Being tougn on error is one thing -- resorting to violence is another (slashing off peoples' ears, killing non-Catholics).
It is not charity to let someone live on in error -- however, fraternal correction must be done with prudence. It must be done with humility, tact, and knowing that the person might listen to you.
Matthew
I just had a thought! LOL
And I never considered this before, but does anyone here think that, perhaps, there is symbolism in the fact that Peter cut off an ear to punish the soldier coming for Jesus?
What was Peter doing just earlier? He was sleeping, and right after our Lord asked him to stay awake with him in prayer. Wow. How many times to we sleep, feeling that we've done enough according to our state (when we really haven't) to keep watch with our Lord, being always mindful of his Presence, also within other who receive him?
So, Peter whips out a sword and slices off his opponents ear. The ear, perhaps, here has further significance, in that it is the method in which people hear. But even just the outer ear, which is both a symbol of what it does interiorly, and also we expect people to have ears. Someone with one less ear, for example, is pitied. Peter, in his rage, sought to punish his opponent through giving him a public humiliation. Perhaps, Peter did this as just a hot-head, as our Lord recognized was a trait of Peter in a nickname he had given him (I can't remember what it was now, "Thunder"?) This bitter zeal does not allow for one to discern the holy Will of God. Many of us do not have the authority to wield the cord in lashing out the temple dwellers profaning the House of Our Lord, for example.
It is also important to be mindful that even withholding the sword, but speaking truth itself, even in the most careful 'tone', the truth will divide. Our Lord describes himself as not bringing peace, but rather "the sword of truth" that will divide. Since some seed will fall on rocky ground, it is not possible that every word will be received in the same way. Often, as when it comes to lifestyles, morality is perceived as a threat to freedom, and such a threat when posed, regardless of tone, will be responded to with hostility. (This is particularly the case with regards to issues of purity, since it's enemy is lack of temperance.)
This is pretty cool to consider (I got this from:
Question 55. Vices opposed to prudence by way of resemblanceI think this is useful to consider prudence in speech, and also on another level, the very virtue that is sought against directly on another forum. It's interesting, that one could fight against something yet be unwittingly supporting it in their actions, as a result of not understanding it's root.
I'm only going to include here the information to prudence (according to St. Thomas):
Prudence
PRUDENCE ITSELF:
The virtue of prudence (47)
PARTS:
The parts (48) of prudence. Each
quasi-integral part (49) of prudence.
The subjective parts (50) of prudence; especially the prudence with which
a man rules himself (see 47), and that with which
he rules others (50).
The quasi-potential parts (51) of prudence, that is, the related virtues.
GIFT: The corresponding gift of prudence, which
is counsel (52).
VICES: The vices opposed to prudence, some of which are obviously opposed such as
imprudence (53) and
negligence (54) which is opposed to solicitude; and others which
bear a false resemblance (55) to prudence. PRECEPTS: The
precepts concerning prudence (56).