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.
I'd like to know how you can tell the difference in a quick moment that ends up being a life/death choice.
Just like today!
But we ALL know that the Roman Catholic Church has built quite a magnificent organization upon things that have NOT been said in the Scriptures it compiled for the world.
THERE goes more than half the fun of FR!!!
...of the day.
The worms that have fallen from the opened can will now be trampled underfoot by the elephant in the room.
“killing is always wrong.”
Maybe, next time around, when God writes a new Bible, He will consult with you, eager for your opinion. (He orders killings throughout the Scriptures.)
My friend is incensed that we Baptists don’t permit women preachers. She thinks it’s wrong, even though it couldn’t be clearer in Scripture. I told her God probably will run it by her next time around. In the meantime, I guess I get to choose what I want to object to or ignore in the Bible. Apparently, it’s a Chinese menu to some.
I believe God judges more on intent than on action. We’re permitted to make mistakes, even fatal ones, if they’re honestly made.
Maybe next time God will ask you to sit in judgment of all Mankind. He’s probably got His hands full with more important matters and your knowledge of Scripture is so profound I’m sure He’d entrust the little things to you.
That is wonderful! In the last 6 months I have gotten my husband to go to church with me every time I go, almost weekly. His heart is not listening yet, but his ears are and some is getting to his mind. God’s Will Be Done, that is my prayer for everything. I can only be the one who connects him to hearing The Word, and God will do the rest. Just getting his butt in a pew is a huge deal after 30 years of nothing. There will come a day, when the message of salvation will reach him. I have given him that message on several occasions at home, now he hears it at church. He has a tough barrier, but God will do His will what ever that is.
I believe you are correct MM. If I recall correctly, the way to insult a man, was to slap his face, pull his beard, and spit in his face. A man is not required to stand by, while his wife and children are slaughtered. In a case like that, he is justified in kicking rears, and taking names. 😁👍
The command in the Ten Commandments is to not murder, which is different from not killing.
God is the one who instituted the death penalty as capital punishment and governments, not individuals, have the authority to administer it.
Killing someone in self-defense or defending another is not wrong since it is usually accidental. Sometimes it's a byproduct of defense and cannot be helped.
What kind of thing?
My thinking on “just war” and self-defense firmed up when I became a husband and father. I could not see how it could be right for my child to say to me, “Save me from this bad man!” and for me to be intentionally helpless.
It is still wrong. However, letting another person or yourself come to harm through your inaction is worse.
Here’s an example. You’re out one day taking your .300 Winchester Magnum for a walk when you spot a terrorist crouched beside a bridge in the distance. Through your 9x scope, you observe him trailing wires from a package he’s laid under the bridge support. Looking up the road, you see a bus from Mother Benevolence’s School for the Blind approaching the bridge. It is an easy shot to take out the terrorist.
If you kill the terrorist, it is a premeditated act — a murder. It is wrong. If you fail to act when it is within your power to stop him, he kills a bus full of blind children. That too is wrong.
Your choice is between two wrongs. But God put you there that day for a reason.
Which act would God forgive?
Trick question. He would forgive either of them if you acted with a pure heart. The decision — and the motives -— are yours. No one said it would be easy.
Then it’s a matter of forgiving yourself.
And that would be harder if you let the terrorist kill the bus load of children.
Although, one does not need to shoot to kill to stop a terrorist.
There are plenty of ways of incapacitating someone with a well placed shot.
Yup- just remember- noone is too tough for God- Paul himself was very dedicated to opposing Christ- Yet God got ahold of him- Something your husband hears may just one day click in his m ind- that is the moment when the Holy spirit lifts the scales from his eyes, and he will see clearly his need for salvation
A man only has so many cheeks.
Agreed.
IronJack,
It is simpler than that. As someone on FR put it, under a tyranny, self-defense is a crime. If globalist church leaders can convince Christians that killing in self-defense, or family-defense, or neighbor-defense, or nation-defense is “wrong”, than the globalists will have sheeple to rule over without hindrance.
What the left confuses in this area, on purpose, is the mission of the state versus the mission of the individual.
The mission of the state is to bring about the just condition, which is the foundation of peace, without which virtuous activity cannot be practiced. And without virtue no man can be happy (Aristotle). Any state which does not enforce capital penalties against capital crimes, which are nicely outlined for us in the Pentateuch, thank you Holy Spirit, such a society is doomed to be reduced to a bloody rubble. Look no further than ISIS or MS-13 for confirmation of this fact.
The individual’s mission is to love God and neighbor (Golden Rule) and reside with God forever in His presence and among His friends (agreed?). Loving God means that you keep His commandments.
Based upon a quick review of all of the comments here, it is obvious to most of the readers here that the scripture passages that speak to “turning the other cheek” clearly refer to insults to one’s pride and dignity, not attacks on our persons that could result in grave bodily harm, psychological harm, or death. Jesus commands us not to retaliate or escalate when offronted with petty insults. No where does He say that one should tolerate home invasions, carjackings, gang rapes, beatings and slayings.
In individual might allow death to occur, a grave evil, so that some greater good might prevail. This is another area where those who do not believe in God or the afterlife are confused. Hollywood regularly presents to us the idea that human life is the greatest good, and many boring plots revolve around the protagonist surviving death against all odds. The Greeks, Jews, and Christians have always held that there are greater goods than life such as; virtue, duty, Faith. An individual can lose his own life for any of these and he will be choosing the greater good.
Those entrusted with the care of the common good, have a duty to protect those under their care, and righteously execute this duty against evil doers even if it means they must deprive the evil doers of their life.
Only the state has been entrusted with the punishment of captital offenders. When an individual does it it must be an emergency condition where there is no other choice. The state which executes capital offenders does a service to society, making more peace and virtuous activity possible.
Some argue that we have the technology to jail all evil doers, so we should never execute anyone. This is an injustice to the victims, who after being violated by the criminals now are forced to foot the bill for the care and feeding of the capital offenders for the rest of their existence. Think of a widow with lots of children who loses her husband to a murderer, then in her poverty must support him till death.
Ultimately some of the stupidest positions on capital punishment come from philosophically confusing the mission of the state with that of the individual. The “Seamless Garment” position constrains the state from killing anyone, even capital offenders, as if the state were an individual, which is simply not the case.
I have to go, much more can be said on this. But if your gut is telling you that preserving human life from conception to “natural death” does not sit well with you, you are right.
Womenpreachers??
1 Timothy 2:12 ESV
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
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.