Herem

[clem456]

Addressed in specificity by Pope Benedict in Verbum Domini
w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html

The “dark” passages of the Bible

1. In discussing the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments, the Synod also considered those passages in the Bible which, due to the violence and immorality they occasionally contain, prove obscure and difficult. Here it must be remembered first and foremost that biblical revelation is deeply rooted in history. God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance. God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them. Revelation is suited to the cultural and moral level of distant times and thus describes facts and customs, such as cheating and trickery, and acts of violence and massacre, without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things. This can be explained by the historical context, yet it can cause the modern reader to be taken aback, especially if he or she fails to take account of the many “dark” deeds carried out down the centuries, and also in our own day. In the Old Testament, the preaching of the prophets vigorously challenged every kind of injustice and violence, whether collective or individual, and thus became God’s way of training his people in preparation for the Gospel. So it would be a mistake to neglect those passages of Scripture that strike us as problematic. Rather, we should be aware that **the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context and within the Christian perspective which has as its ultimate hermeneutical key “the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery”.**140] I encourage scholars and pastors to help all the faithful to approach these passages through an interpretation which enables their meaning to emerge in the light of the mystery of Christ.

The fundamentalist interpretation of sacred Scripture

1. The attention we have been paying to different aspects of the theme of biblical hermeneutics now enables us to consider a subject which came up a number of times during the Synod: that of the fundamentalist interpretation of sacred Scripture.[145] The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, has laid down some important guidelines. Here I would like especially to deal with approaches which fail to respect the authenticity of the sacred text, but promote subjective and arbitrary interpretations. The “literalism” championed by the fundamentalist approach actually represents a betrayal of both the literal and the spiritual sense, and opens the way to various forms of manipulation, as, for example, by disseminating anti-ecclesial interpretations of the Scriptures. “The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human … for this reason,** it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods”.**146] Christianity, on the other hand, perceives in the words the Word himself, the Logos who displays his mystery through this complexity and the reality of human history.[147] The true response to a fundamentalist approach is “the faith-filled interpretation of sacred Scripture”. This manner of interpretation, “practised from antiquity within the Church’s Tradition, seeks saving truth for the life of the individual Christian and for the Church. It recognizes the historical value of the biblical tradition. Precisely because of the tradition’s value as an historical witness, this reading seeks to discover the living meaning of the sacred Scriptures for the lives of believers today”,[148] while not ignoring the **human mediation **of the inspired text and its literary genres.

 

[clem456]

A talk by Fr Robert Barron specifically addressing this issue through the eyes of Origen, who is an early Church father. (So we can know that this is not a “modern” way of reading scripture.)

Father Barron currently serves as the Rector/President of Mundelein Seminary University of St. Mary of the Lake. He was appointed to the theological faculty of Mundelein Seminary in 1992, and has also served as a visiting professor at the University of Notre Dame and at the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas. He was twice scholar in residence at the Pontifical North American College at the Vatican.

wordonfire.org/resources/homily/the-struggle-with-amalek/770/

Should be noted, fundamentalist scripture reading separated from the mind of the Church is a relatively modern phenomenon.

 

[clem456]

archive.salvationhistory.com/library/scripture/churchandbible/pastoral/pope93.cfm2.htm

A false idea of God and the incarnation presses a certain number of Christians to take the opposite approach. They tend to believe that, since God is the absolute Being, each of his words has an absolute value, independent of all the conditions of human language. Thus, according to them, there is no room for studying these conditions in order to make distinctions that would relativize the significance of the words. However, that is where the illusion occurs and the mysteries of scriptural inspiration and the incarnation are really rejected, by clinging to a false notion of the Absolute.

The God of the Bible is not an absolute Being who, crushing everything he touches, would suppress all differences and all nuances. On the contrary, he is God the Creator, who created the astonishing variety of beings “each according to its kind,” as the Genesis account says repeatedly (see Genesis 1). Far from destroying differences, God respects them and makes use of them (See 1 Corinthians 12:18, 24, 28). Although he expresses himself in human language, he does not give each expression a uniform value, but uses its possible nuances with extreme flexibility and likewise accepts its limitations.

That is what makes the task of exegetes so complex, so necessary and so fascinating! None of the human aspects of language can be neglected. The recent progress in linguistic, literary and hermeneutical research have led biblical exegesis to add many other points of view (rhetorical, narrative, structuralist) to the study of literary genres; other human sciences, such as psychology and sociology, have likewise been employed.

 

[ericc]

Addressed in specificity by Pope Benedict in Verbum Domini
w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html

And none of that denies the accounts of killings in the Great Flood, first born of Egypt, Sodom and Gomorrah, Moses’ and Joshua’s conquest of land and cities, killings of Amalakites and Canaanites.

