Can someone explain to me why the ends don't justify the means?

[Roscoe_Turner]

The alternative is what?

That we never do anything because any good act has potential adverse effects too?

Medical science grinds to a halt because most treatments have adverse side effects. You can’t treat cancer because chemo or radio therapy will make you sick; not as sick as the cancer, but without double effect we can’t weigh those effects and decide proportionally that it’s best to treat the cancer.

You can’t defend yourself if someone attacks you, because you may cause them some harm in defending yourself.

You can’t create needed infrustructure, such as dams to provide drinking water, since there may be adverse effects on the local flora and fauna. People will die through lack of drinking water, but that little family of rodents living where the dam would go are safe from harm.

You can’t drive a car, since accidents happen and people die. Modern society grinds to a halt, but at least we’ve dealt with the road toll issue.

To an extent you have inherently recognised one reality here: that double effect is needed due to our living in a fallen world. In the new kingdom the need for such will pass, but in this world, our “corporal lives”, we need this principle to allow us to act in moral ways. Without it, we find that we can’t act at all.

If you want to explore this further, it’s time for a new thread as it is a new topic. I’m sure people will be ready to offer sources so you can understand this principle better.

That’s not what I’m saying at all. With the exception of not defending yourself. Jesus didn’t, the martyrs didn’t. Read Matthew 5 and show me where being physically aggressive comes into play.

Later in Matt 26

52
Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.
53
Do you think that I cannot call upon my Father and he will not provide me at this moment with more than twelve legions of angels?

He could have defended himself and chose not to.

Butting the catechism and the scripture up against one another, the catechism reads as concessions to the state/rulers. If all Christians were pacifists they would be a pain in the rear for rulers.

 

[underacloud]

At one point Jesus did use aggression, to defend his father’s house by driving the traders out with a whip.

So no, Christianity does not demand pacifism.

And the old testament certainly does not paint a picture of a God who demands pacifism from His people. Even the God of the new testament is not a complete pacifist, when he struck down Ananias and Sapphira, and then there’s the account in Revelations of the four horsemen of the apocalypse, the plagues, and the casting of the beast and the reprobates into the lake of fire.

I don’t understand your objection to self defense. Jesus allowed his own death for the salvation of mankind, but none of us are called to such a noble sacrifice (notwithstanding the sacrifice of many martyrs). Jesus in fact told his followers to go and buy swords!

Luke 22:36 “He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

At one point Jesus did use aggression, to defend his father’s house by driving the traders out with a whip.

So no, Christianity does not demand pacifism.

And the old testament certainly does not paint a picture of a God who demands pacifism from His people. Even the God of the new testament is not a complete pacifist, when he struck down Ananias and Sapphira, and then there’s the account in Revelations of the four horsemen of the apocalypse, the plagues, and the casting of the beast and the reprobates into the lake of fire.

I don’t understand your objection to self defense. Jesus allowed his own death for the salvation of mankind, but none of us are called to such a noble sacrifice (notwithstanding the sacrifice of many martyrs). Jesus in fact told his followers to go and buy swords!

Luke 22:36 “He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”

As Christians we are following Christ and his example. Even after he told them to sell their cloak to buy as sword, when arrested he said

51
And behold, one of those who accompanied Jesus put his hand to his sword, drew it, and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his ear.
52
Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword

.

Luke 6

27 “But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
28
bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.t
29
To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic.
30
Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back.
31
Do to others as you would have them do to you

.

He doesn’t seem to be advocating solutions utilizing violence.

 

[underacloud]

So on one hand we have Christ warning against violence and advocating turning the cheek.

On the other hand we have Christ using violence in the temple and advocating getting a sword.

Any time the scriptures seem to contradict, as Catholics we look to the Church for guidance on how to interpret things. The Catechism does not “butt against” the scriptures, but helps us understand what is being said, in totality, because it is too difficult a task to take verses out of context and try to base our faith on such narrow understandings.

But if we take your point that we should follow Christ’s example, we see that there are occasions, such as in the temple, when violence has its place. The Catechism further helps us understand when and what those occasions are.

 

[Bookcat]

A counsel for an individual to ‘turn the other cheek’ is just that –

–such is not a directive to society (which must protect its people) that there can be no just war in this fallen world or even that a* Father cannot use a sword to defend his child and wife from an aggressor *(thus there can be an obligation to take up the sword). We must take great care to read the Scriptures within the Church – to understand and of course put them into life.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

So on one hand we have Christ warning against violence and advocating turning the cheek.

