Posted on 01/11/2009 8:39:37 AM PST by GonzoII
During the post-Vatican II push for more "relevant" religion classes, students in my high school "Theology of the Film" course trooped off to see Dirty Harry -- the 1971 drama starring Clint Eastwood as the police lieutenant who violates the law, including the torture of suspects, to protect San Franciscans from a wily serial killer.
Afterward, we held the requisite classroom debate on whether Harry was justified in taking the law into his own hands. Most of us teenagers didn't quite understand the point of the discussion -- Harry did what he had to do, right? But our teacher, a Dominican nun, appeared to be quite torn up.
The memory of that futile classroom exercise surfaced again while I watched Gran Torino, the compelling new film that showcases Eastwood's unique gifts as an actor and director.
Eastwood has vowed that his staring role in Gran Torino will be his final onscreen performance. Thus, filmgoers who savor his austere vision of the autonomous individual establishing his own code of morality may find themselves approaching Dirty Harry and Gran Torino as ideal bookends for his cinematic career. Indeed, as Eastwood surely intended, Dirty Harry's moral dilemma is unexpectedly and memorably resolved in Gran Torino, the tale of Walt Kowalski, a retired autoworker confronting a violent gang and his own morality.
Taken together, the two films provide a compelling exploration of the impact of time and experience on moral action, both individually and collectively.
This is a subject that deeply interests Catholics. Revelation provides us with the essential truths we need to properly navigate the world. Yet our interpretation of these truths is not fixed. The pilgrimage progresses and awareness deepens, opening up new vistas and opportunities for transcendence.
(Excerpt) Read more at insidecatholic.com ...
What to make of it? I don't know.
I'll have to guess --- again, always willing to conform to the teachings of the Church --- that there is no individual "right" of self-defense for the individual Christian, but there is the duty of defense (bearing the sword for the suppression of evildoers, as in Romans 13) when one is explicitly acting as an agent of the "prince" (that would be the political authority) in the police or the military.
It seems to be an authority question. Christians did not participate in bearing arms because they did not act from a position of political authority in any way prior to Constantine.
I do not put this forth as a doctrine, but rather as a hypothesis, based on what I can glean from NT Scripture, history, the Fathers, and the Catechism.
Ini fact, as I remember it, Augustine(?) or Aquinas (?) specifically excluded personal self-defense as a reason to resort to armed force. Let's come back to this when we have some relevant evidence. I'd like to know more.
Should we go on hunting forays and you answer no. My question - why say no? I use to watch the program COPS years ago and one thing that always got me is when the police stop someone after the perp comes out of what the police say is a known crack house. Well - if you know it's a crack house, why do you allow it to remain. Don't give me the crap about civil rights, etc. There are ways to get something like that shut down.
I'm reminded of the incident that occurred in Texas when the man went out and shot the two theives robbing his neighbors house. He called 911 and was told to wait. While on the phone, he kept reporting the theives were in the house and by the time the theives were leaving the police still had not arrived.
We are told that this is not the wild west days yet what are the duties of the citizens when those paid to uphold and enforce the law refuse to respond?
People think just because someone is old they are vulnerable. Maybe in most cases but in some cases, it is a myth. If the individual in question was a bad ass all their live and keeps in relatively good shape, there are some old guys out there that can whip up on a lot of young ones. And old guys can be extremely dangerous because they know they don’t have the energy to go 15 rounds. So they will want to end it quick which usually means max force.
It happens. I wrote a lengthy essay in college on Frederick Douglass and for the entire paper, I only put one s in his last name. The instructor also gave me an A- while informing me of the correct spelling. I was shocked because for all the times I read and looked at the name, my mind did not register the two s’s.
Nothing will stir the wrath of law enforcement like Vigilantism.
Although I agree with you, crack houses should be broken up and burned, are you willing to face being placed in jail with the people who visited that crack house ?
You have to wait and let them come to you, or face the possibility that you will be incarcerated with them.
Law enforcement officers know they cannot protect you 24/7,
but they get terribly upset when that is pointed out to them forcefully by someone who took the law into their own hands.
