Can A Devout Catholic?

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1288899139' post='2184843']
Your first mistake was getting into a debate with Winchester.
[/quote]

No! Taking him seriously was.

[quote name='WarriorForJesus' timestamp='1288899513' post='2184850']
[color="#800080"]I'm not sure what you mean? Is he a tough person with whom to have a debate? I can not help who responds to any of my posts.

Janice[/color]
[/quote]

No he's not tough. He just wants to compete with me for the Phatmasser zanni award.

[quote name='WarriorForJesus' timestamp='1288896169' post='2184800']
[color="#800080"]The lists of Commandments one can see posted in people's yards, just has it listed as "Thou Shall not Kill", not "Thou Shall not commit Murder".

Does the Bible define just what is murder and what isn't?

if so, where can I find it? I'm thinking it would be in Dueteronomy.

Janice[/color]
[/quote]

Though shalt not kill is valid, because it not only applies to the obvious. If I do something mean to someone and make them unhappy for a day then I have sinned by killing their happiness for a day. I have not murdered them, but I have killed or crucified a small part of them which is actually a large and important part because it is Christ.

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1288831945' post='2184533']

[color="#4169e1"]Dogmas[/color]

[color="#4169e1"]Doctrines[/color]
[/quote]
That was good, thanks!

Edited November 4, 2010 by Mark of the Cross

[CatherineM]

[quote name='WarriorForJesus' timestamp='1288899513' post='2184850']
[color="#800080"]I'm not sure what you mean? Is he a tough person with whom to have a debate? I can not help who responds to any of my posts.

Janice[/color]
[/quote]
It's like trying to have a debate with Rosanna Rosannadanna.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1288832322' post='2184541']
The Catechism, while it contains many dogmatic truths as taught by the Church, is not an infallible guide to Church teaching, nor is everything contained therein (especially the interpretations made by Catholics!) dogmatically taught by the Church.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

The mistake your post implies is that because the catechism is not a series of infallible statements and infallible from end to end, it is therefore fallible and less trustable or open to question. If that is the point you are implying it is ill advised. The Catechism should not be openly doudted or contested as it is the surest expression of what it is to be Catholic for a layman.

Edited November 5, 2010 by thessalonian

[WarriorForJesus]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1288920433' post='2184969']
It's like trying to have a debate with Rosanna Rosannadanna.
[/quote]


[color="#800080"]LOL, I remeber THAT character. What a hoot. "Nevermind."

Janice[/color]

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1288832532' post='2184546']
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

[url="http://www.trosch.org/the/ottintro.htm"]http://www.trosch.org/the/ottintro.htm[/url]
[/quote]

All right.



[b]"2297[/b] [i]Kidnapping [/i]and [i]hostage taking[/i] bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures."

Thus, all kidnapping and threats during kidnappings and hostage taking subject the victims to intolerable pressures. This is dogma.

"[i]Torture [/i]which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity."

The death penalty uses violence to punish the guilty. Therefore, the death penalty is clearly an example of torture. However, it is not torture to use violence to make anyone believe something. This is dogma.

Cardinal Ratzinger, in the Introduction to the Catholic Catechism:

"Thus the Catechism presents the teaching of the Church without elevating the doctrinal status of those teachings beyond what they otherwise have. [b]Consequently, one must look to other documents and to the tradition of the Church to establish the doctrinal weight of any particular point in the Catechism.[/b] [b]Since the Catechism treats many things that not only have not been taught infallibly but which also have been proposed in the most tentative of fashions (esp. in the area of social teaching), there remains due liberty for theologians (and others) when they encounter something that has been proposed only tentatively."[/b]

~Sternhauser

Edited November 5, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1288921385' post='2184983']
The mistake your post implies is that because the catechism is not a series of infallible statements and infallible from end to end, it is therefore fallible and less trustable or open to question. If that is the point you are implying it is ill advised. The Catechism should not be openly doudted or contested as it is the surest expression of what it is to be Catholic for a layman.
[/quote]

That claim, implied or otherwise, was nowhere to be found in my statement.

~Sternhauser

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1288976323' post='2185180']
That claim, implied or otherwise, was nowhere to be found in my statement.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]


You may well not have intended it but when people in general see "the catechism is not infallible" often they read ut as "the Catechism is suspect" is my point. Sorry if it sounded directed at you.

[CatherineM]

I agree that can cause some confusion. It seems as if we sometimes look for reasons not to follow Church teachings, rather than just accept them.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='WarriorForJesus' timestamp='1288896169' post='2184800']
[color="#800080"]The lists of Commandments one can see posted in people's yards, just has it listed as "Thou Shall not Kill", not "Thou Shall not commit Murder". [/quote]
Faulty translation.
[quote]
Does the Bible define just what is murder and what isn't?

if so, where can I find it? I'm thinking it would be in Dueteronomy.
[/quote]
The word used in Exodus 20:12 is תִרְצָח, from רְצָח . רְצָח carries with it connotations of illegal/unjust killing (implying, of course, that there must be legal/just killings of some kind).

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1289180841' post='2185647']

The word used in Exodus 20:12 is תִרְצָ ח, from רְצָח . רְצָח carries with it connotations of illegal/unjust killing (implying, of course, that there must be legal/just killings of some kind).
[/quote]
Good point! Killing can be just, whereas murder can't, so the correct translation would be. 'Though shalt do no murder.'

[dominicansoul]

i think it's okay to disagree with self-righteous modern day pharisees who see their Faith as a theory more than a love affair....in other words, they bow down to the letter of the law more so than the heart of the law...

