Is it ok to kill?

[Abbadon]

Sometimes it depends on the exact nature of the circumstances. War becomes a bit tricky sometimes when talking about morality. While there are certain moral guidlines that must be always followed there is not always a broad mathmatecial forumula covering all instances.

In war, self defense or defense of another is the reason soldiers kill. This can be a very broad interpretaion and can lead to abuse in legal sense but not a moral sense for you can never hide your intentions from God. Soldiers and snipers shoot to save lives, not take them. They aim to defend themselves and other through their actions not attack the innocent. Soldiers use only the necessary force required for the situation. This is what a soldier should truly hold in their hearts. They do not kill because they can, they kill beacuse they do so for the safty of others and the hope that there actions will bring an end to the conflict sooner.

I believe it was Augustine who said that if a man is so horrified by taking a life even in defense of himself he is not required to do so and may accpet his own death.

Look to the “Just War Theory” for a bit more help with this dilema.

I don’t belive any war is ever just, there is no justice in war. Just sometimes you have to fight to win, fight to survive, fight to prosper. Unfortunately someone always looses…

I drew something from what you said, when a sniper fights he may not be defending himself, rather killing first, but as a collective he is defending whatever he is fighting for.

 

[Joyousguard]

In the middle ages the Popes did urge the Catholic Church to attack the Muslims. That means its ok to kill people in times of war.

Unfourtunately this is not really true. While I will make no excuses for the mmaner and methods of which so called “christains” conducted themselves during the crusades it was in response to Muslim aggression and not an attack by Christians. The Church mistakenly took a lead in promoting these wars but it was in defense rather than offense.

 

[Joyousguard]

I don’t belive any war is ever just, there is no justice in war. Just sometimes you have to fight to win, fight to survive, fight to prosper. Unfortunately someone always looses…

I drew something from what you said, when a sniper fights he may not be defending himself, rather killing first, but as a collective he is defending whatever he is fighting for.

You would be very hard pressed to find anything that is completely just in this world. Is justice a matter of a ratio? If something is 90% just and 10% unjust is it still just? Or does something have to be 100% “just” to qualify?

You will not find any war to be completely just. What it comes down to and all we can personally do is make sure that we ourselves attempt to always be as just as possible or at least always seek to be just and truly try for that goal regardless of the outcome. War is not black and white and it is most definetly not an all encompassing blanket of morality or inmorality. There are grey areas, uncertainties and as well as just and unjust participants. All one can do is try to make his corner of the war as just as possible.

 

[The_Chicken]

What about the Inquisition? What is catholic about that?? I don’t know if deaths are involved on this, they probably are, but the Inquisition was very violent. Is there anything that justifies it?

 

[Joyousguard]

What about the Inquisition? What is catholic about that?? I don’t know if deaths are involved on this, they probably are, but the Inquisition was very violent. Is there anything that justifies it?

First and foremost it sould be noted that there were many instances of people in secular prisons confessing to heresy simply so they could be moved to better conditions and circumstances in the religious prisons.

The Inquisition is blown way out of proportion sometimes by a few examples rather than what was actually the norm. Despite what the common opinion might be on the subject, they were not torturing people left and right until they died.

Ill do a bit of research and see if i can be more specific after the Holdiay

 

[Writer]

I think our Lord and Savior might disagree with this statement. Would you care to elaborate? Am I reading it wrong?

I think that is dependant on the circumstances and the mindset of the person involved. The argument has been made, for instance, that Christ should have tried to save His life at the Cross, and that he (they claim) committed a form of suicide, because he failed to resist. Of course, that’s a load of rubbish.

Those who give their lives up for others are giving us the purest example of Christ’s sacrifice. Sometimes the greatest way to resist or defeat evil is to surrender one’s self to the circumstances with dignity, but that’s not suicide; the concern is not with self, but with others. It has everything to do with the focus of the mind. If it’s God, then it stands to reason that the person is dying for something bigger than himself.

On the other hand, we do have the right to defend ourselves. As a little personal example, for instance, someone tried to break into our home late last night. As I was running to the front door and having my wife call the police, I was wondering if I was prepared to defend my family against an intruder. Have no doubt…had he made it past the door, I would have done whatever was in my power to stop him in his tracks. It is our responsiblity to defend our families. I just thank God that this action on my part was not necessary last night.

 

[The_Chicken]

First and foremost it sould be noted that there were many instances of people in secular prisons confessing to heresy simply so they could be moved to better conditions and circumstances in the religious prisons.

The Inquisition is blown way out of proportion sometimes by a few examples rather than what was actually the norm. Despite what the common opinion might be on the subject, they were not torturing people left and right until they died.

Ill do a bit of research and see if i can be more specific after the Holdiay

Ok, i’ll wait for that.

 

[Hellisreal]

That’s clear enough for me. Thanks!!

Thats what is nice about being catholic. Pretty much all of it is in the good old ccc. You can get it online too.

 

[The_Chicken]

Thats what is nice about being catholic. Pretty much all of it is in the good old ccc. You can get it online too.

