Posted on 06/18/2018 8:49:38 AM PDT by Salvation
In daily Mass for Monday of the 11th Week of the Year, we read a passage from the Sermon on the Mount. It is a challenging text that raises many questions if read in a literal or absolute manner.
You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. … You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you … (Matt 5:38-44).
What a text. It seems to preclude self-defense! What does it mean to “offer no resistance to one who is evil”? Jesus does not say that one should not defend oneself if attacked; He says that one should turn the other cheek. Is this a call to radical pacifism? Does this mean that a nation should have no police force, no judicial system, no army? So radical does this text seem to most that they are overwhelmed and simply turn the page.
Instead of turning the page, though, we might do well to reflect on its message:
The text seems to be more about offenses against personal dignity than physical attack. It is true that a strike on the cheek is physical, but in the ancient world such acts were understood as an attack on personal dignity rather than a grave physical threat. This is the case even today. Being slapped in the face is not a devastating threat to physical well-being; it is an insult. In the ancient world one who wished to humiliate a person struck the person’s left cheek with his open right hand. For the one struck, this was an indignity to endure, but not the worst one that could be inflicted. The worst insult that could be given was striking the right cheek of a person with the back of one’s right hand.
So, what Jesus is describing in this passage is more a question of dignity. His basic teaching is that if someone tries to rob you of your dignity (by a slap on the cheek), realize that your dignity does not come from what others think of you; it is given by God and no one can take it from you. Demonstrate your understanding of this by offering your other cheek. Don’t retaliate to “regain” your dignity. The one who struck didn’t give you your dignity and cannot take it away from you. To retaliate is to enter the world of the one who insulted you. Stand your ground; do not flee, but do not become like the one who insulted you.
This text is not about defending oneself from life-threatening physical attack; it is a text about personal dignity. Wanting to get back at others because they offended you, or did not praise you enough, or poked fun at you, or did not give you your due; all of that ends because it no longer matters to you—at least not when Jesus starts to live His life in you.
So, this text has a cultural context that does not necessarily require us to interpret Jesus’ words as an absolute exclusion of legitimate self-defense in moments of serious physical threat.
Any distinctions I have made above by way of explanation should not remove the core of Jesus’ message, which is meant to limit retaliation and remove from it anything “personal” other than the protection of one’s life from imminent threat or significant injustice.
This reflection serves as background to the Church’s careful and thoughtful approach to the subject of necessary self-defense. The Catechism of the Catholic Church sets forth this teaching as part of its exposition on the 5th Commandment (Thou Shalt Not Kill). Here are some excerpts:
The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “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” (CCC #2263).
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 care of one’s own life than of another’s (CCC #2264).
Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. 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 (CCC #2265).
The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party (CCC #2266).
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent” (CCC #2267).
All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. However, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed (CCC #2308).
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine (CCC #2309).
Thus, self-defense and the ending of unjust aggression should never be something we do lightly or without reflection. The Lord and the Church require of us serious reasons for bringing lethal blows even to enemies; we should never undertake such measures without considering carefully other less-extreme responses. Respect for life means that I can demand my enemy respect my life, but also means that I must respect his. Recourse to war or other lethal measures may sometimes be necessary, but we must examine our motives and carefully consider alternative methods.
Finally, recall that the Sermon on the Mount is not a list of moral rules that we are expected to follow with the power of our own flesh. Rather, they are a description of the transformed human person. They describe what a person is like when the Lord lives in him and transforms him by His grace. The transformed person is not excessively concerned with personal dignity. The world did not bestow dignity and thus cannot take it away. The transformed person is not concerned with getting back at those who have inflicted blows against their dignity; He is content to be in God’s favor and increasingly free of vainglory, the excessive desire for human praise and standing.
But know that Jesus commanded the presence of swords for defense only.
The presence of swords in the Garden of Gethsemane was to deter the Temple Guards from arresting all disciples and to agree to arrest only Jesus.
Jesus knew what would happen before it happened. To spread the Gospel, the disciples needed to be protected. In prison, they would be killed or they would be tried and then killed.
The swords were present to ensure the disciples remained free to spread the Gospel.
Exactly.
Maybe you should read the complete article before making such an ignorant comment, Oh Righteous One.
Fine and dandy! My weapons are for defense of myself and others undergoing attack as well.
Never forget as well that “WWJD” leaves “kicking over tables and chasing people with a whip” on the menu...
Msgr Pope does a good job on the topic. Cultural context is one rule of understanding scripture. Too much has been promulgated by folks reading only literally.
As far as “force in moderation” goes,the need to defend ends when the threat is removed. One stroke, shot or other means of reduction,or ten, which ever is needed. Modern defensive tactics for handgun essentially states that the defender is justified in applying lerhal force until the threat stops his attack or is renderned incapable.
“But there’s more to it than that. It’s a closely-reasoned article, and it deserves a very careful read.”
Theology for grown-ups, these days an avis most rara.
Wow. I never saw that before! Thank you!
“Sell your cloak and buy a sword.......................”
What he said!
KYPD
Excellent explanation of this. Thanks for the ping.
An exposition of Scripture would have given a definitive and authoratative answer...with less flailing around and making things up... but we can surmise the arch-pope is unfamiliar with such.
Like my Dad used to say, “Jesus said to turn the other cheek, but he didn’t say what to do after that”.
