Is it Morally Allowable to punch a Blasphemer.
#21
Regardless of whether St. Nicholas punching Arius is a myth it shows an instance of someone getting punched due to righteous anger. I do think the importance is the stakes and the person involved. Going around and punching various people who are blaspheming will 1. make you punch a whole lot of people 2. get you into lots of fights 3. put you in jail.
Reply
#22
(03-15-2017, 08:55 AM)GangGreen Wrote: Regardless of whether St. Nicholas punching Arius is a myth it shows an instance of someone getting punched due to righteous anger. I do think the importance is the stakes and the person involved. Going around and punching various people who are blaspheming will 1. make you punch a whole lot of people 2. get you into lots of fights 3. put you in jail.

4. Require you to approach the Sacrament of Penance and confess a mortal sin.

Righteous anger is not in itself a justification for physical violence.  An example of a justification for physical violence within traditional moral theology would be physically restraining someone from desecrating a host, including punching the desecrator, should that be necessary to subdue him and to protect the consecrated host.
Reply
#23
Another thought. Besides the story of St. Nicholas are there any stories of saints who attacked someone for blasphemy? I've never heard of any.
Reply
#24
(03-14-2017, 12:58 PM)BC Wrote:
(03-14-2017, 12:30 PM)Justin Alphonsus Wrote: Seeing these things, I would not be surprised if the Devil would like to use this to get us angry to the point of rage, he wins on both accounts.

I am not so sure.  If I am not mistaken, Leo Dupont, the Holy Man of Tours responsible for spreading Devotion to the Holy Face in reparation for blasphemy in the 19th century, slapped a woman right in the face merely for disrespectfully talking during Mass.

Think about that for a second. 

King St. Louis had public blasphemers branded on the lips.  He was a saint.  Of course that was in the realm of distributed justice from Government Authority and not the responsibility of citizens to execute on site. 

St. John Chrysostom

Only the person who becomes irate without reason, sins. Whoever becomes irate for a just reason is not guilty. Because, if ire were lacking, the science of God would not progress, judgments would not be sound, and crimes would not be repressed.

Further, the person who does not become irate when he has cause to be, sins. For an unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices: it fosters negligence, and stimulates not only the wicked, but above all the good, to do wrong. (Homily XI super Matheum,  1c, nt.7)


St. Thomas Aquinas

Ire may be understood in two ways.

In one way, as a simple movement of the will that inflicts punishment not through passion, but by virtue of a judgment of the reason: and in this case, without a doubt, lack of ire is a sin. This is how Chrysostom understands ire when he says: ‘Ire, when it has a cause, is not ire but judgment. For properly speaking, ire is a movement of passion. And when a man is irate with just cause, his ire does not derive from passion. Rather, it is an act of judgment, not of ire.”

In another way, ire can be understood as a movement of the sensitive appetite agitated by passion with bodily excitation. This movement is a necessary sequel in man to the previous movement of his will, since the lower appetite naturally follows the movement of the higher appetite unless some obstacle prevents it. Hence the movement of ire in the sensitive appetite cannot be lacking altogether, unless the movement of the will is altogether lacking or weak. Consequently, the lack of the passion of ire is also a vice, as it is the lack of movement in the will to punish according to the judgment of reason.  (Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 158, art. 8)


http://www.traditioninaction.org/religio..._Irate.htm

I think the key is punishment as an act of judgment, not ire, can only come from those with the authority to do so (as you demonstrate with the St. Louis example).  This is why St. Thomas later says the following:

Judgment is lawful in so far as it is an act  of justice. Now it follows from what has been stated above (1, ad 1,3) that three conditions are requisite for a judgment to be an act  of justice: first, that it proceed from the inclination of justice; secondly, that it come from one who is in authority; thirdly, that it be pronounced according to the right ruling of prudence. If any one of these be lacking, the judgment  will be faulty and unlawful.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3060.htm

As for Leo Dupont, he did slap people or box their ears early on, but quit doing so altogether when he progressed in his own holiness and began the practice of corporal punishment  on himself (with the discipline/little whip).  Instead, he would do things like ask the person to do him a favor: either keep silent or strike him (Leo), because, as he would explain, that would be less painful to him then hearing God's name profaned.
Reply
#25
Whether saints would have participated is another question, but some cultures have historically been characterized as "honor cultures," where one's reputation (and economic and social life)  hinges on one's unwillingness to tolerate improper behavior from others. To do otherwise would be seen as unprincipled, effeminate, weak, and would leave one (and one's family) vulnerable to the predations of others. Striking someone for the sake of honor seems a considerable concession to Christian morality, when we consider just how extremely barbaric the remedies can be without the Faith.
Reply
#26
Pope Francis said that if someone insults your mother then they should expect to be punched in the nose. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)