Do real moral dilemmas exist?

[TK421]

@Pallas:

My view is reflected in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and by all of the Doctors of the Church in its history. That’s about as infallible as you can get as far as the internal structure of the Church is concerned. Of course, this is real life, and you’ll still find Catholics that will disagree with #2, because it can seem so deeply severe and even cruel. If it was a horse or dog, for example, there would be no question whatsoever to put it down. That would be utilitarian for the creature. The difference here - in Catholic theology - is in the unique responsibility placed on the shoulders of the human race.

I want you to understand the internal consistency of Catholic theology in coming to this conclusion. That’s about as good as you can get. Because of the law of non-contradiction, an orthodox Catholic and a secular person aren’t going to be able to ever agree on this. One has to be right and one has to be wrong (or both are wrong).

Also:

Sometimes life does not present a palatable option. But taking one’s own life is logically permitted, even if the theological arguments are against it. If those theological arguments could be substantiated, that would be a different ballgame. But there is no proof for them.

Logical in your opinion, but - never mind religion for a moment - many secular rulers and social workers in history would disagree with you, and not in the way you think. To them, taking your own life in some cases isn’t merely logically permitted, but logically demanded, such as in ancient Sparta and many other kingdoms, in Stalinist USSR or Maoist China, and perhaps in many future countries to come (Belgium in particular is currently in the spotlight for giving involuntary euthanasia or performing infanticide). The needs of the many come before the needs of the few. If your life is a utilitarian burden to other people, and you appear to have little or no value in keeping it anymore, then you may and must be euthanized.

In this scenario, if the man is doomed to a gruesome death being picked apart by rats, then why not just kill him anyway? Even if he does protest, who is to say that he can possibly be in his right mind? Who could possibly want to die that way as opposed to an easy bullet to the head? Maybe it would be humane to kill him despite the man’s confused judgement to want to remain alive.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

My view is reflected in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and by all of the Doctors of the Church in its history. That’s about as infallible as you can get as far as the internal structure of the Church is concerned. Of course, this is real life, and you’ll still find Catholics that will disagree with #2, because it can seem so deeply severe and even cruel.

Not just “seem” to be. Such treatment is incredibly cruel.

If it was a horse or dog, for example, there would be no question whatsoever to put it down. That would be utilitarian for the creature. The difference here - in Catholic theology - is in the unique responsibility placed on the shoulders of the human race.

Why does a human “deserve” less love and compassion than a dog? Is there a rational explanation for this? To say that he is a “human” is not sufficient.

The needs of the many come before the needs of the few. If your life is a utilitarian burden to other people, and you appear to have little or no value in keeping it anymore, then you may and must be euthanized.

I disagree with this approach on a simple ground. In my view there are no positive “rights”, There is only the negative right… the right to be left alone. Even if someone is in the need of some special treatment, that need does not translate into a right. According to the old and wise statement: “the lack of your foresight on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part”.

In this scenario, if the man is doomed to a gruesome death being picked apart by rats, then why not just kill him anyway? Even if he does protest, who is to say that he can possibly be in his right mind? Who could possibly want to die that way as opposed to an easy bullet to the head? Maybe it would be humane to kill him despite the man’s confused judgement to want to remain alive.

There is a rational ground for disagreement: the respect for the other person’s desire. There are some Catholics, mainly in the Philippines, who want to “emulate” Christ’s passion and wish to be hung from a cross (I am not sure about the nails) and I support their desire to do to it. If someone wishes to be devoured by rats… that is his own business. No skin off my nose. If he does NOT want that fate, and asks to be relived, than a decent human being should do his best to help. If the only way to help is a mercy killing, and that is what is requested, then comply.

 

[You]

Why hide behind nonsensical rats, enemies, epidemics, wizards, etc. Is it that we cannot see?
Just say to yourself and everyone that you want to kill a sick and suffering person.

 

[fred_conty]

Even tho #2 is correct morally, I wonder myself how many people would in fact follow that when they were faced with a real life situation. I believe most would opt for #1 and pray that God would have mercy on them. Further because of the nature of compassion in us all, the sin of murder might be reduced to venial because of the strong feelings of sympathy and our own identity with that person in this situation.

And even tho we are very logical people and moral as well, I believe passion would take over. I believe the person would say to themselves, “Lord forgive me for what I’m about to do even tho I don’t want to do this”.

Or another solution would be to leave the weapon with the person when leaving them.

