Catholic definition of "murder"?

[Spock]

I wonder what is the Catholic definition of “murder”? In real life murder is “the unlawful, premeditated taking of a human life”. The Catholic definition must be different, judging by the plethora of threads which declare abortions or physician assisted suicides “murders”. In those countries where these practices are legal, they cannot be considered “murders” by any stretch of the imagination, unless there is a special, Catholic definition of “murder” that I am not familiar with.

 

[LilyM]

‘Unlawful’ of course means contrary to any law - the moral law as well as the civil law.

Plenty of people who aren’t religious and aren’t Catholic may think, for example, that physician-assisted suicide is morally wrong, and so would call it ‘murder’ along with us.

 

[Spock]

‘Unlawful’ of course means contrary to any law - the moral law as well as the civil law.

Is there a codified list of this “moral law”? And the authority that enforces it? There is only one law, the set of rules codified in the legal system. As the old saying goes: “Nullum crimen sine lege”. So to extend it into some nebulous “moral” law is just an exercise in rhetorics, to demonize those who do not agree with you.

Plenty of people who aren’t religious and aren’t Catholic may think, for example, that physician-assisted suicide is morally wrong, and so would call it ‘murder’ along with us.

Yes, it is possible. So what? Just like there are Catholics who do not agree with the banning of artificial birth control.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Is there a codified list of this “moral law”? And the authority that enforces it? There is only one law, the set of rules codified in the legal system. As the old saying goes: “Nullum crimen sine lege”. So to extend it into some nebulous “moral” law is just an exercise in rhetorics, to demonize those who do not agree with you.

Spock, you’re a bright guy, you can’t be arguing the the laws imposed by a government are the final word on whether something is moral or not. If you lived in 1940’s Germany would you feel morally justified in breaking the “law” requiring you to report any Jews you knew to be in hiding?

 

[LilyM]

Is there a codified list of this “moral law”? And the authority that enforces it? There is only one law, the set of rules codified in the legal system. As the old saying goes: “Nullum crimen sine lege”. So to extend it into some nebulous “moral” law is just an exercise in rhetorics, to demonize those who do not agree with you.

Your definition of law needs working on.

Where are Newton’s rules of physics codified in this legal system? Are they not also rightly called laws? Law comes from many other sources than the codes used by secular governments, my friend. Nor necessarily, as with the laws of physics, does there need to be an ‘authority that enforces’ something for it to be law.

Besides which, where on earth do you think the legal code comes from in the first place? In a democracy, it comes from community (majority) consensus about what people agree is or is not wrong. Usually based on some moral principle.

That’s why in most countries physician assisted suicide is in fact contrary to the criminal code - Dr Kevorkian’s case amply proves that there is both ‘crimen’ and ‘lege’ in regards physician assisted suicide. The reason for the existence of the ‘lege’ and the ‘crimen’, of course, is that the majority of people execrate the behaviour.

Why then cannot something that a large number of people consider, for whatever reason, to be immoral, be described as a ‘moral law’? Doesn’t mean it is binding on everyone, any more than the criminal law of one country is binding on those who live in another.

After all, there is no criminal law against adultery, but most people agree it is morally wrong to break one’s marital vows. In fact within living memory this moral disapproval of adultery had legal ramifications - if proven adultery was grounds for divorce.

Yes, it is possible. So what? Just like there are Catholics who do not agree with the banning of artificial birth control.

ABC isn’t an issue in the definition of murder - no-one is killed by it for one thing. And yes, it is considered by a percentage (though not all) to be contrary to the moral law. You don’t make any relevant point with this comment though.

 

[Skeptic92]

I wonder what is the Catholic definition of “murder”? In real life murder is “the unlawful, premeditated taking of a human life”. The Catholic definition must be different, judging by the plethora of threads which declare abortions or physician assisted suicides “murders”. In those countries where these practices are legal, they cannot be considered “murders” by any stretch of the imagination, unless there is a special, Catholic definition of “murder” that I am not familiar with.

Your definition of murder is not the legal one, murder doesnt have to be premeditated, aslong as the intent was to kill it’s murder, no previous premeditation is neccessary (think 2nd degree murder in the States legal system, premeditated murder is homicide in the 1st degree).

