Ephesians 6:12 and Spiritual Warfare

Ephesians 6:12

For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

Put into context:

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace; 16 above all taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18 Pray at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, 19 and also for me, that utterance may be given me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains; that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.

With respect to our ultimate end, and the first object of our love, God, who is our enemy? What can other men do to prevent us from loving God? Nothing directly. They can only try to lead us away through temptation and persecution and torture. But who is the murderer from the beginning (John 8:44)? Doesn't the devil try to get us to reject God through temptation only? The devil cannot do anything to us directly. But the devil is much more subtle and clever than any human being, and he is our ultimate enemy.

If we are to become righteous in God, we must first deal with ourselves first, and the snares that the devil has set for us.

But this is not to deny that we do not have human enemies, especially with respect to secondary goods, like the good of the family or the good of the political community. And while the devil too operates in this sphere as part of his larger rebellion against God, still our human enemies are real, and they really are our enemies. Even if we are enjoined by our Lord to love them that does not mean that we do not need to respond to them and their attacks appropriately. The Gospel is not an pacifist humanistic religion.

Our human enemies have agency, and  a proper response, including the use of violence if necessary, should be understood as a form of correction or retributive justice.

Similarly, Matthew 10:28 -- is this another example of hyperbole? Can we ever get rid of the emotion of fear, instead of submitting it to reason? I don't think so. So perhaps what our Lord is really saying if you are to fear, you should really fear the devil and his cohort, who are trying to lead you away from God and to perdition. That is our first concern. But He is not denying that there are secondary goods--while secondary goods are not as important as the first good, God Himself, we may love them for the sake of loving God (and neighbor), and in grave circumstances it may be necessary to take extraordinary measures to secure those goods.

Feser Responds to Finnis

CWR: Unnatural Lawyering: John Finnis’s brief against traditional Catholic teaching on capital punishment

John Finnis is a prominent Catholic law professor and chief apostle of the “new natural law theory” (NNLT) invented by the late Germain Grisez in the 1960s. At Public Discourse, Finnis and I have been [...]

Exactly

Chastek on Feser's defense of retribution

But Capital Punishment Does Not Exclude Hope

Should Pro-Lifers Be Anti-Death? by John Zmirak
Defending the innocent doesn't mean foregoing justice

Putting the "Equal" Back in Justice

Dr. Helen brings to our attention a new book by Thane Rosenbaum, Payback: The Case for Revenge. The part of the book description that caught my eye:

Revenge, Rosenbaum argues, is not the problem. It is, in fact, a perfectly healthy emotion. Instead, the problem is the inadequacy of lawful outlets through which to express it. He mounts a case for legal systems to punish the guilty commensurate with their crimes as part of a societal moral duty to satisfy the needs of victims to feel avenged. Indeed, the legal system would better serve the public if it gave victims the sense that vengeance was being done on their behalf. Drawing on a wide range of support, from recent studies in behavioral psychology and neuroeconomics, to stories of vengeance and justice denied, to revenge practices from around the world, to the way in which revenge tales have permeated popular culture—including Hamlet, The Godfather, and Braveheart—Rosenbaum demonstrates that vengeance needs to be more openly and honestly discussed and lawfully practiced.

University of Chicago Press

Aquinas does list a virtue whose name is translated as "vengeance."

I don't expect liberals and others with mushy-headed ideas about "love" to accept Rosenbaum's case.

The Chronicle of Higher Education
Where ‘An Eye for An Eye’ Should be the Letter of the Law

Vindictive Versus Rehabilitative

Vatican Insider: Pope: “Justice fails if prison fails to re-educate”

Should a punishment itself be meant to be rehabilitative? (In so far as it may be the occassion of repentence.) One must prepare the offender or criminal for reintegration into society, and supply the moral formation that he may not have received. But I would not consider this to be a part of the punishment itself, but a necessary supplement required by civic friendship and social justice.

Vengeance and Justice

Something of note: Ed Feser has written something on vengeance and its relation to justice - Justice or Revenge?