I know it may look like a bowing out to what is convenient and not being a martyr for the faith which the early Christians were, who had to face much the same thing. And I would agree. But then there was no other Christian with a weapon standing in front of them as they were being consumed in flames. If there had been, I wonder … and maybe some would be that strong as they were crying. I believe our love for one another is not always strickly divine but mixed with the human as well. That is why God forgives us…for we don’t know what we do.

 

[seagal]

Even tho #2 is correct morally, I wonder myself how many people would in fact follow that when they were faced with a real life situation. I believe most would opt for #1 and pray that God would have mercy on them. Further because of the nature of compassion in us all, the sin of murder might be reduced to venial because of the strong feelings of sympathy and our own identity with that person in this situation.

And even tho we are very logical people and moral as well, I believe passion would take over. I believe the person would say to themselves, “Lord forgive me for what I’m about to do even tho I don’t want to do this”.

Or another solution would be to leave the weapon with the person when leaving them.

I know it may look like a bowing out to what is convenient and not being a martyr for the faith which the early Christians were, who had to face much the same thing. And I would agree. But then there was no other Christian with a weapon standing in front of them as they were being consumed in flames. If there had been, I wonder … and maybe some would be that strong as they were crying. I believe our love for one another is not always strickly divine but mixed with the human as well. That is why God forgives us…for we don’t know what we do.

Well said. It’s very easy to make a moral decision on paper, very hard to put into practise, even when they aren’t such extreme life or death situations.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Even tho #2 is correct morally, I wonder myself how many people would in fact follow that when they were faced with a real life situation.
I believe most would opt for #1 and pray that God would have mercy on them. Further because of the nature of compassion in us all, the sin of murder might be reduced to venial because of the strong feelings of sympathy and our own identity with that person in this situation.

Thank you. At last someone who would prefer to be compassionate.

And even tho we are very logical people and moral as well, I believe passion would take over. I believe the person would say to themselves, “Lord forgive me for what I’m about to do even tho I don’t want to do this”.

Of course you would not want to do it. I am sure you would give an arm and leg to find a better solution. And so would everyone else.

I know it may look like a bowing out to what is convenient and not being a martyr for the faith which the early Christians were, who had to face much the same thing.

That is not “bowing out”. That is allowing love and compassion guide you in a situation, where the “wrong” cards are dealt to you.

I am wondering, what kind of “ethical system” would allow one to be compassionate when a pet is dying in pain and refuse the same when a human being is the victim? It is certainly not motivated by love and compassion.

 

[You]

Thank you. At last someone who would prefer to be compassionate.

Of course you would not want to do it. I am sure you would give an arm and leg to find a better solution. And so would everyone else.

That is not “bowing out”. That is allowing love and compassion guide you in a situation, where the “wrong” cards are dealt to you.

I am wondering, what kind of “ethical system” would allow one to be compassionate when a pet is dying in pain and refuse the same when a human being is the victim? It is certainly not motivated by love and compassion.

If this were the case then the only time you could do that is when there were no options available. Which is never. There are always options in life. Even a hopeful but failed rescue is an option, one which happens every day.

In your example of the two men on a mission with a vaccine in reality there are so many options that the only difficulty is choosing the quickest one. What you really don’t want near you in that situation is someone so deranged that instead of pulling out their cell phone to call up assistance they will traumatise all the onlookers forever by trying to strangle a wounded man to death. It boggles the mind that you think its a good option.

 

[NovusFidem]

Why does a human “deserve” less love and compassion than a dog? Is there a rational explanation for this? To say that he is a “human” is not sufficient.

Remember: you are talking to Catholics, so expect answers grounded in Catholic teaching.

It was already explained to you, so let’s try again: we humans have **spiritual **souls. After death, our souls will live on based on its state (sin or grace) during life.

And, as was said in the the topic related to this one: you don’t know the state of the soul of that person, so killing her is NOT an act of love or compassion.

In short: humans and animals deserve love and compassion, but while it may be an act of compassion to kill a dying animal, it never is to kill a human.

 

[TK421]

“Act of compassion” here is the vain, petty, and selfish reduction of temporary pain at all costs, even if it it involves disgracing the person and denying them the critical prayer and reflection of their final moments before they enter eternity… the place that actually matters. It’s the grown-up version of a parent that ignores disciplining their child because they will be upset in the moment. Such parents are rightfully frowned upon for their neglect.

Death might be a solely terrible thing for some people (and for them, it is), but for a person that loves & fears God that looks beyond death, it can be the finest hour of love for a soul. God save us from escapists.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Remember: you are talking to Catholics, so expect answers grounded in Catholic teaching.