Just show evidence that these killings are not real or that the killings were real and that God admonished those responsible for the killings for not sparing women and children.

Yes one must read the accounts with enlightenment. But one must not willfully ignore that our understanding of God’s ways is limited. We do not know God’s plans. Just because there are difficult passages, it does not mean they were not dark and must therefore read it in other ways so that the dark does not appear as dark.

I will rest here and let others conclude for themselves. I do not want to derail OP’s topic.

 

[Cathoholic]

gmcbroom. Good point on post number 16.

QUOTE:
If a dr told you, you had cancer and the only way to heal you was to cut it all out. Would you want him to take 90% of it where it could and most likely would return or do you want him to get it all and thus give you a complete recovery?

 

[clem456]

And none of that denies the accounts of killings in the Great Flood, first born of Egypt, Sodom and Gomorrah, Moses’ and Joshua’s conquest of land and cities, killings of Amalakites and Canaanites.

Just show evidence that these killings are not real or that the killings were real and that God admonished those responsible for the killings for not sparing women and children.

Yes one must read the accounts with enlightenment. But one must not willfully ignore that our understanding of God’s ways is limited. We do not know God’s plans. Just because there are difficult passages, it does not mean they were not dark and must therefore read it in other ways so that the dark does not appear as dark.

I will rest here and let others conclude for themselves. I do not want to derail OP’s topic.

I think you misunderstand what the Popes and others are saying. This goes to the nature of inspiration. You are debating whether it can be proved…this and that…in a literal way. I was not there to hear the voice of God, neither were you. That moment of history is gone. For all practical purposes it’s pointless for us to assert what factually happened. But the words of scripture are given to us for God’s purposes. We have the words of scripture, which have literal sense, as well as the other senses stemming from that sense. *But, these verses of scripture are never read in a vacuum, they are always read in context. The ultimate context or hermeneutical key as Benedict says, is Jesus Christ and the Gospel. *

No one denies that the text has a historical and literal value. You misread what I am saying. No one denies the Israelites really killed people. The bible is a work of inspired literature. It has a literal sense. But literal is not the same thing as literalism. And that is the key thing here.
Every word counts. Every word accomplishes it’s purpose. Every word is True, with a capital “T”. Not every word is true with a small “t”, in a scientific or factual way. (If it were, we should look up and see a dome over the sky). Our modern sense of “enlightened” truth has been distorted to something akin to journalistic facts, where faith can be reduced to a scientific literalism. That is a relatively modern phenomenon.

We cannot force a distorted journalistic sense on the scriptures. These passages were handed down through the mists of time by oral tradition, not by tape recorder and pen and paper. The scriptures were never intended to have this literalist sense, not even by those who recorded them. That is not the way the ancient peoples thought. We are not the same people, we do not communicate with the same senses and methods.

This forcing of the literal modern understanding of words can rob the scriptures of inspiration, as Pope Benedict says in the quote I posted above. I think it’s on us to prayerfully read and accept the words of our leadership, which is asking us to read scripture in the light of Christ. As Pope Benedict said, it does take a degree of expertise to do exegesis. We owe it to our Church as Catholics, and we also owe it to others we are evangelizing, to give that body of work it’s proper respect.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I’ve stated this before, but I believe that the proper response to God’s command is shown by our father, the Righteous Prophet Abraham. He is called righteous, not because he annihilated every living thing, nor for being unquestioning - true, these requests were made, one could say, to judge the one being requested if his belief is authentic, sincere, or simply convenience. What does Abraham do, when the Lord tells him He will annihilate Sodom and Gomorrah - (Genesis 18:16-33)? He intercedes again and again for his enemies. He doesn’t wage war against them, he doesn’t unquestioningly agree with the punishment - he simply begs for their life.

As someone stated earlier, these GRAVE matters were punishable by death according to the law. The law is intended to convey the severity of the violation. However, the judge or persons violated can grant some level of mercy - not because the gravity of the crime/sin was any less, but because the judge and/or victim is merciful.

 

[clem456]

I’ve stated this before, but I believe that the proper response to God’s command is shown by our father, the Righteous Prophet Abraham. He is called righteous, not because he annihilated every living thing, nor for being unquestioning - true, these requests were made, one could say, to judge the one being requested if his belief is authentic, sincere, or simply convenience. What does Abraham do, when the Lord tells him He will annihilate Sodom and Gomorrah - (Genesis 18:16-33)? He intercedes again and again for his enemies. He doesn’t wage war against them, he doesn’t unquestioningly agree with the punishment - he simply begs for their life.

