Should we amend a wrong if it harms innocents?

[fakename]

By harm I mean “kills”. I heard from the Summa that one should never stop wrongs if doing so might accidentally cause the death of innocent people: “Our Lord forbids the uprooting of the cockle, when there is fear lest the wheat be uprooted together with it.”

So if only 1 innocent person is accidentally killed in trying to stop others (from doing wrong), then that punishment ought not to be done.

Is this true?

Secondly some people are more innocent than others so are we to be anxious about tolerating the evil of sacrificing a less innocent person for the good of a more innocent person or are we not so bound to anxiety in this case?

 

[InspiritCarol]

By harm I mean “kills”. I heard from the Summa that one should never stop wrongs if doing so might accidentally cause the death of innocent people: “Our Lord forbids the uprooting of the cockle, when there is fear lest the wheat be uprooted together with it.”

Wow, you need to find this exact reference and see the full context before you even start to formulate conclusions based on a quote that may or may not even exist.

So if only 1 innocent person is accidentally killed in trying to stop others (from doing wrong), then that punishment ought not to be done.

Are you assuming the role of God here? This is a very circular question. Can you break it down better? … Give an example?

Secondly some people are more innocent than others so are we to be anxious about tolerating the evil of sacrificing a less innocent person for the good of a more innocent person or are we not so bound to anxiety in this case?

Not our call to make.

This is an “ends justifies the means” question. To which the answer is always: no - the ends does NOT justify the means.

Moreover, you are not trusting God. If you think that the only way to prevent “innocents” from being killed is by the death of another; you have not opened your life up fully to God. If it is his will to “protect innocents” His methods would never require you to break one single law to do so. God does not work against God. Do you see?

 

[fakename]

Wow, you need to find this exact reference and see the full context before you even start to formulate conclusions based on a quote that may or may not even exist.

That is the correct context of the quote.

Are you assuming the role of God here? This is a very circular question. Can you break it down better? … Give an example?

Let us assume only that we can know that someone might be accidentally harmed. For instance, "a man that sowed good seed in his field. But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way. And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. And the servants of the good man of the house coming said to him. Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? Why then has it cockle? And he said to them: An enemy has done this. And the servants said to him: Will you that we go and gather it up?And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it."

Not our call to make.

This is an “ends justifies the means” question. To which the answer is always: no - the ends does NOT justify the means.

Moreover, you are not trusting God. If you think that the only way to prevent “innocents” from being killed is by the death of another; you have not opened your life up fully to God. If it is his will to “protect innocents” His methods would never require you to break one single law to do so. God does not work against God. Do you see?

** The question was whether we should tolerate the death of an innocent person -not whether we should will the death of innocent person. For instance, one wills to defend oneself but tolerates the unfortunate fact that one’s enemy might be killed in an act of defense. In this sense, the ends don’t justify the means and both are appropriately related.**

 

[InspiritCarol]

That is the correct context of the quote.

I mean what came before - what came after. Where is this?

Let us assume only that we can know that someone might be accidentally harmed. For instance, “a man that sowed good seed in his field. But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way. And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. And the servants of the good man of the house coming said to him. Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? Why then has it cockle? And he said to them: An enemy has done this. And the servants said to him: Will you that we go and gather it up?And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it.”

Leave it to St. John Chrysostom to address this one. fisheaters.com/parables5.html

The question was whether we should tolerate the death of an innocent person -not whether we should will the death of innocent person. For instance, one wills to defend oneself but tolerates the unfortunate fact that one’s enemy might be killed in an act of defense. In this sense, the ends don’t justify the means and both are appropriately related.

“Tolerance” of death is actively *not *seeking life. If you kill an unborn child in order to save a mother’s life, you have still killed the unborn child. If on the other hand you do everything in your power to save the mother while still doing everything in your power to save the child; even having all confidence that the actions to save the mother most likely will result in the death of the child; the onus is still on you to try to save the child as best you can. There is a healthy child in our little community that was 5 months premature. Never shut out God; never say He can’t where He will. Never assume the role of judge. Moreover, never tolerate the denial of the possibility that the “cockle” may become “wheat”.

What are you getting at here?

Maybe if you just *asked *the real question instead of seeking geralities you would find more helpful responses. Who is it you would imagine seeing killed in the defense of "innocents?

 

[fakename]

I mean what came before - what came after. Where is this?
newadvent.org/summa/3108.htm then type in your “find” bar, “cockle” or “wheat”. What is written before or after, I’m sure, won’t change the meaning of what I wrote.

Leave it to St. John Chrysostom to address this one. fisheaters.com/parables5.html

“Tolerance” of death is actively *not *seeking life. If you kill an unborn child in order to save a mother’s life, you have still killed the unborn child. If on the other hand you do everything in your power to save the mother while still doing everything in your power to save the child; even having all confidence that the actions to save the mother most likely will result in the death of the child; the onus is still on you to try to save the child as best you can. There is a healthy child in our little community that was 5 months premature. Never shut out God; never say He can’t where He will. Never assume the role of judge. Moreover, never tolerate the denial of the possibility that the “cockle” may become “wheat”.

What are you getting at here?

Maybe if you just *asked *the real question instead of seeking geralities you would find more helpful responses. Who is it you would imagine seeing killed in the defense of "innocents?

**
Well, in the interest of not getting off topic let me keep to abstract points (in any case, general rules are what I’m looking for). 1) I don’t think tolerance of an evil means that you intend it, since if it did, then the tolerance of heresy would mean that you intend heresy. 2) that being said, I think you can tolerate the death of innocent people w/o sin because (given the correct circumstances) as long as you don’t intend to kill people things are okay -this is all in the doctrine of double effect. 3) Anyways, it is okay to tolerate the deaths of some people: dangerous criminals, enemy soldiers, and heretics for instance and to accidentally cause these deaths through execution.
**

 

[InspiritCarol]

Well, in the interest of not getting off topic let me keep to abstract points (in any case, general rules are what I’m looking for). 1) I don’t think tolerance of an evil means that you intend it, since if it did, then the tolerance of heresy would mean that you intend heresy. 2) that being said, I think you can tolerate the death of innocent people w/o sin because (given the correct circumstances) as long as you don’t intend to kill people things are okay -this is all in the doctrine of double effect. 3) Anyways, it is okay to tolerate the deaths of some people: dangerous criminals, enemy soldiers, and heretics for instance and to accidentally cause these deaths through execution.

Here’s the problem with a generality here. “Tolerance” has a very broad definition and may be applied in any number of ways. In light of the virtues vs. the vices; “tolerance” may easily fall under the vice of “sloth”. There is nothing that is virtuous about “tolerance” no matter the definition.

Now, The spiritual works of mercy are:

•To instruct the ignorant;
•To counsel the doubtful;
•To admonish sinners;
•To bear wrongs patiently;
•To forgive offences willingly;
•To comfort the afflicted;
•To pray for the living and the dead.

“Tolerance” depending on how you take it, may or may not fall into one of these categories; it may on the other hand be diametrically opposed to one of these.

If you are looking for generalities on which to base your life; go with the virtues, the works of corporal mercy and the works of spiritual mercy. All else is corruptible.