Fair enough.

It was already explained to you, so let’s try again: we humans have **spiritual **souls. After death, our souls will live on based on its state (sin or grace) during life.

And, as was said in the the topic related to this one: you don’t know the state of the soul of that person, so killing her is NOT an act of love or compassion.

But you can know it, under certain circumstances. If the person sincerely repents, and gets absolution, then he is without sin. To kill someone in this state would be an act of compassion.

In short: humans and animals deserve love and compassion, but while it may be an act of compassion to kill a dying animal, it never is to kill a human.

Never say never. If a newborn is baptized then his “soul” is “clean of the original sin, and he could not accumulate any mortal sins, being too young to be able to commit any sins”. In this case killing that newborn would ensure his ascendance to heaven. Of course the one who performed the killing is a different issue, but he is free to repent, confess and gets absolved of his “sin”. Maybe he suffers in the purgatory, but that is a temporary inconvenience. This is the case then both sides of the bread are “buttered”, or using a different phrase: “a win-win situation”.

So, you see, the catholic teaching does not provide a sufficient explanation.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

“Act of compassion” here is the vain, petty, and selfish reduction of temporary pain at all costs, even if it it involves disgracing the person and denying them the critical prayer and reflection of their final moments before they enter eternity… the place that actually matters.

If the dying person is a believer, he can perform the necessary prayers. If he is not, he does not care. He only would care about the relief that is brought on by death.

It’s the grown-up version of a parent that ignores disciplining their child because they will be upset in the moment. Such parents are rightfully frowned upon for their neglect.

That is nonsense. Dying is the ultimate indignity by being torn apart by rodents, and it cannot be compared to a disciplinary action of a parent.

Death might be a solely terrible thing for some people (and for them, it is), but for a person that loves & fears God that looks beyond death, it can be the finest hour of love for a soul. God save us from escapists.

Death, in and of itself is normal. The method of dying is NOT.

Of course, if the person in question asks to be left alone, so he can prepare his soul for the final meeting, his request should be honored. But that is not the case with non-Christians. For them to be left to die in the stipulated circumstances is cruel and evil.

To refuse the request of the dying person is NOT an act of love and compassion. And this is what your fellow apologists advocated (at least some of them). Let the poor guy die being torn apart by rats… we shall not have his blood on our hands. Is that what a loving, compassionate, selfless person should do?

 

[davidv]

If the dying person is a believer, he can perform the necessary prayers. If he is not, he does not care. He only would care about the relief that is brought on by death.

That is nonsense. Dying is the ultimate indignity by being torn apart by rodents, and it cannot be compared to a disciplinary action of a parent.

Death, in and of itself is normal. The method of dying is NOT.

Of course, if the person in question asks to be left alone, so he can prepare his soul for the final meeting, his request should be honored. But that is not the case with non-Christians. For them to be left to die in the stipulated circumstances is cruel and evil.

To refuse the request of the dying person is NOT an act of love and compassion. And this is what your fellow apologists advocated (at least some of them). Let the poor guy die being torn apart by rats… we shall not have his blood on our hands. Is that what a loving, compassionate, selfless person should do?

It is, if not doing so is a grave offense. Doing wrong for the purpose of a good intent is still wrong.

Honoring a request to sin is never an act of love nor compassion.

 

[NovusFidem]

But you can know it, under certain circumstances. If the person sincerely repents, and gets absolution, then he is without sin. To kill someone in this state would be an act of compassion.

Unless you are God, you can’t. We can’t even know for certain when someone is being honest with us, how would we be certain they are truly repentant?

Which leads to: a truly repentant person wouldn’t be asking for mercy kill. Why would you kill someone against their will? If I feel that I am ok with my state of being (rats and all), who are you to decide if I live or die?

Never say never. If a newborn is baptized then his “soul” is “clean of the original sin, and he could not accumulate any mortal sins, being too young to be able to commit any sins”. In this case killing that newborn would ensure his ascendance to heaven. Of course the one who performed the killing is a different issue, but he is free to repent, confess and gets absolved of his “sin”. Maybe he suffers in the purgatory, but that is a temporary inconvenience. This is the case then both sides of the bread are “buttered”, or using a different phrase: “a win-win situation”.

So, you see, the catholic teaching does not provide a sufficient explanation.

In this case, you are making light of the process of penance. You make it sound easy: “simply repent, confess, and all’s good”.