Yeah, pretty cool, it never occurred to me that we have it online.

 

[Joyousguard]

“No one escapes the Spanish Inquisition” Monty Python

First and foremost a bit of context:

“Moreover these sects [Paulicians and Bogomili] were in the highest degree aggressive, hostile to Christianity itself, to the Mass, the sacraments, the ecclesiastical hierarchy and organization; hostile also to feudal government by their attitude towards oaths, which they declared under no circumstances allowable. Nor were their views less fatal to the continuance of human society, for on the one hand they forbade marriage and the propagation of the human race, and on the other hand they made a duty of suicide through the institution of the Endura (see CATHARI). It has been said that more perished through the Endura (the Catharist suicide code) than through the Inquisition. It was, therefore, natural enough for the custodians of the existing order in Europe, especially of the Christian religion, to adopt repressive measures against such revolutionary teachings.”

(newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm#IIA)

“It must he carefully noted that the characteristic feature of the Inquisition was not its peculiar procedure, nor the secret examination of witnesses and consequent official indictment: this procedure was common to all courts from the time of Innocent III. Nor was it the pursuit of heretics in all places: this had been the rule since the Imperial Synod of Verona under Lucius III and Frederick Barbarossa. Nor again was it the torture, which was not prescribed or even allowed for decades after the beginning of the Inquisition, nor, finally, the various sanctions, imprisonment, confiscation, the stake, etc., all of which punishments were usual long before the Inquisition. The Inquisitor, strictly speaking, was a special but permanent judge, acting in the name of the pope and clothed by him with the right and the duty to deal legally with offences against the Faith; he had, however, to adhere to the established rules of canonical procedure and pronounce the customary penalties.”

“It was a heavy burden of responsibility – almost too heavy for a common mortal – which fell upon the shoulders of an inquisitor, who was obliged, at least indirectly, to decide between life and death. The Church was bound to insist that he should possess, in a pre-eminant degree, the qualities of a good judge; that he should be animated with a glowing zeal for the Faith, the salvation of souls, and the extirpation of heresy; that amid all difficulties and dangers he should never yield to anger or passion; that he should meet hostility fearlessly, but should not court it; that he should yield to no inducement or threat, and yet not be heartless; that, when circumstances permitted, he should observe mercy in allotting penalties; that he should listen to the counsel of others, and not trust too much to his own opinion or to appearances, since often the probable is untrue, and the truth improbable.”

 

[Joyousguard]

No one escapes the Spanish inquisition continued…

“also was Gregory IX doubtlessly thinking when he urged Conrad of Marburg: “ut puniatur sic temeritas perversorum quod innocentiae puritas non laedatur” – i.e., “not to punish the wicked so as to hurt the innocent”. History shows us how far the inquisitors answered to this ideal. Far from being inhuman, they were, as a rule, men of spotless character and sometimes of truly admirable sanctity, and not a few of them have been canonized by the Church. There is absolutely no reason to look on the medieval ecclesiastical judge as intellectually and morally inferior to the modern judge. No one would deny that the judges of today, despite occasional harsh decisions and the errors of a few, pursue a highly honourable profession. Similarly, the medieval inquisitors should be judged as a whole. Moreover, history does not justify the hypothesis that the medieval heretics were prodigies of virtue, deserving our sympathy in advance.”

“The present writer can find nothing to suggest that the accused were imprisoned during the period of inquiry. It was certainly customary to grant the accused person his freedom until the sermo generalis, were he ever so strongly inculpated through witnesses or confession; he was not yet supposed guilty, though he was compelled to promise under oath always to be ready to come before the inquisitor, and in the end to accept with good grace his sentence, whatever its tenor.”

Torture

“Curiously enough, torture was not regarded as a mode of punishment, but purely as a means of eliciting the truth. It was not of ecclesiastical origin, and was long prohibited in the ecclesiastical courts. Nor was it originally an important factor in the inquisitional procedure, being unauthorized until twenty years after the Inquisition had begun.”

“it was not to cause the loss of life or limb or imperil life. Torture was to applied only once, and not then unless the accused were uncertain in his statements, and seemed already virtually convicted by manifold and weighty proofs. In general, this violent testimony (quaestio) was to be deferred as long as possible, and recourse to it was permitted in only when all other expedients were exhausted. Conscientious and sensible judges quite properly attached no great importance to confessions extracted by torture. After long experience Eymeric declared: Quaestiones sunt fallaces et inefficaces – i.e the torture is deceptive and ineffectual.”

 

[Joyousguard]

inquisition continued…

“It is to be noted that torture was most cruelly used, where the inquisitors were most exposed to the pressure of civil authority. Frederick II, though always boasting of his zeal for the purity of the Faith, abused both rack and Inquisition to put out of the way his personal enemies. The tragical ruin of the Templars is ascribed to the abuse of torture by Philip the Fair and his henchmen. At Paris, for instance, thirty-six, and at Sens twenty-five, Templars died as the result of torture. Blessed Joan of Arc could not have been sent to the stake as a heretic and a recalcitrant, if her judges had not been tools of English policy. And the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition are largely due to the fact that in its administration civil purposes overshadowed the ecclesiastical.”

