Is this intrinsically evil?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Needanswers
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Needanswers

Guest
I know that killing abortion doctors is wrong. But how would one explain that using moral theology? Is it instrinsically evil? Why or why not?

Thanks
 
Needanswers said:
I know that killing abortion doctors is wrong. But how would one explain that using moral theology? Is it instrinsically evil? Why or why not?

Thanks
Click to expand...
Are you admitting that you can know something is wrong, yet be willing to hear it is not?

This is a post that really makes me shake my head. Do you really need to have a passage in a bible or a CCD to tell you how to behave? Really?
 
StrawberryJam said:
Are you admitting that you can know something is wrong, yet be willing to hear it is not?

This is a post that really makes me shake my head. Do you really need to have a passage in a bible or a CCD to tell you how to behave? Really?
Click to expand...
As I said in the post, I know its wrong. Please do not go beyond what I have asked, I just want an explanation using the three sources of the morality of an act ( intention, object, circumstances). In other words, it’s a case study for moral theology and I would like to see how these three sources are applied in the analysis of this act.

Thanks
 
Needanswers said:
As I said in the post, I know its wrong. Please do not go beyond what I have asked, I just want an explanation using the three sources of the morality of an act ( intention, object, circumstances). In other words, it’s a case study for moral theology and I would like to see how these three sources are applied in the analysis of this act.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Here’s a clue for you. Has anyone in the Catholic Church endorsed killing doctors preforming abortions?

Keep in mind, I am not even asking you if Catholics have killed doctors preforming abortions.

You would need something to stand on if you were going to rationalize the killing of doctors preforming abortions.

I don’t think you will find it.
 
Because no form of killing is left up to an individual in moral theology. Only the State can make that decision as far as earthly things are concerned.
 
This seems to involve an old question of vigilantee justice. Would it have been all-right for someone to have killed Hitler in 1930 when he knew what would happen? A week ago someone beat up a priest, saying the priest had sexually abused him when he was a child. Would it be all right if someone shot a drug kingpin? If these are not be all-right, are they they wrong because they are intrincially evil?
StrawberryJam said:
Here’s a clue for you. Has anyone in the Catholic Church endorsed killing doctors preforming abortions?

Keep in mind, I am not even asking you if Catholics have killed doctors preforming abortions.

You would need something to stand on if you were going to rationalize the killing of doctors preforming abortions.

I don’t think you will find it.
Click to expand...
 
Responding from cell phone.
Op. . I’m not in a place yet where I could back this with a sound argument but!!!
Killing abortion doctors is wrong for same reasons as abortion. As I understand it there is a comandmnt for it… if one needed to rationally explane it … id say that killing a doctor who kills babies is a sin against God not just cus it breaks a big rule but also because it presumes that we don’t have faith in Gods plan for that doctor’s soul…
 
“Sound argument”?

Are you guys serious?

You need to check with the books first if there is a way this can possibly be okay to do?

This is making me sick.
 
StrawberryJam said:
“Sound argument”?

Are you guys serious?

You need to check with the books first if there is a way this can possibly be okay to do?

This is making me sick.
Click to expand...
I think the OP is doing a school assignment or otherwise learning the “science” of moral theology. In order to do so, he takes a very obvious example and applies the principles to it. It’s as if someone gave you a math test like this: 2 + 2 = ? Show your work.

Betsy
 
baltobetsy said:
I think the OP is doing a school assignment or otherwise learning the “science” of moral theology. In order to do so, he takes a very obvious example and applies the principles to it. It’s as if someone gave you a math test like this: 2 + 2 = ? Show your work.

Betsy
Click to expand...
There are some math people out there that may find this interesting, The museum of Science and Industry even has a T shirt you can buy in the gift shop that makes note of this. I never mention this to the poster who has the 2 + 2 thing in their sig line.😉
 
baltobetsy said:
I think the OP is doing a school assignment or otherwise learning the “science” of moral theology. In order to do so, he takes a very obvious example and applies the principles to it. It’s as if someone gave you a math test like this: 2 + 2 = ? Show your work.

Betsy
Click to expand...
Thank you!
 
baltobetsy said:
I think the OP is doing a school assignment or otherwise learning the “science” of moral theology. In order to do so, he takes a very obvious example and applies the principles to it. It’s as if someone gave you a math test like this: 2 + 2 = ? Show your work.

Betsy
Click to expand...
If it is the case that this person has a school assignment, then it is up to THEM to come up with the arguments.

Obtaining answers here and passing them off as his own (as if he had actually worked out the argument) would be a sin against **another **commandment.
 
1ke said:
If it is the case that this person has a school assignment, then it is up to THEM to come up with the arguments.

Obtaining answers here and passing them off as his own (as if he had actually worked out the argument) would be a sin against **another **commandment.
Click to expand...
Actually, it’s not a “school assignment” since I’m currently not taking any classes. I’ve been studyng moral theology on my own and would like to know how this act can be evaluated using the three sources of morality.

Thanks
 
The only circumstance under which killing is ok is in self defense, or in the defense of others. To qualify as self defense, the act of aggression must be in process of taking place and there must be no other way to stop it.
 
We cannot do evil, even if we anticipate a good.

There is some very substantial thinking that has been done on these topics within the Church. I haven’t internalized it all yet.

There is the intention, the moral object, and the circumstances to tease out. Sometimes I get the intention and the moral object confused. For instance, if a person is starving and who has exhausted all possible means to get food to save him/herself/family, they are morally obligated to take food that is not theirs. Now, it’s not the “intent” or the circumstances that makes this action morally acceptable, it’s the fact that the moral object (the act itself) is permissible. The act itself is not stealing. One doesn’t need to look at intention or circumstances to consider the moral permissibility.

I haven’t worked all of the typical, ordinary cases through my understanding yet. But I will tell you it’s worth getting spun up on Moral Theology, as you are already doing.

catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/double%20effect
 
I often times discuss Christianity with others online. Sometimes they are believers but they’ve missed a few parts of the scripture that I’ve bumped into. And I’m just relearning what I forgot and learning some more.

So, I see nothing wrong with someone asking for a few lines of scripture. I find this community very helpful. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top