Not a demagogue

[ECHefty]

Okay, I’m seriously considering becoming Catholic…I’m going through the Rite of Welcoming this Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe. My name is Eric Hefty, my conversion is not what I want to talk about. I have a question.

Pope Benedict XVI has an indomitable knowledge and expertise on Christianity and Christ in general, I will not say anything to deny that. He has been a great source of information for me and I will always be grateful to God for the gifts given to Pope which have been passed down in his works. However, I am confused by a line he wrote in a book I read recently and have been burning over ever since. He said this:

“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia …] While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

I’m about as pro-life as anyone I’ve met in the church I’ve been attending. And it’s a pro-life church promoting pro-life organizations. I’m trying to think of one reason abortion and euthanasia would not have the same moral weight as killing another person who has been granted life. I want to tell the pope he has his words mixeed up. Where he said abortion and euthanasia he should have said war, where he said war he should have said abortion and euthanasia. He should have agknowledged the undeniable connection between the three destructive forces. I’m seriously convicted he is wrong in this pronouncement, with all respect to his office. Not only do I disagree with him, I believe he is wrong. I am sure about this. What does that say about my prospects in the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic church? Am I allowed to believe this and still be faithful member with them, or even in communication at all, with the Benedict as my Pope? I don’t want to break away, but if they are obstinate in voicing their concerns as I am as well we might have to at some point. What is the official Vatican stance on believing the Pope is wrong?

 

[carn]

I think you should recheck your assesment of the popes words.

Consider especially that there is a difference between death penalty and war and abortion and euthanasia.

With euthanasia and abortion you kill a human, because he is a burden. The person never did anything wrong to justify killing him, except existing.

With death penalty you kill someone because you are convinced he committed a crime that deserves a serious punishment and which demonstrates that he is a danger to others.
So you kill the person because of something he did do wrong.

In war idealy you fight versus some aggressor attacking your country trying to impose rules or change borders in a way the inhabitants do not agree. In reality you of course have collateral damage, but you fight because someone else did something wrong and you try to use violence only so far as it is necessary to stop that person.

So euthanasia and abortion must always be crimes versus someone innocent, while death penalty and war are at least from the intent aimed at someone, who did or is doing something wrong.

 

[ECHefty]

Sorry, I’ve tried the “just war” from the perspective of the pilgrim church and have found out it’s riddled with contradictions, whereas Jesus’ words are consistently about cultivating peace through non-violent means. So I didn’t come to be convinced that the Pope is right, I came because I have a specific question on the position on believing the Pope is wrong and still becoming a member of the church.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Peace be with you, Mr. Hefty; interesting question.

If this quote was not in a papal bull or other declaration of infallible doctrine or dogma, you are NOT required to agree with Pope Benedict. If it is his own literature, and not the Teaching Authority of the Church, it is pretty much his own opinion (albeit an informed one).

So my question would be: what book did it come from? If it came from a book, I doubt you are required to agree with the Pope.

Nonetheless, being a rather scholarly and wise Pope, I might consider why he wrote such a thing - and what he meant by it.

Consider the people Benedict is seeking to protect - above all, all human life. But especially the weak, the poor, and those unable to defend themselves. Who, of all, are the least able to defend themselves? The old and the young - those yet to be born into this world, and those awaiting to be borne into the next.

It is not that the working-age and the capable are not important. But to preserve their own freedoms, sometimes the able must physically defend themselves, and those who cannot defend themselves. If we do not defend the rights of our weakest, most needy, how can we assure our own rights, or the rights of the poor (who are just a few steps above the helpless infant and dying elder)?

Just things to think about.

 

[estesbob]

Sorry, I’ve tried the “just war” from the perspective of the pilgrim church and have found out it’s riddled with contradictions, whereas Jesus’ words are consistently about cultivating peace through non-violent means. So I didn’t come to be convinced that the Pope is right, I came because I have a specific question on the position on believing the Pope is wrong and still becoming a member of the church.

The Pope does not have the authority to say what you wish that he would say. . Having said that, there is nothing in church doctrine that says you cannot personally oppose war in all circumstances. .

