What Do You Do

[Bennn]

Padre Pio called most of what's on television 'the devil's gospel', so I'd crush the television before a robber could take it.

[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif[/img]

+Pax Domini,
Ben

Edited June 12, 2010 by Bennn

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='12 June 2010 - 01:04 AM' timestamp='1276322659' post='2127665']
[IMG]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/Lulz/haters.gif[/IMG]
[/quote]
I just felt a massive outpouring of filial love and respect for you.

[Socrates]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='11 June 2010 - 05:14 PM' timestamp='1276290846' post='2127464']
You are only correct if the intruder is threatening physical or spiritual violence, or if he is attempting to take something necessary for the family's survival. If one is single, on the other hand, it is always a matter of prudence.

Honestly though I am shocked at modern day conservatives' refusal to submit to holy martyrdom. Martyrdom is always the higher calling, not violence. It is cowardice to threaten physical violence and to love your life. If you die in the attempt to converse with the intruder then so be it; greater will be your reward in Heaven.

Again, everyone has the obligation to defend his family, but violence should only be the last resort. If possible one should accept martyrdom (though of course it is not a matter of sin if one does not accept it). I don't remember the apostles engaging in battle with the Jews... in fact I remember Jesus reprimanding Peter for not allowing Him to give up His life.
[/quote]
1) Robbing a person [i]is[/i] an act of violence (whether the robber/thief harms your person physically or not). Robbery is a direct and willful violation of the property rights of another. If you think otherwise, you have obviously never been robbed. As I said, one should not use lethal force lightly. I wouldn't recommend blowing a guy's head off over a TV if there are other ways to stop him, but I certainly think there is absolutely nothing wrong with using physical force (or "violence," if will) to stop and subdue the criminal if necessary.
Again, a lot of this comes down to prudence and the particular situation (eg. whether you have a realistic chance of physically overcoming the robber).
Also, when someone has invaded your home, it is impossible to really know how much harm he intends to you and your family. The fact that he has chosen to rob you shows at the very least a serious lack of moral scruples and regard for other human beings. Must you wait for him to actually pull a gun or knife on you before taking action? By then, it may be too late.

If it is wrong to use any kind of "violent" physical force to stop a criminal, what about cops trying to apprehend a criminal? Must they limit themselves to sweet-talking the perp into submission unless he pulls a gun on them?

2) Martyrdom means specifically losing one's life rather than deny Christ. Simply being killed by a robber or other criminal because you refuse to fight back does not constitute martyrdom. The guy's not killing you because you're a Christian, but for your money/goods, or because he's a psychopath.
And martyrdom is not something that Christians should seek out. We are to defend and preserve our lives as far as reasonably possible, but if we must be killed for our Faith, we are to offer up our deaths as a witness to Christ.
I think we agree that there's nothing holy about allowing an attacker to harm your family or others because you stand by and do nothing. But it should also be taken into account that passively allowing someone to rob you and doing nothing to stop him may endanger others. By allowing the criminal's job to be an easy "success," you may simply embolden him to go on and commit other crimes, perhaps worse than this one. Those who get away with small crimes often go on to commit bigger ones. Allowing a criminal to get away free to commit more crimes is not an act of charity or holiness, but merely puts more innocent persons at risk.

I'm not sure exactly what this "refusal to submit to holy martyrdom" on the part of conservatives is which you find so "shocking."
Are you referring to conservatives' support of the constitutional right to bear arms, and the right of citizens to defend themselves against criminals? I don't find anything particularly holy about disarming citizens and leaving them at the mercy of the aggression of violent criminals.
And again, refusing to defend against criminal aggression is not true martyrdom.
And it's not like modern-day liberals show any greater willingness to submit to holy martyrdom. Generally speaking, liberals do not display any willingness to stand up publicly for Christian principles at all, much less lay down their lives for them.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='11 June 2010 - 11:15 PM' timestamp='1276312533' post='2127626']
If he is stealing a TV, chances are his hands are full so that I could get behind him and put a "sleeper choke" on him to incapacitate or restrain him until the police arrive.

