CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholicism > The Lay Apostolate
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 19th October 2008, 03:05 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,764
Default

[1 Kings]
{20:35} Then a certain man from the sons of the prophets said to his associate, by the word of the Lord, "Strike me." But he was not willing to strike.
{20:36} And he said to him: "Because you were not willing to heed the voice of the Lord, behold, you will depart from me, and a lion will slay you. And when he had departed a short distance from him, a lion found him, and slew him.
...
{20:42} And he said to him: "Thus says the Lord: Because you have released from your hand a man worthy of death, your life will take the place of his life, and your people will take the place of his people."
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 19th October 2008, 06:03 PM
ExCelciuS ExCelciuS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 791
Default

OK, Ron, I got your point now, thanks for the verse part, I just realized that are some murder or kill ordered by God, and the conclusion is someone that takes someone life must have permission from God, isn't it? That verse part always shows God permission to punish or kill someone.

One more question, if you are in hostage condition by the terrorist, and they want you to give up your faith. You have 3 options, which one will you choose:
1. Be a martyr.
2. You have a chance to kill the enemies and you take this chance, and by doing this you admit killing them to defend your faith.
3. Give up your faith (I think you are impossible to choose this)

Which one will you choose?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 19th October 2008, 06:42 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,764
Default

I'm not going to answer specific hypothetical questions.

This is a question about the teaching of the Church and required belief.
You do not need Divine Revelation to give you specific permission to use deadly force.
The moral law permits using deadly force in some circumstances: self-defense, law enforcement defending the community, capital punishment, and just war.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 20th October 2008, 04:21 PM
Brother Brother is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,834
Default

Excelcius,

What Ron is telling you is true, it is not his opinion but is a Catholic teaching.

In the same passage that you took when Jesus told Peter not to cut the enemy’s ear, if you go a little further, Jesus also told him this:

[Matthew 26]
{26:52} Then Jesus said to him: “Put your sword back in its place. For all who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. (we notice here that the eye per an eye law is still in force but in a higher level).
{26:53} Or do you think that I cannot ask my Father, so that he would give me, even now, more than twelve legions of Angels?
{26:54} How then would the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must be so?”

Jesus is telling Peter that He can very well ask His Father to send even twelve legions of Angels to defend Jesus if that was His Will, but Jesus did not need any kind of protection *at that particular time* because otherwise our salvation could not has been fulfilled without His sacrifice on the Cross which, by the way, was a death penalty punishment. So God used this death penalty punishment for criminals for our salvation, and therefore, with not defense in this case, it could be fulfilled.

This is what one of the robbers said on the cross:

[Luke 23]
{23:40} But the other responded by rebuking him, saying: “Do you have no fear of God, since you are under the same condemnation?
{23:41} And indeed, it is just for us. For we are receiving what our deeds deserve. But truly, this one has done nothing wrong.”
{23:42} And he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

Notice what Jesus says regarding to people who do evil:

[Matthew 18]
{18:6} But whoever will have led astray one of these little ones, who trust in me, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck, and to be submerged in the depths of the sea.

To be prepared:

[Luke 22]
{22:36} And they said, “Nothing.” Then he said to them: “But now, let whoever has money take it, and likewise with provisions. And whoever does not have these, let him sell his coat and buy a sword.

[Matthew 10]
{10:34} Do not think that I came to send peace upon the earth. I came, not to send peace, but the sword.

Now, talking about self defense or to defend others.

If a person sees a man who is going to murder a little girl with a gun, he can not just stand there and do nothing about it. The person has to try to defend the little girl, if the takes a stone and hits the evil man on the head, thus, killing him, he has done nothing immoral for he just defended a life and if he has to defend his own life where he has to ultimately kill the aggressor, he has done nothing immoral either because his own life is sacred too. Killing someone has to be the last resource one could use in an aggression case. The Fifth Commandment is "You shall not *murder*". To murder some one is when a person kills someone else with no reason at all. However, when some one kills an aggressor in self defense, that is not "murder". Murder is not the same as kill. Otherwise and if we take "kill" broadly literal, in general, and if in all circumstances, we could not kill anything, not even a cow to eat.

That’s why some just wars are moral. St. Joan of Arc was involved in a just war where killings were involved.

