The difference between killing and murder

[Church_Militant]

Get the real facts:
Military service (1943–1945)

In 1943, when he was 16, Ratzinger was drafted with many of his classmates into the Luftwaffenhelfer program (anti-aircraft support). They guarded various facilities including a BMW aircraft engine plant north of Munich and later, the jet fighter base at Gilching, where Ratzinger served in telephone communications. After his class was released from the Corps in September 1944, Ratzinger was put to work setting up anti-tank defences in the Hungarian border area of Austria in preparation for the expected Red Army offensive. When his unit was released from service in November 1944, he went home for three weeks before being drafted into the German army at Munich to receive basic infantry training in the nearby town of Traunstein. His unit served at various posts around the city and was never sent to the front.

Ratzinger was briefly interned in an Allied prisoner-of-war camp near Ulm and was repatriated on June 19, 1945. The family was reunited when his brother, Georg, returned after being repatriated from a prisoner-of-war camp in Italy.Pope Bendict XVI

As a young man, the new pope served in the Hitler Youth — compulsory at the time — and was drafted into a German anti-aircraft unit at the end of World War II but later deserted. Although Benedict has been a leading voice in the church in battling anti-Semitism and fostering Jewish-Catholic relations, his past in Germany worries some Israelis [but not this one – SSV].

A post by our Jewish friend stillsmallvoice

Pope Benedict XVI

It is a shame that some Israeli newspapers, along with some newspapers elsewhere, sensationalized the Catholic church’s choice of a new pope with headlines like, “White smoke, black past” and “From Nazi Youth to the Vatican.” Our own headline, “New pope hailed for Jewish ties,” we must say, would seem more fair and accurate.

From theJerusalem Post (MUST READ!!!)

So there it is Steven…the truth. I for one think you owe His Holiness and all of us here an apology. And the one for hijacking this thread for another of your agenda driven attacks on the pope.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Thanks Church. It’s been a bit since I read up on our Pope’s war service. Here’s something I found from the Ratzinger Fanclub:

1927 Ratzinger is born on April 16, Holy Saturday in Marktl am Inn, and is baptized the same day… Ratzinger admits it is not easy to say what his ‘hometown’ is. As a rural policeman, his father was transferred frequently, and his family was continually on the road.

1929 Ratzinger’s family moves to Tittmoning, a small town on the Salzach River, on the Austrian border.

1932December: Due to his father’s outspoken criticism of the Nazis, Ratzinger’s family is forced to relocate to Auschau am Inn, at the foot of the Alps.

1937Ratzinger’s father retires and his family moves to Hufschlag, outside the city of Traunstein, where Josef would spend most of his years as a teenager. Here he begins classes at the local gymnasium for classical languages, where he studies Latin and Greek.

1939Ratzinger enters the minor seminary in Traunstein, the initial step of his ecclesiastical career.

1943Ratzinger, along with the rest of his seminary class, is drafted into the Flak [anti-aircraft corps]. He is still allowed to attend classes at the Maximilians-Gymnasium in Munich three days a week.

1944September: Having reached military age, Ratzinger is released from the Flak and returns home, only to be drafted into labor detail under the infamous Austrian Legion (“fanatical ideologues who tyrannized us without respite”). November: Ratzinger undergoes basic training with the German infantry. Due to illness he finds himself exempt from most of the rigors of military duty.

1945Spring (end of April or beginning of May): As the Allied front draws closer, Ratzinger deserts the army and heads home to Traunstein. When the Americans finally arrive at his village, they choose to establish their headquarters in the Ratzinger house. Josef is identified as a German soldier and incarcerated in a POW camp. June 19: Ratzinger is released and returns home to Traunstein, followed by his brother Georg in July.
November: Ratzinger and his brother Georg re-enter the seminary.

I do remember when we were all reading up on the Cardinal back in the interregnum that Ratzinger had no time for the Nazis, that he was not pushed overly into full military service due to his young age and his already well-developed desire to enter the priesthood. I do remember that eventually he deserted and that it was very dangerous for him to return home. I did not know that he had been in a POW camp.

I wonder what our Pope has to say about the distinction between killing and murder.

 

[Ender]

Suudy:

So we expand this to an unjust war or unjust application of the death penalty. Is killing in these situations murder? Can a person, in good faith, participate in a military action that they and their leaders believe is just, but is in fact objectively unjust? Are they committing murder?

If it is not murder, then we are caught in the conundrum of moral relativity. If the person believes the war is just, then killing within that war is not murder. We are back at square one in my argument with my friend.

Start with the Church’s definition of murder: “The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.”

Killing is only one part of this definition. For killing to be murder the death must be intended and the victim must be innocent. So: is the execution of an innocent person murder? No, it is merely a horrible mistake. The result, the deliberate killing of an innocent person, was never intended. (I’m not sure what you mean by “unjust application” of the death penalty.)

A similar argument would hold for soldiers participating in an unjust war. Without addressing the issue of whether combatants are innocent, a soldier who fights in an unjust war he believes to be just is no more guilty of murder than a soldier fighting in a just war. Neither fights with the intent of killing the innocent. Nor is the question of intent simply semantics: if a soldier fights in a war that is objectively just but he thinks both that it is unjust and that killing in an unjust war is murder, then he is guilty of murder.

Ender

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello All,

Does anyone have a link to where the Church teaches whether or not German and Italian soldiers killing for Hitler in WWII committed mortal sin murder? Whether it was teaching preached to Germans and Italians at the time of the war or present day retrospect?