One point I don't think I saw mentioned in any of the replies is that by "letting him go" the criminal can victimize more human beings - maybe even violently, so by not letting the criminal get away we are actually doing society a favor - and maybe giving the criminal a chance to think hard about his life and repent.
[/quote]
Beat me to that point!

The bleeding hearts often confuse who's the aggressor and who's the victim.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Socrates

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='11 June 2010 - 09:43 AM' timestamp='1276267411' post='2127180']
just tell him to leave, but dont resist in any way him taking the TV and other stuff

but...

I would talk the guy's ear off, wouldn't simply ask him to leave. I would make it clear that I don't value material possessions, and have no intention of using violence in retaliation, while at the same time explaining why thievery is evil, etc., and that it isn't too late for him to repent and make amends.

If the situation permitted I would attempt to find out the motivation for his stealing. Depending on the circumstances I might offer him my wallet and my shoes as well, as to a brother. Finally I would wish peace upon him and spend the remainder of the day and/or night praying and fasting.
[/quote]


Wow. So you're like a saint, then.

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='Socrates' date='12 June 2010 - 02:01 PM' timestamp='1276369270' post='2127759']


2) Martyrdom means specifically losing one's life rather than deny Christ. Simply being killed by a robber or other criminal because you refuse to fight back does not constitute martyrdom. The guy's not killing you because you're a Christian, but for your money/goods, or because he's a psychopath.
[/quote]


Absolutely right.

[Apotheoun]

I refuse to speculate.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='fides' Jack' date='12 June 2010 - 02:59 PM' timestamp='1276372790' post='2127787']
Wow. So you're like a saint, then.
[/quote]
L_D is just being modest, actually. With him, he'd really do all that, but then miraculously all the items he gave away would multiply in both his home and the robber's hands. The robber would be so moved as to convert to the one true Faith and he too would share all he had, and it too would multiply.

Basically, robbing L_D will solve global poverty. After a few months.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='fides' Jack' date='12 June 2010 - 03:59 PM' timestamp='1276372790' post='2127787']
Wow. So you're like a saint, then. [/quote]
I am many things. Scholar, artist, philosopher, lover, genius... I am a thinker. A warrior. A man for all seasons. Yes, I am all that and more. But I am not perfect. Perhaps my greatest flaw is that I am too selfless. I care too much for my fellow man, with nary a thought for myself. I am a man of limitless accomplishments, and unbridled modesty... et cetera.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='12 June 2010 - 01:50 PM' timestamp='1276365026' post='2127742']
I just felt a massive outpouring of filial love and respect for you.
[/quote]
[IMG]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/variosity/beexcellent.jpg[/IMG]


[IMG]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/variosity/bluto_is_rocking.gif[/IMG]

[ardillacid]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='12 June 2010 - 09:39 PM' timestamp='1276393181' post='2127890']
I am many things. Scholar, artist, philosopher, lover, genius... I am a thinker. A warrior. A man for all seasons. Yes, I am all that and more. But I am not perfect. Perhaps my greatest flaw is that I am too selfless. I care too much for my fellow man, with nary a thought for myself. I am a man of limitless accomplishments, and unbridled modesty... et cetera.
[/quote]
plagiarism

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Bennn' date='12 June 2010 - 08:30 AM' timestamp='1276345825' post='2127684']
Padre Pio called most of what's on television 'the devil's gospel', so I'd crush the television before a robber could take it.

[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif[/img]

+Pax Domini,
Ben
[/quote]

Hurrah! St. Padre Pio is awesome.

[quote name='Socrates' date='12 June 2010 - 03:01 PM' timestamp='1276369270' post='2127759']
1) Robbing a person [i]is[/i] an act of violence (whether the robber/thief harms your person physically or not). Robbery is a direct and willful violation of the property rights of another. If you think otherwise, you have obviously never been robbed. As I said, one should not use lethal force lightly. I wouldn't recommend blowing a guy's head off over a TV if there are other ways to stop him, but I certainly think there is absolutely nothing wrong with using physical force (or "violence," if will) to stop and subdue the criminal if necessary.
Again, a lot of this comes down to prudence and the particular situation (eg. whether you have a realistic chance of physically overcoming the robber).
Also, when someone has invaded your home, it is impossible to really know how much harm he intends to you and your family. The fact that he has chosen to rob you shows at the very least a serious lack of moral scruples and regard for other human beings. Must you wait for him to actually pull a gun or knife on you before taking action? By then, it may be too late.

