This topic can be rather touchy... so I apologize in advance if I ruffle some feathers; take it as my insight, based on what I know of the subject (which may legitimately be debated), and see what you think.
So far, we've discussed two key steps in spiritual warfare: get your own house in order (i.e. grow in holiness, and detach yourself from sin), and establish reliable supply lines (i.e. access as many channels of God's grace as you can, by means of prayer, fasting, spiritual reading, etc.). The next one is, if possible, more critical--since a bad choice in this regard can not only destroy the good done in the first two steps, but it can lead you to do immeasurable damage to *our* side of the war:
YOU CANNOT DEFEAT THE DEVIL
USING THE DEVIL'S WEAPONS;
FIGHT WITH WEAPONS OF LIGHT,
OR DON'T FIGHT AT ALL!
USING THE DEVIL'S WEAPONS;
FIGHT WITH WEAPONS OF LIGHT,
OR DON'T FIGHT AT ALL!
Let me be very clear about what this means.
Satan uses weapons that are evil in some way--either intrinsically evil weapons (i.e. evil by their very nature), or else neutral or (even) good weapons put to a perverse task (I'll give examples, below). Those who choose to fight Satan (which includes all Christians, and all who wish to avoid eternal damnation!) cannot do so. Here are a few examples:
1) Violence is any action (or possibly omission of a required act) which causes damage to something or someone else; and it is only allowed under very strict circumstances (e.g. defense of self or others, etc.) which resemble those by which war may justly be waged, and the conditions by which an evil (in general) may be tolerated (see my post about double-effect). We can't, for example, fight abortion by taking a high-powered rifle and blowing the head off of an abortionist--since willing the death of a person (even a murderer) is always evil. We can chain ourselves to the door of the abortion mill; we can trespass in order to give the next Terri Schiavo a drink of water. But we cannot choose evil, no matter what the potential "payoff".
2) Hatred is a free choice to will evil on another; and hatred is NEVER morally permissible against another human being. In fact, the only permissible "target" for hatred is evil/sin itself (and perhaps the fallen angels--though that's dangerous ground). If we pick up hatred as a weapon against an enemy (save for evil itself), it will eventually turn on us.
3) Denigration is the practice of exposing an enemy to such criticism and/or ridicule as to degrade his reputation and worth in the eyes of others. While direct (and even severe) criticism--and even sharp irony--can possibly be used against an *argument*, they are not properly used against other persons.
I don't mean to say that we won't slip up, on occasion--lose our tempers when sorely provoked (internet trolls are sometimes rather good at such provocation!), and such--but that can't be the norm, and we can't settle for that, and we really do need to turn away from such things as soon as possible.
I also don't mean to say that ironic or strident criticism of an opponent's argument--or even an opponent's present character--is always wrong; even Christ seemed to use it, as a rhetorical device to shake his opponents out of their complacency (cf. virtually all of Matthew, Chapter 23). But I do mean to say that such tools are specialized, and are not easily used properly; we who are sinners can so easily confuse the sinner for the sin (or for the state of the sinner's soul)... especially if their sin resembles the sin that most attracts and tempts us! Christ Our Lord could use those specialized weapons with perfect accuracy; we are usually not nearly so skilled... and it is only through true charity--selfless love for our enemy, and a soul-deep desire to see them freed from the bondage of error and sin--that God can empower us to use such weapons on the occasions where they are truly necessary.
God bless us as we seek to fight by His side!
[Updated note: sorry about the temporary lack of formatting; I'm working through a bug with Firefox that doesn't like Blogger's editor, for some reason...]
7 comments:
since willing the death of a person (even a murderer) is always evil.
I know the Catholic Church is opposed to the death penalty in this day and age - but do you believe it is illicit in and of itself? Catholic rulers have been known to sentence people to death.
I know the Catholic Church is opposed to the death penalty in this day and age - but do you believe it is illicit in and of itself?
No... but that isn't "willing the death" of anyone, in and of itself (though that's a very strong danger in such circumstances). The death penalty is only morally licit if the intent is to protect the public (and if circumstances are grave enough to justify the toleration of the death of the man in question--see the double-effect conditions), and not an intention to "have a dead man at the end".
No... but that isn't "willing the death" of anyone, in and of itself (though that's a very strong danger in such circumstances).
That's something scary about your religion. I think I want to achieve X and use Y as means - but I'm really good at lying to myself. How do I know I don't really want to achieve Y, and use X as my excuse?
Well... two points to keep in mind, on that:
1) I can only be held morally culpable for my *deliberate* actions and inactions--whether those actions/inactions are obviously evil (e.g. torturing someone, or nodding in approval as someone else is tortured), or whether they're more remote (e.g. choosing to drink alcohol, even if I have an alcohol addiction, whereupon my resulting intoxicated driving leads me to hit and kill someone with my car). It's simply impossible to charge anyone with an evil that they didn't intend at all.
2) The fact that it might be difficult to determine "purity of motive" doesn't make such purity of motive any less necessary. For example: the extent to which I *will* the death of the attacker/intruder that I shoot is the extent to which I am guilty of murder, in God's eyes. Certainly, the taint in my motive might be slight (meriting only a venial sin), but it's still evil, and it must be called evil.
Re: using "Y" as an excuse, that depends: is this excuse-making willful? If so, then the person performing the guilty action is culpable.
the extent to which I *will* the death of the attacker/intruder that I shoot is the extent to which I am guilty of murder, in God's eyes.
That's exactly my problem. Later on I might not even be able to remember exactly how much I willed the death of the intruder.
True. If the question is, "How blameworthy am I?", then we can expect that question to be difficult to answer; but this doesn't mean that "all bets are off" regarding objective criteria for culpability. Two basic principles are operative:
1) No one can justly be blamed for that which is not his responsibility (which would include cases where there is no ill will, no culpable negligence, etc.).
2) The extent to which one can be culpable for an action is the extent to which the evil involved in that action was freely chosen.
Let's take your case of an intruder who, in your best judgment, represents a grave threat to you and/or your loved ones. If a Catholic were in that position, and if he were to kill the intruder (with a gun, or whatever), it might be difficult for him to discern (especially in the heat of the moment, and in the emotionally turbulent aftermath!) whether his motives were truly pure or not. In that case, he would seek the Sacrament of Confession, and describe (with as much exacting honesty as is possible for him) his actions, thoughts, and feelings regarding the matter to the priest--who would be in the (perhaps somewhat unenviable) position of helping the penitent to determine the culpability of his actions (which could range from "none" to "mortally sinful"). At that point, any sane priest would offer Sacramental absolution to the poor man--not only to "err on the side of caution", but for the man's peace of mind. After that point, the man would (all other things being equal) be freed of worry on that point of "discerning purity of motive".
Does that help?
Does that help?
Yes, it solves the problem. I was thinking of the practical issue of knowing the state of your soul. But Catholics don't need that, since you have a "reset button".
Post a Comment