I know that we have to always be meek when people do us wrong, as turn the other cheek. But where does figthing for a principle come in?

Once, I went into a parking structure to park my car. It is the kind of parking where you have to pay - when you first enter, you push a button on a machine to get a ticket. Parking is free for the first 5 minutes. I was in the line to exit by 5 minutes but the guy in the a car infront of me was taking long to get change for the attendant. So, by the time I pulled up to the attendant and gave my ticket, it was 2 minutes overtime. The attendant told me I had to pay $1. Even though it was only $1, I was upset that parking would charge me when I was ready to exit at 5 minutes but the guy infront took too long. So I refused to pay - for the principle of it.

Another time, I used the valet service of a parking structure. First,  I had to get Granny out of the car and into her wheelchair, which takes 5 minutes. Then, we walked all the way to the elevator, which was further than the escalators that were near the valet, the elevator was out of service. So there was no way for us to go where we wanted since Granny couldn't go up in the escalators with her wheelchair. So, I returned to the valet attendant and they told me that valet parking was $3. I told them that I had been unable to leave the parking structure and go up because the elevator was out of order and that, since we never went anywhere, it was unfair for me to pay for the parking. They tried to make me pay but I put up a fight. Although the money was only pocket change, one thing I can not stand is when someone tries to make me unfairly pay for something.

In both these instances, was I justified in fighting for the principle of injustice. Or even though they were charging me  unfairly, since it was only a couple of dollars, fighting for the priniciple was being unmeek?

EDIT: I wish to add that I put up a fight in both situations. They were insisting that I pay and I was refusing. I was even willing to wait for the police if they had decided to call the police - this is how adamant I was about defending the principle of being forced to pay unfairly. Of course, after about 3 minutes of them insisting that I pay and my refusing, they gave up because they knew they couln't do anything about my refusal.

Magdalene,

This is a very good question.  See how much you'll have to gain from finding a good Confessor (from a Tridentine Rite Mass)?  PM me and I'll even try to help you to find one in your area.

I know that we have to always be meek when people do us wrong, as turn the other cheek. But where does figthing for a principle come in?

This is incorrect, we are not meant to always be meek when people treat us unjustly, this error comes from oversimplification of the words in the bible and interpreting it too literally.  If you read the New Testament in it's entirety you will see that this interpretation is clearly incompatible with the actions of Jesus himself and therefore could not have been what he meant.

To gain a true understanding of this subject we must gain a true understanding of what is meant by the third cardinal virtue of Fortitude.  To do this we will turn to one of the greatest Doctors of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas.

"Patience is said to have "a perfect work," by enduring evils, wherein it excludes not only unjust revenge, which is also excluded by justice; not only hatred, which is also suppressed by charity; nor only anger, which is calmed by gentleness; but also inordinate sorrow, which is the root of all the above. Wherefore it is more perfect and excellent through plucking up the root in this matter. It is not, however, more perfect than all the other virtues simply. Because fortitude not only endures trouble without being disturbed, but also fights against it if necessary. Hence whoever is brave is patient; but the converse does not hold, for patience is a part of fortitude.."The Summa Theologica I,II,66,4 ad 2

This passage is very revealing.  The common defintition and understanding of this virtue of fortitude would have us belive that it is merely a patient enduring of evil but we see from the above that this not the case, true fortitude not only "endures trouble without being disturbed, but also fights against it if necessary.''  The brave man not only knows how to bear inevitable evil with equanimity; he will also not hesitate to pounce upon evil and to bar its way if this can reasonably be done.

The fact, however, that St. Thomas assigns to (just) wrath a positive relation to the virtue of fortitude has become largely unintelligible and unacceptable to present-day Christianity and its non-Christian critics.  This lack of comprehension may be explained partly by the exclusion, from Christian ethics, of the component of passion (with its inevitably physical aspect) as something alien and incongruous-an exclusion due to a kind of intellectual stoicism-and partly by the fact that explosive activity, which revelas itself in wrath is naturally repugnant to good behaviour regulated by ''bourgeois'' standards.  So St.Thomas, who is equally free from both these errors, says:

''On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 8) that "anger helps the brave."

