The Ultimate Sacrifice/Cure for Abortion?

[Guest Aluigi]

well seeing as none of them could get to heaven back then (most they could hope for was the Bosom of Abraham) it would seem that the New Covenant is absolutely required for entrance into heaven for all times. They couldn't get into heaven yet because it was not yet available back then.

[Don John of Austria]

yes, but one could not get one's place in heaven, anyway, hell was opened up at that time as well.

[crusader1234]

I don't get how believing that God's mercy qualifies as a potential form of 'temendous extraordinary' means makes me a universal heretic?

[Guest Aluigi]

yeah I know. so basically your wariness just gets back to a wariness about the idea of limbo in the first place in the age of the New Covenant where baptism is required. You gotta accept that they didn't have the chance to get baptized and for that reason they are not condemned to hell but original sin prevents their beatific vision.

the difference between this limbo and the previous one would be that the Jews there had been justified by the Law and by their anticipatory faith in the Messiah to come. one could say that because the baby is not culpable of any actual sin he would have justification by the law for not breaking it in his lifetime, but the faith factor is the only missing aspect. i guess for limbo to even work you must assume that this baby has faith, and that is not that much of a stretch of the imagination because he has just been created by God why wouldn't he believe in him. he just isn't, well clearly not, of the age of reason to be able to comprehend the faith he has.

his innocence from actual sins corresponds to the ancient jews jsutification by the law, and if he has some sort of natural faith that comes with just being formed, that puts him in the same position as the jews of old without the chance to enter the New Covenant.

[Tink]

wow Aluigi, I am very fond of that perspective.
It's amazing what one learns at 4:30am.

[Q the Ninja]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 29 2004, 04:23 AM'] Funny most of what you mention might not be murder at all, if his intent is truly to save the innocent and is not rage then it wouldn't be murder, only war, I can't see how this would cost the man his soul, in fact it might well be earn him Merit. It certianly doesn't violate the laws of the Church, although he might be condemned for it, now if he believed what he was doning was murder and then did it anyway, that alone would be a sin, and that could cause him to go to Hell, but killing men is not neccessarly murder, and is not neccessarly wrong. [/quote]
If you're a New Natural Law theorist, that's fine, but you'll have to declare yourself as such.

Otherwise, please be careful. The Revisionists are similar to you.

Intention does not change the type of act at all, according to St. Thomas Aquinas. Murder is intentionally killing an innocent person. Well, in this case the person is technically innocent. Killing is only justified by proportionate reasoning (such as in war) [I hate using proportionate because it errs so close to Proportionalism], and in this case there is not proportionate reasoning. There is not a remote enough material cooperation in evil. It is formal. You do not need to kill the people who support abortion, there's no reason! You have to be careful when you say so.

An act can be evil if the object of the exterior act of the will is evil, the object of the interior act of the will is evil, the end is evil, or one last one (I forget). In this case, there is a huge lack of due order (evil) in the object of the exterior act of the will. Doesn't matter what your intent is anymore, you've committed an evil act. You may not have much or any culpability (probably will), but the act is evil. There is no way to rationalize this. It becomes murder, and intent does not matter to the objective act.

[Q the Ninja]

[quote name='Monoxide' date='Dec 30 2004, 04:26 AM'] 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? [/quote]
This "war" can be won in ways other than violence.

[Q the Ninja]

[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]
It's not remote enough. End of story.

[Q the Ninja]

[quote name='Benedict' date='Dec 30 2004, 01:25 PM'] 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? [/quote]
I just wanted to warn you that this is also erring on the side (if not entering) into Proportionalism...Proportionate reasoning does not make right.

[Q the Ninja]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 30 2004, 08:21 PM'] I think the problem here is this-- is the means of violence evil. The answeris and has always been NO.

Socrates I am sorry you do not understand or caree for the priciple of double affect, but let me also remind you, those unborn who go into an abortion clinic arn't comming out alive so the fact that they would be killed as an accedent in a strike on such a place is really of very little moral wieght, you are killing as a effect those who are about to be murdered anyway, so that you can stop others from killing more innocents in the future. That is well within the realm of Just war. [/quote]
This isn't the principle of double effect..

[Q the Ninja]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Dec 31 2004, 04:09 AM'] well seeing as none of them could get to heaven back then (most they could hope for was the Bosom of Abraham) it would seem that the New Covenant is absolutely required for entrance into heaven for all times. They couldn't get into heaven yet because it was not yet available back then. [/quote]
Technically it probably was, just look at Elijah.

I agree with Don John here, the Law changed (Divine Law) with the Redeeming Sacrifice.

[Guest Aluigi]

yeah but aborted babies are in the same boat as people before the new covenant, no chance to receive the new covenant, original sin, and inculpable for actual sin. just add in the smudge factor of assuming they have pure innocent faith and that's the exact same state of soul the just people of the Old Covenant were in.

Elijah and Enoch were special exceptions, kinda like Mary was a special exception. I think those are the three big time-exceptions God has made to merit the Sacrifice of Christ back to other saints.

