www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Using deadly force in self-defense

Is killing in self-defense when there is no other option a sin? I have had 2 Orthodox priests tell me that it is. I gave the situation of an intruder in my house who was going to kill my wife unless I killed him in defense of her. I asked several questions and got these answers:

1. Does God expect me to defend my wife including the use of deadly force if that is the ONLY option? Answer: Yes.

2. If I do actually kill the man in this situation is it a sin? Answer: Yes.

3. If I DON'T kill the man to protect my wife then am I in fact NOT doing what God expects me to do? Answer: Yes.

4. Doesn't that mean that God expects me to sin?
Answer: No.

It seems to me the Roman Catholic idea of killing in self (or family) defense is not a sin makes sense. Do the Eastern Catholics agree with the Orthodox on this?

Eric,
I can only give you my opinion on this, but I find great comfort in the view that the Orthodox priests gave you.

I find the comfort in the consistency of that view. Sin is sin, killing is sin.

As to your points, yes, (1)God does expect us to protect are loved ones, (2) killing is a sin, (3) allowing a loved one to be killed without intervening would be a sin, and (4) God does not expect us to sin.

I say, God does not expect us to sin, becasue numbers 1 and 2 are not necessairly connected.

You must protect your loved ones from starvation, from the environment, from many, many things that can harm them.

The actions of anothers sin, in your example, the person trying to kill your wife, is not caused by God. It is a result of the fallen nature of man. So your defending your wife, by killing him, and thereby sinning, is also a result of our fallen nature. God does not expect us to sin, we sin becuase of what we have become.

I hope I put my thoughts to words in a way that you could understand what I am thinking.

David

Eric,

Read Exodus 22:3

It describes the very situation you describe.

From the Roman Catholic perspective, first of all, a Christian defender should never INTEND to kill the intruder. Yes, it might, or even probably will, cause death. But you still defend to STOP THE ATTACK ONLY.

And once the threat is over, call for medical assistance and treat the attacker as you would anyone else.

And yes there is sin involved, the onus of sin is on the attacker for any sin that results from their actions, including their own death.

Here is a quote from Pope John Paul II's, Encyclical Letter from 1995, EVANGELIUM VITAE

And, of course, Pray that this situation never occurs.

Yours in Christ,

Brendan

Dear Eric,

This is the prayer in preparation for the eucharist that all clergy and laity should say at home or during corporate worship prior to receiving:

I believe O lord, and I confess, that you are truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, who came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am first. I also believe that this is truly your most pure body and that this is truly your most precious blood. Wherefore I pray to you to have mercy on me and pardon all of my transgressions, both voluntary and involuntary, in word and in deed, in knowledge and in ignorance, and make me worthy to partake without condemnation of your most pure body and most precious blood for the remission of sin and life everlasting.

As you can see, sin is not always of our own doing. And yet we need remission from it. "Men are caught up in an evil time as fish are caught up in a net."

I hope that this helps.

With love in Christ,
Andrew.

Hi:

I agree that sin is sin and killing is sin.

However, I think that the Latin Church as constructed a reasonable system for situations like this.

Objectively, killing is sin. But the objective nature of the act is only one component of the morality of a particular act commited by a particular person in specific circumstances.

In the Latin Church, we have two kinds of sin: Mortal and Venial. In the East, I've sometimes found similar distinctions between Sins, Transgresions and Infirmities.

For a sin to be mortal, the matter of the sin must grave. This is, it has to be a serious violation of Divine Law. Killing will always qualify as such.

But not only the matter of sin must be grave for it to be mortal. It is also required that the person commiting the sin has full knowledge of the fact that the matter is gravely sinful, and full freedom to choose commiting the sin.

In the case of self-defense, full knowledge may or may not be the case. Doesn't really matter, because the self-defending person is obviously not in the excercise of full freedom to act.

Therefore, killing is sinful regardless. But the guilt associated with killing in self-defense does not amount to mortal sin and such an act must therefore be regared and treated as venial sin.

In other words, if a person in state of grace kills in legitimate self-defense, that person remains in state of grace.

Shalom,
Memo.

Memo,
I understand what you are saying and agree with you that this is most likely the way the Latins are looking at it.

I must say that this is one of the reasons I decided to stay Byzantine. This sort of explaination smacks of legalise. Just reminds me of the legalistic/scholastic nature of Western thought.

