A reader writes:

I have been a reader for sometime. In light of the SCOTUS 2nd amendment ruling the other day, I am curious to get your opinion on the right of a man to defend himself and his family. Against a threat in public, a threat in their home or even a threat from government.

Concealed weapon permit holder’s are told they can not shoot a man unless his life is at stake. Does this fall in line with our faith?

How about defending our families in our homes?

Going out on a real stretch; To what extent could have and should have German’s living under Hitler in the 20’s and early 30’s rebelled against his government?

I would also be grateful if you could provide any references to chase down and do more research on this.

Our faith has always said that a person has a right to defend himself and his family from harm. The idea, of course, is to do so effectively. If that *requires* deadly force then so be it. However, if it does not, then the mere fact that one is being threatened does not mean we should regard ourselves as having been granted a 007. So, for instance, if you happen on a kid who is ransacking your car one night and he turns to flee, unloading your magazine into his back and then calling it “self defense” might get you off in court (I dunno) but it’s pretty dubious morally. (I had a friend, a Catholic with too much testosterone coursing through his veins, who used to fantasize about being the hero in a store holdup. He would wrestle the gun away from the young punk threatening the owner, put the kid in a sleeper hold and then blow his head off, explaining later that “The gun went off in the struggle.” Such vengeance fantasies are not, I fear, rare. And they are not what the Tradition means by “self-defense”. But where it really is necessary to defend one’s life, killing is morally acceptable.

As to the classic question about revolting against a tyrant: Google is our friend. Here, for instance, is a nice little summary of St. Thomas’ ideas on the matter:

In 1267, Thomas Aquinas completed a work on government inspired by Aristotle’s Politics. Aquinas asserted, “Yet it is natural for man, more than any other animal, to be a social and political animal, to live in a group.” He presented logical proofs of this such as the self-evident fact of human speech to allow individuals to reason with one another.

Aquinas further observed that people tend to look only after their own self-interest. “Therefore,” he concluded, “in every multitude there must be some governing power” to direct people toward the “common good.”

Thus, Aquinas did not agree with St. Augustine that the main purpose of government was simply to keep the sinful in line. Aquinas saw government as also helping to work for the “common good” that benefits all. The common good included such things as protecting life, preserving the state, and promoting the peace. Aristotle would have called this “the good life.”

Aquinas addressed the problem of unjust rulers who might be a king, the few rich, or the many poor. Aquinas noted that when rulers make laws that violate natural law, they become “tyrants.” Aquinas went on to conclude, “A tyrannical government is not just, because it is directed not to the common good, but to the private good of the ruler, as the Philosopher [Aristotle] says.”

What should the people do about a tyranny? Aquinas agreed with St. Augustine that the subjects of unjust rule are not obliged to obey the laws since they are not legitimate. But Aquinas went far beyond St. Augustine and virtually all other medieval thinkers on this matter.

Aquinas argued that the subjects of a tyranny, acting as a “public authority,” might rebel and depose it. Aquinas cautioned that the people should not do this hastily, but only when the damage done by the tyranny exceeds what may occur in a rebellion. This was one of the first justifications for revolution in Western thought.

Aquinas further developed the meaning of “just war” that had been discussed by the Roman statesman Cicero and by St. Augustine. For a war to be just, there must be these three conditions:

1. A declaration by the ruler to defend the “common good” against enemies.

2. A “just cause” for an attack on an enemy “because they deserve it on account of some fault” such as avenging wrongs they have committed.

3. A “rightful intention” to advance good or avoid evil such as punishing evil-doers and not simply grabbing land or goods.

The basic principles at work are “An unjust law is no law at all” and, once again, that persons have the right to defend themselves from an earthly power that is acting in a way gravely counter to the common good and, most particularly, against the common good of human life and dignity. For that, just war consideration enter in. So, for instance, we have to ask if the threat to the common good is really grave. Do we really have the power to rebel or will it likely get you killed and come to nothing? Are you simply acting as a lawless vigilante and congratulating yourself that you are folk hero? Etc.

I can’t speak to what the Germans should have done. They were, as I understand it, disarmed. So their ability to oppose the Reich with violence was very limited. It may not have been feasible to mount a revolt even if they had wanted to (which I also don’t know).

I’d bone up on the Catechism’s teaching about the common good and about subsidiarity and about the fifth commandment and just war.