Is it morally permissible for one to use lethal force in stopping a predator in a situation of abuse (i.e. in a seminary or elsewhere)?
In my opinion, yes.
Given that homosexual aggression can be also horrifically violent, you do not know for sure that you are not defending your life. It is correct and pious to say, “I’d rather be killed than… blah blah…”. That’s all well and good.
Yes, you can defend yourself with lethal force. I think this is important for women to know, too. I highly recommend certain kinds of training, if for no other reason than to be well-informed about options in a realistic way. Training also will surely involve avoidance and deescalation strategies.
We have the right to defend our lives and the lives of the innocent – and their innocence – who are endangered. Make sure you cannot be hurt anymore and then stop and call 911.
In every situation, if possible, you should ideally use the least amount of force to stop the aggression. Force is only used to end threats. Your intent must not be to kill, but to end the threat. Full stop.
I’m talking here, of course, not about a fairly non-violent grab without follow up, etc. I talking here, of course, not about an awkward moment involving misunderstanding which ends as fast as it started. I’m talking about real aggression. You don’t break an arm at an attempt to, say, tickle or cop a feel – though I’ll be some women might disagree. But there are other situations in which a broken arm is how you stop the aggressor.
That can be really hard to assess when you are in the “black zone”. When you are in condition black, you experience mental changes and physiological effects that, unless you have experienced them, are hard to predict. Among them are changes to your range of vision, hearing, time perception. Your physical reactions and reflexes can be repressed or increased. Your heart is racing. Your adrenaline is flooding. You are in “fight or flight”. Afterward, your memory of what happened will often be impaired.
When you’ve bene through this, even once, then you have a different idea about “I’d rather be killed than… blah blah…”. If you’ve been through it more than once, then… well.
There was only one situation in which I physically had to defend myself from a homosexual aggression. In Rome. Yes, it was clerical. It did NOT involve the “black zone”, however. It involved maybe “orangey-red zone” and a lot of anger. He was fortunate that that was “back when” and not now, in Rome, not in these USA. I suspect that his therapy lasted decades. No. I’m sure of it. Speed and training gave me the advantage. But aggressors don’t fight fair. Neither should you, “fight fair”. You use instant and decisive force to stop the threat. Think… Jack Reacher.
I would do that again with no hesitation. “NO!” means “HELL NO!” I have real compassion for those who suffer from these inclinations. I have little patience for those who don’t strive to deal with them properly. Assault is assault. You don’t want to guess at what is at the end of any assault of any kind.
Yes, you can defend yourself, even with lethal force. But I also must say that it is a horrible thing to take a life. Moreover, it could render you irregular for Holy Orders except in cases of legitimate self-defense! That can be remedied with recourse to the proper authority, in the case of legitimate self-defense or defense of others. Censures can be lifted if they were incurred, but that is the stuff of another post. [I edited that bit, a bit.]
That said, I think the chances of homosexual aggression in seminary now are highly unlikely. Not only is there the recent news, but, frankly, seminaries have been cleaned up. I wouldn’t give that a second thought if you are considering seminary. I think the chances of homosexual inuendo in seminaries will be highly unlikely.