Self Defense / Death Penalty

[Rising_Suns]

Self Defense

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:



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 more care of one's own life than of another's. 66 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=2264&FNoteNum=66)

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.

2266 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 the 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. 67 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=2266&FNoteNum=67)
.
.
.
.
Death Penalty

2267 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 with 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 non-existent." 68 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=2267&FNoteNum=68)

[DivineFiliation]

Davide, Would it be correct to use this context with regard to a "just war?" I have been battling internally if I agree or disagree with the war in Iraq, but if you think about this statement, "Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow" it makes it seem "ok." Please help. Thanks.
Jamie

[Rising_Suns]

Davide, Would it be correct to use this context with regard to a "just war?" I have been battling internally if I agree or disagree with the war in Iraq, but if you think about this statement, "Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow" it makes it seem "ok." Please help. Thanks.
Jamie

Jamie,
Excellent question. I think it is important to note the difference between a single person defending his life and a nation defending the lives of millions of its citizens. It is thus that the Church has developed the Just War Doctrine,carefully taking into account the various moral impications;





Avoiding war

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war. 105 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=2307&FNoteNum=105)

2308 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." 106 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=2308&FNoteNum=106)

2309 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:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace. 107 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=2310&FNoteNum=107)

2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way. 108 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=2311&FNoteNum=108)

2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties." 109 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=2312&FNoteNum=109)

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." 110 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=2314&FNoteNum=110) A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations; 111 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=2315&FNoteNum=111) it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.

2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.



2317 Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:



Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." 112 (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=2317&FNoteNum=112)

[DivineFiliation]

Wow! Thanks for posting!

[ScottBot]

While I see a tremendous amount of quoting from the catechism, I don't see a practical exegesis of what its practical application is. Self-defense and just war fall within the same principle. A preemptive attack on a country that is perceived by lawful state authority is as justified as preemptive use of lethal force against a perceived attacker.

Here is an example, if I believe that an armed man has shown aggressive behavior towards my wife and I have the means to stop him, I don't have to wait until he actually attacks my wife to apply deterrent force. If I wait, it may be too late to fulfill my moral duty to protect the life of my wife from an unjust attacker. Likewise, if a state authority that is in a position to make the determination that a foriegn power posses a grave and imminent threat to the safety and security of its citizens, it is morally bound to apply adequate force to prevent the further and greater loss of life if the perceived aggressor is allowed to advance unchecked.

Bearing this in mind, it all revolves around perception. No one can know with absolute clarity what the intentions of another person, or another foriegn power are. You can make assumptions based one previous behaviors what their potentiality is, and this is sufficient to warrant the determination to apply deterrent force. If a convicted rapist/murderer, who's picture is plastered all over the television, breaks into your house and is moving aggressively toward your wife, you can make assumptions regarding his behavior. You don't know with absolute certainty what his intentions are, but based on previous experience and the current conditions, you can make a comfortable assumption that the perpetrator means to commit violence against your wife.

Since noone here has access to the intelligence information used to determine the criteria for action against Saddam Hussein's regime (I refuse to call this action against Iraq, because its intention was not against the nation of Iraq, but rather a certain element of power in Iraq). To ascert that this was was "unjust" is to claim knowledge of what is known to be ignorance, which is a violation of the 8th commandment "Do not bear false witness". To say that you know something that you really don't know is an affront to your neighbor and to God Himself, the keeper of all truth. I don't know what the true ulterior motives behind the armed aggression against Saddam Hussien's government were and are, but I have to make the assumption that my duly and lawfully elected government was acting in the best interests of the American people. To do less is a disservice to myself, my family, my neighbors, my country, and to God himself.