Except... (Luke 22:38):
...it was not the possession of swords that identified Jesus as a criminal but the false charges that He had claimed to be a king opposed to Caesar.
Best
Those tables were a violation of God’s law. The overturning of tables and the whip were symbolic of what must be done to those that violate God’s law in God’s house. It was also a challenge to the Sanhedrin to call them to account as to why they had not enforced God’s law.
Jesus was not violent, he was an enforcer. We do not call our LEOs ‘violent’. The word ‘violent’ shares the root with ‘violate’. Law-observant LEOs do not ‘violate’, they are not ‘violent’, they ‘enforce’.
Jesus was a Rabbi, he had every right as any Rabbi to enforce the law in the Temple. He did so, he enforced the law and the Sanhedrin did not. That was the point.
.
Luke 22:38 makes it plain that his call to buy a sword was strictly for self defense, and not a call to create an army.
.
I don't think in most self-defense situations there's a lot of time for reflection.
Usually you are called on to act quickly.
You can purpose to not get carried away and allow the self-defense turn into retaliation, just stop as soon as the situation is diffused or under control, but other than that, when split second decisions need to be made, you make them and then deal with it later.
The passage you are thinking of was Jesus fulfilling the Feast of Unleavened Bread. He was removing the "leaven" from His father's house. All over Jerusalem, Jews were doing the same thing in their own homes. Jesus tried extensively to show the Jews who He was. He fulfilled each and every Lev 23 Feast Day to the letter.
Having said all that, I think what Jesus was looking for with self defense was to not live by the sword. Their were people that only wanted to protect their family and property, while others, Like Barabbas robbed and killed people and rebelled against the Roman government. If you come into my home uninvited, there is a variety of weights and calibers of bullets coming your way. If I take the same weapon to the bank and steal their money, they have the right to take me out. God wants His people to not be robber, brawlers, and thugs. If you are saved, then you are part of the Bride of Christ. If someone came against your wife or child, would you not think God would want you to protect His family? Jesus was very careful to tell His followers that we were to be safe as doves, but as wise as serpents. If you have the right to shoot an aggressor, it makes no sense to fret over whether God would approve. Abraham took at least 300 of his servants and defeated 5 armies to get Lot out of trouble. For those that say, "Well, that was the Old Testament", God never changes. For church leaders to preach that we are supposed to cower in a closet while robbers assault our daughters and steal our property is just wrong. These are false prophets and will be judged more harshly in the day of Judgement. If you are assuming a position in clergy without reading and understanding the Bible, it is a weighty decision. I'm also speaking of Graduates of Seminary. Many Seminaries teach false doctrine. I've seen people that wouldn't step on a cockroach because they were taught "Thou shalt not kill" vs Thou shalt not commit murder or thou shalt not shed innocent blood. These are terrible misunderstandings of what God was teaching. Some denominations support abortion, but then are anti capital punishment. That is how screwed up modern Christianity is today.
If you or you family is threatened, protect them. Anyone that has even read a little bit of the Bible knows God's people fought many wars against aggressors. How do we have any conscientious objectors?
no sir- IF you care to honestly reflect on why you aren’t a Christian, the real reason you aren’t a Christian is because You reject Christ. The Holy spirit has prompted you- as He does every living soul, to accept Christ, but so far you have hardened your heart against Him and ignore the promptings of the Holy Spirit. When we stand before God on judgement day, we are not going to have any excuses. God will require blunt honest reasons for rejection- and that will require those who reject Him to honestly declare that those who Reject Christ simply do not accept That Christ is God’s Son and died for our sins- They felt no need for a Savior Even though the Holy Spirit prompted us to do so our whole lives- Those who rejected Christ ignored Him.
Yo may or may not despise Christians and Christianity (Despise what they stand for- such as ‘turn the other cheek’ etc)- but that is not the reason you reject Christ- that is only the symptom of your rejection. The reason you reject Christ is that you have determined until now that you will not be subject to servant hood- That you will not allow Him to be your master and Lord-
There it is in a nutshell- IF we’re to be honest- Those that reject Christ do so for only one reason- they refuse to bow their knee in submission to the Lord Creator- but one day every knee will bow-
“whipping the money changers out of the temple”
Always loved that story, even as a kid. It’s o, well...Righteous.
“For it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, because it does not carry the sword for no reason. For it is God’s servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong.”
Under US law, I can carry a gun and use it to defend myself or others from serious injury or death. I am also allowed to use force to prevent crimes. Although I am not a cop, the idea of “militia” - the Constitutional term predates any police department in America - allows for common citizens to be ready to stop crime and protect others. That is why we have a right to arms, in part - because the ‘militia’ needed them!
IIRC, up thru the 1960s, it was technically illegal for a fit, able adult male to refuse to serve in a posse. The law would call on members of the ‘militia’ to join in a ‘posse’ to pursue and arrest criminals. This idea of a citizens personally enforcing the law isn’t practiced too often. But it lives on in our right to both self-defense and to stop others from hurting the innocent.
Like the article suggests, we are not to use force to protect our dignity or our pride - but we CAN use force, legitimately, with full government approval - to protect the innocent or ourselves from significant harm.
HOW significant depends on state laws, as does any ‘duty to retreat’.
I don't get it, are you opposed to people defending themselves?
Or am I misunderstanding you?
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.