Some good advice with regard to the rising persecution October 7, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Domestic Church, family, General Catholic, manhood, persecution, Revolution, scandals, sickness, Society, Virtue.
Many media sites have reported that the deranged man who slaughtered Oregon students in a “gun free zone” at Umpqua Community College deliberately targeted Christians. While this event has obvious connotations regarding rising hatred towards Christians and more and more open instances of persecution, I found this response from Lieutenant Governor Ron Ramsey of Tennessee really good advice:
The secular anti-Christian media has just lost their minds over this, outraged that Christians might contemplate arming themselves in the face of persecution, rather than just being the mewling sheep to be mowed down by our satanic progressives betters.
There has long been a tension that has run through Christianity, between what appear like contradictory bits of guidance by our Blessed Lord – do we turn the other cheek (Mt v:39), or sell our cloak and buy a sword (Lk xxii:36)?
The truth is, both are acceptable, even required, given the circumstances. There are times when we should submit to opponents and enemies meekly, but other times when we must respond in kind. The history of Christianity is filled with examples of both. One particular justification in arming for self-defense is the case where one has responsibility over souls who are not able to defend themselves. In that case, there are strong arguments from moral theology that it can be a positive duty to be prepared to defend them if possible. Certainly I am one father who feels that I bear a grave responsibility for the safety of my wife and children, and given that we live in one of the bottom quintile zip codes for income and certain crime rates, I feel I would be abrogating my duty as a father and husband not to have the means and ability to defend them.
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote at length on this subject. Armed intervention, even rebellion, can be morally acceptable (even called for) depending on the circumstances. Those circumstances include a possibility of success and measured response. It is perfectly morally legitimate for me to shoot an armed intruder in my home at night – I have a high probability of success and the response is equal to the potential threat. For 100 Catholics to rise up in armed rebellion against the federal government is much more problematic, because the probability of success would be exceedingly low. There are a thousand variations that are too involved for a blog post to discuss, but the Faith has always maintained that individuals have the right of self defense even up to taking the life of another. So there is absolutely nothing “un-Christian” in a political figure advocating that Christians do just that. To me it sounds like very wise advice in this day and age.
I know most readers (and especially frequent commenters) are fully on board with me on this topic, but I also know there are some lurkers who are not.
So this is for them: