Micheal5403 Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Yes I guess. I just don't think that killing is a good way to protect the innocent under any circustances. unless it is seriously the ONLY way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 That is your poragative, however if someone was going to kill your sibling, or you morther, would you sit by and say "well, I havn't been givin authority to act, so i just have to sit here and let them do it" or perhaps you would say really loving things to him while he ripped your love one apart, perhaps you would say rosary that he would come around and stop kiling people, perhaps you would even do that when he moved from your mother to your sister, that to is your perogative, gentle acceptance of evil is within the tradition of the Church, but you are not obligated to do that, it is morally permissable to pick up a gun and shoot him, and it is outside of the tradition of the Church to say that that is not morally permisssable. That is what i find offencive this attitude that the unborn are not intitled to the same right of defence that everyone else is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Good point, Don John, however protection is different from war - which is a much more complicated endeavour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monoxide Posted December 30, 2004 Author Share Posted December 30, 2004 Do the victims of this atrocity not deserve protection? They are the innocent! This is a war. This war cannot be won in anyway but violence. If any of you can tell me an alternate solution, please put it forward. If there is collateral damage, well, our Lord has the power to sort them out yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 29 2004, 10:36 PM'] Socrates, I don't have time to fully respond right now, however, I have already addressed the right authority issue, and the resonable chance of success as well, your analysus of Double effect is just wrong, one does not have to be in the cact of combat to be a ligetimet target, a soldier can be legitametly targeted while sitting on the toilet. As i said this is no differant thatn targeting a general on an opposing armys staff. [/quote] Don, your arguments seem to hinge on the acts described being "warfare." However, perhaps I am missing something, but I do not see the legitimate authority issue being addressed in this thread, and as I have said (while you may disagree), in my analysis, I see the practical effects of such action as being entirely counter-productive. If the actions in question were part of an actual war declared by an actual authority, which actually had some reasonable chance of success, they could perhaps be justified. But as they are not, I cannot in good conscience condone them. And no one has answered how killing the unborn babies in the "clinic" as part of the rampage is acceptable. (Weren't they the ones this rampage was supposedly to save?) Read St. Thomas' criteria for a just war. Think about it. Think about the effectiveness ot actual terrorist acts in accomplishing good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 First I want to make an appology for all my typos of late, i am dosg sitting and posting on an itty bitty Imac key board and i can't type for squat on it. Crusader1234-- Actually a War of Defence is simply defence on an massive scale, as it is a massive crime being commited only a massive respose would be sufficent. I think that this is the problem here people seem to think of personal violence as somehow differant from corprate violence, there is no substantive differance between them there is just a differance in scale. The scale of warfare is irrelavent to the moral right to defence. Socrates- I think the problem here is one of a basic lack of understanding about the criteria of right Authority. one does not have to be a government to have right authrity, I would venture to say that our government has NO authority at all, further I would venture to say there are few countries in the enire world who's governments have any Authority at ll, they have Power which is differant entirely. No, Authority is the right to command not the power to have your commands enforced, The eright to command can come from many things, it can come from the legitamacy of ones rulership but it can come from many other things as well, not the least of which is the right of , for lack of a better word, rightousness, one can resist evil, one does not have to submit to those who are unjust in their application of power, one has the authority to resist ist because it is in fact evil. Now this authority comes from the Natural Law that all have the right to defend what is good. I will give you a rea world example, of those who defied " legitament" governmental institutions( I do not use the word authority on purpose) the French resistance in world war II, met none of the criteria which you say are required , they defied their own legit government ( the Vichy gonvernment was the legit government of France) they had no reasonable chance of success ( remember they started this resistance before the allies had even stopped a single advance of Germany) and the used "terrorist" tactics, yet the Church has never condemned them, the Church has never said they should not be regarded as heros as they are in most of the world, why is this, it is because the Nazi's where evil, and the Vichy participation in that evil nullified any legit athority that they might of had. likewise Abortion is Evil, our government participates in that evil and therefore ha nullified it's own athority ( one cannot have a "right" to command evil) one is under no oblilgation to follow them, and one is well wthin one's rights to make war on the evil that they perpertrate. I would go so far as to say it is within the rights of any confirmed catholic ( who has been made a soldier of Christ) to actually revolt agianst this corrupt and evil government. But that aside certianly it is within the rights of anyone to defend the innocent from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 [quote name='Socrates' date='Dec 30 2004, 12:10 PM'] And no one has answered how killing the unborn babies in the "clinic" as part of the rampage is acceptable. (Weren't they the ones this rampage was supposedly to save?) Read St. Thomas' criteria for a just war. Think about it. Think about the effectiveness ot actual terrorist acts in accomplishing good. [/quote] The babies in the clinic who might be killed are accidental to act of destroying the clinic, therre death is noot the intent of the act, nor i the act inherently evil so the deaths of the infants com under double effect. I assure you I have read St. thomas, St. Augustine and many others on this matter, this particular topic is something I have studied in detail, written numerous papers on, and pretty much have a complete working knowledge of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedict Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Well, we have two issues to deal with there. 