11-06-1959 - E-Research

* YOUR INCOME TAX *SINCE1933 J E. MARQUAFEDERAL TAX CONSULTANT AND R?ALTORMIAMI REAL ESTATE MARTPHONE PL 9-0563—ALAMO CATERERS—SPECIALIZING IN HOME AND COMMERCIAL CATERING•k HORS B'OEUVRES $5.00 ppr 100 COMPUTE MENUS-k TEA SANDWICHES $1.00 per Dz. ON REQUEST9715 N.E. 2nd Avenue — PL 7-6031 or PL 1-4835THE ELWOOD G.BAIRDFUNERALHOME2605 W. Broward Blvd.Fort Lauderdale, Fla.PHONE LU 1-3310New . . . spacious . . . beautifullyappointed and designed toprovide the utmost in restfulprivacy. Your wishes get painstakingattention; considerationand courtesy are paramount. Alovely chapel is at your disposal.Elwood G. Baird,funeral director,offers excellenttraining and yearsof experience inseveral of SouthFlorida's finest funeralhomes.BLOCKS & BUILDING MATERIALACME CONCRETEJModern Redi-Mix PlantsJin:DADE,BROWARDANDPALMBEACHCOUNTIESHome Office5500 N.W. 37 AVE. - HIALEAH, FLA..NEW CARTheology for EverymanHow Far May One Go To DefendPersonal Life, Honor Or Chastity?It is quite generally admittedthat a person may defend himselfagainst an unjust aggressor.It is likewise generally admittedthat the means used in resistingunjust attack may be in proportionto the seriousness of theattack and to the value of thepersonal advantage or rightwhich is endangered by the attack.The conclusions derived bytheologians from these generalprinciples differ only in slightdetails; but there is considerablevariation from one theologian toanother in the manner in whichthese conclusions are reached.It will be interesting * therefore,to examine the theologicalThis article was preparedby St. John's Seminary,Brighton, Mass., and iscondensed jrom "ThePilot."approaches to the questions proposed,and to learn how theteachings of theology in thismatter attempt to balance thesacredness of the bodily life ofeven an unjust aggressor, withthe right of his victim to safeguardhis personal integrity.Right ForfeitedOne group of theologiansstarts from the assumption thata person's own life is juridicallypreferable to the right tolife of another who attacks himunjustly. Hence, it is concluded,when an unjust attack endangerseither a person's life, orsome other advantage which isof essential importance in theconservation of his life, the rightto life of the unjust aggressormust be regarded as having beenforfeited.In such a case, it is argued,it will be morally allowableto attack the life ofthe unjust aggressor even directly.Since God is the authorof human life, God cantake away any person's rightto life, and He may be presumedto do so when a personunjustly and seriously attacksthe rights of another.It is understood, of course,that the rights which are unjustlyattacked must be safeguardedwith a minimum 6fdanger to the aggressor. It willbe morally wrong to endangerthe life of an unjust aggressorwhen some less violent meansof resisting will be equally effective.Another group of theologiansapproaches the problem fromthe point of view of the well• A person may defend himself against an unjust aggressor,using means proportional to the seriousness of the attack orto the personal right which is endangered. Some theologianssimply state that a person forfeits the right to his life wheneverhe attacks another unjustly. Others approach the problemthrough the principle of "the double effect.'• The double effect involves two motives. Since it is wrong tokill, one may not intend to take the life of the aggressor, nomatter what he does. However, one may defend against theaggressor, even if the defense involves taking the aggressor'slife, for the death of the aggressor is not directly intended,but is a secondary motive.• In a case of attempted rape, a woman may defend her purityby means which would lead to the death of her attacker., sincethe woman is protecting a value generally recognized as equalto the preservation of life. However, the extreme means ofdefense allowable in case of rape does not apply to lesserattacks on purity. Nor may the victim of a rape kill heraggressor afterwards for such an act is sheer vengeance.known principle of the double effect.A person whose life or personaladvantage meets unjustattack may not, according tothis opinion, directly intend thekilling of his aggressor as ameans of repelling the unjustattack. He may, nevertheless,to the extent that may be necessary,make use of means of defensewhich can be directed primarilytowards warding off theunjust aggression, even thoughhe foresees that the death of hisaggressor may follow secondarilyand indirectly upon his actof defense.The latter approach obviouslyemphasizes the sacrednessof human life by placingit beyond direct attackeven in the case of an unjustaggressor. Practically, however,it leads to the same conclusionas does the first approach.An unjust aggressormay be attacked; all willagree to this.All are agreed, moreover,that the