Killing: A Catholic Perspective

As a Catholic, I can’t adequately talk about this issue without first referring to the Catechism (there’s a good bit here, but I feel like it’s all pertinent).

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”⁶

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.⁶⁶

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

The Church’s teaching on violence and defense starts with the fifth commandment—Thou Shall Not Kill. We recognize this wasn’t an arbitrary command from God. Killing is never a good thing. And we should avoid it to the fullest extent possible.

However, in some rare circumstances, the use of force—even lethal force—can be *permissible* if it is the *only* way to protect innocent life from a violent, unjust aggressor. This means that in order to justify taking another life, you must first be facing an immediate threat from someone who intends to kill you or another innocent person. Secondly, you should only use as much force as necessary to dispose of the threat. Meaning that if you don’t *have* to kill in order to protect yourself or others, you are morally obligated not to.

The thing I like most about this teaching is that it applies to everyone equally across the board–civilians, government authority, and even the police. Its purpose (to paraphrase my friend Mark Shea) is not to set some threshold for when we *get* to kill, but rather to take every available action to preserve human life as much as possible. And honestly, this isn’t just a “Catholic” thing. I think it’s fair to say it’s a fairly universal teaching that benefits all of society.

Yet there are many Americans who have this completely backwards, and it truly disturbs me. Take the recent shooting of Terence Crutcher, for example. Here we have a man who—according to police reports and video evidence—had no weapon, made no threats, and wasn’t attempting to harm anyone. Yet, he was still shot dead. And those that jump to defend his death seem to throw out every possible excuse except the one that matters.

“He was on drugs. He was non compliant. He was acting strangely. There was PCP in the car.” These things may be true, but none of them constitute a direct threat. At most, he should be sitting jail—not in a morgue.

Now I have no doubt that this situation was tense for the officers involved. And I’m certainly not going to sit here and pretend like their job is easy. But we can’t just shrug our shoulders at a situation like this. We can’t just throw our hands up and say, “Well, if only he’d been more compliant, he’d be alive.” They may be the reality, but it’s not justice.

Killing isn’t a small matter. It isn’t cool, or honorable, or good, or morally neutral. It is a terrible, awful thing and every instance of it should be scrutinized to the nth degree.

A Side Note

Those of you that know me or have read my writings are aware that I am a fervent supporter of nonviolence and pacifism. And it’s not a trend or a political statement. Nonviolence is a part of being pro-life, it’s a worldview.

I write pieces like this because I feel compelled to highlight the fact that we are too desensitized to violence in our country. Whether it’s the police, the state, or armed civilians, we are too eager to use and defend lethal force. This is a pro-life issue, and we have to do better.