 

[Nate13]

Sorry, I’ve tried the “just war” from the perspective of the pilgrim church and have found out it’s riddled with contradictions, whereas Jesus’ words are consistently about cultivating peace through non-violent means. So I didn’t come to be convinced that the Pope is right, I came because I have a specific question on the position on believing the Pope is wrong and still becoming a member of the church.

Just War (2307-17)

All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. Despite this admonition of the Church, it sometimes becomes necessary to use force to obtain the end of justice. This is the right, and the duty, of those who have responsibilities for others, such as civil leaders and police forces. While individuals may renounce all violence those who must preserve justice may not do so, though it should be the last resort, “once all peace efforts have failed.” [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 79, 4]

As with all moral acts the use of force to obtain justice must comply with three conditions to be morally good. First, the act must be good in itself. The use of force to obtain justice is morally licit in itself. Second, it must be done with a good intention, which as noted earlier must be to correct vice, to restore justice or to restrain evil, and not to inflict evil for its own sake. Thirdly, it must be appropriate in the circumstances. An act which may otherwise be good and well motivated can be sinful by reason of imprudent judgment and execution.

In this regard Just War doctrine gives certain conditions for the legitimate exercise of force, all of which must be met:

"1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

3. there must be serious prospects of success;

4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition" [CCC 2309].

The responsibility for determining whether these conditions are met belongs to “the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.” The Church’s role consists in enunciating clearly the principles, in forming the consciences of men and in insisting on the moral exercise of just war.

The Church greatly respects those who have dedicated their lives to the defense of their nation. “If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace. [Cf. Gaudium et spes 79, 5]” However, she cautions combatants that not everything is licit in war. Actions which are forbidden, and which constitute morally unlawful orders that may not be followed, include:

- attacks against, and mistreatment of, non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners;

- genocide, whether of a people, nation or ethnic minorities;

- indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants.

Given the modern means of warfare, especially nuclear, biological and chemical, these crimes against humanity must be especially guarded against.

In the end it is not enough to wage war to achieve justice without treating the underlying causes. “Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war” [CCC 2317]. The Church has no illusions that true justice and peace can be attained before the Coming of the Lord. It is the duty of men of good will to work towards it, nonetheless. In the words of the spiritual dictum, we should work as if everything depended upon our efforts, and pray as if everything depended upon God.

Specifically see the parts I put in red. Does this give some clarity?

Also see the Catholic Answers tract on the issue.
catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine

 

[emisher]

There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

Hi Eric,

I agree with the other posters. So long as its not an official teaching we are free to disagree with the Pope as even the Pope says in the above quote.

It seems that you are pacifist. That’s fine, I’m not judging you --as the other poster said, you can oppose war in all circumstances. I do have a question though. And please, don’t think I’m being a smart allek. It’s just that I’ve never really known a pacifist before. I’m genuinely curious as to how far you would go to mantain your ideals.

Do you feel it would be permissible to kill an intruder in your home in order to protect your family? In other words, do the innocent not have a right to be protected from evil intent?

Again, please don’t think I"m calling you out and if you don’t want to answer that’s fine. I know that wasn’t the gist of your question.

God Bless

 

[Nate13]

There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

Hi Eric,

I agree with the other posters. So long as its not an official teaching we are free to disagree with the Pope as even the Pope says in the above quote.

It seems that you are pacifist. That’s fine, I’m not judging you --as the other poster said, you can oppose war in all circumstances. I do have a question though. And please, don’t think I’m being a smart allek. It’s just that I’ve never really known a pacifist before. I’m genuinely curious as to how far you would go to mantain your ideals.

Do you feel it would be permissible to kill an intruder in your home in order to protect your family? In other words, do the innocent not have a right to be protected from evil intent?

Again, please don’t think I"m calling you out and if you don’t want to answer that’s fine. I know that wasn’t the gist of your question.

God Bless

All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. Despite this admonition of the Church, it sometimes becomes necessary to use force to obtain the end of justice. This is the right, and the duty, of those who have responsibilities for others, such as civil leaders and police forces. While individuals may renounce all violence those who must preserve justice may not do so, though it should be the last resort, “once all peace efforts have failed.”