Not my cup of tea.

David

David,

I understand how legalistic we Latins are

But surely the East has philosophized the meanings of Exodus 22:2

and implied in Luke 22:21 (Christ's instructions to Peter as he sends Peter forth)

We, as Christians are certainly not to live our lives by the sword, but may we not defend with one?

Dear Scotus,

As did St Thomas of Canterbury when he was set upon in his own Cathedral by the knights of King Henry II . . .

He gave a good account of himself defending the sanctuary, until a sword blow sliced off the crown of his head which fell into the Lady Chapel . . .

This is today called the "Chapel of the Crown" and there is a beautiful shrine marking the spot where St Thomas fell.

Alex

Dear Alex,

That's such wonderful myth....

The more I study the Becket Controversy, the more my opinion of Becket is lowered...

Now if you wany a darn good writer from that period, try the wondeful John of Salisbury....

Anton

Dear Friends,

Inherent in this discussion is the difference in understanding of "sin." As St. Paul said, "all wrong doing is sin." The East traditionally names everything that misses the mark as a "sin" whether one is objectively guilty of that act or not. This is why we confess all our sins "volunatary and involuntary," "known and unknown." In the West, they try to discern the motives to decide whether one is guilty of sin or not. In the East, the motives are left to God's judgement and we simply confess our sins whether we meant them or not.

For example, if one misses the Divine Liturgy on Sunday because he is sick or his car broke down, an Orthodox would confess this. Now, whether he really meant to or not is left to God to judge. The mark is weekly Sunday attendance at the Divine Liturgy. By not being there, we have missed the mark, whether we meant to or not.

This might help to explain why the priests said killing the perpetrator is "sin." The mark is never to kill anyone. But God is left to judge whether that man had any other choice than the sinful act of killing another human being.

The Orthodox on this list can correct me if I am misrepresenting the Orthodox tradition on sin.

In Chirst's Light,

Wm. DerGhazarian

Dear G,

Did not Samson kill his enemies with a jawlbone of an Ass?

It is in scripture. Kill or be killed .

In Christ,
S

Ghazarus,

Well said, my friend !

BTW, I'll be attending my first Litugy of PreSanctified Gifts on Friday at St. Basil's

I had the pleasure of sitting next to Deacon in at the Catholic Men's Confernce. he is in service at St. Stephan's in Allen Park. He informed me that a Slovak Bishop will be present at St. Basil's for a talk on Repentance Friday, followed by the Liturgy.

Were you planning on attending?

-Brendan

Ghazarus said:

Ghazarus,

Your answer is one I hadn't considered. It seems to leave open the possibility (rare, I admit but they do happen) where I could be in a situation where I'd have to make a decision and all of the choices (including not choosing) would be labeled a sin because the perfect thing (an answer only possible if wasn't in this situation in the first place?) isn't possible for me to do so I'll miss that mark.

I always thought that doing what God wanted me to do = doing His will = the perfect thing to do.

I'll have to think about this some more as I haven't quite grasped all the implications yet. I'm sure my upbringing as a westerner is showing!!

Steven said:

Indeed. There are even times in the scriptures when men (like Samson) are commanded by God to kill then PRAISED for doing it after the fact and *not* said to have sinned. I always thought they had not sinned because they did what God wanted --- and so they "hit the mark".

I'm thinking about Ghazarus' reply and wondering if there are 2 different concepts of sin altogether or whether I can come to understand how the 2 relate to each other.

Or possibly I had too much beer tonight while going out for my first "Fat Tuesday" celebration!

I believe a proper translation of the Hebrew is "You shall not murder."

Intent is critical.

The defense of self is a right but is also optional.

Defense of others (wife, children, strangers, etc..) is not optional but must be appropriate in means to the gravity of the situation (which may just be to notifiy proper authorites).

Since we are human and not gods - there may arise a situation in which killing is a pratical and immediate nessesity of defense.

The good news is - God is not a computer - he takes into account your intent and your consciense - and he would never put you into a situation that is beyond your ability to judge the right way to go.

God is in control of everything - nothing slips by him - any event or situation like this shall not come to you unless God sees, in someway, it would be good for you in some way.

TV and movies make it seem like violence is radom and can come to anyone at any time - it is not so.