1- Is the destruction of an abortion clinic proportional to the deaths of the innocents inside? This becomes even more important to evaluate when dealing with a clinic that provides for more services than just birth control and abortion, like a county hospital. 2- Is such an action justified in the face of other actions that do not include the accidental deaths of innocents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc is 4 Jesus Christ Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 i strongly believe that abortion is murder, but to kill all of those people because they support it is just as bad as being the "doctors" themselves who do the abortions i hate abortion- just the thought of it makes me cry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 30 2004, 01:17 PM'] The babies in the clinic who might be killed are accidental to act of destroying the clinic, therre death is noot the intent of the act, nor i the act inherently evil so the deaths of the infants com under double effect. I assure you I have read St. thomas, St. Augustine and many others on this matter, this particular topic is something I have studied in detail, written numerous papers on, and pretty much have a complete working knowledge of. [/quote] Killing the innocent with the noble cause of preventing them from being killed?!! The insanity of this is beyond belief! Why not just nuke everyone with the noble purpose of killing all evil people? (The killing of the innocent would just be the incidental, unintended consequence of this noble act of killing!) This bloodthirsty mindset I have seen expressed on this forum is the psychopathic mindset of every Islamic terrorist and Communist revolutionary. It is neither Catholic, nor Christian, nor conservative. I can only pray for the souls of those that hold it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monoxide Posted December 30, 2004 Author Share Posted December 30, 2004 Socrates, wha about selective targeting then?Would that be ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bookwyrm Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 NO! :angry: You can't just go around killing people who don't agree with you! Where does this idea even come from? I never thought I'd have to be the one to defend abortionists . . . abortion is the most terrible thing in the world. But we have to defeat them with PRAYER and LOVE, not MORE VIOLENCE!!!! Besides, how many people will that win to our cause if we go around destroying people in the name of saving innocent lives? That sounds suspiciously like the same argument used by people who want to use embryonic stem cells to cure diseases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 (edited) If "regular" people were being killed at that rate, you can bet that we'd be warring physical war. Not "praying" and "loving" the murderers. I ask all of you who are against monoxide, what is the difference between killing abortionists and murderers? For those of you not killing abortinist because of no organization, I ask you, why aren't you trying to form a coalition? To allow evil is to participate in it. And for that, I deem all of you killers by your own definition. Edited December 31, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monoxide Posted December 31, 2004 Author Share Posted December 31, 2004 What if God's answer to our prayers is to use violence? You people do not understand the significance of allowing abortion and other such abominations. This is a last stand. We are on the losing side of this battle. Prayer has saved us from getting worse, but not enough of us pray for what is right. We are a dieing breed, if we dont make a stand somewhere or someplace in time, Catholicism will not survive. God gave us the ability to choose our future, do you believe that he wanted his servants to cease to exist? Sure you can quote statistics about how many Catholics there are in the world today but how many know the Creed? How many support abortion and homosexual marriage? John Kerry once called himself a Catholic if im not mistaked. Abortion corrupts the minds of the youth, making them feel that it is alright to be be sexually immoral. This generation is almost completely lost. We are being diluted into political correctness and modern society. Here are some statistics that are personal to me: In the town where I live there are 4000 people Catholic Church gets about 50-75 parishoners on sunday I can safely say that at least 70% of these parishoners are over 55 When i was in my school of 300, there were probably 10 or 11 'Catholic' students As far as I know, there were only 2 people other than I that attended mass on sunday and followed the churches teachings. The others believed that it is ok to be gay, use birth control and kill babies. I know im being awfully harsh, but what else can i do? If i submit and be quiet, i watch as more children become influenced by television and the like. I feel that is just as bad as commiting the deed as well. You do the crime, you do the time - stop abortion. -Monoxide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Love one another as I have loved you, precludes the use of violence on a personal level. Do not fall into the sin of despair. Catholic teaching is the end does not justify the means. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now