A downthumb with no follow up?  

You know, you're RIGHT.  I've traveled back in time, and I forced the saints to say those things.  

We all know Jesus was a pacifist.  Like Ghandi.  

Oppose no one.  It's been working GREAT, here in the New Springtime!  

Love, love, love!  Novus Ordo forever!

E Supremi, St Pius X

Quote

13. But in order that the desired fruit may be derived from this apostolate and this zeal for teaching, and that Christ may be formed in all, be it remembered, Venerable Brethren, that no means is more efficacious than charity. "For the Lord is not in the earthquake" (III Kings xix., II) - it is vain to hope to attract souls to God by a bitter zeal. On the contrary, harm is done more often than good by taunting men harshly with their faults, and reproving their vices with asperity. True the Apostle exhorted Timothy: "Accuse, beseech, rebuke," but he took care to add: "with all patience" (II. Tim.iv., 2). Jesus has certainly left us examples of this. "Come to me," we find Him saying, "come to me all ye that labor and are burdened and I will refresh you" (Matth. xi., 28). And by those that labor and are burdened he meant only those who are slaves of sin and error. What gentleness was that shown by the Divine Master! What tenderness, what compassion towards all kinds of misery! Isaias has marvelously described His heart in the words: "I will set my spirit upon him; he shall not contend, nor cry out; the bruised reed he will not break, he will not extinguish the smoking flax" (Is. xlii., I, s.). This charity, "patient and kind" (I. Cor. xiii., 4.), will extend itself also to those who are hostile to us and persecute us. "We are reviled," thus did St. Paul protest, "and we bless; we are persecuted and we suffer it; we are blasphemed and we entreat" (I. Cor., iv., 12, s.). They perhaps seem to be worse than they really are. Their associations with others, prejudice, the counsel, advice and example of others, and finally an ill advised shame have dragged them to the side of the impious; but their wills are not so depraved as they themselves would seek to make people believe. Who will prevent us from hoping that the flame of Christian charity may dispel the darkness from their minds and bring to them light and the peace of God? It may be that the fruit of our labors may be slow in coming, but charity wearies not with waiting, knowing that God prepares His rewards not for the results of toil but for the good will shown in it.

This explains it best. If you are confused about whether or not you should confront someone, first, learn to love them, and then love will tell you how to proceed, whether to confront them directly or only to pray for them from afar. If you don't love them it won't matter whether you confront them or not, nothing good will come of whatever you do or don't do.

Probably meek Mormons who preach a lie but with sincerity are less offensive to God than bitter Catholics who swing the truth at people's heads like an axe. I know Laramie quoted St. Nick addressing idolaters harshly, but that kind of harsh tone is taken to wake people up who are sunk in abominable crimes. It's the same tone that Christ took with the Pharisees. But Christ was very mild with the average man.

Speaking about St. Anthony of Padua:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/SOD/j130sdAnthonyPadua_6-13.htm

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

Quote from: MariaCatherine

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

Not only did St. Nick punch Arius in the face, get a load of what he yelled at members of the cult of Artemis.  He said:

Quote

Go to Hell's fire, which has been lit for you by the Devil.

And then, let's not forget that St. Thomas Aquinas suggests killing anyone in society who is a corrupter to the community.  


(I got the following quotations from here:
http://taylormarshall.com/2015/11/islamic-refugee-crisis-good-samaritan-or-maccabean-response-or-both.html)

Quote

“Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good.” STh II-II q. 64, a. 2.

Quote

It is permissible to kill a criminal if this is necessary for the welfare of the whole community. However, this right belongs only to the one entrusted with the care of the whole community — just as a doctor may cut off an infected limb, since he has been entrusted with the care of the health of the whole body. STh II-II q. 64, a. 3.

Most of us here will probably not be in any position to kill anyone for the common good, but I think we all understand it's necessary for the rightful authorities to do so.

Laramie, under what circuмstances would you punch someone in the face simply for heresy? Don't say 'in self defense' because that's not the subject.

 

Now now.  No need to get all emotional over my quotations of saints.

If you're missing the point, here it is:

If saints are advocating/practicing violence against heretics or non-believers--even advocating for a public death penalty against such people--then how much more ought believers be outspoken against such errors?  That is the point.

I am sure that St. Thomas Aquinas was speaking of the role of the civil authorities.  

As for me?  I'd likely beat a man down if--with a smirk on his face--he waltzed into the building during a Mass to strut up to the Tabernacle and desecrate the Eucharist in front of everyone.  I would hope that others here would do the same under such a circuмstance.  

Though, I'm sure that there are some who would passively watch such a sorrowful spectacle.

I have no doubt what I would do, because I've had the experience.

When a miscreant approached the tabernacle during the priest's sermon at Sunday Mass, everyone in the church (about 300) sat and stared, but I immediately made my way toward the sanctuary, and I was followed by 15 friends.  I told 3 of them that I'll take his right leg, you take his left leg, you take his right arm and you take his left arm, and when the priest from the pulpit said, "Take him out," we moved in and took him writhing and squirming out the side door to the parking lot.  It's a good thing there were 4 of us because the man was apparently on PCP or something like that.  It was all I could do to hang on to one leg with both my hands.  He was flapping like a bed sheet in the wind.

So I have no doubt what I would do.  Been there.

.

My question was about heretics, not extreme acts of sacrilege. But I do understand and abhor, as I know you do Neil, the complacency with which, for example, the Hungarians allowed sacrilege in their churches during the Revolution there. I think Fr. Feeney spoke out against that.

Neil Obstat, you're the man.  I'm afraid there'll be many more opportunities like that in the future.  

Okay, MariaCatherine.  Revisiting your newly-emphasized question:

Laramie, under what circuмstances would you punch someone in the face simply for heresy

Okay.  Firstly, it's difficult to even consider violence, being the 20th/21st century creampuff that I am.  Men just don't come out punching in the middle of a casual conversation.  

I think that a priest has the option much more than the laity do.  Priests have a specific responsibility to protect the laity.  Coming to blows for the sake of the sheep does not sound unreasonable to me.  The Synod would have been a good opportunity.  

But what about laity?  Well, if I were at the Society parish, and someone said something that I doctrinally disagreed with--I would not be punching anyone in the face.  In fact, perhaps it's best to consider first the situations I wouldn't do that in--which is most.  

If I were at a party of Catholics, and someone came along to say that "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity were okay now, in the Church," I think I still would hesitate.  

It seems justifiable to resort to such a thing if others are at stake--such as the potential Eucharist desecration that I mentioned, or if a priest had to protect/speak out for the Church's teachings for the sake of the laity.  To resort to punching someone in the face for one's self seems self serving to me.  

In fact, now that you've got me thinking about this--I've always looked at violence of any kind in that manner.  It's self-serving if it's all for your own gratification.  But if it is for the sake of someone else, then that would be justifiable.  

But, this thread is not about justifying punching heretics in the face.  It's about whether or not we should confront people.  

And my argument was/is that if the saints will advocate this sort of thing (face punching; execution in the case of Aquinas) in the face of blatant heresy, then how much more are we to confront people in the social spaces?  Proselytism?  Yes, please.

And I tell you this.  When the world goes to crap, and we do get some sort of Great Monarch riding towards Jerusalem, conversions will happen through aggressive confrontation.  I assure you.