Violence

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='13 September 2009 - 10:39 PM' timestamp='1252895965' post='1966061']
CCC 2263 speaks about legitimate defense

The whole section of 2263-2317 speaks a lot about the issue of violence and our response.

As someone who has had to use lethal force, I have become familiar with this part of the CCC. I think in the defense of the innocent and only when all other options are exhausted. There is a lot of subjective language there and someone with evil intentions can justify, but I think with a pure heart and proper intentions we can live by these guidelines.

I think we should explain the difference between dying a martyr death, and simply letting the innocent be slaughtered.

Yes the argument could be made that Christ, and the early church did not have this view of violence. If you read these 30 posts on the ubiquitous pacifism of Christianity prior to Constantine, how does it reconcile with the CCC for us: http://thomstark.jesuspolitics.net/?p=282


Did Jesus renounced both war and passivism, and advocated a nonviolent third way to confront evil and injustice? How can I shoot someone in war if I should see that person in front of me as Christ? If I am called to love the person in front of me? But what if defending the person behind me requires that I stop the threat of the one in front?

But 2264-Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.

2265-. 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.

looks clear to me from a CCC perspective.... Read More

peace is always preferred but not always an option? The absurdity of Catholics killing Catholics in war because of their allegiance to a nation-state should tell you how egregiously UNCHRISTIAN this kind of moral reasoning is. So is violence of any kind forbidden? Can a Catholic be a soldier?

I am confused..help?
[/quote]

This has been a debate on facebook for a while. What say you?

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='15 September 2009 - 05:55 AM' timestamp='1252954553' post='1966354']
This has been a debate on facebook for a while. What say you?
[/quote]

I don't doubt that there are many soldiers and law enforcers who will see the Kingdom of God. There were many stories during the second world war of spiritual phenomena during the carnage!

[Resurrexi]

St. Louis was a crusader king.

[N/A Gone]

So violence is ok when defending the innocent?

How can we be violent if we are called to love our neighbor and we should see Christ in our neighbor.

[CatherineM]

I would have been very happy to have shown my attacker love, but he had a choice too, and made the wrong one. I have forgiven him, and hope that he came to some kind of reconciliation with the Lord with what he did. We can philosophize about what we would do in any given situation, but in reality, you just don't have time to ponder in a violent situation. Most of the time, things happen in a split second.

[N/A Gone]

I was in the military with a position that required that choice to be made. I have years of training then in order to respond in that sort of a situation. Does my behavior in the military qualify as unethical? I believe that the choices we made prevented the deaths of countless people, but there was blood spilled. If something ever happened to my wife or someone I am with then I would respond in a violent way. is that wrong? Is it wrong to support a war where people are dying? Is there a non-violent option that should have been considered?

btw, "church scholar" I am impressed. I remember when you were new here.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='15 September 2009 - 07:38 PM' timestamp='1253065125' post='1967285']
btw, "church scholar" I am impressed. I remember when you were new here.
[/quote]
And I remember when you were new here.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='16 September 2009 - 10:50 AM' timestamp='1253058615' post='1967201']
So violence is ok when defending the innocent?

How can we be violent if we are called to love our neighbor and we should see Christ in our neighbor.
[/quote]
If someone is attacking us without us first placing them in danger then Christ is not in them. If our non lethal defence will result in greater evil than the alternative then it is justified. Nothing is black and white!

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='15 September 2009 - 08:38 PM' timestamp='1253065125' post='1967285']

btw, "church scholar" I am impressed. I remember when you were new here.
[/quote]

Yeah, I still have trouble with that one. I think someone was asleep at the switch.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='15 September 2009 - 10:38 PM' timestamp='1253065125' post='1967285']
I was in the military with a position that required that choice to be made. I have years of training then in order to respond in that sort of a situation. Does my behavior in the military qualify as unethical? I believe that the choices we made prevented the deaths of countless people, but there was blood spilled. If something ever happened to my wife or someone I am with then I would respond in a violent way. is that wrong? Is it wrong to support a war where people are dying? Is there a non-violent option that should have been considered?

btw, "church scholar" I am impressed. I remember when you were new here.
[/quote]
I see no problem with self-defense, or service in the military as long as the intent was not to attack unarmed civilians.

[Winchester]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='15 September 2009 - 11:00 PM' timestamp='1253070013' post='1967327']
Yeah, I still have trouble with that one. I think someone was asleep at the switch.
[/quote]
Jealousy is a green-eyed monster.

[Gregorius]

[quote name='Winchester' date='16 September 2009 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1253117745' post='1967543']
Jealousy is a green-eyed monster.
[/quote]
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_UNXMRHPMtJM/SeUu8lMYyFI/AAAAAAAAAKg/CP0JSczSm24/s400/green+monster.gif[/img]
???

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='15 September 2009 - 09:40 PM' timestamp='1253065218' post='1967287']
And I remember when you were new here.
[/quote]

Oh, i followed you around like a puppy dog.

[Nihil Obstat]

Wow do you old people ever like to reminisce.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='16 September 2009 - 09:17 AM' timestamp='1253107047' post='1967478']
I see no problem with self-defense, or service in the military as long as the intent was not to attack unarmed civilians.
[/quote]

In my opinion, violence may only be used in self-defense against a real threat to one's life, limb and property. One may never initiate aggression. Period. War is merely a macrocosm of the principles of self-defense. It is a group of people defending themselves from an unjust aggressor.

I believe everyone has the same right to use violence in self-defense. I do not believe any group of people have a special right to do violence against anyone else. While I believe homosexual behavior and drug abuse (including alcohol abuse) are wrong, that does not mean that anyone has the right to use violence to prevent or stop such behaviors, when the behaviors in themselves do not violate the life, limb or property of any other individual. Violence, as a physical entity, may not be used to defend something immaterial, such as an idea. You may defend your body, you may defend your property (an extension of you, by virtue of your labor.) You may not use physical violence to defend immaterial "honor," or "virtue." It is an ontological impossibility.

If you do not have a right to initiate physical violence against another individual, how can one bestow this right upon a third party? For example, how can you bestow the right to initiate physical violence on the State, or a policeman? You cannot give a right to another, when you yourself do not have the right.

~Sternhauser