A Hypothetical Scenario about Capital Punishment/Killing

[TempestTossed]

Ok, so dilemma. I’m a novelist, and while I don’t write Catholic literature per se I do not want to encourage immoral ideas in my novels.

Here is the scenario in question:

Say someone had abilities that were inherently immoral to use, and threatened to use them in order to hurt thousands of people. Would it be wrong if a certain group of people who knew this “criminal” very well and had some authority tracked him down and killed him, if they knew with certainty that he would use these abilities and that killing the criminal was the ONLY way to stop him? Would this fall in the category of just capital punishment, or the kind of just killing that goes on in war?

Thanks!
-Lizzie

 

[TempestTossed]

I should add that the characters who would do the “killing” are not members of the state. They are citizens of a country with no official government. Part of their objective is to keep the country from dissolving.

 

[Joe_5859]

It’s hard to comment too specifically without reading the whole book, but I would just say that I always appreciate when writers of hero-fiction can be more creative in dispensing with the bad guy than simply having the good guys go kill him outright.

We may never do evil that good may come of it. And the ends does not justify the means. These are the bedrock of Catholic morality.

Of course, just because your characters don’t always act morally does not mean that the overall work will not uphold Catholic moral principles. Perhaps a character acts in such a way, but then later regrets the way he/she handled it. Or at least raises questions about it in the reader’s mind.

 

[Least]

We may never do evil that good may come of it. And the ends does not justify the means. These are the bedrock of Catholic morality.

JESUS told his apostles that people would prey on them, he didn’t tell them to fight back, but he also called them and sent them with a particular purpose that, when viewed on-the-whole would be conflicted, if they interdicted any negativity towards themselves in that way.

I say, build-in to your story a hero who is pro-active (a latent and lingering tireless individual) who is feared for what he MAY do, without compunction (Obi wan Kenobi). Such an individual would be less likely to need to act on such a threat.

 

[LongingSoul]

Ok, so dilemma. I’m a novelist, and while I don’t write Catholic literature per se I do not want to encourage immoral ideas in my novels.

Here is the scenario in question:

Say someone had abilities that were inherently immoral to use, and threatened to use them in order to hurt thousands of people. Would it be wrong if a certain group of people who knew this “criminal” very well and had some authority tracked him down and killed him, if they knew with certainty that he would use these abilities and that killing the criminal was the ONLY way to stop him? Would this fall in the category of just capital punishment, or the kind of just killing that goes on in war?

Thanks!
-Lizzie

If the character had already used this ability for evil in some way and it came to light that he fully intended to ramp up that evil, its possible that by ‘special commission’ a group motivated only by the common good could kill the character, assuming that this ability could not be subdued by capture alone. I’m thinking along the lines of Osama Bin Ladens ‘decommission’. The Catholic Church made the comment afterwards that “Osama bin Laden, as we all know, bore the most serious responsibility for spreading divisions and hatred among populations, causing the deaths of innumerable people, and manipulating religions to this end,”

“In the face of a man’s death, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibilities of each person before God and before men, and hopes and works so that every event may be the occasion for the further growth of peace and not of hatred,”

The Church of course could not have approved the killing, but recognised it was necessary. St Augustine said "The same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time. "

 

[Viki63]

Vigilante justice is not moral.But perhaps your group could be “commissioned” by the government, as in the example above, to capture the villain, and of course if he posed a threat to them during capture, they would be justified in defending themselves even with lethal force. Like our police.
But as novelists, we do have responsibilities to portray events in a moral way, Seems to me there is much too much emphasis on revenge as a motive in our entertainment. Anything is justified if we’re seeking vengeance. Too seldom is repentance or forgiveness portrayed.
And unless they are insane or sociopaths, some sinners do repent.

 

[Hondo341]

You could help build suspense by having a character trying to do everything possible to simply foil the bad guy’s evil plot. But, if the bad guy has the detonator in hand and is actively “attempting” to carry out the act, I don’t see how it would be immoral for him NOT use Any means necessary to stop him. That would include shooting him. Actually, the good guy is pretty much obliged to stop the evil or he is sinning by omission. That will give your readers something to think about as well. Just because the good guy is a private citizen does not make him a vigilante.

 

[TempestTossed]

Thank you guys for your responses. I agree, vengeance killings are definitely wrong and I do not support them any way in my novels. I like the commission idea. It is also definitely in the plan to ramp up the tension by trying every other method of stopping the ‘bad guy’ first.

Thanks again for your (name removed by moderator)ut!