Read on Twitter
The property discourse has me thinking about a story Dorothy Day tells. A man comes to the CW house often for food and shelter. He& #39;s off-kilter, but they deal. One day he starts throwing things and has to be subdued by a CW. They call the cops but refuse to press charges.
DD says they wouldn& #39;t press charges bc the cops said they& #39;d just throw the guy in jail, not hand him over to a mental health facility. I recall discussing this in an online class. People thought she was insane: did she & others not have a right to defend their property / selves?
She knew the guy would come back if he weren& #39;t locked up. This meant more trouble for her. But she also knew that chucking him in prison wouldn& #39;t help anything. She would& #39;ve said the same about killing him in self-defense.
People tend to say "so what? She didn& #39;t believe we can defend ourselves? Aquinas..." But that misses the point. The point is that her duty was to the man as a human being, a person whose flourishing she was to will. Barking about her rights would not have done that. So he didn& #39;t.
Much of this debate misses the point. We are Christians; our job is to will the good of the other. Does that forbid violence in all cases? Prob not. But the idea that violence should ever been our go-to, that we should shoot to kill or lock ppl up as option 1, that has no place.
There& #39;s so much debate in Catholic circles about what is & isn& #39;t "allowed" even in the most extreme cases. But what about what we should do, about what is best, about what is holiest and most Christian? These are rarely discussed, bc it& #39;s easier to speak in abstractions.
"You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."
Simple as that.
Simple as that.