No Catholic with necessary understanding of the teachings of Christ would ever choose evil. I don’t look at porn thinking: “Oh, I can just go to Confession next Friday. No biggie!”; I don’t murder thinking: “Well, the Priest can’t refuse me absolution if I say I’m sorry”.

And you know why we don’t do it that way?

Because we don’t know the day of tomorrow. We can’t see 1 second into the future! Who knows if I’ll even find time to Confess? Worse, if I’ll even regret my decision?

What sort of “compassion” is this that, just to spare someone some temporal suffering, I am risking another soul’s eternal damnation? Does not compute!

Cathechism:

1500 - 1501 Illness and suffering have always been among the gravest problems confronted in human life. In illness, man experiences his powerlessness, his limitations, and his finitude. Every illness can make us glimpse death. Illness can lead to anguish, self-absorption, sometimes even despair and revolt against God.** It can also make a person more mature, helping him discern in his life what is not essential so that he can turn toward that which is. Very often illness provokes a search for God and a return to him.**20

The part I put in bold is what I mean. In the case of the suffering child, if you open your mind in understanding the situation, you’ll see the child is not the only one suffering: you are. The same “enlightenment” that comes to the person dying with the rats is what you will get from another’s suffering. So, the child is going to heaven. But if you kill her, it will be just like killing the other person: you are robbing someone else from contemplation, understanding, “insight”.

The only difference is that, this time, the person being denied a moment to understand God is you.

 

[NovusFidem]

That is nonsense. Dying is the ultimate indignity by being torn apart by rodents, and it cannot be compared to a disciplinary action of a parent.

And you are saying that to followers of “a guy” who was falsely accused of a crime, beaten, mocked, spat at, who was stripped, crowned with thorns, and had to carry the very Object that would be used in His torture - with people sneering the whole way -, was nailed to said object to the cheers of the public, left to rot under the sun without water (truly a slow death), in front of His own Mother and disciples (abandoned by some, who didn’t want to see their so called God in such a situation), to finally die by His Father’s Will.

Talk about indignity.

 

[TK421]

Never say never. If a newborn is baptized then his “soul” is “clean of the original sin, and he could not accumulate any mortal sins, being too young to be able to commit any sins”. In this case killing that newborn would ensure his ascendance to heaven. Of course the one who performed the killing is a different issue, but he is free to repent, confess and gets absolved of his “sin”. Maybe he suffers in the purgatory, but that is a temporary inconvenience. This is the case then both sides of the bread are “buttered”, or using a different phrase: “a win-win situation”.

So, you see, the catholic teaching does not provide a sufficient explanation.

It is not official teaching that a freshly baptized person is infallibly guaranteed Heaven; that is an assumption (and again, an often believed one because it is comfortable to believe it). The disposition/intent of the person is understood by God and judged by that intent accordingly, not strictly according to their present circumstances (otherwise, baptism by desire, or the desire to confess a sin, would both mean nothing to God, when in fact they mean everything. Intent may work the same way towards damning somebody as it may towards saving somebody.)

Infants (or unborn infants) are no different from any other human being, except that their decision needs to be induced by God through extraordinary means, since their consciences and minds were never given time to form.

There is no such thing as a magical shortcut to eternal Beatitude, or a magical pitfall to damnation, except in certain people’s imaginations.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Unless you are God, you can’t. We can’t even know for certain when someone is being honest with us, how would we be certain they are truly repentant?

Oh, please. You have a Catholic about to die a slow and horrible death. He proclaims that he repented all his sins. Why would you doubt him? When someone goes to a confession and declares that he repented, the priest will accept his word. Who are you to doubt it?

The point is that to kill someone who has confessed, and as such is sinless will certainly allow that person to get to heaven. Also the freshly baptized newborn, who could not commit any sins. All of these WILL go to heaven. If you kill them, you can jeopardize your OWN salvation… but THEIR salvation is assured. And that is what a loving, caring person SHOULD do. This is the official, Catholic teaching.

Which leads to: a truly repentant person wouldn’t be asking for mercy kill.

Don’t try to speak for others. You cannot judge their resilience in the face of utter pain and fear.

In this case, you are making light of the process of penance. You make it sound easy: “simply repent, confess, and all’s good”.

No Catholic with necessary understanding of the teachings of Christ would ever choose evil.

And yet, you are all “sinners”, by choosing something “evil”. According to the apologists, we are all “sinners” only deserving eternal torture in hell. You keep committing all sorts of mortal and venial sins, then go an confess them… and committing some more. The trick is: “sin, confess, repent, get absolved… then rinse and repeat”. the only necessary part is that you should honestly confess and repent. But then we are all “weak” in the flesh, we keep committing the same or other sins… rinse and repeat.

