What you’re referring to is more a socio-cultural… .
It would seem to me clearly an issue of justice. Parallels can be drawn from our democratic justice systems, which the Church at least has no major objection to it’s management and process, other than perhaps for capital punishment.
A live analogy can be taken from our cases that repeat themselves over again to our dismay. For instance a group of KKK may sign an oath to agree to the precepts of immorality and prejudice, and each member would like to see the death of certain peoples. On a hunting party, 3 out of 70 may actually carry out the deeds, but the satisfaction goes to all. In effect each has by contract bound himself to the acts of others and they by this are equally guilty. To our chagrin, we see the others well satisfied while their friends receive punishment. There is an intrinsic wrong to this method of justice.
A celestial court would see into this ruse, and a judge who finds nations who write prejudicial decrees would find all citizens accountable.
Why would it.? Because this issue is the same referred to in Sirach and Wisdom on advice on who to associate with. The only difference is scale. If an individual is a citizen of a nation who’s behavior is counter to the precepts of the Church,(that is reality, not a wishful desire) then we are to dis-
associate ourselves from it’s company. (examples: WW2 Germany). Carried further, by introducing precepts of the Church, then it is a sin not to.
Ironically the scale example works in reverse and has God’s sanction. Individuals can be found unjust by nations.
That being said, if you look at the occasions when God threatened collectivist punishment on a large group, such as Sodom and Gomorrah, the punishment could have been mitigated by the presence of innocent people within that group.
The entities who are subject to this justice are not of the same nature. The entity here receives exceptional justice due solely to his physical makeup. It has constituent parts capable of receiving culpability, even though the evils and good that it can perform are recognized has a collective effort, and accepted as a singular good/evil.
In an ideal justice the other entity should be capable of receiving the same process, if not, the favored should not have the advantage over the other in the judicial process. In my analogy, the KKK should only be recognized in it’s unital form for the
“benefit of the least advantaged”, (John Rawls - A Theory of Justice.)
In other words, if a human was described has an accountable collective of something which has physical components of individual consciences who can act independently of the collective self, then the two can be subjected to the same judicial process, all factors of the crime remaining equal of course. Not sure if I’m clear here.
in fact, it appears that the guilty might be kept from punishment for the sake of the innocent.
A democratic system, (which in review we know has sanction of the Church); a requirement of justice is that it’s working should also been seen has fair.
In consideration of the least advantaged then, an entity whose form is collective and seen has sinning in this form should receive unital punishment. Otherwise we have a repeat of our KKK case. Here we see justice take the back seat to squeamishness.
You also have to consider that God, being infinitely Just, does not do anything that is not also infinitely Just. Punishing the innocent, even an innocent person attached to an overwhelmingly sinful group, is not characteristic of infinite justice.
I’m referring to those individuals who know their nations/society/group/municipal are wrong and are comfortable with residing in this culpable …associate.
I cannot say I evidence this has true or false, but I agree it is Dogma. I can only say there is no real evidence that collectives meet the fate of their choice. The children at Lourdes only witnessed individuals in eternal punishment.
One of these days I’ll be able to write one liners to make my point, a gift it seems that some of you have mastered.
Andy
