Fighting

Fighting.—Fighting is an angry conflict between two or more persons carried on by means of physical violence.

(a) Thus, it is an angry conflict, and so differs from contests of strength or skill made for the sake of sport, amusement, recreation, health, exercise and training. Hence, wrestling and boxing matches, football games, fencing and similar athletic contests, in which fair play and a sportsmanlike spirit prevail, are not fighting as here understood. Similarly, the tournaments of the medieval knights were sports or spectacles, rather than fights.

(b) It is a conflict, and so differs from punishment inflicted by lawful authority, as when a police officer uses his club to prevent a crime, a parent or teacher chastises insubordinate children, or a sober man scuffles with an inebriate to take away his flask or with a lunatic to deprive him of a weapon.

(c) It is a conflict between two or more individuals, and so differs from war and sedition, which are conflicts between nations or parts of a multitude.

(d) It is conducted by means of physical violence, that is by the infliction of bodily injuries or harm. Thus, fighting differs from quarreling, which is a dispute in words. It makes no difference whether the attack be made by fists, fingernails or teeth, or by weapons or missiles, or whether the bodily harm be direct (e.g., a blackened eye) or indirect (e.g., a hat knocked off the head).

Kinds of Fighting.—(a) As to its origin, fighting is provoked or unprovoked, according as one who fights is attacking another or defending himself against attack. (b) As to its manner, it is an ordinary fight or a duel, according as it takes place without or with previous arrangement and stipulated conditions. (c) As to its eject, the civil law distinguishes between assault and battery. Assault is a show of violence against the person of another, as when one lifts one’s fist or cane in a threatening manner to put another in fear of bodily harm. Battery is the actual infliction of personal violence, as when one strikes, pushes, scratches, bites, or spits on another.

The Sinfulness of Fighting.—(a) Unprovoked fighting is from its nature a mortal sin. It is classed among the works of the flesh that exclude from the kingdom of heaven (Gal, v. 20, 21), and it is essentially opposed to the charity owed to a neighbor. It is frequently only a venial sin, either because the act is not entirely deliberate, as when one fights in sudden anger, or because the violence is of a trifling kind, as when school-children pull one another’s hair or throw snowballs.

(b) Fighting under provocation is no sin at all, when one intends only to defend one’s rights and does not go beyond what is necessary for lawful defence, as when one struggles with a burglar who is trying to enter one’s house, and pushes him through the door. It is a venial sin, when the person who is resisting aggression acts with some slight degree of hate or revengefulness, or inflicts a little more injury than is really necessary. It is a mortal sin, when the person who was attacked fights in a spirit of hate and revenge, or deliberately and needlessly seeks to kill or seriously maim the adversary.

Causes of Fighting.—The remedy of sinful fighting is the removal of its causes. The sources of fighting are proximate and remote.

(a) The immediate cause is anger. The angry man provokes fights (Prov., xv. 18, xxix. 22), for anger, being a desire of revenge, is not content to injure another secretly, but wishes to punish him—that is, to injure him in such a Way that he will know he is being punished and will feel grief on that account. Anger also blinds one to the foolishness of one’s actions, and so leads one precipitately into quarrels and fights (Prov., xviii. 6).

(b) The remote cause of fighting is an inordinate desire of temporal things, such as wealth, power, ease: “Why are there wars and disputes among you? Is it not because of the desires that war among your members?” (James, iv. 1). Those who are overmuch concerned with their own interests, easily take offense at what they consider slights or insults or opposition, their rage bursts forth, and they proceed at once to visit revenge on those at whom they are offended. It was greed and envy that caused the herdsmen of Palestine to fill up the wells dug by Isaac and to fight with his servants for possession (Gen., xxvi. 14 sqq.).

Hatred and Fighting.—(a) Hatred is not necessarily a cause of fighting. The hater wishes evil to his neighbor, not as punishment, but absolutely; his passion is calmer, more lasting, and more insatiable than that of the angry man. If it suits him, he will bide his time patiently, pretending friendship, but all the while plotting ruin to the one he hates. (b) Hatred at times does bring on fighting, for, if the hater sees that he can safely attack openly, he will use quarreling and fighting as a means to his purpose.

Occasions that Frequently Bring On Fighting.—(a) Boasting about self or depreciation of others in the presence of persons who will take offense occasions fights, for “he that boasteth and puffeth himself up stirreth up quarrels” (Prov., xxviii. 25). Thus, disputes over the respective merits of nations or political parties often bring on bloody encounters. (b) Drunkenness occasions fights, for it so stupefies the mind that one minimizes one’s danger and exaggerates one’s own strength, and so is emboldened to attack others (Prov., xxiii. 29, 30).

Evil Consequences of Fighting.—(a) Charity is wounded by fighting, wherefrom there often result lasting hates, discords, scandals. (b) Justice is wounded by fighting, as when a person unjustly maims or kills his neighbor, and is himself imprisoned or executed, to the disgrace and deprivation of his dependents.

