Navy SEAL or undercover DEA and The Church

[1ke]

There is a line, I’m not advocating a free for all mentality. However, I am sick and tired of hearing these moralistic wannabe’s criticizing the hard work put up by our men and women in military and civil uniforms that are actually contributing to the community other than recycling their trash to feel good about themselves…

Rant’s over

I am not criticizing military and police men/women.

The OP asked on a Catholic forum what Catholic teaching is on what is morally permissible. The answer remains the same: We may not do evil, even if we are attempting to bring about a good. The moral act consists of the the object, the end, and the circumstances taken together. A good intention cannot make a bad act into a good one.

One is culpable for grave matter in choosing to do evil whether or not it is in the name of military or civilian police work. To put forth the idea that one can do an objectively evil act in XYZ circumstance is the heresy of moral relativism.

Cops, soldiers, doctors, and the man on the street ALL have the obligation to form their conscience well in the objective truths of morality, and to act in accordance with those truths not in opposition to them.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Intrinsically evil acts are not a matter of opinion. They are objective acts. Again, i refer you to the Catechism

It isn’t my “point of view” at issue here. It is the Church’s clear teaching on the fonts of morality. One may not do evil, even if one is in pursuit of a good. To do so is gravely wrong.

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."106

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 power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.107

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You sound VERY much like my son…a Cop:thumbsup:

May God Bless Him and Archangel Michael watch over his shoulders!

Thank you for your service!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I am not criticizing military and police men/women.

The OP asked on a Catholic forum what Catholic teaching is on what is morally permissible. The answer remains the same: We may not do evil, even if we are attempting to bring about a good. The moral act consists of the the object, the end, and the circumstances taken together. A good intention cannot make a bad act into a good one.

One is culpable for grave matter in choosing to do evil whether or not it is in the name of military or civilian police work. To put forth the idea that one can do an objectively evil act in XYZ circumstance is the heresy of moral relativism.

Cops, soldiers, doctors, and the man on the street ALL have the obligation to form their conscience well in the objective truths of morality, and to act in accordance with those truths not in opposition to them.

Thanks for your opinion, I will now disengage from our discussion.

In Him.

 

[1ke]

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."106

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 power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.107

What is your point? I do not understand you posting this in response to my last post. Are you under the impression that I hold the position that war is intrinsically evil? I have no idea what gave you that idea.

 

[1ke]

Thanks for your opinion, I will now disengage from our discussion.

In Him.

It is not an opinion. The teaching on morality of acts is a doctrine of the Faith.

 

[shipwrkd]

May God Bless Him and Archangel Michael watch over his shoulders!

Thank you for your service!

He wears him around his neck as well as pinned to the inside of his vest (body armor). The chain around his neck had to be replaced several times because of angry “clients”.

Thank You!!

 

[shipwrkd]

My son’s a Cop in an area heavy with drug use and gangs. My wife is a devout Catholic and recently walked in on a video from my sons dash cam and the language disturbed her. We turned it off and later, I asked my son what his thoughts were. His responds was that his “clients” understood the language of the street and “drop your weapon” was no where near as effective as “drop the gun or I’ll blow your ******* head off”. My responds was to do or say whatever it took to stay alive. His best friend is a Navy SEAL who was trained to take orders which can end in someone’s life being “terminated” He doesn’t have the opportunity to judge whether his mission is just or unjust and most often he’s not told what the mission is until it’s underway and are always offensive and become defensive only if they fail. There are “wars” being fought that we know very little about and I’m sure the Church wouldn’t approve of. My son is also looking into undercover Gang Task force work or drug enforcement. He’s told that, in all likely hood he 'd need to do things that would be considered repulsive to a liberal, let alone a Catholic.

That said, i’d like thoughts on street language and if one can be an undercover agent or even a Navy SEAL and still have a clear Catholic conscience?

Tried this post under Vocations and got only 2 responses.

I’m not sure where in my OP I asked for Church Teaching, looks like I asked for thoughts regarding this subject and Catholic conscience.

I believe I’ll join Isaiah45_9 and get some relevant opinions and translations from my priest. Thanks all who offered.

 

[1ke]

I’m not sure where in my OP I asked for Church Teaching, looks like I asked for thoughts regarding this subject and Catholic conscience.

Catholic teaching is the basis of all conscience formation.

 

[shipwrkd]

