Catholic Assassins

[Guardian]

Is it possible for a person to be a devout and obedient Catholic and be a government assassin by profession?

Thanks.

 

[LilyM]

Assassin? As in paid to kill other than in a self-defence or national defence (military) context? No.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No.

All the prayers, all the postures, all the adherence to everything in the Catholic faith except the one thing the profession demands. . .whether it is killing, fornication/adultery, arson, theft, etc. still won’t make that person "a good and faithful Catholic’. We don’t profess our Catholic faith by how much we do X, Y and Z and ignore that we routinely do not do A, by saying X, Y and Z cancel A out. . .

If I were you, Guardian, I’d submit my resume elsewhere. . .

 

[The_Chicken]

that is exactly why i don’t understand the crusades…could someone explain it to me?

 

[LilyM]

that is exactly why i don’t understand the crusades…could someone explain it to me?

The crusades were at least partially defensive. Christian people in the Holy Land were being harrassed and attacked by Muslims, and were prevented from living peacefully in the Holy Land or safely getting to the Christian holy places (the Holy Sepulchre and so on) that they wanted to visit.

 

[Guardian]

Assassin? As in paid to kill other than in a self-defence or national defence (military) context? No.

Well, I would say that a government assassin is a national defense/military context. Except instead of the government paying you to be a soldier in a platoon to shoot other people, the government is paying you to be an assassin to shoot other people.

Is there a difference? I am thinking not, except perhaps in uniform.

 

[The_Chicken]

The crusades were at least partially defensive. Christian people in the Holy Land were being harrassed and attacked by Muslims, and were prevented from living peacefully in the Holy Land or safely getting to the Christian holy places (the Holy Sepulchre and so on) that they wanted to visit.

still, they killed…and that is the basic question of the thread…i still don’t get it.

 

[LilyM]

Well, I would say that a government assassin is a national defense/military context. Except instead of the government paying you to be a soldier in a platoon to shoot other people, the government is paying you to be an assassin to shoot other people.

Is there a difference? I am thinking not, except perhaps in uniform.

If you’re in uniform shooting at other people who are also a) in uniform, b) trained as soldiers and c) shooting right back at you it’s entirely different to, say, going undercover disguised as a cleaner into Hitler’s office to shoot him there - probably in the back when he’s unarmed and not expecting anything. There’s no direct or obvious necessity requiring you to do the second thing.

 

[Guardian]

If you’re in uniform shooting at other people who are also a) in uniform and b) shooting right back at you it’s entirely different to, say, going undercover disguised as a cleaner into Hitler’s office to shoot him there. There’s no direct or obvious necessity requiring you to do so.

So all soldiers in Iraq are committing sins because the people they are shooting at are not in uniform?

As far as being a soldier for a government and being an assassin for a government, I see no difference. What clothes you wear on your body to distinguish what you are really makes no difference as to whether the action is right or wrong.

 

[LilyM]

still, they killed…and that is the basic question of the thread…i still don’t get it.

They didn’t begin it, for starters, and it was their own fellow-citizens (Christian pilgrims and settlers from the same countries in Europe as the crusading soldiers) who were the ones being attacked.

Kinda like American soldiers going in to rescue Americans taken hostage in Iran or some such.

If your family lived even on the other side of the world you’d go over to defend them if they needed it and were being attacked, no?

 

[LilyM]

So all soldiers in Iraq are committing sins because the people they are shooting at are not in uniform?

As far as being a soldier for a government and being an assassin for a government, I see no difference. What clothes you wear on your body to distinguish what you are really makes no difference as to whether the action is right or wrong.

I’m not saying that you can only shoot uniformed personnel - of course you can kill anyone who threatens your safety - but it has to be a more direct threat than most assassins would be dealing with. In many cases there’s no threat at all to the assassin - the victim is unarmed, unaware of their existence and has no antipathy for them even.