Truth be told, neither do I! I will keep looking into it.
I will say, however, that Aquinas did believe in an individual right to self-defense, provided that (1) the intention was to preserve one's own life, rather than harm another, and (2) the amount of forced used against the other was necessary for the desired objective. See Q. 64, Art. VII.
That is 2nd part of the 2nd part for the question. Whoops.
That’s good enough for me! I’ll go see it.
Very good point. I have to admit that I was disappointed and would have rather seen Kolwaski terminate, with prejudice, the gang members.
I didn’t see the Kolwaski character apologizing for anything he did in Korea, or his beliefs.
Kolwaski was sick, dying, and wrestling with the dilemma of how to neutralize the gang without undoing his mentoring of the young man. It wasn’t noble...just his out.
I think the message is more for a younger audience, how not behave, the wages of vapid texting and gang mentality, as it were. And that maybe there
are untold stories of valor and the work ethic of their grandparents lives, if only they would take the time.
Because at the core whether justified or not, war forces people to kill other human beings, something that we are taught not to do from the time we are young. Ask any vet and they will tell you of how they are haunted by memories of death (whether it be men they killed or comrades they saw die).
Jan.19, the day before Black Tuesday....went to see Gran Torino and it was wonderful. Yes there is twice as much bad language as needed, but it has a stunningly awesome performance by Clint and the two main Hmong characters. Very touching story. Highly recommend! Lots of laughs and witty dialoge from Clint.
Jan.19, the day before Black Tuesday....went to see Gran Torino and it was wonderful. Yes there is twice as much bad language as needed, but it has a stunningly awesome performance by Clint and the two main Hmong characters. Very touching story. Highly recommend! Lots of laughs and witty dialoge from Clint.
Saw it, loved it. Best movie in years....Thanks for the recommendation!
Great story! I just saw Gran Torino (Jan.19th). It was so good! Glad I went. Thanks for sharing your best Clint story, I enjoyed it.
Absolutely amazing movie, saw it Sat. and me and my 17 yr old son loved it. May be Clint’s best.
Pray for W, America and Our Troops
Yes, wasn’t it great? The audience really laughed at the lines Clint had. I wish I’d had a notebook in my purse so I could have written down the funniest things Clint said. There were some real gems! World class cussing too.
Anyone know the make/model of the sidearm Clint had? Looked to be a .45 Colt maybe?
And the rifle, Clint said what it was, can’t remember though. Thanks.
Right. When he went to Confession, he spoke about being sorry he had not been able to be closer to his sons. Never mentioned Korea.
When I was nineteen, I went to L.A. to live with my aunt and go to L.A. Valley College ... right out of East Tennessee, small-tawn America. My aunt was married to a rather prominent guy with Northrup and he happened to have a few very interesting friends, like aguy named Joe Higgins, who played the Dodge Sheriff in commercials and was in the Kennedy movie, PT109.
I had been in L.A. for no more than two weeks when aunt and uncle took me to Joe Higgins' apartment for supper. I didn't know much about hollywood or stars, and I certainly was not real comfy eating at a formal table. I think my 'rubeness' was charming to the 'special people'.
While we were dining the doorbell rang. Joe asked me if I would mind seeing who was at the door, and casually turned back to the table conversation. I was eager to be useful so I jumped at the chance. When I opened the doro, a man so drunk he could barely stand up slurred a hello, accentauted by bouncing eyebrows and weaving head. I had never seen a man tryign so hard to appear rational while being so darn drunk! ... It was Foster Brookes and Higgins had asked him to come over and do a practical joke appearance. I nearly didn't let him into the apartment!
That kindness--to welcome a rube with such aplumb--was typical of the really good people in Hollywood. 'Uncle' Welko's realm of 'friends' made for a very interesting year and half in L.A. ... Did you know that Red Skelton carried bank-marked thousand dollar bills around in his wallet?
Thanks for the tip on the movie . Maybe I’ll see it on the big screen - I do that about twice a year. ;o)
Jesus got pretty morally "active" when he whipped the money changers out of the temple. :o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.