As someone stated earlier, these GRAVE matters were punishable by death according to the law. The law is intended to convey the severity of the violation. However, the judge or persons violated can grant some level of mercy - not because the gravity of the crime/sin was any less, but because the judge and/or victim is merciful.

And Christ is the fulfillment of the law.
The passage on divorce is instructive for how Christ sheds light on the scriptures.
“Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce”.
Was divorce allowed in the law? Yes.
Was it ever God’s will? No. Divorce is incompatible with who God reveals himself and us to be. How could it be that the scriptures seem to contradict God’s eternal will for humanity???

God is not incomprehensible or un-reasonable. The fact that God is awesomely and mysteriously powerful does not deny his “Logos”. We cannot just throw up our hands and default to literalism when God has come to meet us in the Incarnation. Christ is God. He truly wants us to know him, love him, and serve him. This is how we know God’s nature, by looking at Christ, who is God’s fullest revelation. If a literalist reading seems like something Christ would never say, that should tell us something, that maybe we should dig deeper.

 

[Ignatius]

ndkos:

What?? How dare you blame the victims! I never knew a just war was killing innocent women and children.

The Bible is simply reporting on things that happened. That doesn’t mean that it is promoting those thing, just telling that they happened. You’ve got to remember that Abraham, Moses, Jonah and most of the others interceded on their behalf.
Also remember that Saul was punished even though he utterly destroyed all the Amalekites with the edge of the sword. Saul was punished after destroyed them all.

 

[clem456]

ndkos:

If the conquest is fictional, then maybe the exodus is fictional. I mean, heck, the Exodus is older.

So maybe the Ten Commandments are fictional, maybe Moses is fictional, maybe the crossing of the Red Sea is fictional, maybe the Sabbath is fictional. Maybe Jesus was celebrating a fictional nothing during his Last Supper.

Relax.
The Church does not read scripture that way. Some Catholics might, and some other Christians might, but…
read the thread. There are varying points of view expressed.

The scenarios you describe above require effort and expertise to work through.
This is why fundamentalism is so attractive. It’s easy, it requires little work and thought.
Catholicism is not about finding the easiest answer, it’s about finding the truth, with the community.

 

[gmcbroom]

Nkdos,

You still seem to have trouble with the Old Testament texts. I understand that I really do it’s why I left my faith on the floor as a teen I walked out of church and didn’t look back for years. Did leaving fulfill me no. Or sure I was filled with self righteous indignation for years but I still felt lost. Then the lord called me back. Read the book of Job.

 

[gmcbroom]

NKOD

I just wanted to say don’t let the sins of others prevent you from believing in God.remember every saint has a past and every sinner a future. If you think that religion is bad look at the modern era the past 3 centuries. The industrial revolution and socialist regimes have killed more people in 3 centuries than religion in the past. Atheists aren’t the answer but they sure like to think they are.

 

[juliamajor]

And none of that denies the accounts of killings in the Great Flood, first born of Egypt, Sodom and Gomorrah, Moses’ and Joshua’s conquest of land and cities, killings of Amalakites and Canaanites.

Just show evidence that these killings are not real or that the killings were real and that God admonished those responsible for the killings for not sparing women and children.

Yes one must read the accounts with enlightenment. But one must not willfully ignore that our understanding of God’s ways is limited. We do not know God’s plans. Just because there are difficult passages, it does not mean they were not dark and must therefore read it in other ways so that the dark does not appear as dark.

I will rest here and let others conclude for themselves. I do not want to derail OP’s topic.

Benedict denies nothing .what a lot of people seem to ignore or forget is this is how things were thought of in the past.we have to look ancient writings in a different way. They were prone to make little numbers into big numbers( exodus is a perfect example. No way you can fit all those people ,at one time in the Sinai. They wouldn’t fit) and little battles into big ones and routs or no win scenarios into victories See how the Egyptians changed the battle of Kadesh into a major victory while it was a draw. Archaeological evidence is the great arbiter in situations like these.As Benedict said ,expertise is needed and jumping to conclusions to what is really meant or what really happened cannot be truly discerned by the text alone.
Again that is not true to the texts of the bible but this was what commonplace to the ancients. That is one of the reasons that the bible cannot explain itself.because w as interpreters can get it wrong if we don’t understand the Times and place this originates from.

A

 

[StGerardMajella]

I am so angry that many of you can think God is a killing machine, and that it is sinful to not slaughter women and children in certain situations.

How could Catholics, devout Catholics, think this way?

This is pushing me further and further from the Church.

