The Killing Of Another

[JimR-OCDS]

The thread on Guns and America, has turned more into when the use of violence is a necessity,
or not.

It forced me to go look at my late OCDS Spiritual Assistant Fr. Bruno's, web page, for I remember the conference he gave on it.

There is a list of the Virtues which he wrote on, which can be read here;

[url="http://webpages.charter.net/carmel/The%20Virtues%20index.htm"]http://webpages.char...ues%20index.htm[/url]

However, the context of this thread has to do with the "killing of another human being."

Fr. Bruno, wrote an excellent thesis on it. Fr Bruno was a Discalced Carmelite Priest, but also, prior to his becoming a priest, was a lawyer, who served the poor.

Anyway, this conference is on The Killing Another.

[url="http://webpages.charter.net/carmel/Virtues/Conference%2044%20-%20The%20Killing%20of%20Another.htm"]http://webpages.char...f%20Another.htm[/url]

He covers Capital Punishment as well as self-defense.

Here's a piece of it.


[left][left][i][u]Thesis IV[/u][/i][i] - The[/i][b] Indirect Killing of an Unjust Aggressor is Morally Permissible for the sake of saving One’s Life or to Prevent the Loss of a Comparable Good, Provided Due Care is Exercised in the Application of This Principle.[/b][/left]
[left] The author of my textbook makes these comments.[/left]
[left] 1. [i]Morally permissible[/i] means that one is [i]not obliged[/i] to use this extreme method of defending oneself. One may, at times, out of motives of virtue, permit his/her own death, unless one’s obligations to one’s family and the common good take precedence, or unless one is not positive he/she is in the state of grace.[/left]
[left]2. The [i]aggressor[/i] must be [i]in the very act[/i] of attacking, or at least at the very moment of beginning a death-dealing attack.[/left]
[left] 3. The attack must be “unjust”. (What a “just” attack might be is not spelled out. The only “just” attack I can think of is the carrying out of a death sentence, lawfully pronounced after a fair and just trial). Ordinarily any unwarranted attack or an attack for the purpose of committing a crime of robbery is clearly an “unjust” attack.[/left]
[left] 4. [i]Indirect[/i] killing. At times it is hard to see how the effect of saving one’s life does not flow directly from the killing of the unjust aggressor. Usually safety is assured only after the unjust aggressor (whom one knows is trying to kill) is dead. Then in this situation it becomes a case of choosing the lesser of two evils: my own death or the death of the unjust aggressor. Naturally, the God-given instinct of self-preservation, and considerations of charity, obligations to family and dependants indicate that the lesser evil is to terminate the life of the unjust aggressor.[/left]
[left] 5. For the purpose of [i]preserving one’s own life[/i] or a comparable good. At times the comparable good is the life of another, sometimes the preservation of bodily integrity and/or psychological integrity. Of course, on the spur of the moment and in the excitement of warding off a seemingly deadly attack, one hardly has time to come to a careful, reasoned conclusion as to whether the “other good” that is being defended really is comparable in value to human life, even the life of the unjust aggressor.[/left]
[left] 6. [i]Provided due care is used in the application of this principle[/i]:[/left]
[left] That is to say, no more is to be done than is necessary to ward off an unjust attack. It is wrong to kill the aggressor when wounding him would suffice. Likewise it is wrong to wound when crying out would suffice. When it is possible to run away without incurring shame, then one should run away. Interestingly, my textbook states that it is not always possible for a soldier or a nobleman to run away without incurring shame. Only if the attacker is drunk or insane may they run away without being dishonorable. And it goes on to say that a cleric or an ordinary citizen may always run away without incurring shame.[/left]
[left]The question is asked, what is the nature of the good things that permit one, without sin, to defend them even to the point of shedding the attacker’s blood?[/left]
[left]Although some moralists have alleged that it is permissible to shed blood in the defense of [i]goods of fortune[/i] (material goods), my author, with whom I agree, declares that that certainly is not true. No amount of material resources ever equals the value of a human life. Also to be considered is that the attacker is in grave danger of losing his soul if he is killed while attempting to commit robbery. Besides, Our Lord said, in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew, 5, 6 & 7), that we should give [i]our tunic[/i] as well if another demands that we give him [i]our coat[/i].[/left]
[left]Other moralists allege that a person may take the life of someone attempting to rape her [or him]. This too, is not correct, since the important thing is preserving the integrity of the soul, and that can be done by [i]not consenting[/i] to the rape.[/left]
[left]Still others say that one may take a life in order to defend his or her honor, but this too is false. One is more [i]likely[/i] to lose his or her good name by so doing.[/left]
[left] [/left]
[left]Jim[/left]
[/left]

