What Do You Do

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Socrates' date='14 June 2010 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1276534687' post='2128558']
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.
[/quote]

It is not about personal holiness... I think the Saints would agree with me that great actions for God are never about personal holiness. You don't reach a certain stage of spirituality and then say "oh, now I can be merciful and do great things!" You imitate the Saints and choose the highest path possible through your whole life.

[quote]
However, the virtue of prudence should also come into play here.
Whilesome very saintly people may be able to convert hardened criminals onthe spot with their charity and holy words, we need to also considerthe consequences of allowing a criminal to get away and go on tovictimize other people later, perhaps more seriously, when you had theability 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.
[/quote]

Originally the issue for you was not the protection of other people in society, it was protection of your own goods/family.

[i]If[/i] the individual in question does rob again in the future, it is not on your soul. Your job is to witness to the Truth and to pray for the conversion of souls. It is a false idea of mercy to say that you could possibly be merciful to theoretical victims, victims you don't even know would ever exist.

If you really want to say that true mercy is to lock the criminal away, at least say something nearly Thomistic; it is merciful to the criminal to punish him for his deeds, because God will grant him the grace of repentence either way, but if you make further crime impossible you save the criminal great pains either in Hell or in Purgatory.

[quote]
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]

All Christians should be concerned about the spiritual welfare of all men. Criminals in prison and criminals outside of prison alike. This is a Christian duty.

Again, it is a tendency of modern conservatives to forget the Gospel of mercy and forgiveness. Christ did not condemn the adulteress to death, despite the Mosaic law. We should imitate him and recogize that there is a higher law than temporal safety and legalism.


[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]

These crimes would not be on your soul. The criminal alone would be culpable for them. You can't possibly see non-violence as directly responsible for the criminal's theoretical future crimes. Non-violence does not "result" in future crimes, unless you are implying that I would give the criminal weapons and a plan of attack for another house.

[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.
[/quote]

As I said before, if the criminal kills you because you tried to preach the Gospel then your death is without question holy martyrdom. It is really no different than North American Jesuit missionary martyrs, except that the murderer came to you instead of vice-versa. I suppose using your logic the Jesuits should have first enslaved the natives and then preached the Gospel. In this way they would have avoided martyrdom.


[quote]
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]

Red martyrdom [i]is[/i] to be sought out. Many of the Saints desired it. St. Francis of Assisi even went to the Middle East hoping to find it. St. Teresa ran away from home hoping to be martyred by the Moors. One should not fear martyrdom. If one is killed preaching the Gospel to a criminal the death could not be called anything but martyrdom, and this is a good and holy thing.

[quote]
I found your politicization of the issue with your jab at conservatives irrelevant.
[/quote]

For you, everything is political. All of your views stem from your conservative political views.

[quote]
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]

True poverty is not to be materially poor, but to have no attachments to material things. If someone robs your house, so what? You did not need that TV anyway. To feel injured after a criminal steals unnecessary material things only reveals unhealthy attachments to the world. This poverty is practical for all men, religious and lay alike.


[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."
[/quote]

In this situation the only lives at stake are your own and the criminal's. He is not currently attacking anyone else, and you don't even know that he would in the future. View him as a man and not as a monster. "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." View him as God views him, not as man does.

To think of the way our death would affect people outside our immediate family is not the way of the Saints. They accepted martyrdom despite the pain others would feel. We should not fear death, for a greater beatitude comes through it. Christ turned the evil of death into one of the greatest blessings on earth. If you do not die with Christ you will also not rise with Him.


[quote]
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.)
[/quote]

I am not claiming that it is your job to convert the criminal. I am claiming that it is your job to make that conversion possible, and to pray for his soul. Whether he converts is somewhat irrelevent as far as your own actions go; that is the job of the Holy Ghost. God will always give the grace for conversion, but He uses Christians to make that grace available. Either the man will convert or he will not; if you did not give him the opportunity you are at least in a small way responsible for his damnation.

Ezechiel 3
[i]18[/i] If, when I say to the wicked, Thou shalt surely die: thou declare it not to him, nor speak to him, that he may be converted from his wicked way, and live: the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand.[i] 19[/i] But if thou give warning to the wicked, and he be not converted from his wickedness, and from his evil way: he indeed shall die in his iniquity, but thou hast delivered thy soul.[i] 20[/i] Moreover if the just man shall turn away from his justice, and shall commit iniquity: I will lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die, because thou hast not given him warning: he shall die in his sin, and his justices which he hath done, shall not be remembered: but I will require his blood at thy hand.[i] 21[/i] But if thou warn the just man, that the just may not sin, and he doth not sin: living he shall live, because thou hast warned him, and thou hast delivered thy soul.