Punishment

"Most of the punishments that were properly speaking inquisitional were not inhuman, either by their nature or by the manner of their infliction. Most frequently certain good works were ordered, e.g. the building of a church, the visitation of a church, a pilgrimage more or less distant, the offering of a candle or a chalice, participation in a crusade, and the like. Other works partook more of the character of real and to some extent degrading punishments, e.g. fines, whose proceeds were devoted to such public purposes as church-building, road-making, and the like; whipping with rods during religious service; the pillory; the wearing of coloured crosses, and so on.

The hardest penalties were imprisonment in its various degrees, exclusion from the communion of the Church, and the usually consequent surrender to the civil power."

Death

“Officially it was not the Church that sentenced unrepenting heretics to death, more particularly to the stake. As legate of the Roman Church even Gregory IV never went further than the penal ordinances of Innocent III required, nor ever inflicted a punishment more severe than excommunication. Not until four years after the commencement of his pontificate did he admit the opinion, then prevalent among legists, that heresy should be punished with death, seeing that it was confessedly no less serious an offence than high treason. Nevertheless he continued to insist on the exclusive right of the Church to decide in authentic manner in matters of heresy; at the same time it was not her office to pronounce sentence of death. The Church, thenceforth, expelled from her bosom the impenitent heretic, whereupon the state took over the duty of his temporal punishment.”

 

[Joyousguard]

inquisition continued…

"

How many victims were handed over to the civil power cannot be stated with even approximate accuracy. We have nevertheless some valuable information about a few of the Inquisition tribunals, and their statistics are not without interest. At Pamiers, from 1318 to 1324, out of twenty-four persons convicted but five were delivered to the civil power, and at Toulouse from 1308 to 1323, only forty-two out of nine hundred and thirty bear the ominous note “relictus culiae saeculari”. Thus, at Pamiers one in thirteen, and at Toulouse one in forty-two seem to have been burnt for heresy although these places were hotbeds of heresy and therefore principal centres of the Inquisition. We may add, also, that this was the most active period of the institution."

"These data and others of the same nature bear out the assertion that the Inquisition marks a substantial advance in the contemporary administration of justice, and therefore in the general civilization of mankind. A more terrible fate awaited the heretic when judged by a secular court. In 1249 Count Raymund VII of Toulouse caused eighty confessed heretics to be burned in his presence without permitting them to recant. It is impossible to imagine any such trials before the Inquisition courts. The large numbers of burnings detailed in various histories are completely unauthenticated, and are either the deliberate invention of pamphleteers, or are based on materials that pertain to the Spanish Inquisition of later times or the German witchcraft trials

"

All this can be found here: newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm#IIA

“The Spanish Inquisition was set up by King Ferdinand of Aragon and Queen Isabella of Castile in 1478 with the approval of Pope Sixtus IV. In contrast to the previous inquisitions, it operated completely under royal authority, though staffed by secular clergy and orders, and independently of the Holy See.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

 

[Joyousguard]

Suffice it to say, the entire inquisition was something of a mess. It is almost reminiscient of Mcarthism and the Salem witch trials.

Was it as bad as people portray? No. But that is not to say that it was by any means good either. This is clealy a case of a different time period and a different understanding of the will of God.

For example: The understanding at the time of Christ was that women were subordinate to men. Thi scan be seen in all the writings of the time and to a certain extent the Gospels. I do not recollect where but in the bIble it talks about a women, when she marries her husband, to belong and obey her husband. This is completely true. However, there is a part and understanding that was omitted. That is to say, that the husband belongs to the wife and must obey her as well. This is the complete understanding of the text.

This is true with the inquisition. They meant well and were trying to safeguard the faith with their half understanding of the Bible and as a result the Inquisition almost took over a life of its own as with Mcarthism and Salem. We can not absolve those involved but we can come to understand why they came to do these things. They felt they were protecting the faith by executing heretics and those who wished to do the faith harm.

 

[kentuckyliz]

*Not the comfy chair!

Not the soft cushion!


*

 

[Joyousguard]

*Not the comfy chair!

Not the soft cushion!


*

??? :ehh:

 

[kentuckyliz]

I was quoting more of the Monty Python sketch about the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[Joyousguard]

I was quoting more of the Monty Python sketch about the Spanish Inquisition.

Sorry… too much turkey dulls the brain… to say nothing ot the biscuits and pie.

“Cardinal…the rack!!!”

 

[KathyCatholic]

I mean, what are the church positions? Like if you are going to be killed, is it ok to kill for defending your life?

TBH.
I dont care what the church thinks; if its kill or be killed.
I will kill!
I am not going to let someone stab me or shoot me to death w/o a fight.

 

[Hellisreal]

TBH.
I dont care what the church thinks; if its kill or be killed.
I will kill!
I am not going to let someone stab me or shoot me to death w/o a fight.

That is well within the bounds of orthodox catholic faith.
You can defend your life.

Who doubted that one?