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

The myth of the Hermeneutic of Continuity - Rorate Caeli

+ JMJ Interestingly the complete acceptance of the Second Vatican Council (without reservations) is required of the SSPX. Just when people are starting to wonder how it came to this! Courtesy of Rorate Caeli P^3

A Look Back: Archbishop Lefebvre’s Prophetic Address to The Remnant, 1976

+ JMJ Looking back is important to understand why we are where we are in this crisis. Courtesy of RemnantNewsPaper P^3 FOR THE FIRST TIME ONLINE: Archbishop Lefebvre’s Prophetic Address to The Remnant, 1976 Written by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Introduction by Michael J. Matt More than forty years ago—during the disastrous reign of Pope Paul VI, the latest candidate for a Vatican-issued Halo Award, by the way—my father, Walter L. Matt, organized the first large scale public reception in the U.S. for the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. It was held at the Radisson South Hotel, Minneapolis, on Tuesday, May 12, 1976, and its stated purpose was to assist the Archbishop in gaining a stronger foothold for the Society of St. Pius X in the States during the unprecedented crisis Blessed Pope Paul had helped unleash on the Church. On that occasion Archbishop Lefebvre delivered ...

Of the Church and the Pope - Fr. Calmel O.P.

+ JMJ Once again, looking back to see if the 'Traditional Catholics' in the early days of this crisis of the Church had a sufficient view to realize the roots of the crisis. The root: The Pope Hence when the Pope is 'righted' the Church will be 'righted'. P^3 Courtesy of SSPXasia Fr. Roger Calmel, O.P. This essay by Fr. Roger Calmel, O.P. (1914-75) helps us in these difficult times to preserve our love of the Church. More than 30 years after its first publication, this article retains all its relevance, so much so that it even seems to have been written for our time, in which the crisis in the Church deepens at an unprecedented pace. This essay will help the reader to think clearly, keep the Faith, and maintain serenity in the troubled times we are navigating. “My country has hurt m e,”wrote a young poet in 1944 during the purge 1 when the head of state [Charles De Gaulle] implacably pursued the sinister job that had been in the wo...

Canonical Mission and State of Emergency - A Response to Mr. John Salza - Part B

+ JMJ I was trying to think of a way to map out the time course I discussed in Part A of this article. Early this morning it came to me that this is more about obedience and duty than canon law. As is my wont, I mapped out my thoughts (see image) to draw linkages between the core concepts. My conclusion is that, at least subjectively, Archbishop Lefebvre had sufficient information to make good decisions concerning whether or not he was obliged to obey. I know that the Jesuits, some Sedevacantists and the priests that left over the years will not agree with my thoughts. So be it. The core pieces of information include: Attacks against the SSPX were launched because they kept the Tridentine Mass and the pre-conciliar understanding of the Truths of the Faith. The authorities in the Church were willing to go against the laws of the Church. The same authorities encouraged the various dangers to the Faith embedded in popular interpretations of ambiguo...

Validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations - Courtesy of SSPX.org

+ JMJ In the blogosphere there are number of responses to this crisis in the Catholic Church that lead to conclusions that run counter to Catholic Doctrine and Dogmas - if taken to their logical conclusion. The validity of the New Rite of Episcopal consecrations is one such hotspot within more extreme sections of the 'traditionalist' culture. Validity of new rite of episcopal consecrations Courtesy of SSPX.org Why the new rite of episcopal consecration is valid Introduction This comprehensive study was compiled to settle a debate that has been circulating in traditional Catholic circles. Some writers have examined the new rite of episcopal consecration and concluded that it must be invalid. Since this would cause manifest problems if it were true and due to the heightened awareness of such a theory, we present a study of this question concluding that it is valid. Following the Council, in 1968 a new rite for the ordination of bishops was promulg...

Tradicat

Search This Blog