 

[Guardian]

If you’re in uniform shooting at other people who are also a) in uniform, b) trained as soldiers and c) shooting right back at you it’s entirely different to, say, going undercover disguised as a cleaner into Hitler’s office to shoot him there - probably in the back when he’s unarmed and not expecting anything. There’s no direct or obvious necessity requiring you to do the second thing.

I also find it faulty for there to be considered an immediate threat to life versus an eminent threat to life.

So, you’re suggesting that, in your hypothetical situation, the person should not kill Hitler until he a.) puts on his uniform, b.) gets his gun and then c.) starts shooting at you? Kill him now when there’s less likely a chance to be killed, or kill him when he’s about to kill you? Seems silly.

 

[Greg27]

This comes back to just war theory. I think St Augustine and St Thomas argued it was acceptable to kill in a just war, a view the CC still maintains. But the CC doesn’t endorse or encourage aggressive war for its own sake, and condemns killing of civilians and non-combatents as a grave evil. If the Catholic was a sniper in the police or military, then if he had to kill someone for defence of his nation, its citizens, or soldiers, then that is just, but if he worked for the CIA or another secret service organisation and assassinated people or encouraged it, we are on murkier ground, and if he killed civilians or non-combatants deliberately and unjustly past the laws of war then that is a grave sin.

 

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

This comes back to just war theory. I think St Augustine and St Thomas argued it was acceptable to kill in a just war, a view the CC still maintains. But the CC doesn’t endorse or encourage aggressive war for its own sake, and condemns killing of civilians and non-combatents as a grave evil. If the Catholic was a sniper in the police or military, then if he had to kill someone for defence of his nation, its citizens, or soldiers, then that is just, but if he worked for the CIA or another secret service organisation and assassinated people or encouraged it, we are on murkier ground, and if he killed civilians or non-combatants deliberately and unjustly past the laws of war then that is a grave sin.

so theoretically, if you could choose your assignment, it might be possible, since the government does not–in theory–just indiscriminately waste their resources going after anyone who is not a threat and who has not already proved deadly and dangerous.
Ravyn

 

[thistle]

still, they killed…and that is the basic question of the thread…i still don’t get it.

Unlawful killing is a sin.
Killing in self defence, protection of your family and fighting for your country is not a sin.

 

[LilyM]

I also find it faulty for there to be considered an immediate threat to life versus an eminent threat to life.

So, you’re suggesting that, in your hypothetical situation, the person should not kill Hitler until he a.) puts on his uniform, b.) gets his gun and then c.) starts shooting at you? Kill him now when there’s less likely a chance to be killed, or kill him when he’s about to kill you? Seems silly.

You appear to ignore the fact that there’s less likely of a chance for you to be killed in your scenario PRECISELY because he’s posing no direct threat to you. If he’s not posing some sort of fairly immediate threat then what right do you have to kill him?

 

[outfctrl]

You appear to ignore the fact that there’s less likely of a chance for you to be killed in your scenario PRECISELY because he’s posing no direct threat to you. If he’s not posing some sort of fairly immediate threat then what right do you have to kill him?

Maybe not directly at you, but he could be posing a threat to others. So if you are directed to kill him, you could be saving other lives. How does that fit into the equation?

 

[LilyM]

Maybe not directly at you, but he could be posing a threat to others. So if you are directed to kill him, you could be saving other lives. How does that fit into the equation?

Case-by-case really

But unless you can prove a very strong need to kill by virtue either of self-defence, protection of family/loved ones/the community or military necessity you wouldn’t have too much ground to stand on morally. Remember life, even the life of dangerous people, belongs to God alone so we need to think long and hard before taking it.

 

[outfctrl]

Well, how does Attacking Iraq fit in? Going after that monster Sadaam and all the people that died going after him?
I supported Bush in his decision, 100%.
Would this be the same?
I guess your right. Case-by-case.

It is down right confusing at times.

 

[TOP]

If you had a choice, would you be a ninja or a pirate? Pirates rule, arrggg.