Moral question regarding abortion/young girls

[LucyEm]

Anyway, backing away from these personal feuds and returning to the OP’s question…

Right back in Post #3 the real (underlying?) focus of the OP’s question was identified by 1ke when she referenced an axiom of Catholic Moral Theology stated by 1ke as “one may not do evil In the pursuit of good”, which was then challenged by BH, who proposed in the following terms that self defence can well involve doing evil (thus believing self-defence and the commandment are logically at odds):

BH:Killing the intruder in my house who wields a knife to my wife is evil if one believes “Thou shall not kill” refers to this grave matter.
Yet in self defence it may be done if circumstances demand it.
Of course, the difference is that murdering the baby is an evil (“evil” means moral evil unless qualified otherwise) which may not be done, whereas BH does no evil in defending his wife with the level of force needed, right up to (knowingly) using lethal force. But evil can/does arise if/when he chooses to go that step further than required, when the act is no longer one of defence. At that point, he may be guilty of contravening the 5th, but not before.

The thing the 5th forbids may not ever be done.

 

[Rau]

Right back in Post #3 the real (underlying?) focus of the OP’s question was identified by 1ke when she referenced an axiom of Catholic Moral Theology stated by 1ke as “one may not do evil In the pursuit of good”, which was then challenged by BH, who proposed in the following terms that self defence can well involve doing evil (thus believing self-defence and the commandment are logically at odds):

BH:Killing the intruder in my house who wields a knife to my wife is evil if one believes “Thou shall not kill” refers to this grave matter.
Yet in self defence it may be done if circumstances demand it.
Of course, the difference is that murdering the baby is an evil (“evil” means moral evil unless qualified otherwise) which may not be done, whereas BH does no evil in defending his wife with the level of force needed, right up to (knowingly) using lethal force. But evil can/does arise if/when he chooses to go that step further than required, when the act is no longer one of defence. At that point, he may be guilty of contravening the 5th, but not before.

The thing the 5th forbids may not ever be done.

Yes.

Per Veritatis Splendor (52):

The Church has always taught that one may never choose kinds of behaviour prohibited by the moral commandments expressed in negative form in the Old and New Testaments. As we have seen, Jesus himself reaffirms that these prohibitions allow no exceptions: “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments… You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness” (Mt 19:17-18).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

​

Anyway, backing away from these personal feuds and returning to the OP’s question…

Do note the 5th categorically excludes not just “murder” but also “killing” as evil. The latter looks like a “physical” evil to me. Obviously it somehow has moral relevence or potency if the 5th is to be believed, though quite different from “murder”.

The latter (killing) seems to have exceptions while the former not.

It is interesting that the Magisterium in more recent times refuses to translate the 5th as murder. Always “killing”.

And the 5th is not “Thou shall not commit a killing” but rather, “Thou shall not kill”.

Thus even Congo nuns and rape victims are somehow validly contracepting (a physical thing) just as lethal self defenders can also be validly killing (a physical thing).
But on what basis can they choose these physical disorders?

And what does JP2 mean by a “moral” Commandment as opposed to the CCC when it refers to the “matter specified by the Commandments.” Two very different ways of understanding the Commandments I suggest.

It’s obviously a little more complicated than some think.

 

[Rau]

Do note the 5th categorically excludes not just “murder” but also “killing” as evil. It is interesting that the Magisterium in more recent times refuses to translate the 5th as murder.

Consider the commandment was not written in English. The meaning of the original was not the exactly same as either murder or kill. And remember also that what is opposed is moral evil.

The thing the rape victim, or the one defending life, does is not the thing the commandment (or the church) forbids - it is not the matter of the commandment.