What sort of “compassion” is this that, just to spare someone some temporal suffering, I am risking another soul’s eternal damnation? Does not compute!

“Some” temporal suffering, say you? I can tell you that under sufficient torture you will admit and confess anything and everything. Those poor “witches” admitted consorting with the devil, admitted that the devil took tem both from the front and the rear (owing to his forked “organ”) they admitted that the devil’s semen was cold… etc. And you dare to talk about “some” temporal suffering? I hope that you will never be exposed to the suffering you simply declared “some temporal” suffering. No one deserves what a cruel and sophisticated torturer can inflict on them… “some temporal suffering”, indeed.

And you are saying that to followers of “a guy” who was falsely accused of a crime, beaten, mocked, spat at, who was stripped, crowned with thorns, and had to carry the very Object that would be used in His torture - with people sneering the whole way -, was nailed to said object to the cheers of the public, left to rot under the sun without water (truly a slow death), in front of His own Mother and disciples (abandoned by some, who didn’t want to see their so called God in such a situation), to finally die by His Father’s Will.

Talk about indignity.

One horrible thing will not excuse another one. And if that was his father’s will, then blame the father… Don’t shoot the messenger.

 

[TK421]

If the dying person is a believer, he can perform the necessary prayers. If he is not, he does not care. He only would care about the relief that is brought on by death.

But, precisely because death forces a person to critically think over their life, we don’t know if that person will feel that way until the very end.

That is nonsense. Dying is the ultimate indignity by being torn apart by rodents, and it cannot be compared to a disciplinary action of a parent.

A person dying isn’t being disciplined. I used the analogy because of how both of them involve accepting discomfort in the present in order to help achieve an end.

To refuse the request of the dying person is NOT an act of love and compassion. And this is what your fellow apologists advocated (at least some of them). Let the poor guy die being torn apart by rats… we shall not have his blood on our hands. Is that what a loving, compassionate, selfless person should do?

Assisting a person in the eternal injury of their immortal soul is not compassionate or selfless.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It is not official teaching that a freshly baptized person is infallibly guaranteed Heaven; that is an assumption (and again, an often believed one because it is comfortable to believe it). The disposition/intent of the person is understood by God and judged by that intent accordingly, not strictly according to their present circumstances (otherwise, baptism by desire, or the desire to confess a sin, would both mean nothing to God, when in fact they mean everything. Intent may work the same way towards damning somebody as it may towards saving somebody.)

Infants (or unborn infants) are no different from any other human being, except that their decision needs to be induced by God through extraordinary means, since their consciences and minds were never given time to form.

There is no such thing as a magical shortcut to eternal Beatitude, or a magical pitfall to damnation, except in certain people’s imaginations.

So not even baptism will save a newborn from hell? That is new to me. His fate is decided on what he would do if he had the opportunity to grow up and become a moral agent? I seriously doubt it. But if you are an official theological writ, with the “nihil obstat” imprimatur attached to it… then you can be taken seriously. Otherwise you just blow hot air.

But, precisely because death forces a person to critically think over their life, we don’t know if that person will feel that way until the very end.

If you don’t know it, you should trust him.

Assisting a person in the eternal injury of their immortal soul is not compassionate or selfless.

It is YOUR “soul” that is in jeopardy, not his. He confessed, repented and awaits the release from this “vale of tears”.

 

[TK421]

So not even baptism will save a newborn from hell? That is new to me. His fate is decided on what he would do if he had the opportunity to grow up and become a moral agent? I seriously doubt it. But if you are an official theological writ, with the “nihil obstat” imprimatur attached to it… then you can be taken seriously. Otherwise you just blow hot air.

There is no absolute teaching on this: this is something that is open to theological debate. In the general sense, we may “hope” for the salvation of infants.

But yes, you described my view better than I described it myself: his fate is decided on what he would do if he had the opportunity to grow up and become a moral agent. This is the only solution that makes sense to me. The other explanations posed by some Catholics seem completely absurd to me.

It is YOUR “soul” that is in jeopardy, not his. He confessed, repented and awaits the release from this “vale of tears”.

We don’t know what state his soul is in.

It is also severely problematic to deliberately commit a grave sin, then to immediately go back and (on the surface) confess & repent of it, with that idea already in mind before you even did the deed. Contrition, and a valid Confession, requires the acknowledgement of the sin and the sincere desire to sin no more, preferably out of love for God, but also out of fear of the lose of Heaven and for the pains of hell.