I personally would be of the opinion that a husband has a responsibility to protect his family. Therefore I would believe that it is his right and duty to protect his family. I think most women would feel they have a responsibility to protect their children as well.

 

[carn]

Sorry, I’ve tried the “just war” from the perspective of the pilgrim church and have found out it’s riddled with contradictions, whereas Jesus’ words are consistently about cultivating peace through non-violent means. So I didn’t come to be convinced that the Pope is right, I came because I have a specific question on the position on believing the Pope is wrong and still becoming a member of the church.

Sorry, you said:
" I’m trying to think of one reason abortion and euthanasia would not have the same moral weight as killing another person who has been granted life."
It just seemed you might not know a reason. And one possible reason is, that in euthanasia and abortion the acts of the victim are never cause for the killing. With capital punishment and war the acts of the victim can be part of the cause of the killing. Even if you consider this difference to be too weak, it is a difference.

And the problem is not objecting war, the problem is this:
" I want to tell the pope he has his words mixeed up. Where he said abortion and euthanasia he should have said war, where he said war he should have said abortion and euthanasia."

This would mean you consider the following position correct (i rearranged the popes word to fit to the above statement):

There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about abortion and euthanasia, but not however with regard to waging war and applying the death penalty.

This would not be an acceptable position for a catholic as the church is against abortion since 2000 years. Therefore i thought you should recheck your position.

But if you position is, that war, death penalty, abortion and euthanasia are wrong and you agree that at least of the latter two all catholics should be convinced, then there is no problem regarding your beliefs and church in this point.

Your opinion that the former two should also be true for all catholics is in an honourable position.

(Sorry if i was impolite, but people in my country get on my nerves. The effictively claim its better for the children themselves and society, if they are aborted and therefore its justified, but as soon as you suggest, that killing OBL or hanging Hussein is also very beneficial for society and for themselves, because they cannot commit further crimes, with the added boon, that they are guilty of something, they go nuts. Which is completly inconsistent.)

 

[manualman]

You can’t conceive of any situation in which it is justified and morally right to use deadly force to protect the innocent against an unjust aggressor?

You can’t conceive of a society in which a criminal has such power and influence that the government itself is unable long to hold him prisoner in the face of corruption or violence against those charged with his incarceration? (Osama Bin Laden comes to mind…)

But you CAN conceive of situations where it might be OK to intentionally kill an innocent unborn child?

Am I misunderstanding your positions?

 

[Ubenedictus]

Pls reconsider your position. Abortion and war are two different things, war against an unjust aggressor to protect the innocent MAY be called a just war but causing the death of the helpless is hardly just unless the baby endagers the mothers life. There can be different opinion about the death penalty but not with abortion. Personal I don’t like war(same with JohnPAUL 11) or death penalty but if war is the last resort to protect others or death penalty to stop a criminal i’ll say it should be done with care. Imagine how many OT passage will say the death penalty and war with right reason is fine the church cannot say they are always wrong since she is the servant of the word of God.
Hope i helped.
Peace

 

[ECHefty]

You can’t conceive of any situation in which it is justified and morally right to use deadly force to protect the innocent against an unjust aggressor?

You can’t conceive of a society in which a criminal has such power and influence that the government itself is unable long to hold him prisoner in the face of corruption or violence against those charged with his incarceration? (Osama Bin Laden comes to mind…)

But you CAN conceive of situations where it might be OK to intentionally kill an innocent unborn child?

Am I misunderstanding your positions?

Yes, you are misunderstanding my position. Sorry I can’t elaborate anymore.

 

[manualman]

Yes, you are misunderstanding my position. Sorry I can’t elaborate anymore.

I’m glad I misunderstood you. Don’t mind blunt responses, its the internet. It’s just that way. You don’t have to care if people are harsh with you, because it isn’t YOU they are being harsh with, just the words they read on a screen.

Don’t be afraid to be wrong. It’s how you learn. Although by now, I’ve been wrong enough that I should know everything…