Turning the other cheek or defending yourself during a fist fight?

[Scriptorium]

Fighting with your fists usually will break your hand, unless your wrists have been conditioned and you're hitting soft flesh. Life is not like the movies!

[Sabbathiel]

Check out my other thread on Catholic ethics of just violence.

The relevance of the Augustinian "trans-literal" interpretation of the pacifist-appearing precepts or counsels of Jesus and the Augustinian notion of  "benevolent severity" is central here.

But in terms of physical violence between simply private individuals, the law of self-defense is unassailable under both Natural and Divine Law, yet, as Christians, we should ideally try our best to avoid death of the unjust aggressor, if at all possible.

I think the sense of the Church Fathers is, between merely private individuals, the counsels seeming to teach pacifism do somewhat literally apply, in a sort of "private pacifism."

Except as a magistrate or officer of lawful authority, or in the rarer condition of being an extralegal insurgent  vindicator of Higher Law in a regime of total, oppressive, hellish Tyranny, there are no other real morally licit models of being a practitioner of potentially lethal violence. But I suppose this question is debatable...?

[Adam_Michael]

Be a man. Fight with your fists.

Have you every been in a real life violent situation were the other person was seriously trying to end your life?

I have.

I will always choose a weapon over just my hands.  Always.

[Sabbathiel]

In private violence of self-defense, introduction of deadly weaponry and death-dealing is the absolute last resort, not something we should embrace giddily.

The Hobbesian bellum omnium contra omnes is what Catholics should be trying to avoid.

The Popes legislatively outlawed the feudal practices of private warfare or vendetta, private dueling, wager of battle and judicial "trial by combat" among the anarchic aristocrats of the Middle Ages for this very reason.

[Adam_Michael]

In private violence of self-defense, introduction of deadly weaponry and death-dealing is the absolute last resort, not something we should embrace giddily.

The Hobbesian bellum omnium contra omnes is what Catholics should be trying to avoid.

The Popes legislatively outlawed the feudal practices of private warfare or vendetta, private dueling, wager of battle and judicial "trial by combat" among the anarchic aristocrats of the Middle Ages for this very reason.

Of course it's a last resort. As Christians we should be avoiding violence, so if its already escalated to point that fighting with hands is required then its a serious freaking situation in which case I am pulling my .45 and calling it a day. The Church allows the issuing of a deadly blow in self defense.

[Sabbathiel]

In private violence of self-defense, introduction of deadly weaponry and death-dealing is the absolute last resort, not something we should embrace giddily.

The Hobbesian bellum omnium contra omnes is what Catholics should be trying to avoid.

The Popes legislatively outlawed the feudal practices of private warfare or vendetta, private dueling, wager of battle and judicial "trial by combat" among the anarchic aristocrats of the Middle Ages for this very reason.

Of course it's a last resort. As Christians we should be avoiding violence, so if its already escalated to point that fighting with hands is required then its a serious freaking situation in which case I am pulling my .45 and calling it a day. The Church allows the issuing of a deadly blow in self defense.

Hey, make no mistake, I am not any ideological opponent of yours.

I have been demonized as a "hateful war-monger" by many...so...

Yet, it is sort of Catholic doctrine that the degree of self-defensive violence against the assailant must be proportionately employed to the attack, and not reflective of immoderate excess. For example, if the circumstances allowed merely maiming (slicing off a limb or two) instead of simply directly killing the unjust aggressor for cessation of the violence, then to that extent are we only allowed to go in our defensive violence. I do believe this, conditionally, I suppose. This is sort of what the "official" Church teaches...

St. Augustine goes to the extreme of teaching lethal self-defense is absolutely forbidden for all Christians in the private realm, entirely--I am in strong disagreement with the Saint here.

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that, privately, our intention cannot be self-consciously homicidal, but only the stoppage of the assailing trespasser, the actual death of the unjust aggressor merely being a secondary effect. I am more in agreement with the Thomistic view here, but I know it's not perfect.

In total frankness, this subject is one of definite complexity and contentiousness in Church history.

[Adam_Michael]

I understand that a defensive attack should be proportional to aggressors attack. Gotcha. In real life you don't have the opportunity to shoot to wound. I am aiming for center mass.

I have experienced real world violence. Its not like TV. When in a situation like that a persons perception of time goes all funny and you don't cognitively process things the same. Its hard to explain. You just do what you have to do to survive. And that usually means that if escape or hiding isn't an option you become as explosively violent as possible and don't stop attacking till the other guy stops moving / breathing.

[Sabbathiel]

Hey brother, I have experienced real-world violence too. I don't talk about it, but I have. Horribly. But if I can cut somebody's arm off instead of send him to Hell, I'll do that instead. It's up to God in the end what is right here. I don't condemn you at all. Just keep God in mind if you choose you have to shoot.

[jovan66102]

Be a man. Fight with your fists.

Have you every been in a real life violent situation were the other person was seriously trying to end your life?

I have.

I will always choose a weapon over just my hands.  Always.

This!

[Sabbathiel]

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article7

I answer that, Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one's life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one's intention is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in "being," as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. 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 [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], "it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense." Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's. But as it is unlawful to take a man's life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.

--Do people disagree with St. Thomas here?