  I answer that, As stated above (FS, Question [24], Article [2]), concerning anger and the other passions there was a difference of opinion between the Peripatetics and the Stoics. For the Stoics excluded anger and all other passions of the soul from the mind of a wise or good man: whereas the Peripatetics, of whom Aristotle was the chief, ascribed to virtuous men both anger and the other passions of the soul albeit modified by reason. And possibly they differed not in reality but in their way of speaking. For the Peripatetics, as stated above (FS, Question [24], Article [2]), gave the name of passions to all the movements of the sensitive appetite, however they may comport themselves. And since the sensitive appetite is moved by the command of reason, so that it may cooperate by rendering action more prompt, they held that virtuous persons should employ both anger and the other passions of the soul, modified according to the dictate of reason. On the other hand, the Stoics gave the name of passions to certain immoderate emotions of the sensitive appetite, wherefore they called them sicknesses or diseases, and for this reason severed them altogether from virtue.

   Accordingly the brave man employs moderate anger for his action, but not immoderate anger.

  Reply to Objection 1: Anger that is moderated in accordance with reason is subject to the command of reason: so that man uses it at his will, which would not be the case were it immoderate.

  Reply to Objection 2: Reason employs anger for its action, not as seeking its assistance, but because it uses the sensitive appetite as an instrument, just as it uses the members of the body. Nor is it unbecoming for the instrument to be more imperfect than the principal agent, even as the hammer is more imperfect than the smith. Moreover, Seneca was a follower of the Stoics, and the above words were aimed by him directly at Aristotle.

  Reply to Objection 3: Whereas fortitude, as stated above (Article [6]), has two acts, namely endurance and aggression, it employs anger, not for the act of endurance, because the reason by itself performs this act, but for the act of aggression, for which it employs anger rather than the other passions, since it belongs to anger to strike at the cause of sorrow, so that it directly cooperates with fortitude in attacking. On the other hand, sorrow by its very nature gives way to the thing that hurts; though accidentally it helps in aggression, either as being the cause of anger, as stated above (FS, Question [47], Article [3]), or as making a person expose himself to danger in order to escape from sorrow. In like manner desire, by its very nature, tends to a pleasurable good, to which it is directly contrary to withstand danger: yet accidentally sometimes it helps one to attack, in so far as one prefers to risk dangers rather than lack pleasure. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 5): "Of all the cases in which fortitude arises from a passion, the most natural is when a man is brave through anger, making his choice and acting for a purpose," i.e. for a due end; "this is true fortitude." The Summa Theologica II,II,123,10

From these words of St.Thomas we can see just how far the classical doctrine of fortitude exceeds the narrow range of the modern, conventional notions.

Now let us return to lifee of Our Savior, Jesus as it is from his example that it will become most obvious that the common, literal meaning given to his words ''And to him that striketh thee on the one cheek, offer also the other'' are not what he meant at all.  There are two moments in Our Saviors life that immediately spring to mind which show that Jeusus was not an advocate of unconditional passivity and surrender to evil.  The first of these is the fact that Jesus became angry and violently drove the money lenders from the temple, but the other,even more relevant example is that given by Jesus when he was struck on the cheek.  When Our Lord, the most patient of men stood before the high priest and was struck in the face by a servant, He did not turn the other cheek, but answered: ''If I have spoken evil, give testimony of the evil; but if well, why strikest thou me?''(John 18,23)

This apparent contradiction between the words of Jesus and his subsequent actions are explained by St.Thomas (in agreement eith St.Augustine) in his commentary on St. John's Gospel thus:

''Holy Scripture must be understood in the light of what Christ and the saints have actually practiced.  Christ did not offer His other cheek, nor Paul either.  Thus to interpret the injunction of the Sermon on the Mount literally is to misunderstand it.  This injunction signifies rather the readiness of the soul to bear, if it be necessary, such things and worse, without bitterness against the attacker.  This readines our Lord showed, when He have up His body to be crucified.  That response of the Lord was useful, therefore, for our instruction ."

Similarly, St. Paul, although his whole life was oriented toward martyrdom, did not suffer it in silence when, at the command of the high priest, he was struck on the mouth for his bold speech before the Sanhedrin; rather, he answered the high priest: "God shall strike thee, thou whited wall. For sittest thou to judge me according to the law, and contrary to the law commandest me to be struck? " (Acts 23,3)

So next time someone tries to paralyse you in your attempt to fight evil by suggesting that you should be turning the other cheek rather than been mean and agressive point out that Jesus did no such thing when he was struck and neither will you.