* * * * *
Thou shalt not kill.
Those four words are often used by opponents of self defense when they
claim that divine law forbids the taking of another human life, even in defense
of your own. So, how can a Christian justify the carrying of arms for self
defense, or should they abhor such a practice and rely on divine intervention?
The first issue with the opening argument of this article is that it is
the result of a mistranslation. While many Roman Catholic texts translate the
fifth (sixth in some texts) Commandment as "you shall not kill", many
other texts hold true to the original meaning of "you shall not
murder." That is the key distinction.
In fact, when analyzing the issue using the Catechism of the Catholic
Church, Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 5 goes right to the heart of the
matter.
§2263 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."
§2264 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.
§2265 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.
This tells us that not only do we have the right to use deadly force
against those tho would try to take our own lives, but we have that right to
defend others in our care as well. We all have a responsibility to each other
individually, and those charged with the protection of the community (such as
police officers) are justified using deadly force as well.
When you are forced to defend yourself to preserve your life, it is
that act of preservation that is the intended result of the employment of
force. You're trying to stop the aggressor. If the aggressor dies as a result
of your meeting force with force, that outcome is considered unintentional by
the church. You are trying to stop, not kill, though sometimes only the death
of the attacker can halt the assault.
During the Last Supper, Jesus was preparing his followers for what was
to come after he was gone. He told them, "one who has a money bag should
take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his
cloak and buy one." (Luke 22:36). Once He, their shepherd, had left them,
they would need to protect themselves, even if it meant selling their clothes
to be able to buy a weapon to do so.
Some Christians are fond of saying "The Lord Will Provide,"
yet here is Jesus telling his disciples to provide for themselves, which would
seemingly support Benjamin Franklin's 1757 quote in Poor Richard's Almanac,
"God helps those who help themselves." What Jesus is really telling
his followers is to prepare themselves using
the tools God has provided in order that He might work His will through
them.
If evil confronts a man in the form of an armed attacker, do we really
expect God to strike the attacker down with a heart attack? Or is it more
likely that He would provide "a defense for the needy in his distress"
(Isaiah 25:4) through placing an armed, good man in the path of evil? If we are
to believe that "the secret things belong to the LORD our God"
(Deuteronomy 29:29), we cannot discount the idea that there are earthly ways in
which God might intervene on our behalf.
But, how do we reconcile this with the Christian value of turning the
other cheek? Again, the answer is in the text.
"When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other
one to him as well." (Matthew 5:39). What is being referenced in the text
is not a deadly threat. You're not going to be killed by a slap to the face,
and Jesus was urging the letting go of anger and pride.
Consider also Isaiah 2:4, "they shall beat their swords into
plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks." Though this is often
taken to mean that weapons should be destroyed now, what it is actually
referring to in context is Judgment Day.
According to the Scripture, after the Final Battle between good and
evil, God himself will rule the Earth and all forms of evil, vice, and sin will
be gone. It is only after that time that weapons will no longer be needed for
self-defense, and until then, we need to be prepared to act to preserve our own
lives and the lives of others. It is the Christian thing to do.
8 comments:
8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
I Timothy 5:8
Even in context, this doesn't rule out the idea of "providing" defense for one's family. Indeed, without defense, all the other things a man "provides" for his family may be taken away from him and his.
I also believe He gave us an abundance of common sense. Would He really expect a father or mother to stand aside while evil kills their children??
What I find I am most resistant to is the smugness folks involking some of these anti-violence arguments have. I suspect many will learn some very hard lessons.
Great post, thanks for sharing - whoever the author is . . . .
Our lives are great gifts, and they are also responsibilities. We have no right to throw away that gift of life if it can be avoided - we have a responsibility to take care of it.
Matt, eiaftinfo, PH: exactly. Thank you.
My reading of Jesus' teachings has convinced me that we are to turn the other cheek when maltreated for our Christianity, but fight back/protect ourselves at any other times.
I have seen this before, but for the life of me, I can't remember where. You might try Francis W. Porretto. I think I linked to it at the time.
BTW, an excellent explanation. Thanks,
Best wishes,
PolyKahr
PolyKahr, I'll look at his site as soon as get a chance; thanks for the referral & kind words.
The lessons commonly cited against armed self defense (turn the other cheek, if someone takes your clock, if required to go a mile) all were based on legal and acceptable practices at the time.
I believe that Jesus used those well known examples to highlight the need respond non-violently to legal issues.
Big difference in the commands to respond to criminal acts -- see Exodus 22:2.
Bob, that's a great example. Mosaic law was still the law of the land; that would have been part of their awareness of the law at the time.
Post a Comment