distinction between legal guilt and actual guilt but the fact of imperfect justice does not vitiate the meaning of the term.

My viewpoint is that as Christians we have consistently failed to live according to God’s Word, in particular to the commandment to “not kill”. The evidence for that is easy to see. I stated my view that while killing may sometimes be acceptable, it is never “good”, and I provided my reasoning.

But as the Catechism explains, the prohibition is not against killing. It is against murder. 2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: “Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.” Clearly, as the Church teaches (and has always taught) that not all killing is wrong, one cannot interpret the fifth commandment as prohibiting killing.

Ender

 

[donsnow]

See the problem is to what extent should we limit acts to being that of self defense or acceptable within a Christian ethic? Furthermore, must we truly feel remorse at having to kill? What if the person killed was a mass murderer? What if that person was Hitler? Should we feel sorry for him? After all the atrocity they had done without repentance?

Hi, Lost Wanderer -

Yes, we should feel remorse, and I’ll say why I think so.

Mass murderers, Hitler, were all Hell bound. That’s terrible. We might feel sorry that they didn’t take time to repent and turn from their wicked ways, but went to perdition. That’s in the first place.
We don’t know, in the second place, about mass murderers, if they turned from their wicked ways in prison and started doing good works in prison with remorse and Christian charity. It’s really best not to judge.
And, of course, there’s always Purgatory.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Hi, Lost Wanderer -

Yes, we should feel remorse, and I’ll say why I think so.

Mass murderers, Hitler, were all Hell bound. That’s terrible. We might feel sorry that they didn’t take time to repent and turn from their wicked ways, but went to perdition. That’s in the first place.
We don’t know, in the second place, about mass murderers, if they turned from their wicked ways in prison and started doing good works in prison with remorse and Christian charity. It’s really best not to judge.
And, of course, there’s always Purgatory.

I know what you are saying here but we can in no way definitively state who is “Hell bound.”

 

[sacramentdivine]

There are two extremes that the Church rejects:

The first is believing all wars are justified, or being gun-hoe on capital punishment for example. Basically, it is the extreme that condones violence for every circumstance of grave evil; a philosophy of justice minus the belief in mercy.

The second is the extreme pacifist mentality of those who promote non-violence regardless of the context of evil being committed. Such well intentioned folks fail to realize that desiring peace is a good thing, but that there are times in the course of history when those with evil in their hearts translate such evil into action resulting in catastrophe. Nevil Chamberlain is one very good example that you cannot appease pure evil, but must fight it.

Our Catholic Faith opposes both extremes and takes a reasoned approach, guided by the Spirit of Truth in the Magisterium and as Catholics it is our goal to find out what that position is and accept it with faith, for the Church’s approach in such matters never contradict human reason and neither does a formed conscience contradict our Faith.

 

[chaunceygardner]

See the problem is to what extent should we limit acts to being that of self defense or acceptable within a Christian ethic? Furthermore, must we truly feel remorse at having to kill? What if the person killed was a mass murderer? What if that person was Hitler? Should we feel sorry for him? After all the atrocity they had done without repentance?

I think we should feel remorse for any life that is taken, as well as for the circumstances (as you describe) that result in that life being taken. Does taking one more life offset any of the lives already lost? Jesus tells us no. I don’t think the problem is understanding “to what extent we limit acts” as much as it is applying what we know in our hearts to be the Way. Exceptions to the commandments of Christ, and our arguing about them, spotlight our human weakness, our desire to apply flawed human rules to dilute God’s rules.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Protestants accept personal interpretation of the Bible; Catholics do not. I rely on the Church’s interpretation and I was trying to clarify your position.

My response was to “how we know what Jesus taught”? First, on this topic, very little interpretation is needed as he gave us the answer clearly, completely and often. And the Church’s position on this and most other similar topics goes back to the Gospels and Epistles. In the Catechism, quotes used to support the Church’s teaching generally come either directly from Scripture or from Popes, theologians and others who have used Scripture in their writings.

As to clarifying my position, it is simply to follow the commandments of Jesus. And on this one, I can not see room for much dispute. Plus, I for one would not want to presume to tell anyone something other than what Jesus commanded. Such a refusal to follow a commandment of Jesus could put one’s soul in jeopardy.

