Desecration Of The Eucharist

[Don John of Austria]

Please answer and discuss.

[Winchester]

I'd have to judge the capacity of the person. In the best of worlds (where I did not love the world as I do) it would be no problem to kill someone who clearly understood what he was doing and had true malicious intent.

I think more people are deluded as to the nature of the Eucharist and there might be unintended consequences for those who learnt of someone being killed (people turning away who might otherwise have been impressed by more moderate means of stopping the individual)

You do, if intentionally desecrating the Eucharist--which I would define as believing in the Real Presence yet knowingly desecrating it--forfeit your right to life. But knowing and enforcing that are likely beyond our ken.

Certainly those attempting to suppress the Church by such desecration (with or without knowledge or acceptance of the Real Presence) forfeit their rights, as the Church may defend her own right to life.

[CatherineM]

Christ didn't want Peter to take violent action to protect his body, so I can't imagine him wanting any of us to take violent action now to protect the Eucharist.

[aalpha1989]

I can't really imagine a scenario in which deadly force would be necessary. I mean it's pretty much always possible to incapacitate the person, no? I don't think that deadly force should be intentionally used, but if that incapacitation unintentionally causes the death of a person, I would not find the protecter of the Eucharist at fault. I do think that force can and should be used to protect the Eucharist. I just don't think that deadly force is necessary.


Jesus did not want Peter to use force because he was going to fulfill the Father's will, to die for all of our sins. I think it is debatable whether he was objecting to the force itself or the properness of the time/place.

[philothea]

Can I aim for the knees and if that turns out to be fatal, well, bummer?

I don't think there's a need to actually [i]intend[/i] to kill someone, but use whatever force is necessary, sure.

(Am not clever enough to figure out how I think I ought to vote. Sorry.)

[Kitty]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1663740' date='Sep 25 2008, 05:37 PM']Christ didn't want Peter to take violent action to protect his body, so I can't imagine him wanting any of us to take violent action now to protect the Eucharist.[/quote]

I agree.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1663740' date='Sep 25 2008, 06:37 PM']Christ didn't want Peter to take violent action to protect his body, so I can't imagine him wanting any of us to take violent action now to protect the Eucharist.[/quote]

Christ asked this of Peter because Christ had to go to His crucifixion, Christ can not nor should be recrucified.

Yes, [b]if the situation[/b] called for it I would use deadly force to protect the Body of Christ, in the Eucharist, and the in people of the parish.

[jbriere]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1663740' date='Sep 25 2008, 05:37 PM']Christ didn't want Peter to take violent action to protect his body, so I can't imagine him wanting any of us to take violent action now to protect the Eucharist.[/quote]
I agree .

[jbriere]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1663812' date='Sep 25 2008, 07:12 PM']Christ asked this of Peter because Christ had to go to His crucifixion, Christ can not nor should be recrucified.

Yes, [b]if the situation[/b] called for it I would use deadly force to protect the Body of Christ, in the Eucharist, and the in people of the parish.[/quote]
why? That goes against everything Christ preached. It would be better to get killed yourself rather than harm or kill another . Besides, how would you actually defend the Eucharist? c'mon

I don't understand that . God suffices by Himself , I don't think He needs someone to defend Him like that .

[ardillacid]

[quote name='jbriere' post='1663850' date='Sep 25 2008, 09:08 PM']why? That goes against everything Christ preached. It would be better to get killed yourself rather than harm or kill another .[/quote]
Can I get a bible verse?

[jbriere]

[quote name='notardillacid' post='1663862' date='Sep 25 2008, 08:22 PM']Can I get a bible verse?[/quote]
to use deadly force? How about thou shalt not kill . Wasn't Jesus all about if one should strike you on the cheek offer him the other? Yes He was all about peace . Here are a few more passages that say to be gentle as doves but wise as serpents .

Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; [b]so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.[/b] Beware for they will deliver you up to councils, and flog you in their synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them and the Gentiles....

Brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.... If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household.

So [b]have no fear of them[/b](note: it doesn't say to kill them either); for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. What I tell you in the dark, utter in the light; and what you hear whispered, proclaim upon the housetops. And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear those who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father's will. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.

So every one who acknowledges me before the world, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; [b]but whoever denies me before the world, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.[/b] - Matthew 10:16-18, 21-22, 25-33

Jesus didn't mean to kill anyone to defend Him . If it was true in the Garden of Gethsemane it should be true now.
Sorry my post was long but I'm sure there are better bible versus to prove my point than the one I used .....

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='jbriere' post='1663850' date='Sep 25 2008, 09:08 PM']why? That goes against everything Christ preached. It would be better to get killed yourself rather than harm or kill another . Besides, how would you actually defend the Eucharist? c'mon

I don't understand that . God suffices by Himself , I don't think He needs someone to defend Him like that .[/quote]

One of the scenarios in which I would defend the Eucharist using deadly force would be in a case where the people of the parish we're also endangered.

PS it does not go against anything Christ preached to defend Christ with deadly force.

[Winchester]

[quote name='jbriere' post='1663870' date='Sep 25 2008, 09:38 PM']to use deadly force? How about thou shalt not kill .[/quote]
A better translation is "Thou shalt not murder."

Big difference.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='jbriere' post='1663870' date='Sep 25 2008, 09:38 PM']to use deadly force? How about thou shalt not kill . Wasn't Jesus all about if one should strike you on the cheek offer him the other? Yes He was all about peace . Here are a few more passages that say to be gentle as doves but wise as serpents .

Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; [b]so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.[/b] Beware for they will deliver you up to councils, and flog you in their synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them and the Gentiles....

Brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.... If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household.

So [b]have no fear of them[/b](note: it doesn't say to kill them either); for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. What I tell you in the dark, utter in the light; and what you hear whispered, proclaim upon the housetops. And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear those who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father's will. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.

So every one who acknowledges me before the world, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; [b]but whoever denies me before the world, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.[/b] - Matthew 10:16-18, 21-22, 25-33

Jesus didn't mean to kill anyone to defend Him . If it was true in the Garden of Gethsemane it should be true now.
Sorry my post was long but I'm sure there are better bible versus to prove my point than the one I used .....[/quote]

Well As Winchester pointed out, a better translation is " You shall not murder" obviously it does not mean kill as the rest of the law demands killing people for all kind of transgressions. The Law's view on Killing can be summed up as--- Do not kill the innocent or the rightous. There is no where in scripture which says to not kill the Guilty.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='philothea' post='1663789' date='Sep 25 2008, 07:34 PM']Can I aim for the knees and if that turns out to be fatal, well, bummer?

I don't think there's a need to actually [i]intend[/i] to kill someone, but use whatever force is necessary, sure.

(Am not clever enough to figure out how I think I ought to vote. Sorry.)[/quote]


Well ussually deadly force means in force that reasonably likely to result in the death of the other person, not that death of the other person is directly intended. However the Principal of Foreiture ( basic Natural Law) does say that people can forfeit the right to live by certian hienous acts. So intentionally killing them can be acceptable.

When i was young I had a lot of problem with the principal of foreiture, the older I get, the more I understand and agree with it.