[/quote]

I don't disagree with anything you've said here. As I said before, one has an obligation to defend one's family.

Robbery is an act of violence, but today's Mass (1962 Calendar) highlights the necessity of mercy.

Socrates, I never said it was morally unacceptable to use force, quite the opposite. I said to use force does not constitute even a venial sin. It is morally superior, however, to forgo violence and to preach the Gospel using words and actions (because words are almost always necessary, false Franciscan quotes notwithstanding).

[quote]
If it is wrong to use any kind of "violent" physical force to stop a criminal, what about cops trying to apprehend a criminal? Must they limit themselves to sweet-talking the perp into submission unless he pulls a gun on them?
[/quote]

No, it is not wrong, but non-violence is the superior calling. Violence [i]is necessary[/i] in some circumstances, especially when one has a family. One should never forget that it would be a Divine act of mercy to somehow "turn the other cheek"- and I don't mean just to take whatever the robbery gives you. I mean to teach him somehow that what he has done is evil and that he should repent. To engage in merciless "justice" is [i]not [/i]to turn the other cheek.

[quote]
2) Martyrdom means specifically losing one's life rather than deny Christ. Simply being killed by a robber or other criminal because you refuse to fight back does not constitute martyrdom. The guy's not killing you because you're a Christian, but for your money/goods, or because he's a psychopath.
And martyrdom is not something that Christians should seek out. We are to defend and preserve our lives as far as reasonably possible, but if we must be killed for our Faith, we are to offer up our deaths as a witness to Christ.
I think we agree that there's nothing holy about allowing an attacker to harm your family or others because you stand by and do nothing. But it should also be taken into account that passively allowing someone to rob you and doing nothing to stop him may endanger others. By allowing the criminal's job to be an easy "success," you may simply embolden him to go on and commit other crimes, perhaps worse than this one. Those who get away with small crimes often go on to commit bigger ones. Allowing a criminal to get away free to commit more crimes is not an act of charity or holiness, but merely puts more innocent persons at risk.
[/quote]

I'm sorry that I am unclear and bad at expressing myself. I know that I am... please bear with me and try to give me the benefit of the doubt, because I do try (I'd never make a philosopher ). I do not mean to simply allow the criminal to get away is the best course of action, I mean that to preach the Gospel is superior to simply threatening physical violence. To threaten physical violence would in most cases only harden the heart of the criminal even more than it has been hardened already. We should try to show the burning love present in the Sacred Heart, for that fire can melt even the hardest criminals. I myself would offer the criminal items he didn't even attempt to take, probably unblessed rosaries.

I am sorry that I implied passivity is the better course of action. I did not mean this... only the better course of action is not violence. Non-violence is not always passivity.

Martyrdom is to die for Christ; if the criminal kills you when you try to preach the Gospel to him, this is martyrdom.


Christians should always seek martyrdom, and martyrdom takes many forms. The one that is applicable every day is the dying to self... but to have an aggressor enter your house is a very obvious opportunity for that red martyrdom which is so valued by the Saints.

This is not to say that Christians have a death wish; rather, the desire for martyrdom reveals the virtue of magnanimity, the zeal for great works in the Name of the Lord.

[quote]
I'm not sure exactly what this "refusal to submit to holy martyrdom" on the part of conservatives is which you find so "shocking."
Are you referring to conservatives' support of the constitutional right to bear arms, and the right of citizens to defend themselves against criminals? I don't find anything particularly holy about disarming citizens and leaving them at the mercy of the aggression of violent criminals.
And again, refusing to defend against criminal aggression is not true martyrdom.
And it's not like modern-day liberals show any greater willingness to submit to holy martyrdom. Generally speaking, liberals do not display any willingness to stand up publicly for Christian principles at all, much less lay down their lives for them.
[/quote]

You are right. In this case again, I was very unclear.