 

[NovusFidem]

Oh, please. You have a Catholic about to die a slow and horrible death. He proclaims that he repented all his sins. Why would you doubt him? When someone goes to a confession and declares that he repented, the priest will accept his word. Who are you to doubt it?

A normal person who is aware that no one is perfect. I don’t doubt him, I just avoid making a choice (killing him) out of fear of being wrong.

The point is that to kill someone who has confessed, and as such is sinless will certainly allow that person to get to heaven.

God, is that you speaking to me?

I think not. We have limited understanding of this world. Even with the Holy Spirit guiding the Church, new understandings are reached all the time. It’s a process.

Also the freshly baptized newborn, who could not commit any sins. All of these WILL go to heaven. If you kill them, you can jeopardize your OWN salvation… but THEIR salvation is assured. (their salvation is guaranteed even if they suffer until natural death; MY salvation, however, would be jeopardized) And that is what a loving, caring person SHOULD do. This is the official, Catholic teaching. (no, it is not)

Don’t try to speak for others. You cannot judge their resilience in the face of utter pain and fear.

Right back at ya. Don’t speak for others’ salvation, as you cannot judge the veracity of their repentance.

Also, I was not speaking for others. Say, if you suddenly realize you did a bad thing, a really really bad thing with terrible consequences, what would you do?

Answer: you’d do everything in your hands in reparation for the wrong you caused.

From a Catholic site (better words than mine):

Determination to avoid both sin and its occasions, in other words, firm purpose of amendment, is the crucial test of the reality of contrition. He who is determined to do his best to avoid sin, undoubtedly has true repentance, even though he feels spiritually dry as a desert and in devout as an iceberg.

“He who is determined to do his best to avoid sin, undoubtedly has true repentance”

So I ask you: why would someone who **truly **repented wish to sin in another way, by requesting their own death?

You keep committing all sorts of mortal and venial sins, then go an confess them… and committing some more. The trick is: “sin, confess, repent, get absolved… then rinse and repeat”. the only necessary part is that you should honestly confess and repent. But then we are all “weak” in the flesh, we keep committing the same or other sins… rinse and repeat.

We are deviating a bit of the topic already, but anyway…

You know that time just after confession and just before sinning again (it’s a very short time with me)? That time where you live the life of a Saint, do good to others and grow spiritually? That time where you don’t start fights with your family, do not use bad words, do not think evil of others?

THAT time existed. I repent because my sin brought an end to that time.

“Some” temporal suffering, say you? I can tell you that under sufficient torture you will admit and confess anything and everything. (didn’t you just say something about speaking for others? There’s a lot of assuming in this quote only)

“The sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, that shall be revealed in us.” [Rom, 8:18]

The Glory is such as to make the sacrifice worth it.

And you dare to talk about “some” temporal suffering? I hope that you will never be exposed to the suffering you simply declared “some temporal” suffering. No one deserves what a cruel and sophisticated torturer can inflict on them… “some temporal suffering”, indeed.

Thank you for the hopes.

We do not wish harm on others. I do not wish suffering on anyone. However, whenever suffering strikes, I can only thank God for the opportunity to grow.

You can take suffering as meaningless, and you’ll only suffer more because of that. You’ll complain, you’ll revolt, you’ll get depressed.

This world wants to corrupt us. To take action like you propose is a show of how the world works. Our world is like that Saw movie: it gives us terrible situations and “forces” us to make terrible decisions; yet, you still have the choice to fight back and choose neither of the options.

Jesus wants us to endure. To not be changed by the world. To not become jaded. There will be hardships, but He wants us to get stronger, not weaker.

St. Philip Neri said that “in this world there is no Purgatory; it is either all Paradise or all Hell: he that patiently supports tribulations enjoys a Paradise; he that does not do so, suffers a Hell”.

Again, thank you. I, in turn, hope that like St. Teresa Ávilla, you will find healing in suffering. As she said, and I quote: “I have reached the point of not being able to suffer any more, because all suffering is sweet to me.”

Our Lord said to St. Teresa: “Think you, my child, that merit consists in enjoyment? No, it consists in suffering and in loving. Look at My life, wholly embittered with afflictions. Be assured, my child, that the more My Father loves any one, the more sufferings He sends him; they are the standard of his love. Look at My wounds; your torments will never reach so far. It is absurd to suppose that My Father favors with His friendship those who are strangers to suffering.”

To which St. Teresa makes this remark: “God never sends a trial, but he forthwith rewards it with some favor.”