attack must not behomicidal in the mind of theone who makes it; it must notbe motivated by desire for revenge,and it must be in actualrelation to an act of unjust aggression,not as punishment foran act of aggression alreadycommitted. Whether an actwhich endangers the life of anotheris directly or indirectlyhomicidal is difficult to deter-In Self-DefenseA given act of self-defensewhich results in loss of lifewould be regarded as a directact of killing if its homicidal effectwere directly intended. Inthis case the evil effect becomesunited with its cause in themind of the agent. If the evilAlbert G.lOHFREYELECTRICALCONTRACTOR1222 OMAR ROAD. WEST PALM BEACHTE S-BI48 or TE 2 8735 (home)effect is not intended in itself,however, it can be consideredin relation to the good effect,that of saving - the life of theone who is unjustly attacked.Both effects follow from thesame cause; the evil effectmay be willed in its causewhen the good effect, willeddirectly and for itself, is ofproportionately serious importance.In relation to these principlesit should be noted first of allthat defense against an unjustaggressor is morally allowable,but that on the other hand, it isnot, as a general rule, morallyobligatory.Humanly RepulsiveThe actof killing is unnaturaland humanly repulsive. Evenwhen there is question of an unjustattack, a person is notmorally bound to defend himselfby violent means unless his life,or his personal integrity is importantfor his dependents, orfor the community as a whole,as in the case of a parent, ahusband or a wife, a bishop ora priest. Such persons mighthave an obligation of charity toresort to violent means to protectthemselves against unjustattack.Again, those who are boundby their official position toprotect the lives of others areheld in justice as well as incharity to take the necessarymeans of defending theircharges against unjust attack.It should be noted likewisethat an aggressor may be attackedonly when his aggressionis unjust. A police officer, inthe discharge of his duty, forexample, could not be called anunjust aggressor.Special CasesOn the other hand, it is notnecessary that the act of aggressionbe formally unjust. Itis enough that it have the appearanceof a sinfully unjustact, even though, for lack ofadvertence and consent, the onewho performs it cannot be heldguilty of sin in the eyes of God.Thus the attack of a madman,or of a person under theinfluence of liquor may bewarded off, even at the risk ofendangering the life of the aggressor,if no other means ofsaving one's own life will- beeffective.Chastity InvolvedHow do these principles applyto the case of the younggirl who defended her purity byusing a knife on the person whoattacked her?• It is the common teachingof theologians that a womanwho is subjected to a serioussexual attack may, if necessary,defend herself by meanswhich may lead to the deathof her aggressor.For a woman, freedom fromsexual assault is a value essentiallyrelated with the normalfunctioning of life itself. Moreover,the preservation of chastityhas a value for the communitywhich is generally recognizedas equal to that of thepreservation of bodily life.A woman who is violently attackedcommits no sin unlessshe consents to the evil whichis inflicted on her and freelyadmits the experience of sensualpleasure which the act involves.Very few women couldsubmit to violent attack withoutplacing themselves in danger ofcommitting sin in this way.Defense against attack thuswould become a means ofavoiding a proximate occasionof serious sin. Since the occasion,by hypothesis, wouldbe placed before her unjustly,she would be justified in preferringher virtuous conditionto the life of her aggressor asa value of a higher order.Moreover, a woman who israped is subjected to the possiblehumiliation of extramaritalpregnancy. Even her bodilylife may be imperiled, so frequentis the association of sadisticcruelty with the crime ofrape.Sinful MaliceAgain, a woman who is rapedis exposed to the danger of lossof reputation in the minds ofthose who might not understandthe circumstances inwhich she has been attacked,and might thus be led to surjnisethat she had been involvedherself in the sinful malice ofthe violation of chastity whichshe has endured. /For all these reasons theologiansare generally agreedthat an attack on a woman'spurity may be defended, noless than an attack on herbodily life, by means which -may lead to the death of herunjust aggressor.Some theologians, consideringabstractly the merely materialloss of personal integrity whicha woman sustains in the crimeof rape, have made the point 'that this injury cannot be comparedwith the value of a humanlife. Even these would admit,however, that a womanunder attack can make use ofviolent means of defending herselfif she cannot repel the attackin any other way.Page 26 THE VMGE.\ November