[KnightofChrist]

[font="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#000000"][b][font="Times New Roman,Times,serif"][size="3"][/size][/font][/b][url="http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id398.html"][b][font="Times New Roman,Times,serif"][size="3"]Ver. 13.[/size][/font][/b][/url][font="Times New Roman,Times,serif"][size="3"] [i]Kill.[/i] These precepts are to be taken in their full extent, as prohibiting not only the ultimate act, but every thing which leads to it. Magistrates are authorized to inflict capital punishment. We are allowed also to defend ourselves against an unjust aggressor. But we must never [i]intend[/i] to kill him. (Calmet) --- The laws will not condemn us, perhaps, if we do; but God sees the heart, and judges. A night thief may be slain, because we know not how far our own lives may be endangered, chap. xxii. 2. (Haydock)[/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]




[font="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#000000"][font="Times New Roman,Times,serif"][size="3"]
[/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1289185629' post='2185658']
i think it's okay to disagree with self-righteous modern day pharisees who see their Faith as a theory more than a love affair....in other words, they bow down to the letter of the law more so than the heart of the law...
[/quote]

Well put!

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1289185724' post='2185659']
[font="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#000000"][b] [/b][url="http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id398.html"][b][font="Times New Roman,Times,serif"][size="3"]Ver. 13.[/size][/font][/b][/url][font="Times New Roman,Times,serif"][size="3"] [i]Kill.[/i] These precepts are to be taken in their full extent, as prohibiting not only the ultimate act, but every thing which leads to it. Magistrates are authorized to inflict capital punishment. We are allowed also to defend ourselves against an unjust aggressor. But we must never [i]intend[/i] to kill him. (Calmet) --- The laws will not condemn us, perhaps, if we do; but God sees the heart, and judges. A night thief may be slain, because we know not how far our own lives may be endangered, chap. xxii. 2. (Haydock)[/quote]
[font="Arial"]
[size="3"]Does this mean that an "authorized" executioner is or is not allowed to intend to kill the perpetrator? Does the principle of double effect really apply when someone takes an axe to someone's neck and cuts off his head, but doesn't "intend" to kill him, merely to "stop" him? If an executioner tapes a grenade to someone, can it be said that the natural evil of his being blown to bits is an "effect" of the grenade, but not a means to the end? St. Thomas believed that the "magistrate," even in the heat of the moment, was allowed to intend to kill, but that Joe Average was not. This case is not comparable to an ectopic pregnancy. The good of the safety of the individuals in society comes about by the [i]direct[/i] [i]means[/i] of the death of the criminal.

Cardinal John de Lugo reasoned that it [i]is[/i] moral to intend the death of an unjust aggressor, given certain circumstances. "We may intend whatever is necessary for the defense of our life. Sometimes the striking of blows alone is insufficient for this purpose, but the death of the adversary is necessary. His stubbornness is such that he will not cease from attacking you, either by himself or others, unless he dies. Therefore you can intend his death, not merely as the striking of a blow [from which death may follow] but as death, because it is useful to your safety not otherwise than as death. . . The death of the aggressor is not merely connected with another means that is intended, but it itself, and as death, is useful and judged necessary to your defense." [i]--De Justitia et Jure.

[/i]Killing a human being is not morally wrong in itself. Neither is the intent to kill a human being. That goes for executioners, and for regular Joes. Murder is not merely killing a human being. It is deliberately killing an innocent human being. [/size][/font][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font] [size="3"]

~Sternhauser[/size]

Edited November 8, 2010 by Sternhauser

[WarriorForJesus]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1289218274' post='2185738']
[font="Arial"]
[size="3"]Does this mean that an "authorized" executioner is or is not allowed to intend to kill the perpetrator? Does the principle of double effect really apply when someone takes an axe to someone's neck and cuts off his head, but doesn't "intend" to kill him, merely to "stop" him? If an executioner tapes a grenade to someone, can it be said that the natural evil of his being blown to bits is an "effect" of the grenade, but not a means to the end? St. Thomas believed that the "magistrate," even in the heat of the moment, was allowed to intend to kill, but that Joe Average was not. This case is not comparable to an ectopic pregnancy. The good of the safety of the individuals in society comes about by the [i]direct[/i] [i]means[/i] of the death of the criminal.

Cardinal John de Lugo reasoned that it [i]is[/i] moral to intend the death of an unjust aggressor, given certain circumstances. "We may intend whatever is necessary for the defense of our life. Sometimes the striking of blows alone is insufficient for this purpose, but the death of the adversary is necessary. His stubbornness is such that he will not cease from attacking you, either by himself or others, unless he dies. Therefore you can intend his death, not merely as the striking of a blow [from which death may follow] but as death, because it is useful to your safety not otherwise than as death. . . The death of the aggressor is not merely connected with another means that is intended, but it itself, and as death, is useful and judged necessary to your defense." [i]--De Justitia et Jure.

[/i]Killing a human being is not morally wrong in itself. Neither is the intent to kill a human being. That goes for executioners, and for regular Joes. Murder is not merely killing a human being. It is deliberately killing an innocent human being. [/size][/font][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font] [size="3"]

~Sternhauser[/size]
[/quote]


[color="#800080"]Are you saying that if I kill someone who I know is evil, say an abortion doctor, I am morally within my rights? Should I be put to death? What if I killed someone I knew personally and he/she was being evil towards me, having an affair with my spouse, abusing my kids, etc..., do I have a moral right to kill him/her?

What are the courts for?

Janice[/color]