Murder is the willful killing of another human being, the Jews killed in the Holocaust was completely legal by Nazi Germanys legal system, however would you deny that what happend in the Holocaust was murder ? The same applies to Abortion and Euthanasia, it willingly kills another human being, therefore its homicide, as Mens rea (the mental element) was to kill, and the Actus Rea (the actual act) killed, therefore both Mens rea and Actus rea was fulfilled in regards to homicide, whether or not it was legal or not, it’s homicide as there was full intent to kill, and the actual act was carried out.

 

[Spock]

Spock, you’re a bright guy, you can’t be arguing the the laws imposed by a government are the final word on whether something is moral or not. If you lived in 1940’s Germany would you feel morally justified in breaking the “law” requiring you to report any Jews you knew to be in hiding?

I most certainly agree that legality and morality are two separate issues. If you want to argue that it would be better if there would be no abortions at all, I will stand by your side and support this opinion. My reasons would be different from yours, but the final result would be the same.

However, in this thread I am saying is that “murder” is a legal term, and abortion is legal in many countries, therefore abortions are not “murders” in those places.

 

[Spock]

Your definition of law needs working on.

Where are Newton’s rules of physics codified in this legal system? Are they not also rightly called laws? Law comes from many other sources than the codes used by secular governments, my friend. Nor necessarily, as with the laws of physics, does there need to be an ‘authority that enforces’ something for it to be law.

Oh, brother!

 

[Spock]

Your definition of murder is not the legal one, murder doesnt have to be premeditated, aslong as the intent was to kill it’s murder, no previous premeditation is neccessary (think 2nd degree murder in the States legal system, premeditated murder is homicide in the 1st degree).

Murder is the willful killing of another human being, the Jews killed in the Holocaust was completely legal by Nazi Germanys legal system, however would you deny that what happend in the Holocaust was murder ? The same applies to Abortion and Euthanasia, it willingly kills another human being, therefore its homicide, as Mens rea (the mental element) was to kill, and the Actus Rea (the actual act) killed, therefore both Mens rea and Actus rea was fulfilled in regards to homicide, whether or not it was legal or not, it’s homicide as there was full intent to kill, and the actual act was carried out.

Homicide <> murder.

 

[LilyM]

I most certainly agree that legality and morality are two separate issues. If you want to argue that it would be better if there would be no abortions at all, I will stand by your side and support this opinion. My reasons would be different from yours, but the final result would be the same.

However, in this thread I am saying is that “murder” is a legal term, and abortion is legal in many countries, therefore abortions are not “murders” in those places.

Murder isn’t exclusively a CIVIL legal term though.

Ancient Israel had no civil authority for some time, only religious authorities such as Moses. And yet Moses managed to give the people of Israel something that can justifiably be called a legal code (although one based on Judaic morality rather than a purely civil code). More importantly, one of the commandments of that moral code is best translated as ‘thou shalt not murder’ (not kill, kill is too loose a translation).

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

I most certainly agree that legality and morality are two separate issues. If you want to argue that it would be better if there would be no abortions at all, I will stand by your side and support this opinion. My reasons would be different from yours, but the final result would be the same.

However, in this thread I am saying is that “murder” is a legal term, and abortion is legal in many countries, therefore abortions are not “murders” in those places.

Well I suppose you can “win” any debate if you get to define what words mean. Of course you’ve only cherry-picked one brief definition statement of murder, you could also use “to slaughter wantonly”, “to slay”, “kill intentionally and with premeditation”, “To kill brutally or inhumanly”. But if you use any of those definitions (all from dictionaries) your strawman argument falls apart.

 

[fhansen]

I wonder what is the Catholic definition of “murder”? In real life murder is “the unlawful, premeditated taking of a human life”. The Catholic definition must be different, judging by the plethora of threads which declare abortions or physician assisted suicides “murders”. In those countries where these practices are legal, they cannot be considered “murders” by any stretch of the imagination, unless there is a special, Catholic definition of “murder” that I am not familiar with.