On the other hand we have Christ using violence in the temple and advocating getting a sword.

Any time the scriptures seem to contradict, as Catholics we look to the Church for guidance on how to interpret things. The Catechism does not “butt against” the scriptures, but helps us understand what is being said, in totality, because it is too difficult a task to take verses out of context and try to base our faith on such narrow understandings.

But if we take your point that we should follow Christ’s example, we see that there are occasions, such as in the temple, when violence has its place. The Catechism further helps us understand when and what those occasions are.

I don’t think they conflict. He never kills anyone, nor advocates killing anyone. The one example we have of violence with a sword, he stops it and heals the injured.

Luke 22

49 His disciples realized what was about to happen, and they asked, “Lord, shall we strike with a sword?”
50 And one of them struck the high priest’s servant and cut off his right ear.f
51 But Jesus said in reply, “Stop, no more of this!” Then he touched the servant’s ear and healed him.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

A counsel for an individual to ‘turn the other cheek’ is just that –

–such is not a directive to society (which must protect its people) that there can be no just war in this fallen world or even that a* Father cannot use a sword to defend his child and wife from an aggressor *(thus there can be an obligation to take up the sword). We must take great care to read the Scriptures within the Church – to understand and of course put them into life.

As a society is made up of individuals, so when do we stop being individuals? At what stage do we abdicate our moral responsibility to turn the other cheek?

 

[Bookcat]

As a society is made up of individuals, so when do we stop being individuals? At what stage do we abdicate our moral responsibility to turn the other cheek?

On the personal level -it is seen as a “counsel” --not as a “moral responsibility”.

One has the right to just self defense.

“Turn the other cheek” is counsel not a commandment.

Certainly let us do so often.

As to society – society has the obligation to protect their citizens.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

On the personal level -it is seen as a “counsel” --not as a “moral responsibility”.

One has the right to just self defense.

“Turn the other cheek” is counsel not a commandment.

Certainly let us do so often.

As to society – society has the obligation to protect their citizens.

It’s a direct statement from Jesus. We are supposed to use discretion in applying it? Where does He say that?

Society is made up of citizens who are individuals. At what point do you see we stop being individuals and operate under different standards?

It seems absurd to me as If as individuals we are to abstain from meat on Fridays during lent but as a society we are to eat it. Who’s doing the eating?

Welcome back btw

 

[Bookcat]

It’s a direct statement from Jesus. We are supposed to use discretion in applying it? Where does He say that?

One is to understand it correctly and not out of context of the saying and of the Church.

Jesus said if your eye causes you to sin —pluck it out.

Jesus said one must anyone who comes to him without hating his mother and father cannot be his disciple…

One is to understand such correctly and not out of context of the saying and of the Church.

Jesus founded a Church and gave that Church authority to teach and make disciples. A verse in Scripture – a saying of Jesus-- must be understood correctly and lived so.

Take it in the wrong sense and one ends with persons with out eyes and hands who hate their mothers and fathers…

It falls to the Teaching office of the Church --with the authority given by Jesus to teach …to bind and loose…etc to well Teach and bind and loose…etc -to explain what Jesus teaches…etc.

Welcome back btw

Thanks - I do not want to get into a long discussion nor will I necessarily read and respond to all - time is limited --and really this thread is off its tracks.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

One is to understand it correctly and not out of context of the saying and of the Church.

Jesus said if your eye causes you to sin —pluck it out.

Jesus said one must anyone who comes to him without hating his mother and father cannot be his disciple…

One is to understand such correctly and not out of context of the saying and of the Church.

Jesus founded a Church and gave that Church authority to teach and make disciples. A verse in Scripture – a saying of Jesus-- must be understood correctly and lived so.

Take it in the wrong sense and one ends with persons with out eyes and hands who hate their mothers and fathers…

It falls to the Teaching office of the Church --with the authority given by Jesus to teach …to bind and loose…etc to well Teach and bind and loose…etc -to explain what Jesus teaches…etc.

Thanks - I do not want to get into a long discussion nor will I necessarily read and respond to all - time is limited --and really this thread is off its tracks.

We still don’t have Jesus killing anyone and one of His miracles is healing the servant and tells his disciples to stop. If we have anything relevant to philosophy in practice, we have it there. Jesus who has physical abilities that exceed (miracles) our own and armed disciples and He chooses to nip the violence in the bud, and reverse its effects. I think that sends a pretty clear message. He wasn’t running around with a bunch of one eyed disciples.