I am very pro-gun... I believe everyone should own one for home defense, but this is applicable mainly to families. The husband has an obligation to defend his family, but no obligation exists for him to defend his family's property with physical violence. Holy poverty can also be practiced by lay people who should have no attachments to temporal goods. Temporal goods are necessary, but if they are absent or stolen Praise the Lord who wishes to increase your dependence on Himself!

I agree with you that liberals are not willing to submit to martyrdom, but I found it irrelevent.

[quote name='Socrates' date='12 June 2010 - 03:42 PM' timestamp='1276371769' post='2127778']
Beat me to that point!

The bleeding hearts often confuse who's the aggressor and who's the victim.
[/quote]

Rather, the aggressor [i]is [/i]the victim. Think always of the Sacred Heart! That Love of God which desires all men to be drawn to itself... This criminal is injuring your family and Christ's Heart, but Christ desires only the criminal's redemption. It is not too late for the criminal to repent, but he is not likely to do so at gunpoint. The criminal has been so led astray by the Evil One that he is willing to attack your family... do not lack the pity that Aquinas describes as the necessary virtue for mercy. See this man's soul for what it is... and desire to bring him into Divine Union, even if it means your own death.

I will say [i]again[/i] that a man has an obligation to defend his family. What I am describing is the ideal, but as I have said several times it is only practical for single people.

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='12 June 2010 - 09:39 PM' timestamp='1276393181' post='2127890']
I am many things. Scholar, artist, philosopher, lover, genius... I am a thinker. A warrior. A man for all seasons. Yes, I am all that and more. But I am not perfect. Perhaps my greatest flaw is that I am too selfless. I care too much for my fellow man, with nary a thought for myself. I am a man of limitless accomplishments, and unbridled modesty... et cetera.
[/quote]


[quote name='notardillacid' date='13 June 2010 - 02:47 PM' timestamp='1276454868' post='2128152']
plagiarism
[/quote]

You are right. I wrote this several years ago.

[aalpha1989]

"Go then and learn what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. For I am not come to call the just, but sinners."

Matthew 9:13

[Socrates]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='13 June 2010 - 09:05 PM' timestamp='1276477558' post='2128348']
I don't disagree with anything you've said here. As I said before, one has an obligation to defend one's family.

Robbery is an act of violence, but today's Mass (1962 Calendar) highlights the necessity of mercy.

Socrates, I never said it was morally unacceptable to use force, quite the opposite. I said to use force does not constitute even a venial sin. It is morally superior, however, to forgo violence and to preach the Gospel using words and actions (because words are almost always necessary, false Franciscan quotes notwithstanding).



No, it is not wrong, but non-violence is the superior calling. Violence [i]is necessary[/i] in some circumstances, especially when one has a family. One should never forget that it would be a Divine act of mercy to somehow "turn the other cheek"- and I don't mean just to take whatever the robbery gives you. I mean to teach him somehow that what he has done is evil and that he should repent. To engage in merciless "justice" is [i]not [/i]to turn the other cheek.[/quote]
If you are confident enough in your saintly ability to convert robbers and other criminals on the spot, I'm certainly not going to say you nay.

However, the virtue of prudence should also come into play here.
While some very saintly people may be able to convert hardened criminals on the spot with their charity and holy words, we need to also consider the consequences of allowing a criminal to get away and go on to victimize other people later, perhaps more seriously, when you had the ability to stop him.

The issue here is not revenge, but the protection of other people in society. To endanger the public by allowing a criminal to go free in the name of "turning the other cheek" is [i]not[/i] merciful to those who may be the criminal's future victims.

If you are concerned about the spiritual welfare and conversion of hardened criminals, I think going into prison ministry or such would probably be a more prudent option for most people. Try to convert the criminal [i]after[/i] he's behind bars and no longer a threat to others.


