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'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't press charges bc the cops said they'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't locked up. This meant more trouble for her. But she also knew that chucking him in prison wouldn't help anything. She would've said the same about killing him in self-defense.
People tend to say "so what? She didn'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'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's so much debate in Catholic circles about what is & isn'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'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.
The rules don't exist for you to excuse your behavior; they're a complicated system intended to show you the lines in the sand. The hard work of Christianity isn't just doing what's allowed; it's doing what is best. Did Christ tell the rich man "some wealth is okay"? No.