Anyway, in the Christian Tradition homicide is akin to a kind of spiritual suicide, because when your life becomes the cause of another's death, you yourself forfeit your own life. That is why a state is justified in executing murderers. they are not in all cases obligated to execute them and when there is a non-lethal means some great modern men have advised that they should use it, like the Pope (thought the CDF says his opinions about the application of war and/or the death penalty do not bind any Catholic). in some cases they are obligated, though there is a popular belief again with the Pope's backing that such cases are rare if practically non-existant. Anyway, yeah, homicide=suicide. he who sheds another's blood forfeits his right to his own life and by man shall his blood be shed. a war to defend the innocent would be a Just War if we had a chance of winning. randomly blowing up abortion clinics wouldn't because it wouldn't do anything really, they'd just go somewhere else. but a calculated war would be just, and it is not proportionalism but rather just war theory demanding certain factors be in place before a war is just, including that the harm caused by the war would be less than the evil the war is attempting to stop. if it were proportionalism, we would say that we were doing an evil action because that evil action would stop an even bigger evil action. a war to defend the innocent, however, would not be an evil action.

[quote]As with all moral acts the use of force to obtain justice must comply with three conditions to be morally good. First, the act must be good in itself. The use of force to obtain justice is morally licit in itself. Second, it must be done with a good intention, which as noted earlier must be to correct vice, to restore justice or to restrain evil, and not to inflict evil for its own sake. Thirdly, it must be appropriate in the circumstances. An act which may otherwise be good and well motivated can be sinful by reason of imprudent judgment and execution.

In this regard Just War doctrine gives certain conditions for the legitimate exercise of force, all of which must be met:

    "1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

    2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

    3. there must be serious prospects of success;

    4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition" [CCC 2309].
[/quote]

first it must be good in itself, then the harm of it must not outweigh the good. not proportionalism: JUST WAR THEORY.

[voiciblanche]

Al, say such a war were to come into place... how would you go about it?

[Q the Ninja]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Dec 31 2004, 12:15 PM'] yeah but aborted babies are in the same boat as people before the new covenant, no chance to receive the new covenant, original sin, and inculpable for actual sin. just add in the smudge factor of assuming they have pure innocent faith and that's the exact same state of soul the just people of the Old Covenant were in. [/quote]
Actually, I believe they'd be in a different boat, just because the law on Baptism has been changed. I have no idea what would have happened before the Redeeming Sacrifice, so I won't speculate more.

[quote]Elijah and Enoch were special exceptions, kinda like Mary was a special exception.  I think those are the three big time-exceptions God has made to merit the Sacrifice of Christ back to other saints.[/quote]

I agree. I think there may be a fourth, but I'm not sure.

[quote]Anyway, in the Christian Tradition homicide is akin to a kind of spiritual suicide, because when your life becomes the cause of another's death, you yourself forfeit your own life.  That is why a state is justified in executing murderers.  they are not in all cases obligated to execute them and when there is a non-lethal means some great modern men have advised that they should use it, like the Pope (thought the CDF says his opinions about the application of war and/or the death penalty do not bind any Catholic).[/quote]

I agree with this, but I must make a clarification to your argument. For us to wage war, for us to kill these abortionists is not in our right. Plus, the state does not have recourse in all places to the death penalty, and in this case prudence should be practiced. It does no good to kill all abortionists, because due to concupiscence they don't necessarily know what they're doing. We first need to educate, and we're doing a terrible job of it.

Also, taking another's life does not forfeit your own. In war taking another life, if it is necessary, is just and does not require your life.

[quote]...in some cases they are obligated, though there is a popular belief again with the Pope's backing that such cases are rare if practically non-existant.  Anyway, yeah, homicide=suicide.  he who sheds another's blood forfeits his right to his own life and by man shall his blood be shed.  a war to defend the innocent would be a Just War if we had a chance of winning.  randomly blowing up abortion clinics wouldn't because it wouldn't do anything really, they'd just go somewhere else.  but a calculated war would be just, and it is not proportionalism but rather just war theory demanding certain factors be in place before a war is just, including that the harm caused by the war would be less than the evil the war is attempting to stop.  if it were proportionalism, we would say that we were doing an evil action because that evil action would stop an even bigger evil action.  a war to defend the innocent, however, would not be an evil action.[/quote]

Well, I've argued why this would be an evil act, it's not remote enough. If the material cooperation in evil is not remote enough, that itself becomes an evil act.

[quote]first it must be good in itself, then the harm of it must not outweigh the good.  not proportionalism: JUST WAR THEORY.[/quote]

But my point is this isn't good in the first place. It seems people justify themselves too easily in this thread. There is no just reason for war at this point. To argue for a war is to argue based on Proportionalism. I'm not saying war is unjust, for it isn't necessarily. However, in this case it is.

[Guest Aluigi]

[quote] Al, say such a war were to come into place... how would you go about it?[/quote]
if i knew that i would have already started it.

Edited December 31, 2004 by Aluigi