[quote]I'm sorry that I am unclear and bad at expressing myself. I know that I am... please bear with me and try to give me the benefit of the doubt, because I do try (I'd never make a philosopher ). I do not mean to simply allow the criminal to get away is the best course of action, I mean that to preach the Gospel is superior to simply threatening physical violence. To threaten physical violence would in most cases only harden the heart of the criminal even more than it has been hardened already. We should try to show the burning love present in the Sacred Heart, for that fire can melt even the hardest criminals. I myself would offer the criminal items he didn't even attempt to take, probably unblessed rosaries.

I am sorry that I implied passivity is the better course of action. I did not mean this... only the better course of action is not violence. Non-violence is not always passivity.[/quote]
If one's "non-violence" in the face of criminal aggression results in the criminal going on to victimize others, perhaps very violently, it is not the better option. Personally, I would not be able to live with myself if a criminal I had the opportunity to stop afterwords went on to commit horrible crimes against others.

[quote]Martyrdom is to die for Christ; if the criminal kills you when you try to preach the Gospel to him, this is martyrdom.


Christians should always seek martyrdom, and martyrdom takes many forms. The one that is applicable every day is the dying to self... but to have an aggressor enter your house is a very obvious opportunity for that red martyrdom which is so valued by the Saints.

This is not to say that Christians have a death wish; rather, the desire for martyrdom reveals the virtue of magnanimity, the zeal for great works in the Name of the Lord.[/quote]
We should not needlessly give up our lives, either.
If a criminal kills you because you refused to stop him, then goes on to murder others, your death is not a holy act of martyrdom and self-denial, but reckless negligence which needlessly endangers others.
Red martyrdom is not to be sought out, but is to be accepted only when it is the only option.
I think the only case of true martyrdom in a criminal attack would be when the attacker forces you to do something immoral or deny Christ or die, and you choose the latter, as in the case of St. Maria Goretti.

[quote]You are right. In this case again, I was very unclear.

I am very pro-gun... I believe everyone should own one for home defense, but this is applicable mainly to families. The husband has an obligation to defend his family, but no obligation exists for him to defend his family's property with physical violence. Holy poverty can also be practiced by lay people who should have no attachments to temporal goods. Temporal goods are necessary, but if they are absent or stolen Praise the Lord who wishes to increase your dependence on Himself!

I agree with you that liberals are not willing to submit to martyrdom, but I found it irrelevent.[/quote]
I found your politicization of the issue with your jab at conservatives irrelevant.

If you want to exercise holy poverty, I think giving away your surplus goods to charity would be a better option than enabling a criminal in his crime.



[quote]Rather, the aggressor [i]is [/i]the victim. Think always of the Sacred Heart! That Love of God which desires all men to be drawn to itself... This criminal is injuring your family and Christ's Heart, but Christ desires only the criminal's redemption. It is not too late for the criminal to repent, but he is not likely to do so at gunpoint. The criminal has been so led astray by the Evil One that he is willing to attack your family... do not lack the pity that Aquinas describes as the necessary virtue for mercy. See this man's soul for what it is... and desire to bring him into Divine Union, even if it means your own death.

I will say [i]again[/i] that a man has an obligation to defend his family. What I am describing is the ideal, but as I have said several times it is only practical for single people.[/quote]
The fact you are ignoring is that even for single people without a wife and/or children at home, the lives and welfare of more people are at stake than just of you and the criminal.
We should consider others in society at large who may be the criminal's future victims.
And even if we are single, our death may well affect others who may depend on us in various ways; parents, friends, co-workers, etc.
We shouldn't needlessly lose our lives out of an excessive zeal for "martyrdom."

While it may sometimes happen, it is unlikely for a criminal to repent on the scene of a crime in any case. He can be preached and ministered to in prison. We should be careful that misplaced "mercy" and "compassion" for the criminal does not lead to the needless endangerment of others. Safety of the innocent should always be a consideration. (Consider the child-molesters who were treated "compassionately" with counseling and re-location, only to go on to victimize others.)

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Socrates' date='14 June 2010 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1276534687' post='2128558']
The fact you are ignoring is that even for single people without a wife and/or children at home, the lives and welfare of more people are at stake than just of you and the criminal.
[/quote]

Additionally, single people would like to live long enough to have a spouse and children...