Before I went on vacation, I posted a couple of items here about people who, in my view, "needed killin'." The phrase was meant semi-comically -- there's a joke that Texas is the only place in the country where "he needed killin'" is considered a valid excuse for homicide -- but the point I was trying to make is that the two men killed deserved their fate because of their extraordinary wickedness.
Maybe they did, truly. But I had a bad feeling about taking pleasure in the justice rendered them, and I've been meaning to say here on this site how sorry I was for my Schadenfreude. A quote a friend just sent me via e-mail, from a book by St. Nikolaj Velimirovic, really spoke to my heart about this:
He is a man; do not rejoice in his fall. He is your brother; let not your heart leap for joy when he stumbles. God created him for life, and God does not rejoice in his fall. And you also, do not rejoice at that which grieves God. When a man falls, God loses; do you rejoice in the loss of your Creator, of your Parent? When the angels weep, do you rejoice?When your enemy falls, pray to God for him, that God will save him; and give thanks to God that you did not fall in the same manner. You are of the same material, both you and he, like two vessels from the hand of the potter. If one vessel breaks, should the other one smile and rejoice? Behold, the small stone that broke that vessel only waits for someone's hand to raise it to destroy this vessel also. Both vessels are of the same material, and a small stone can destroy a hundred vessels.
When one sheep is lost, should the rest of the flock rejoice? No, they should not. For behold, the shepherd leaves his flock and, being concerned, goes to seek the lost sheep. The shepherd's loss is the flock's loss too. Therefore, do not rejoice when your enemy falls, for your Shepherd and his Shepherd, the Lord Jesus Christ, does not rejoice in his fall.
I apologize for those earlier posts, and am sorry for the pleasure I took in the demise of those wicked men. Perhaps what happened to them was necessary, given what they were doing when they were killed (in one case, beating a child to death, in the other,trying to shoot a homeowner whose house he was robbing) -- but still, I was wrong to find satisfaction in their violent deaths.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Subscribe
Retrib - You keep saying that it doesn't trouble you when certain criminals are killed. I will once again grant your point that often the best course of action that society or an individual must take will result in the death of an offender. I am not "troubled" by a person's lethal exercise of self-defense when necessary, in the sense that I do not consider the act immoral.
So far we agree. Our point of departure is not on the level of moral casuistry, but on the metaphysical level. I believe that every time a human being dies, whether that person is Hitler or Mother Teresa, and whether that person dies by natural causes or by human act justified or not, the event of death embodies all that is disordered and wrong in the world since the Fall. I believe that Christianity (perhaps especially Catholicism) teaches this. Death itself is an absurdity to be defeated by the intervention of the divine. You may posit all the worst criminals in the world but that does not address our actual disagreement. I don't go out of my way to mourn Hitler and I don't ask you to do so. But that he must die is as much an absurdity and a scandal as my own death or yours. If it weren't so then why do we look to Christ to overcome it? You said you are a Christian but nothing you have since said gives any indication that you take the claims of your faith seriously.
"You said you are a Christian but nothing you have since said gives any indication that you take the claims of your faith seriously. "
Only in your opinion, according to your perspective. I take my faith, and the claims of my faith, very seriously. Nowhere in the Bible is there a command about what I must believe concerning death in general or anyone's death in particular. My faith is unaffected.
I'm curious, what do you think about these verses:
"And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him." - Genesis 38:7
"And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon." - Ex. 12:29
"Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour." - Ex. 32:27
"And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost." - Acts 12:23
I have, unfortunately, been party to some violent encounters. I won't describe them except to say that I abhor violence, and while capable of it in extremis, I am invariably violently ill afterwards.
I make that cryptic reference because in every case I rationally skipped over the "what if" parts of the decision process to engage in violence. The probable outcome was clear in each case, and my use of violence was specifically to prevent that outcome. That the outcome was already in place, as it were, was not something I stopped to examine in any imaginative sense. I simply acted.
My neighborhood pub friends are dealing with a spike in violent assault recently. Our most recent conversation was about a woman who was attacked, but beat off her attacker. The police praised her reaction. So did I and my friends. I'll just note in passing that the owner of this pub requires his employees to attend regular meetings to discuss the welfare of their customers while they are in the pub and after they leave with no distinction in level of concern.
Philosophical and/or metaphysical discussions are important, please don't get me wrong. But, in the moment, a person has a choice. If there is any chance of doing to the attacker before the attacker does to me, I will act and if my action causes the attacker's death, once I get over my immediate reaction I am convinced that I will not lose one second of sleep over that particular outcome, and I will take that confidence to prison if that's to be my fate.
I guess this will be my last post, as I don't think I've much more to contribute to this. But one last point - Rod, I take your mom's words to heart. But isn't the real tragedy that would break a mother's heart the fact that her son had so degnerated in his behavior towards others that he was capable of the kinds of horrors we've been discussing? The physical death of such a person seems kind of secondary to the tragedy in such cases. As the second vatican council says such actions that deny human dignity are a supreme dishonor to the creator, and those who perpetrate them do more harm to themselves than is suffered by their victims. They make themselves into moral monsters, which is really the worst thing that can be suffered by anyone.
It's a mystery as to why some go down that path where others resist, and I leave it to God to determine culpability. But that we can reasonably judge that the justifiable death of such a person is no occassion for particular sorrow seems to me to be compatible with Christianity as I understand it.
When you have to get out the theology and metaphysics textbooks to try to explain why the death of such a one should nonetheless be mourned as a kind of general principle, I think we've entered into a whole different discussion. And I think it also kind of proves the point - you don't have to explain to anyone why the death of a good or even neutral or morally flawed person should be mourned.
Dear Mr. Dreher,
As the Sergeant-at-Arms for BITCH (Blogger In Total Communion with Hate), I must sternly warn you against further posts in this vein.
Apologies have no place in the blogosphere. Indeed, they are a direct violation of Article IV, Section 3, Codicil 12 the San Jose BITCH Compact of 2002, which states (and I quote):
"Conflict and petty antagonism being integral to the well-being and continued existence of our psuedo-profession, it is hereby agreed that apologies, assents, second thoughts, and any other recognition of common ground with others with whom we originally disagreed are strictly forbidden."
Accordingly, I have been authorized to issue you a VERY STERN WARNING against ever again admitting an error or taking back something you have previously posted. Said conduct presents a clear and present danger to the very existence of the blogosphere, and future violations of this codicil will result in you being taunted a second time.
You have been warned, Mr. Goody-Two-Shoes.
Signed,
Adrian Wapcaplet,
Sgt.-at-Arms
BITCH
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?