The normal definition is: someone who has been found guilty in a fair trial. It’s not really complicated. I understand the distinction between legal guilt and actual guilt but the fact of imperfect justice does not vitiate the meaning of the term.

This particular discussion was not about trials, it was about self-defense and the amount of force needed to stop an aggressor, as well as what we mean by aggressor. Two points: Who we label the “aggressor” and who is “innocent” often depends on which side we are on. The historical examples are almost endless. Second, what if we come upon a scene where two people (or groups) are ready to fight? How do we determine which side is the aggressor (who “started” it).? That is a decision law enforcement and soldiers have to make and often quickly, without the opportunity for questions before the shooting starts.

But as the Catechism explains, the prohibition is not against killing. It is against murder. 2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: “Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.” Clearly, as the Church teaches (and has always taught) that not all killing is wrong, one cannot interpret the fifth commandment as prohibiting killing.

*“One cannot interpret the fifth commandment as prohibiting killing”? *"Cannot"?

That statement is exactly what I was pointing out earlier regarding how imperfect humans redefine or reinterpret clear and concise scripture to fit their own shortcomings. We WANT to be able to kill others, so we say that the fifth commandment and Jesus do not say what they clearly say. Thanks again for proving my thesis. In my OVERALL reading of scripture, as cited in an earlier post, and of the CURRENT teaching of the Church as evidenced by the Catechism, YOUR statement cannot be supported. We are not talking about only murder; we are talking about taking a human life.

Jesus did not say: “Follow the fifth commandment, but only some of the time”. He not only clearly told us to follow that commandment, but took it even farther, made it even stricter! Yet you want to backtrack and say that Jesus did not really say what He obviously did say about obeying the fifth commandment, much less what He said about taking it to a higher Christian level. **WHY? ** You really need to ask yourself why you need to think that way?

I think the OP asked a perfectly valid and obviously needed question about why we “don’t get it.”

 

[donsnow]

I know what you are saying here but we can in no way definitively state who is “Hell bound.”

That’s why I ended that post with the phrase, “Of course, there’s always purgatory.”
No, it gives me no joy to wonder if somebody’s Hell bound. That’s why I go by the scripture to, “…pull them from the flames…” and stain not our garments with their filthiness. In my mind, we’re not here to consign people to hell, but to pull them out of there.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

That’s why I ended that post with the phrase, “Of course, there’s always purgatory.”
No, it gives me no joy to wonder if somebody’s Hell bound. That’s why I go by the scripture to, “…pull them from the flames…” and stain not our garments with their filthiness. In my mind, we’re not here to consign people to hell, but to pull them out of there.

I see but ending a statement with “Of course, there’s always purgatory.” In no way corrects a statement that someone is “Hell Bound” as only those bound for Heaven go to Purgatory, no one in Purgatory ends up in Hell.

 

[donsnow]

I see but ending a statement with “Of course, there’s always purgatory.” In no way corrects a statement that someone is “Hell Bound” as only those bound for Heaven go to Purgatory, no one in Purgatory ends up in Hell.

OK, you think I shouldn’t indicated who I think is Hell bound. Actually, I was going by the people who do think certain folks are Hell bound, not my own feelings. Personally, I don’t consign people to Hellfire.

 

[simple_soul]

Hello everyone,

I hope and pray you all had a very blessed and thankful Thanksgiving!

I have been trying to catch up on this thread and others. Since I still have a few questions on this thread I will be back later with them when I am caught up with everything.

Always praying and pondering,

 

[simple_soul]

Good morning everyone,

First please let me thank everyone for their help in trying to understand this more deeply. My sincerest thanks are to Chaunceygardner, donsnow, and ByzCath.

I have been searching and searching and then searching some more at the Holy See web site to try and understand this more clearly.
I would like to share with all of you something I found and would like to get your feedback on it.

This is taken from the Evangelium vitae, Ioannes Paulus PP. II,

1. This should not cause surprise: to kill a human being, in whom the image of God is present, is a particularly serious sin. Only God is the master of life! Yet from the beginning, faced with the many and often tragic cases which occur in the life of individuals and society, Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God’s commandment prohibits and prescribes. 43 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.

The bolded part is what I believe is what I am begining to understand. My question is are we called to follow Jesus Christ to this extent or not?

I have attached the link to this Chapter III titled “You Shall Not Kill.”
vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/__PP.HTM

Or am I reading this incorrectly?

Always praying and pondering