As I have explained, the right to self-defense is both rational and just, whether you believe in the Creator or not. If an enemy nation is coming to kill and murder you and your people, you have every right to defend yourself militarily.

The example you cite with the Amalakites in the beginning of this thread has already been adequately explained as more than a just cause for self-defense. The Amalakites were already attacking Israel at the time, and Israel had more than sufficient justification to defend itself.

Throughout the Bible, you will not find the Creator advocating the wholesale destruction of others without just cause. In each instance, there is more than a rational, logical, and even reasonable justification for military action if viewed in proper context.

As far as Catholicism is concerned, the Catholic Church is constantly advocating for peace and justice, as evidenced by the many charitable works of the Church. It does not advocate for war, except in the case of a just cause, such as self-defense.

 

[clem456]

As I have explained, the right to self-defense is both rational and just, whether you believe in the Creator or not. If an enemy nation is coming to kill and murder you and your people, you have every right to defend yourself militarily.

The example you cite with the Amalakites in the beginning of this thread has already been adequately explained as more than a just cause for self-defense. The Amalakites were already attacking Israel at the time, and Israel had more than sufficient justification to defend itself.

NO.
The killing of women and children is never ever, under any circumstance, part of just war. (let along the killing of non-combatant men). Never without exception. Period, end of story.

The justifications offered in this thread for this to be a “just war” killing are wholly inadequate in a Catholic Christian context. Your faith can never contradict God’s “logos” (Christ).
Those who insist on these kinds of fundamentalist interpretations drive people away from Christ. Sorry, but it’s very common and very true.
All Scripture must be read in the light of Christ.

 

[porthos11]

NO.
The killing of women and children is never ever, under any circumstance, part of just war. (let along the killing of non-combatant men). Never without exception. Period, end of story.

The justifications offered in this thread for this to be a “just war” killing are wholly inadequate in a Catholic Christian context. Your faith can never contradict God’s “logos” (Christ).
Those who insist on these kinds of fundamentalist interpretations drive people away from Christ. Sorry, but it’s very common and very true.
All Scripture must be read in the light of Christ.

That is correct.

But how are we to resolve this seeming “contradiction” that so scandalizes the original poster, so much so that he now calls the Sovereign God a “monster”?

The Old Testament is unequivocal: kill all Amalekites, both military and civilian, young and old, man, woman and child. When King Saul disobeyed, he was punished severely and his dynasty brought to a swift end. This was God’s command.

What answer do we give to those such as the OP who seem to think that the Sovereign God, the author and destroyer of all life, is somehow bound to the moral law he laid down for his creatures?

 

[StGerardMajella]

The killing of women and children is never ever, under any circumstance, part of just war. (let along the killing of non-combatant men). Never without exception. Period, end of story.

We can agree to disagree. If you are raising a country of children who are inculcated from an early age to murder my family, I have an obligation, duty, and a right to defend myself, my family, and my country militarily.

The justifications offered in this thread for this to be a “just war” killing are wholly inadequate in a Catholic Christian context. Your faith can never contradict God’s “logos” (Christ).

You are mistaken. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraphs 2302-2317, teaches what constitutes the just defense of a nation against an aggressor. Incidentally, the situation in the Old Testament with the Israelites and the Amalekites cited at the beginning of this thread would certainly qualify as just cause under the Catechism.

The “Just War Doctrine” was first articulated by St. Augustine in the early centuries of the Church. It was taught by Doctors of the Church (Aquinas, for example), and formally embraced by the Magisterium.

From the Catechism:

"…2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.”

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated…"

The Amalekites were the murderous aggressors, having killed the most frail and vulnerable Israelites during the trek through the wilderness. The death of these Israelites was certainly lasting and grave, and there was certainty that the Amalekites would strike again, being the most evil generation of that time.

Those who insist on these kinds of fundamentalist interpretations drive people away from Christ. Sorry, but it’s very common and very true.
All Scripture must be read in the light of Christ.

Christ was not against defending oneself - He actually encouraged his disciples to arm themselves. We might consider what Christ told His disciples in His last hours with them: “. . . But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a sack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one” (Lk. 22:36).

Keep in mind that the sword was the finest offensive weapon available to an individual soldier—the equivalent then of a military rifle today.

 

[clem456]

We can agree to disagree. If you are raising a country of children who are inculcated from an early age to murder my family, I have an obligation, duty, and a right to defend myself, my family, and my country militarily.

You are so confused.
Self defense does not equate to genocide/murder of innocents/murder of women and children. They are not the same thing at all.

You are mistaken.

No, you are confused about what the Catholic Church teaches about murder.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraphs 2302-2317, teaches what constitutes the** just defense of a nation against an aggressor**.

