Questo articolo è disponibile anche in: Italian English Spanish French Portuguese

Question

Dear Father Angelo,

My name is Father Mario G. and I have a question that is tormenting me.

In today’s Gospel we read: “If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them”(Lk 6:29).

1) According to this text, which is very simple and clear, the follower of the Master is denied the possibility of legitimate self-defence. What arguments has Christian morality developed regarding this paragraph?

2) If I do not prevent the wicked from committing Evil (by immobilizing it, scaring it, or at least by running away) am I or not making myself an accomplice? Jesus does not seem to suggest compliance, but rather a real abetment to continue in evil deeds; for example, to those who strike us, we must turn the other cheek in order to be struck there too.

Perhaps, in some cases, the victim’s defenceless attitude can create a sudden spiritual awakening into evil, who can: a) stop and repent instantly; b) convert at a later time, after being left free to act wickedly. It seems to me incautious to “play” with any evil, instigating it to continue in the evil deed. Isn’t this exactly what Jesus desires from his devotees: “offer no resistance to one who is evil” (Mt 5:39)?

Thank you once again,

Fr. Mario G.


Answer from the priest

Dear Fr. Mario,

1. In order to understand this passage from the Sermon on the Mount, it is necessary to remember that Jesus is teaching how to overcome the Lex Talionis (law of retaliation) expressed in the phrase “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”.

The language is sometimes deliberately paradoxical, as the Jerusalem Bible notes in the words of Jesus: “If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well” (Mt 5:40).

The Jerusalem Bible refers to Mt 19:24, where the paradoxical language is obvious: “I repeat: it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God” (Mt 19:24).

From a natural point of view, it is impossible for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. However, Jesus said to his marvelled disciples: “Who then can be saved? For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible” (Mt 19:26).

2. Father Marie-Joseph Lagrange, the founder of the École Biblique, writes: “Jesus takes the rule concerning the minimum that each one must do and replaces it with suggestions of perfection that tend towards infinity. The paradoxical character of some of those suggestions shows very well that, on this path, charity can go from good to better. Using Saint Paul’s words, we can say that we are no longer under the law, but under grace (Rom 6:15). After all, law itself opened to these same perspectives in the ardent exhortations to the love of God that are contained in Deuteronomy” (Lagrange Père, M.-J., The Gospel of Jesus Christ).

3. Given these premises, the possibility of self-defense is not denied. The verses from the Gospel of Matthew that give you so much trouble should not be isolated from the rest of the Sacred Scripture.

4.St. Thomas commented word by word on the Gospel of Matthew. Once he arrived at these verses, he wrote: “But the question is whether resisting evil is a precept or a counsel. Answer: The insult that here he defines evil is either particular and private, or public: if it is public, then it must be rejected by the word of the prince. The authority is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer”.

Likewise, St. Augustine: “The fortress that defends the country from the barbarians, or defends the weak in the house, or the companions from the brigands, is full justice”. It is therefore a precept both for subjects and princes.

A specific offense can be rejected in three ways: by preventing it, like St. Paul when he calls the soldiers to defend from Jews attack; by scolding, as the Lord did with the one who had struck him (Jn 18:23), by fighting back when nothing else is possible. An offense “can be rejected without weapons (…) or with weapons (…) and so it is lawful, or it is rejected with the spirit of revenge or with a desire for revenge, and so this is forbidden to everyone, and it is a precept. And given this understanding, not resisting evil is in many ways a precept or a counsel” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 5:39).

5. As you can see, St. Thomas says that it is legitimate to reject an offense in three ways: preventing, scolding, fighting back with or without weapons. Just as grace does not suppress nature, charity does not suppress justice, which is the minimum measure of love. Therefore, as you also stated, it is a form of charity to prevent others from harming. Otherwise, keeping a passive attitude exposes you to the risk of becoming an accomplice. 

6. However, you misjudge when you write: “Jesus does not seem to suggest compliance, but rather a real abetment to continue in the evil deed; for example, to those who strike us, we must turn the other cheek in order to be struck there too”.
Jesus reacted to the man’s slap not with violence, yet by answering verbally: “after being struck he said: “why do you strike me?” (Jn 18:23).

The same criterion should apply to verbal injuries. Our souls should be ready to endure insults when necessary; nevertheless, in some cases it is necessary to reject injuries for two reasons:

  1. For the sake of those who insulted us: that is, to suppress their audacity and prevent them from repeating those acts. In Proverbs (26:5) we read: “Answer the fool according to his folly, lest he become wise in his own eyes”.
  2. For the good of other people, whose good is compromised by the offense done to us” (St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, II-II,72,3).

7. The scriptural foundations that prevent us from seeing in Jesus’ teaching an incitement to do evil are above all those quoted by St. Thomas: “Answer the fool according to his folly, lest he become wise in his own eyes” (Pr 26:5) and “[Authority] is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer” (Rm 13:4).

And above all, there is Jesus’ behavior when he was struck.

8. Our Lord did not come to abolish the law, but to bring it to completion. Nowhere did Jesus ask to overlook the need for justice.

Indeed charity cannot bear that someone does not have, or cannot benefit, from the goods that God has given in order to achieve his own perfection.

Pius XI said in Divini Redemptoris: “But charity will never be true charity unless it takes justice into constant account; a charity that deprives the workingman of the due salary, is not charity at all, but only its empty name and hollow semblance. The wage-earner shall not receive as alms what is due to him in justice. And let no one attempt to exempt himself from the great duties imposed by justice with trifling charitable donations” (DR 49).

Likewise, Pius XII: “To be authentic and true, charity must always take into account that justice must be established, and not be paired with conceal disorders and insufficiencies of an unjust condition” (Letter to the President of French Social Week, 1952).

I wish you all the best, I pray to our Lord by asking him to bless you and your priestly ministry,

Father Angelo