This is what the Catechism says about it:

Quote:
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


http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

We must not seek violence, but some times this has to be used as the last resource.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 21st October 2008, 03:10 PM
ExCelciuS ExCelciuS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 791
Default

Quote:
We must not seek violence, but some times this has to be used as the last resource.
Hmm, that sentence is more likely a great philosophy which the great master usually said in kung-fu film. Nice.

I agree in action saving the little girl life in your story, takes someone life to save the other life, but if the condition is about defend our faith, like my story above when you are a hostage of some crazy terrorist, what wise action that we should do? It's not take someone life to give or save someone isn't it?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 21st October 2008, 03:32 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,764
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExCelciuS View Post
Hmm, that sentence is more likely a great philosophy which the great master usually said in kung-fu film. Nice.

I agree in action saving the little girl life in your story, takes someone life to save the other life, but if the condition is about defend our faith, like my story above when you are a hostage of some crazy terrorist, what wise action that we should do? It's not take someone life to give or save someone isn't it?
If someone takes you hostage and threatens your life, you can morally use deadly force to defend your life. It is irrelevant that they are also asking you to give up your faith. You may not give up your faith even to save your life.

If a group of persons tried to destroy the Catholic Faith, and they tried to use deadly force to do so, then we could morally use deadly force to defend ourselves. But if a group of persons tried to destroy the Catholic Faith by means of words and arguments, we cannot use force, but should and must use words and arguments ourselves.

So the use of moral deadly force is in opposition to a similar level of force, either deadly force or serious bodily harm or serious crimes committed by force, such as kidnapping or rape.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 21st October 2008, 04:14 PM
spiriton spiriton is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 48
Default

Ron,

I have a question about this in relation to the "Civil unrest" or violence that will ocurr during the first tribulation.
Is it a sin to purchase a firearm and use it if the situation arises to protect my family and I during this period?

Do you think this may be too extreme for what may come, or do you have an opinion about taking this direction?

Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 21st October 2008, 04:29 PM
ExCelciuS ExCelciuS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 791
Default

If we use deadly force again deadly force even to defend our self, then there should be no true peace in this earth, whoever stronger win, no peace like in Israel now, yeah it's hard man, by your explanation the chance of war is inevitable to happen. Man, it's hard and I'm still half between your explanation and my understanding, still confuse, but I think there is no true peace brought by violence or power(war), but if we don't using war, how we should save our family or our self? Confused and stuck. (I assume the antagonist always using force instead of speech). I do not want war in this earth, but if we don't war how we should defend something? Force against force, it means no peace? Sigh
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 21st October 2008, 06:31 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,764
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spiriton View Post
Ron,

I have a question about this in relation to the "Civil unrest" or violence that will ocurr during the first tribulation.
Is it a sin to purchase a firearm and use it if the situation arises to protect my family and I during this period?

Do you think this may be too extreme for what may come, or do you have an opinion about taking this direction?

Thanks!
I'm going to let each person decide for themselves if they might need a weapon or not. But I will say that, if one decides to buy a firearm: have a safe way to secure it, make sure it is not accessible to children or teenagers or anyone irresponsible, know how to use it safely, abide by all local and national laws. And be careful to know when it is legal to use violence in self-defense; this can vary greatly from place to place, and it is not always the same as when the moral law might permit deadly force to be used.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 21st October 2008, 06:35 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,764
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExCelciuS View Post
If we use deadly force again deadly force even to defend our self, then there should be no true peace in this earth, whoever stronger win, no peace like in Israel now, yeah it's hard man, by your explanation the chance of war is inevitable to happen. Man, it's hard and I'm still half between your explanation and my understanding, still confuse, but I think there is no true peace brought by violence or power(war), but if we don't using war, how we should save our family or our self? Confused and stuck. (I assume the antagonist always using force instead of speech). I do not want war in this earth, but if we don't war how we should defend something? Force against force, it means no peace? Sigh
The solution is found in the commandment:
You shall not murder,
which can also be phrased as,
You shall not kill.

Do not murder is the commandment, the minimum requirement, whereas do not kill is the ideal. We should obey the commandment but also be striving to move, individually and as a society, toward the ideal.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.