Yes it does. And?

Incidentally, the situation in the Old Testament with the Israelites and the Amalekites cited at the beginning of this thread would certainly qualify as just cause under the Catechism.

Just cause for self defense or just war, not the murder of innocents/genocide.

The “Just War Doctrine” was first articulated

Yea, most Catholics are aware of the just war doctrine. You are diverting from the issue.

Christ was not against defending oneself - He actually encouraged his disciples to arm themselves. We might consider what Christ told His disciples in His last hours with them: “. . . But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a sack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one” (Lk. 22:36).

Your attempt to use Christ’s name in an attempt to justify the murder of innocent women and children is perverse and offensive to Christianity. The mainstream of Catholicism including our recent Popes does not agree with you. Read what they say. And read your catechism. You conveniently failed to quote the full teaching of the catechism on this issue, in fact you deceptively diverted the issue to just war doctrine.

2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."109

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. **Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide. **
2314 “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.”…

 

[StGerardMajella]

Just cause for self defense or just war, not the murder of innocents/genocide.

I’ve never advocated genocide in this forum, only self-defense and protection against an aggressor. Please refrain from making false accusations.

If a national enemy is determined to murder me, my family, and my countrymen, I have every right to defend myself, even proactively. That’s not genocide - It’s self-defense, and well within the bounds of both the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as natural law.

Your attempt to use Christ’s name in an attempt to justify the murder of innocent women and children is perverse and offensive to Christianity.

As I noted earlier, for centuries since the founding of the Church, up until the present day Catechism of the Catholic Church, war is justified for self-defense against an aggressor. That’s not a diversion - It’s a fact. The illustration given in the original thread - where the Amalekites attacked and murdered innocent, frail Israelites passing through the wildnerness - is a classic example of just warfare in that the Israelites had every right to defend themselves and annihilate the Amalekites - man, woman, and child.

I have already quoted from the exact, specific pages in the Catechism that reference the Just War Doctrine. Christ commanded His own apostles to take up arms for self-defense, as I have already quoted from the Book of Luke.

War means utter destruction. In even today’s modern warfare, with fine-tuned precision missiles, innocent lives are still lost. That’s not genocide. It’s called the reality of warfare.

 

[clem456]

I’ve never advocated genocide in this forum, only self-defense and protection against an aggressor. Please refrain from making false accusations.

If a national enemy is determined to murder me, my family, and my countrymen, I have every right to defend myself, even proactively. That’s not genocide - It’s self-defense, and well within the bounds of both the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as natural law.

As I noted earlier, for centuries since the founding of the Church, up until the present day Catechism of the Catholic Church, war is justified for self-defense against an aggressor. That’s not a diversion - It’s a fact. The illustration given in the original thread - where the Amalekites attacked and murdered innocent, frail Israelites passing through the wildnerness - is a classic example of just warfare in that the Israelites had every right to defend themselves and annihilate the Amalekites - man, woman, and child.

I have already quoted from the exact, specific pages in the Catechism that reference the Just War Doctrine. Christ commanded His own apostles to take up arms for self-defense, as I have already quoted from the Book of Luke.

War means utter destruction. In even today’s modern warfare, with fine-tuned precision missiles, innocent lives are still lost. That’s not genocide. It’s called the reality of warfare.

You’re going on about just war and self defense. Perhaps another thread is in order…
Again, you are either confusing the question of killing every last living thing with self defense, just war, and collateral damage, or you are attempting to justify these questions with a doctrine that does not begin to apply. You selectively quoted the CCC out of context in your attempt.
Here is the question we are discussing.

ndkos:

Hello,

How is the Bible inerrant if it promotes genocide? See the book of Joshua, and 1 Samuel, especially 1 Samuel 15, where Saul loses his kingship because he refuses to slaughter every last living thing.

1 And Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore hearken to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I will punish what Am′alek did to Israel in opposing them on the way, when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Am′alek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.’”

I am a Catholic but seriously questioning things. It appears that God may be a sadistic monster.

And before anyone says I should just believe God because God is God and how dare you question God, well I refuse to obey unjust authority, and genocide is as unjust as it gets. Murder is murder.

Your posts were in response to this from me. You attempted to dispute the question of genocide with just war doctrine and passages from the catechism.

Quote clem456:
The killing of women and children is never ever, under any circumstance, part of just war. (let along the killing of non-combatant men). Never without exception. Period, end of story.

I’ll stand by that. I support the explicit teaching of the Catholic Church.
I find it odd that a Catholic attempts to twist genocide and slaughter of innocents into just war.