Well, what we’re really talking about here is morality, isn’t it? “Real life” definitions of laws don’t make an action immoral-just punishable- by appointed authority. One could just as easily assert that no actions are intrinsically immoral, whether or not laws have been enacted against them. Or that abortion is always immoral, whether or not laws have been enacted against it. The taking of a life is intrinsically evil in and of itself.

 

[Spock]

Well, what we’re really talking about here is morality, isn’t it?

No, I do not. I am simply asking how do Catholics define the term “murder”.

 

[Spock]

Well I suppose you can “win” any debate if you get to define what words mean.

I am not interested in “winning” anything. And this thread is not a “debate”, it was just a question. There are lots of words which are defined differently in real life and in Catholic circles. For example in real life no one would call a guy “loving”, if that person would allow and/or commit all the atrocities described the OT. It sounds like a good idea to understand each other’s vocabulary.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

I am not interested in “winning” anything. And this thread is not a “debate”, it was just a question. There are lots of words which are defined differently in real life and in Catholic circles. For example in real life no one would call a guy “loving”, if that person would allow and/or commit all the atrocities described the OT. It sounds like a good idea to understand each other’s vocabulary.

Why didn’t you quote or remark on the rest of my post?

 

[fhansen]

No, I do not. I am simply asking how do Catholics define the term “murder”.

**2258 "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."56

2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous."61 The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.

2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful.

**

 

[Spock]

2258 "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."56

2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous."61 The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.

2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful.

Thanks, your comment is appreciated. The trouble is that the “thou shalt not kill” and the “thou shalt not murder” are not the same, and “murder” is still undefined. It cannot do anything with the “innocent and the righteous”, since there are no innocents, and there are no righteous ones. Everyone deserves the most horrific tortures in hell, no exceptions! So what is a little premature termination of this vale of tears?

It also shows the near impossibility of conducting a mutually acceptable conversation, because the definitions are incompatible.

 

[Pieman333272]

Thanks, your comment is appreciated. The trouble is that the “thou shalt not kill” and the “thou shalt not murder” are not the same, and “murder” is still undefined. It cannot do anything with the “innocent and the righteous”, since there are no innocents, and there are no righteous ones. Everyone deserves the most horrific tortures in hell, no exceptions! So what is a little premature termination of this vale of tears?

It also shows the near impossibility of conducting a mutually acceptable conversation, because the definitions are incompatible.

In this case, “innocent and righteous” means people who aren’t being killed out of protection for someone else (or yourself), as in they are attacking you (self defense) or went on a killing spree and need to be stopped (death penalty, but this one is very heavily debated).

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Since he appear to be ignoring my point that this entire thread is a Strawman (not to mention he keeps moving the goal posts) I go back to the O.P.

I wonder what is the Catholic definition of “murder”? In real life murder is “the unlawful, premeditated taking of a human life”. The Catholic definition must be different, judging by the plethora of threads which declare abortions or physician assisted suicides “murders”. In those countries where these practices are legal, they cannot be considered “murders” by any stretch of the imagination, unless there is a special, Catholic definition of “murder” that I am not familiar with.

and my reponse;

Of course you’ve only cherry-picked one brief definition statement of murder, you could also use “to slaughter wantonly”, “to slay”, “kill intentionally and with premeditation”, “To kill brutally or inhumanly”. But if you use any of those definitions (all from dictionaries) your strawman argument falls apart.

 

[JDaniel]

I wonder what is the Catholic definition of “murder”? In real life murder is “the unlawful, premeditated taking of a human life”. The Catholic definition must be different, judging by the plethora of threads which declare abortions or physician assisted suicides “murders”. In those countries where these practices are legal, they cannot be considered “murders” by any stretch of the imagination, unless there is a special, Catholic definition of “murder” that I am not familiar with.

Spock:

I think it could be easily defined as: the unjust killing of someone. See the Oxford Dictionary origin:

murder:
verb
[with object]
kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation:

In the era of codified laws, enacted by various legislatures around the world, the word “killing” can refer to many objects, other than just humans. So, it was replaced in our legal systems with murder for clarity’s sake.

God bless,
jd