The Catechism in a Year (with Fr. Mike Schmitz) - Day 293: Legitimate Defense

Episode Date: October 20, 2023

Is there ever a time where legitimate defense is justifiable? The Catechism answers this question and how it relates to honoring the dignity of the human person as we dive deeper into the fifth commandment. We learn about defense of ourselves and others, principles of crime and punishment, and capital punishment. Fr. Mike also explains the Church’s current teaching on the death penalty and why it has changed over time. Today’s readings are Catechism paragraphs 2263-2267. This episode has been found to be in conformity with the Catechism by the Institute on the Catechism, under the Subcommittee on the Catechism, USCCB. For the complete reading plan, visit ascensionpress.com/ciy Please note: The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains adult themes that may not be suitable for children - parental discretion is advised.

I'm a name's Father Mike Schmitz and you're listening to the Catechism in a Year Podcast, where we encounter God's plan of sheer goodness for us, revealed in Scripture and passed down to the tradition of the Catholic faith. The Catechism in a Year is brought to you by Ascension. In 365 days, we'll read through the Catechism of the Catholic Church discovering our identity and God's family as we journey together toward our heavenly home. This is day 293. We are reading paragraphs 2263 to 2267.

As always, I am using the Ascension Edition of the Catechism, which includes the foundations of Faith Approach, but you can follow along with any recent version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You can also download your own Catechism in a year-reading plan by visiting AscensionPress.com slash C-I-Y. And lastly, you can click follow or subscribe and your podcast app for daily updates and daily notifications today is day 293 paragraph 2263 to 2267 we're looking at legitimate defense remember yesterday we set the context the context of

course the dignity of the human person as well as the actual heart of the commandment which is you shall not kill which is specifically means taking an innocent human life. So murdering an innocent human being, that is what the definition is. But we also heard that we are called by Jesus to go beyond that. We're called to avoid feeding anger, to avoid solidifying it to hatred or to pursue vengeance. We're called to love our enemies and do good to those who hurt us and those who hate us. It's a high call now at the same time. There's a big question.

And the big question is, is there ever a chance? Is there ever an opportunity? Is there ever a time when it is legitimate to defend yourself? If you're a Christian, is there ever a time when you are able to defend yourself? And so today we're talking about that. That's what paragraphs 2263 through 2267 are all about. They're all about the question of,

is it possible to have legitimate defense? So we'll look at that today, and in order to prepare ourselves, again, keeping in mind that we have the mind of Christ, not just the way of the world, the way of the world would say, yeah, do whatever you can. In fact, the way of the world in some ways would be the old prescription of the law,

which is an eye for nine tooth for a tooth, or even worse than that, which is, you know, a life for a tooth, or a family's life for an eye. Here, as Christians, we are called to have clearer vision than that. We are called to have bigger hearts than that at the same time. Is there room for legitimate defense? We're looking at that today. To prepare our hearts for that, to have that kind of vision, the vision that is given to us by the Lord, we call upon his name as we pray, Father in heaven. In the name of your Son Jesus Christ, send us your Holy Spirit, send your Holy Spirit so that we can see the way you see, that we can view the world and others, the way you view the world and others, help us to have accurate vision, help us to have clear

vision. Not only that, Lord God, give us world and others, help us to have accurate vision. Help us to have clear vision. Not only that, Lord God, give us hearts like yours, hearts that love what you love, hearts that hate what you hate. Lord God, give us courageous hearts and also prudent hearts that can be discerning, that can recognize when is the time to lay down one's life and when is the time to stand? When is the time to defend the people who need defending? To give us discerning minds, discerning hearts, help us to know when you're calling us to be martyrs, help us to know when you're calling us to be soldiers.

In Jesus' name we pray. Amen. And the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. It is day 293, we are reading paragraphs 2263 to 2267. Legitimate Defense The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing.

St. Thomas Aquinas stated, 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. 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. St. Thomas Aquinas further states, 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. 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 their responsibility. 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. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes, and in acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good. Today, however, there was an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed

by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which insured the due protection of citizens, but at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption. Consequently, the church teaches, in light of the gospel, that the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person, and she works with the termination for its abolition worldwide. Alright, there we have it, paragraphs 2263 to 2267, legitimate defense.