Last evening, my son (the Cop) stopped by to borrow a tool, which I’m fairly sure I won’t see again I showed this thread to him and asked what he thought and he smiled with a chuckle. After reading it, his first responds was I guess I’m fighting in an unjust war because the war on crime is a war and crime has been here since the beginning of man and there is no serious prospect of success. He said we can win some battles but the war will never be over.
He said, like a soldier, it’s his sworn duty to place himself between crime and the people he serves. Unlike a soldier who knows he’s sent to battle to kill, that’s one thing he hopes never to have to experience. A soldier’s job is fairly easy, the guy in the other uniform is trying to kill you, so you have to kill him first. My first duty is to protect and serve those who can’t protect themselves. But I also have been given the tools to take life, if necessary, and taught to use them effectively. Voice is the first tool I draw and I use it with authority and in a language that’s understood. Next would be the baton, then the taser and finally the .40 caliber Glock. When the Glock is drawn, there is no safety or warning shot and the results are final. There are no do overs. If it ever came to that, I live with it. I would rather stop at the first tool in the box and if the language is offensive to some, so be it. I never curse or use The Lord’s name in vain, that’s not nearly as effective as some words that we’re not even sure where they came from. I’ve heard several opinions as to where the F word came from and one is Fornication Under Consent of the King. Now, by replacing the U with RI and perhaps dropping the G, it becomes more morally acceptable. But it still means the same thing. I may be saying acceptable words in my job now that some day may be offensive. But they are only words and I use them as tools. I’ve had Catholic priests ride with me, there is one who understands the streets and makes it a point to ride with as many of us as possible. During our 12 hour shift, language never even came up. We seemed to discuss more important issues such as life and death…on both sides of the law. I wish he could ride more often, even though it is one more person I have to think about protecting. As for my conscience, the only regret I have is not pushing my squad car harder on my way to a Chocking Child call. I think what if I had drove a little faster and less safe. She may still be alive.

Those are his thoughts and I’m very proud. The two lifesaving medals and the stork pin (for delivering a baby in the back seat) mean very little to him when he thinks of the dead child.
Those who have questions regarding the “morality” of a police officer should really talk with a Catholic Police Chaplin. And stop watching cop shows on TV, it’s not real life.

NOW I’m done…

 

[1ke]

Last evening, my son (the Cop) stopped by to borrow a tool, which I’m fairly sure I won’t see again I showed this thread to him and asked what he thought and he smiled with a chuckle. After reading it, his first responds was I guess I’m fighting in an unjust war because the war on crime is a war and crime has been here since the beginning of man and there is no serious prospect of success. He said we can win some battles but the war will never be over.

I don’t believe that anyone has put forth the argument that police work is intrinsically evil or immoral.

]Those who have questions regarding the “morality” of a police officer should really talk with a Catholic Police Chaplin.

And yet, diverging from your original post in which you asked about Catholic conscience formation, undercover police work, and doing “morally repugnant” things, you have yet to give an example of anything morally repugnant. Delivering babies and attempting to save a choking child are not morally repugnant, they are morally admirable.

I did give an example of something that would violate Church teaching, and that a police officer could not do with a “clear” Catholic conscience. So far, you have not given any such example, yet you want to cast aspersions on my answer-- which remains the same-- that NO, a Catholic may not do an intrinsically evil action in “good” conscience in the name of it being “police work”. Again, you haven’t actually given any such example thus far so I am not really sure what you mean by morally repugnant– I personally did not have saving children and delivering babies in mind when I read that phrase.

And stop watching cop shows on TV, it’s not real life.

Have comments here been based on police shows? Not to my knowledge.

NOW I’m done…

Is that the online equivalent of na-na-na-boo-boo?

 

[shipwrkd]

And yet, diverging from your original post in which you asked about Catholic conscience formation, undercover police work, and doing “morally repugnant” things, you have yet to give an example of anything morally repugnant. Delivering babies and attempting to save a choking child are not morally repugnant, they are morally admirable.

You stated…

Originally Posted by 1ke
So, for example, a married undercover police officer having sex with someone not their spouse in the name of “undercover” police work would be (a) morally repugnant and (b) intrinsically evil.

Then I asked

On the other hand, If I had a daughter, could she solicit sex without following through to arrest someone looking for it illegally? She may not have to be “morally repugnant” but she’d have to give the impression of selling herself which might mean using language that may be morally questionable. Not sure…but I’m glad I don’t have a daughter. Just wondering…

And you chose not to give a responds. I’m growing tired of bantering with someone who chooses to answer only what one want’s to, of someone misquoting my OP. I never used the word “repugnant” and I never asked for Church teaching…those are YOUR words. It’s hard enough wondering if my grandson will have a Father at the end of his shift. I really don’t need to respond to someone who seems determined to get the last word in and the words “intrinsically evil” are getting old. If you take that as na-na-na-na-boo-boo, so be it. Have a nice day and thank you for your comments.

 

[1ke]

You stated…

Then I asked

And you chose not to give a responds. I’m growing tired of bantering with someone who chooses to answer only what one want’s to,

Sorry, I didn’t intentionally skip over your question to me.

To answer your question regarding a police officer who would use subterfuge to catch a criminal, I don’t believe that is intrinsically evil according to the Church. One would need to form one’s conscience in the area of the 8th commandment.

of someone misquoting my OP. I never used the word “repugnant” and I never asked for Church teaching…those are YOUR words.

Ok, you used the word repulsive. Repugnant is a synonym. Sue me for mixing up repugnant and repulsive when referring back to your original post.

You asked about Catholic conscience. The basis of all conscience formation is the moral teaching of the Church. You cannot ask about one without receiving an answer that includes the other.

and the words “intrinsically evil” are getting old.

Why? It is an extremely important part of morality and conscience formation.