Is Violence Ever or Never the Answer? Also, is violence a synonym for force?

JMJ

Recently, I attended a meeting where we were asked to analyse a training scenario that required us to assess which of the characters acted honourably and to rank them.

It was an interesting exercise and when discussing the actions of one character assaulting another, a colleague turned to me and said something to the effect that that character was the lowest ranking because "violence is never the answer".

I thought that violence sometimes is necessary. Thus went the argument, until later the same colleague made a statement that contradicted their earlier stance.

So, I have been wondering what is violence and is it morally permitted?

Research and Discussion

First, I went looking through my references and found the following in Moral Theology, by John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan:

52. Violence, or coercion, is the use of force by an external agent to compel one to do what one does not want to do. Its effects on voluntariness are: (a) it cannot affect the internal act of the will,else we should have the contradiction that the act of the will was both voluntary, as proceeding from the will, and involuntary, as proceeding from external coercion; (b) it can affect external acts, such as walking, and so make them involuntary. If a boy is driven to school, the violence makes his going involuntary, but it does not make his will not to go to school involuntary.

1381. Certain sayings of our Lord--for example, that those who take the sword shall perish by the sword (Matt, xxvi. 52), and that one should not resist evil (Matt, v. 39)--are not an endorsement of extreme pacifism, but are respectively a condemnation of those who without due authority have recourse to violence, and a counsel of perfection, when this serves better the honor of God or the good of the neighbor. Moreover, these words of Christ were addressed, not to states, which are responsible for the welfare of their members, but to individuals. The Quakers have done excellent service for the cause of world peace, but their teaching that all war is contrary to the law of Christ cannot be admitted. The spirit of the Gospel includes justice as well as love.

Looking to the Catholic Encyclopedia I found:

Violence (Latin vis), an impulse from without tending to force one without any concurrence on his part to act against his choice. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Violence

Here's what I found on Wikipedia. Note the first definition is cited from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Violence is often defined as the use of physical force by humans to cause harm and degradation to other living beings, such as humiliation, pain, injury, disablement, damage to property and ultimately death, as well as destruction to a civilization society's living environment. There's growing recognition among researchers and practitioners of the need to include violence that does not necessarily result in injury or death. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines it as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."Violence - Wikipedia

Since violence is a type of 'use of force' I went looking for more references and found the following article citing St. Thomas

Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists, ‘it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.’ (Summa Theologiae, II-II, 64, 7) Understanding self-defense and the truth about using deadly force – Catholic World Report

Conclusion

Pulling this together, what do we find? First, violence is a type of use of force to coerce someone to act in a certain way. As usual, the intention and the context are the key. There is the possibility that an intention can be morally licit, such as when a person in authority needs to apply force to capture a criminal or prevent a criminal act. If a person uses violence with an immoral intention, then it is obviously illicit.

In the case of officers of the law, they are defending society against the criminal. The same can be said for soldiers defending a nation against an aggressor.

In the case of self-defense, following most laws and St. Thomas Aquinas, you may use force (i.e. violence) to prevent harm to yourself or others.

So ... violence is sometimes the answer, meaning you must meet violence / force with violence / force to convince the other person to cease their attack. Hence - self-defense.

However ...

In this day, violence usually carries the connotation of illicit coercion or simple physical attacks against another.

So, the clearer method is, in my opinion, to reframe the statement that the use of force is lawful / licit as a response to another's use of force that is unlawful / illicit.

More simply put, everyone has the right to defend themselves with an appropriate use of force.

P^3

References

Rome,the SSPX and this time of Crisis - Updated

+ JMJ Obviously there's lots of events right now. First we have the April 1st - I almost thought it was April Fools - meeting between Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay. Nothing really news worthy as this is a natural progression as Rome appears to be considering fulfilling Archbishop Lefebvre's wish to 'accept us as we are'. Second we have the April 8th publication of what will be a verbose exhortation of the Synod of the Family. I'm willing to bet that the Pope will give with one hand (unilateral regularization of SSPX) and take with the other (ambiguous document that opens the flood gates of sin further). Much to pray for. P^3

A Reply to Martin Blackshaw’s FLAWED Remnant article titled: FLAWED: SSPX Advice on Abortion-tainted Vaccines

+ JMJ An article has appeared in the Remnant (link to article) and I am afraid that there are a number of flaws in it that need to be addressed. The author, Martin Blackshaw, believes that both the Church and the SSPX are misapplying the principle of Moral Theology called 'Cooperation In Evil'. Unfortunately, Mr. Blackshaw rests most of his arguments on citing authors that support his position, without considering the possibility that they are wrong. This highlights a key factor in this crisis: ignorance of the faith and its application . I don't am not singling out Mr. Blackshaw for this criticism, I have observed that it applies to laity and religious, superior and subject a like. No one seems immune in this enduring crisis, myself included. I further believe that this ignorance is why so many Catholics, both traditional and non, rely on their gut feeling or "Catholic conscience" for charting their way through this crisis of the faith. While...

Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum

+ JMJ Now THIS is probably the most important news item in the last two years - yes I place this above the pandemic. I'm only surprised by how long it took for this to surface during this pontificate. I hope and pray that it is false or that if it comes to pass that somehow some good will arise out of the ashes of Summorum Pontificum. P^3 Courtesy of Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (Updated) Update (May 26): Rorate's additional sources in Rome have confirmed this Wednesday that Francis has indeed a text on Summorum Pontificum lined up, which has been developed for months, but what is not known at this point is if the text is just about a more limited take on the Summorum application questionnaire (first revealed by us in the spring of 2020) or about an overhaul of Summorum Pontificum in general: drafts could be dealing with both matters. It is also not impossible for a text to come ou...

If Pope Francis is bad - what about Pope St. John Paul II et al?

+ JMJ So here we are on the apparent cusp of yet another post conciliar Papal canonization. This time we have Pope's John-Paul I and Paul VI canonizations to 'look forward' to. This follows, obviously, on the heels of Pope St. John Paul II's canonization? So the first question that I usually encounter is: How is it possible, keeping in mind the doctrine on infallibility of canonizations (note doctrine not dogma), that Pope St. John Paul II is a Saint? First, what does it mean??? According to the doctrine of dogmatic facts - it is the universal opinion of Theologians that canonizations are infallible. It means that they enjoy the beatific vision. ... that's it. That is the doctrine and it is at the level of universal opinion of theologians. It is called a 'dogmatic fact'. That they made mistakes is obvious. That the miracles seem to not be very miraculous is also a bit of an issue. Here's something to consider: The rush that surrou...

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection. The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements. So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.

Tradicat

Search This Blog