So let's start at the very beginning, which as we said before, I think it was yesterday, it's a very good place to start. So 2263 highlights this and gets right out of the gate, highlights the fact that legitimate self-defense or legitimate defense of persons, not even self-defense, legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against murder of the innocent, the constitutes intentional killing. So, to be able to say that, yes, there are times when a person may be forced to deal a lethal blow to another person. That's not an exception. Like, oh, in some cases, this is the case. No, that is not the case at all. In fact, Thomas Aquinas, back in the day, 13th century, right? They're about. He mentioned this principle of double effect, and this is going to be very important for us.

The act of self-defense can have a double effect, so the first effect is the preservation of one's life. I'm trying to make it so that I stay alive. That secondary, unintended consequence may be involved, dealing one's assailant, a lethal blow. He goes on to say, the one is intended, you want to preserve your own life, the other is not. So the goal of this is not, I want to kill someone. The goal is I want to preserve your own life, the other is not. So the goal of this is not, I want to kill someone.

The goal is I want to preserve my life. I want to remain alive or I want to preserve the life of someone around me. This is really, really important because the love of oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. That's paragraph 2264. Therefore, it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. And there's something so powerful here, Thomas Kranis once again. He highlights this.

He says, it one is bound to care more for one's own life than for another's. Especially if that other person is attacking you and that one person, the other person is threatening your life. Now, this is very important that you can, you have the ability, right? You have the right to defend yourself. Paragraph 2265 says that might be times, though, when you don't only have the right to defend, you may have the duty.

And so let's look at this. Legitimate defense can be not only a right, but a grave duty for one who's responsible for the lives of others. Goes on to say, the defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. That is necessary. Now, if this person is coming against you,

and that's it, you may say, yep, I do love my own life, for the sake of the gospel, for the sake of Christ, for the sake of the fact that I want to bear witness to Jesus not only with my life, but also with my death, you may, you have it in your right to allow yourself to be harmed rather than to harm. You could do that. You could choose martyrdom.

The Catechism here is saying that, yes, when it comes to oneself, you have the right to defend or even the right to lay down your life. It goes on to say, but it may become a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. So it jumps right to civil society, but let's make it smaller, let's make it closer to home. There could be the grave duty of a father to protect his family.

That if someone breaks into my house, it's just me. Like I'm prized by myself. Someone breaks into my house. Then I could say in this case, I refuse to defend my own life. I refuse to take up arms against this person. But if I was a dad of a family, no, I would say I'm bound by my duty. Part of one's duty as a father would be to protect their children. So similarly, as a spiritual father, if someone were to come in and say the church, there

would possibly be a grave duty that I would have to do what I could to stop the unjust aggressor. Now, of course, when it comes to civil society, when it comes to those who would legitimately hold authority, they have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community and trusted to their responsibility. So, can civil authority can take up arms to, like for example, the police, right? That's as an example. They can say, we have people who are armed who are able to stop those who want to harm

others. Now, it goes on to say, paragraph 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. That makes sense, right? That's just those things going hand in hand. So a legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. But what is the goal of punishment? And the goal of punishment is, well, obviously in the word punishment

comes from the term punitive, or it comes in the same root as punitive. So there is a punishment there. It someone is being penalized for what they've done, right? So I'm gonna punishments being inflicted. What's the goal of that punishment? It says here, punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. So justice

justice is the primary aim of punishment. Redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it's willingly accepted by the guilty party, it can assume the value of expiation. So then punishment 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. So there is something that's meant to be, you say a correctional facility. It's actually meant to be a correction, right? It's meant to be remedial in some way, shape or form.

Now, you might look at whatever country you live in. Again, I keep talking about our own country here in the United States of America. You might say, okay, the correctional system is broken. It's not remedial. It just, it takes criminals to make them hard in criminals, right? Or it just treats criminals incredibly, inhumanely. No, I don't, I'm not an expert on the correctional facility or the, the whole structure of how we do this in the United States. I'm just saying you might say, we're doing it wrong. Okay, and again, remember, keep in mind,

the church is proposing the principle. The policy, the policy that implements the principle, that's up to Catholics in the world, right? That's up to those of you, those of us, who are in the world and are responsible for shaping policy, but the principle itself is when we agree upon. And that principle is, the first aim of punishment is, if so, A, the first thing is, it is the right and the duty

of the civil authority to inflict punishment on those who have broken the law, those who have harmed the common good, those who have become a public disorder corresponding to the crime. Keep that in mind. Secondly, that has to be corresponding to the crime. Thirdly, we recognize that the primary aim is justice. Fourthly, ultimately, it should be remedial. It should actually be a correction. So if those are the elements of this crime and punishment situation we have going on, that's the principle. What are the policies?

And that's for, again, Catholics in the world to figure out how can we do this best? How can we best implement these principles in a way that actually is just and actually is remedial to the extent that they can be remedial? Does that make sense? Now, paragraph 2267 is on the death penalty. And we recognize that historically speaking and scripturally speaking, the death penalty has been part of what we've inherited from scripturing, what we've inherited in tradition.

And so there is the case that society must be able to protect itself. For the common good, society must be able to protect itself. So that's one of the reasons why I would say, from my perspective, that's one of the reasons why the death penalty has been widely accepted for much of Judeo-Christian history. Why? And we think about this, okay, the goal of the punishment is justice. The ultimate goal would be if possible,

remedial, right? Correction. And so, yes, if to, at every extent, a society can do this, they would keep those criminals alive, not to further punish them as much as it is to provide an opportunity for repentance, right? To be corrected.

What if, and here's the scenario, and I apologize for the comic book nature of this scenario, what if there was someone like the Joker, right? Here's Batman, keeps throwing the Joker into Arkham Asylum, into the, essentially the prison there in that world. But what happens? The Joker keeps breaking out and keeps killing more people. And so Batman catches him and throws him in jail and he keeps breaking out and killing more people. That would be a case that would be pretty obvious that in this case, it's been demonstrated

that the Joker can't be held in prison. Or you think of another culture, another society where their prison system is easily break outable and they're repeat criminals who continue to break out of The jail or whatever kind of prison they have and go on more killing sprays or more rampages in those cases Capital punishment would be just why because the goal is to protect the common good the goal is to protect the innocent and If a society is unable incapable of protecting the innocent. And if a society is unable, incapable of protecting the innocent through incarceration, then there would be room there, obviously, for capital punishment. Now, what paragraph 2267 is highlighting

is out of all the things we've talked about, the dignity of the human person, as well as how in our society right now, modern prisons are, I don't wanna say escape proof, but pretty much escape proof in the sense that we don't hear about prison breaks all of the time. We don't hear about an actual joker escaping from Arkham Asylum and going on another killing spree. So this seems to be the most rarest of cases. Essentially, the Pope has said, and the church now has this reflected in paragraph 2267, that consequently, because this doesn't really happen, consequently, the Pope has said, and the church now has this reflected in paragraph 2267,

that consequently, because this doesn't really happen, consequently, the church teaches in light of the gospel that the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide. And so, that's where we land today, and that's where we are today. We recognize that, in the long standing tradition of the church, the death penalty has been admissible for all these reasons,

the reasons of necessity. At this moment, the church is teaching that the world around us has changed so much that it is no longer admissible because it's no longer necessary. I hope that makes some sense. If you wanted further discussion or further insight into this,

we have Catechism Answers with Dr. Scott Solom. That would be a fantastic, this is a great, great topic. If you want to dig deeply and say, well, there seems to be some confusion around this. Well, the teaching here is pretty clear. And yet, you might still have questions for all these things, especially as we continue to walk through this fifth commandment and the sixth commandment in full.

The other commandments, they'd be a great opportunity to go to Catechism Answers with Dr. Scott Solom. For all these things, especially as we continue to walk through this fifth commandment and the sixth commandment and follow the other commandments, there'd be a great opportunity to go to Kedicus Mansers with Dr. Scott Solom. Incredible opportunity to appeal to like, let's dive more deeply into this and really unpack what the church is teaching, what the church is not teaching about this. I hope that helps. Anyways, I want you to know this. I'm praying for you. Please pray for me. My name is Father Mike. I cannot wait to see you tomorrow. God bless.