Edited November 11, 2009 by JimR-OCDS

[AccountDeleted]

"He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword."

I just can't get past the fact that Our Lord (who could have called legions of angels), did not even allow Peter to injure the guard - He healed his ear. I have heard the argument that Our Lord "had" to die, but to me, He is the example of how to live.

If saints like Maria Goretti can convert (and save the soul) of their attackers through love and forgiveness, then so can we, even if it means dying first. I know, I know, I have heard all the arguments about justified violence and killing, but I just don't buy any of them. Life belongs to God, and so does the right to take it. Just the way I see things....

[Winchester]

"He who lives by the sword dies by he who lives by the gun."

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='11 November 2009 - 04:30 PM' timestamp='1257975032' post='2000850']
[left]Other moralists allege that a person may take the life of someone attempting to rape her [or him]. [b]This too, is not correct[/b], since the important thing is preserving the integrity of the soul, and that can be done by [i]not consenting[/i] to the rape.[/left]
[/quote]

That is ridiculous. Of course someone being raped may (and should) kill the person raping her.

Edited November 11, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='11 November 2009 - 04:05 PM' timestamp='1257977118' post='2000874']
That is ridiculous. Of course someone being raped may (and should) kill the person raping her.
[/quote]
As long as the intent is not to kill.

[Varg]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='11 November 2009 - 05:05 PM' timestamp='1257977118' post='2000874']
That is ridiculous. Of course someone being raped may (and should) kill the person raping her.
[/quote]
Murder is worse than rape. If person 1 killed person 2 because person 2 raped them, person 1 would sink to lower levels than person 2.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='11 November 2009 - 05:07 PM' timestamp='1257977260' post='2000876']
As long as the intent is not to kill.
[/quote]

One can certainly have the intention of killing the aggressor if one can only protect herself by killing him.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Varg' date='11 November 2009 - 05:10 PM' timestamp='1257977425' post='2000880']
Murder is worse than rape. If person 1 killed person 2 because person 2 raped them, person 1 would sink to lower levels than person 2.
[/quote]

To kill in self-defense (if killing is necessary to defend oneself) is not murder.

[Nihil Obstat]

"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."

"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."

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='11 November 2009 - 05:14 PM' timestamp='1257977692' post='2000887']
"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."
[/quote]

Okay. I accept the wisdom of the Angelic Doctor.

Edited November 11, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Winchester]

In not resisting any form of assault, one is placing one's life at the mercy of the aggressor. A victim of rape is clearly within moral bounds in using lethal force. Anyone who disagrees is beyond stupid. I would like to personally tell each and every person who believes this just how incredbily stupid he is for believing such a thing. Like Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged, I would travel the universe to personally insult them.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='11 November 2009 - 03:05 PM' timestamp='1257977118' post='2000874']
. . . someone being raped may (and should) kill the person raping her.
[/quote]
The woman being attacked has the right to use force (even deadly force if necessary) to protect herself from an unjust aggressor.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='11 November 2009 - 03:12 PM' timestamp='1257977574' post='2000884']
To kill in self-defense (if killing is necessary to defend oneself) is not murder.
[/quote]
I agree.

[Brother Adam]

[img]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41RSWTC922L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg[/img]

Good book on an introduction to moral theology in addition to the catechism.

[Servus_Mariae]

[quote name='Varg' date='11 November 2009 - 05:10 PM' timestamp='1257977425' post='2000880']
Murder is worse than rape. If person 1 killed person 2 because person 2 raped them, person 1 would sink to lower levels than person 2.
[/quote]

Didn't know you were pro-life