 

[Bookcat]

We still don’t have Jesus killing anyone and one of His miracles is healing the servant and tells his disciples to stop. If we have anything relevant to philosophy in practice, we have it there. Jesus who has physical abilities that exceed (miracles) our own and armed disciples and He chooses to nip the violence in the bud, and reverse its effects…

We do not see Jesus doing alot of things --getting married, being a soldier, being a Father, playing games, or even swimming…(only above water activities noted)…

Again that has absolutely nothing to do with if there is legitimate defense. Jesus was not President of a country, was not a father, was not a mother. Nor was not Jesus is not teaching that one may not defend oneself or others.

Counsel to persons in regards to themselves in certain acts if injustice (like being slapped) is not a commandment --it is a counsel. Nor does it mean that there is no legitimate defense.

His actions during his Passion - were well related to his Passion not an example for all. Meaning that they did not mean that one could not defend oneself. Paul (Apostle of Jesus) was not “silent” when accused but defended himself.

As noted in last post – Jesus said various things --they must be understood correctly - and such best happens within the Church he gave authority to.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

We do not see Jesus doing alot of things --getting married, being a soldier, being a Father, playing games, or even swimming…(only above water activities noted)…

Again that has absolutely nothing to do with if there is legitimate defense. Jesus was not President of a country, was not a father, was not a mother. Nor was not Jesus is not teaching that one may not defend oneself or others.

Counsel to persons in regards to themselves in certain acts if injustice (like being slapped) is not a commandment --it is a counsel. Nor does it mean that there is no legitimate defense.

His actions during his Passion - were well related to his Passion not an example for all. Meaning that they did not mean that one could not defend oneself. Paul (Apostle of Jesus) was not “silent” when accused but defended himself.

As noted in last post – Jesus said various things --they must be understood correctly - and such best happens within the Church he gave authority to.

His statement on the commandments Matt 22

36 “Teacher,* which commandment in the law is the greatest?”
37 He said to him,* “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.
38 This is the greatest and the first commandment.
39 The second is like it:* You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
40 The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.

How do you kill someone your love? It isn’t defend your life at all costs.

 

[Bookcat]

How do you kill someone you love? It isn’t defend your life at all costs.

How do you just let the murderer into your house and let him savagely murder your wife and children?

Or how do you not stop terrorists who are to intending to crash the plane with all the other people you are to love on board?

If there is a death of the aggressor involved due their forcing you to use lethal force -that death is unintended - one is seeking to love ones family or country etc in right just defense.

Again all must be understood and lived properly.

 

[Bookcat]

Catechism:

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2263

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

John 18:36

Jesus answered, “My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom did belong to this world, my attendants [would] be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not here.”

 

[Bookcat]

John 18:36

Yes indeed.

(again all applies to the Passion – he is not speaking of a persons right self defense or obligations to defend others)

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Yes indeed.

(again all applies to the Passion – )

We are called to share in his sacrifice. Don’t Kill, Love Your Neighbor, Get rid of your Possessions. Not the recipe for a global powerhouse.

Matt 19

The Rich Young Man.*
16 Now someone approached him and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?”*
17 He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good.* If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18 He asked him, “Which ones?” And Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness;
19 honor your father and your mother’; and ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”
20 The young man said to him, “All of these I have observed. What do I still lack?”
21Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect,* go, sell what you have and give to [the] poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this statement, he went away sad, for he had many possessions.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Amen, I say to you, it will be hard for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24 Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and said, “Who then can be saved?”
26 Jesus looked at them and said, “For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible.”
27
m Then Peter said to him in reply, “We have given up everything and followed you. What will there be for us?”
28 Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you that you who have followed me, in the new age, when the Son of Man is seated on his throne of glory, will yourselves sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
29 And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life.
30 But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.

 

[Bookcat]

We are called to share in his sacrifice. Don’t Kill, Love Your Neighbor, Get rid of your Possessions. Not the recipe for a global powerhouse.

Yes indeed. There are various counsels and commandments.

Same answer.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Yes indeed. There are various counsels and commandments.

Same answer.

John 15:13

12 This is my commandment: love one another as I love you.
13 No one has greater love than this,j to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

How are you going to lay down your life if you are fighting to preserve it?

N.B. This is a commandment.