Rixa is derived from Ringor, because it signifies a private fight, such as the fight of dogs, which quarrel (ringunt): Hence it is gathered to have originated from anger.

Riot is therefore, on the part of the aggressor, a mortal sin, as is had in Galat. 5.; but on the part of the one attacked, it can be mortal, if in gravely resisting he goes too far.

It is described by D. Bonaventure in his explanation of Theological terms: Rixa est audax voluntas vindicandi, in iniuriam facti procedens.

Many examples of riots are related by S. Doctor in the Bibliis pauperum, cap. 50. Genes. 26. The shepherds of Gerara quarrelled with Isaac.

Exodus 2. two Hebrews quarrelled, upon whom Moses came, reproving them.

Two women were contending before Solomon 3. Kings, 3.

The Jews contended about Christ John 7.

The Jews were disputing Acts 11. unwilling that the Gentiles be preached to.

The multitude of Iconium was divided, some of whom stood for the Jews, others for the Apostles Acts 14. and another cap. 15. another cap. 19. another cap. 21. another cap. 23.

Here the duel is usually treated of, which is a riot of two by agreement.

On which Caietan writes excellently 2. 2. quaest. 95. art. 8. Sanchez lib. 2. cap. 39. Filliucius tract. 29. cap. 8. Suarez de cens. disp. 23. Bonacina tract. 3. disp. 11. Fagundez in the place to be cited, with Tanner.

It must be asserted, however, that the duel is illicit by the natural law, unless it be necessary to escape death.

It is condemned moreover in the sacred Laws, as appears in cap. Monomachiam, 2. quaest. 5. and cap. Henricus, extra de clericis in duello, and the Council of Trent sess. 25. in the Decree on general reformation, cap. 19. and it is had from D. Augustine in 23. quaest. 1. They are condemned by the Leg. unic. Cod. de gladiatoribus, Lib. 11.

And in our own time Louis XIII, justly acclaimed as the Just, King of France, sanctioned a most severe Law, by which he stamps the duel with the mark of infamy, condemns duelists to death and other penalties, so that he might avert so great an internecine slaughter of the most valiant Dukes and soldiers in his kingdoms.

Most recently also, an offspring worthy of such a father, Louis XIV, with an immense zeal for Justice, adding to his unbent and intrepid spirit the grandeur whereby he is truly proclaimed Great, decreed this same thing by a royal Diploma, and established moreover, beyond the irremissible penalty of the head, the proscription of honors, to be stripped forever of the islands of nobility, those who among nobles have contended in that accursed fight; Nor indeed could a more efficacious remedy be applied to tempering the ebullition of the blood of gallant French brawlers, as the outcome daily proves, than that those who thus pursue glory be buried inglorious, both with the living and with the nobility of posterity. Wherefore that illustrious nation, unable to pour out blood in duelling, sheds it more gloriously in subduing the enemies of the Church far and near.

Nor do duelists truly defend Honor; nay, they hunt ignominy for themselves; they do not rightly repay injuries, since this is not licit privately.

That David in 1. Kings 18. engaged in combat, was for the defense of Divine honor, with the public authority of the King from a divine instinct, as the Gloss also has in cap. Cura suscepi, de pugnatione ordinaria.

They sin gravely, and even those cooperating in a duel are excommunicated. See the Council of Trent; nor are they excused by any custom, as D. Bonaventure notes in speculo animae, cap. 1. for in common all Doctors, Theologians and Jurists have cried out against it, as S. Doctor observes. Wherefore also the Council of Trent excommunicates ipso facto sess. 25. cap. 19. the Lords permitting it, or granting the place, the godfathers, the procurators from counsel, the spectators; and the Bull of Clement VIII. excommunicates those cooperating, even if the duel does not follow; if it did not stand through them, Gregory XIII. excommunicates, yet does not reserve. And so, besides infamy and the loss of Ecclesiastical burial, if they die in the duel, the duelists also incur excommunication reserved to the Pope; if it be done with solemnity, with godfathers and provocative challenges (chartulae), by the proper bull of Pius IV. Add, if the duel be merely private, according to the Bull of Gregory XIII. and Clem. VII. who extend the excommunication of the Council of Trent even to a private duel, as Suarez teaches with Navarre Tom. 5. disp. 23. sect. 3. Tanner disp. 2. quaest. 6. dub. 7. Fagundez in 5. praecept. lib. 5. cap. 8. num. 5 and it is of the latae sententiae.

The same penalties others cooperating incur. Now therefore the excommunication, even if not reserved by Gregory, is certainly reserved by Pius and Clement; Yet they can be absolved by Religious in Rome, and outside Italy. See Fagundez num. 5. on this more has been said in prima secundae, tract. de actib. human. disput. 17. quaest. 10. ad propos. 2. according to the Decree of Alexander VII.