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

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making. It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX. The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience. The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members. It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R...

What the heck is a congregation of "Pontifical Right"

+ JMJ In a discussion with a friend the question occurred to me that I didn't actually know was is involved in being a religious order of 'pontifical right'. I had a vague notion that this meant they reported to Rome as opposed to the local diocese. I'm also aware that, according to the accounts I have heard, the Archbishop received 'praise' and the written direction to incardinate priests directly into the SSPX. This is interesting because it implies that the SSPX priests were no longer required to incardinate in the local diocese but in the SSPX. This is something that belongs to an order of 'pontifical right'. Anyway here's some definitions: Di diritto pontificio is the Italian term for “of pontifical right” . It is given to the ecclesiastical institutions (the religious and secular institutes, societies of apostolic life) either created by the Holy See or approved by it with the formal decree, known by its Latin name, Decretu...

Australia: Seal of the Confessional Outlawed at the Federal Level

+ JMJ This is simply another step in the attack on the Catholic Church. Interestingly, California's attempt to do the same failed. P^3 Courtesy of FSSPX.news Australia: Seal of the Confessional Outlawed at the Federal Level December 19, 2019 Source: fsspx.news On December 2, 2019, the Australian Conference of Bishops (ACBC) denounced the agreement between the Attorneys General of each state and the Australian federal government, with the aim of standardizing the laws imposing on priests the obligation to denounce any alleged fact of ill-treatment of minors that would be learned in the context of the sacrament of penance. “Counterproductive and unjust” are the terms with which Archbishop Mark Coleridge, Archbishop of Brisbane and President of the ACBC, denounced the new prejudicial legal norms on the sacramental seal of the confessional in Australia. The attorneys gener...

Tradicat

Search This Blog