Edited June 16, 2010 by aalpha1989

[Socrates]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='16 June 2010 - 01:03 PM' timestamp='1276707839' post='2129877']
It is not about personal holiness... I think the Saints would agree with me that great actions for God are never about personal holiness. You don't reach a certain stage of spirituality and then say "oh, now I can be merciful and do great things!" You imitate the Saints and choose the highest path possible through your whole life.



Originally the issue for you was not the protection of other people in society, it was protection of your own goods/family.

[i]If[/i] the individual in question does rob again in the future, it is not on your soul. Your job is to witness to the Truth and to pray for the conversion of souls. It is a false idea of mercy to say that you could possibly be merciful to theoretical victims, victims you don't even know would ever exist.

If you really want to say that true mercy is to lock the criminal away, at least say something nearly Thomistic; it is merciful to the criminal to punish him for his deeds, because God will grant him the grace of repentence either way, but if you make further crime impossible you save the criminal great pains either in Hell or in Purgatory.[/quote]
Our responsibilities to others do not end with those in our immediate family, but do extend to others in our society.
My point was only that the safety of other people in society should also be taken into account when considering how to deal with criminal aggressors. That is all.
Using force to stop a criminal can very well save innocent people from being robbed, assaulted, or murdered.

Your Thomistic point is a good one, and does not detract from, but affirms what I am saying. My apologies for not bringing it up.

The good and safety of the public is the reason we apprehend and lock up (or sometimes put to death) violent criminals. St. Thomas agrees with me on that.



[quote]All Christians should be concerned about the spiritual welfare of all men. Criminals in prison and criminals outside of prison alike. This is a Christian duty.

Again, it is a tendency of modern conservatives to forget the Gospel of mercy and forgiveness. Christ did not condemn the adulteress to death, despite the Mosaic law. We should imitate him and recogize that there is a higher law than temporal safety and legalism.[/quote]
The adulteress, while sinful, was not a threat to the lives of others.
I don't see too many modern conservatives (outside of Islamic countries) calling for the stoning of adulteresses (all left-wing hysteria to the contrary).

I don't see apprehending and putting away robbers as "legalism." If you or someone close to you were the victim of a robbery, I think you'd see things differently.


[quote]These crimes would not be on your soul. The criminal alone would be culpable for them. You can't possibly see non-violence as directly responsible for the criminal's theoretical future crimes. Non-violence does not "result" in future crimes, unless you are implying that I would give the criminal weapons and a plan of attack for another house.[/quote]
It is allowing something that you could have prevented. I'm just saying the virtue of prudence should be exercised.

Should we abolish all law-enforcement and prisons, then? (Yes, I know how Sternhauser would answer.)
Do we have a responsibility for the protection of others or not? That's my only point.

[quote]As I said before, if the criminal kills you because you tried to preach the Gospel then your death is without question holy martyrdom. It is really no different than North American Jesuit missionary martyrs, except that the murderer came to you instead of vice-versa. I suppose using your logic the Jesuits should have first enslaved the natives and then preached the Gospel. In this way they would have avoided martyrdom.
[/quote]
The difference is the Jesuit martyrs had no reasonable chance of stopping their captors and their evil deeds by force. They were dealing with an entire tribe of hostile people. The situation is different with the scenario of a single criminal attacker.
Again, prudence. What is prudent in one situation may not be in another.

[quote]Red martyrdom [i]is[/i] to be sought out. Many of the Saints desired it. St. Francis of Assisi even went to the Middle East hoping to find it. St. Teresa ran away from home hoping to be martyred by the Moors. One should not fear martyrdom. If one is killed preaching the Gospel to a criminal the death could not be called anything but martyrdom, and this is a good and holy thing.
[/quote]
God showed those saints He had other plans for them than to run out and get killed.

[quote]
For you, everything is political. All of your views stem from your conservative political views.[/quote]
Thanks for the irrelevant ad-hominem accusation. Very Christian of you.

If I must remind you, it was you, sir, not I, that introduced politics into this discussion.

Good day.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Socrates

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Socrates' date='16 June 2010 - 01:42 PM' timestamp='1276710156' post='2129907']
Thanks for the irrelevant ad-hominem accusation. Very Christian of you.

If I must remind you, it was you, sir, not I, that introduced politics into this discussion.

Good day.
[/quote]

You are right, I was judging. I'm sorry for that, my intention was not to be uncharitable. I was merely making an observation, not an argument, but all the same I should not have. I apologize.