 

[Church_Militant]

Steven Merten:

Hello All,

Does anyone have a link to where the Church teaches whether or not German and Italian soldiers killing for Hitler in WWII committed mortal sin murder? Whether it was teaching preached to Germans and Italians at the time of the war or present day retrospect?

Nope…do YOU have one?

You have no leg to stand on SM…so either show proof or button up. Ani & I have already shown where you have scandalously cast aspersions on His Holiness and inferred something that did not happen.

You have some kind of agenda and it seems to have collapsed under the weight of the facts.

I repeat my call for your apologies to His Holiness and to the members on this forum. :irish1:

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Steven Merten:

Hello All,

Does anyone have a link to where the Church teaches whether or not German and Italian soldiers killing for Hitler in WWII committed mortal sin murder? Whether it was teaching preached to Germans and Italians at the time of the war or present day retrospect?

In addition to other posters’ comments and clarifications, I’d like to point out that the Church on earth is entirely incapable of declaring with certainty what a man’s knowledge and consent to a particular sin were. So the Church would not make a declaration that “all soldiers in the German army committed mortal sin in taking the lives of enemy combatants.” Such a statement would be absurd.

Review the conditions for mortal sin:

1. grave matter
2. full knowledge
3. full consent

Review the definition of murder:
deliberate taking of innocent life (i.e., intentionally killing someone one believes innocent, or even taking the life of one who has forfeited his life when one lacks the proper authority - I cannot execute a criminal, even though the death penalty is a licit option for the state).

Given the complexity that results from combining those two, I would stake a large amount of money on the complete absence of a blanket statement on the mortal sin committed by each and every Axis soldier.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Andreas Hofer:

In addition to other posters’ comments and clarifications, I’d like to point out that the Church on earth is entirely incapable of declaring with certainty what a man’s knowledge and consent to a particular sin were. So the Church would not make a declaration that “all soldiers in the German army committed mortal sin in taking the lives of enemy combatants.” Such a statement would be absurd.

Review the conditions for mortal sin:

1. grave matter
2. full knowledge
3. full consent

Review the definition of murder:
deliberate taking of innocent life (i.e., intentionally killing someone one believes innocent, or even taking the life of one who has forfeited his life when one lacks the proper authority - I cannot execute a criminal, even though the death penalty is a licit option for the state).

Given the complexity that results from combining those two, I would stake a large amount of money on the complete absence of a blanket statement on the mortal sin committed by each and every Axis soldier.

Hello Andreas,

So in answer to Suudy’s question, you would say that murder is relative to what a soldier believes? Moral relativity.

What about Hitler’s war in general? Could/did Popes, Bishops and Priests preach to the German and Italian soldiers that they were fighting an unjust war where if they killed in this war, rather than accept execution for sedition, they would have a great chance of going to hell for committing mortal sin murder?

Is it a sin for Pope’s, Bishops and Priests to withhold “grave matter”, “full knowledge” preachings and warnings to German and Italian soldiers in order to disconnect the “conditions for mortal sin” to make killing for Hitler not a mortal sin and/or save their own physical lives?

Can the Church only teach Catholics the difference between just and unjust war and they must let Catholic individuals decide for themsleves whether or not they are committing murder when killing in war? Moral relativity.

I am throwing out some ideas in hopes that we can zero in on the best possible answer to Suudy’s question.

Suudy:

I was in a discussion over the holidays with a friend regarding moral relativism. He’s a big supporter of the concept that we each define our own truths. I objected saying that there are objective truths that exist, such as the prohibition on murder.

 

[Church_Militant]

Steven Merten:

Hello Andreas,

So in answer to Suudy’s question, you would say that murder is relative to what a soldier believes? Moral relativity.

I don’t guess you’ve ever served in the military, or maybe even been in a real self-defense situation have ya Steve? Every soldier that I’ve ever known, including my own father (USMC WWII) has told me that in combat they are not trying to kill as much as defending themselves. See the CCC

What about Hitler’s war in general? Could/did Popes, Bishops and Priests preach to the German and Italian soldiers that they were fighting an unjust war where if they killed in this war, rather than accept execution for sedition, they would have a great chance of going to hell for committing mortal sin murder?

Were you there? And of course in your thinking there can be no mitigation of for those who may have been decieved by their leaders, right? This discussion will go nowhere because you pursue your own disingenious agenda against His Holiness and the church while alleging that you are a good Catholic.

Is it a sin for Pope’s, Bishops and Priests to withhold “grave matter”, “full knowledge” preachings and warnings to German and Italian soldiers in order to disconnect the “conditions for mortal sin” to make killing for Hitler not a mortal sin and/or save their own physical lives?

Have you any concrete evidence that this was intentionally done? No. I doubt you do since you have yet to provide anything but innnuendo in some misguided attempt to indict the church.

Can the Church only teach Catholics the difference between just and unjust war and they must let Catholic individuals decide for themsleves whether or not they are committing murder when killing in war? Moral relativity.

I have a better question. Is it a sin for a man to judge and imply wrongdoing by others without having the facts or courage to supply them in the course of a discussion when he has already displayed an agenda to bear false witness against someone?

I am throwing out some ideas in hopes that we can zero in on the best possible answer to Suudy’s question.

Really? I can’t tell. This looks more like a self-serving effort by a guy who calls himself a Catholic to disparage the Holy Father and impugn the teachings of the church. :whacky: :tsktsk:

 

[vern_humphrey]

YinYangMom:

As I read all this about the soldier’s culpability what comes to mind is Pope Benedict. There was an example of a war with mandatory service of all men. Didn’t he risk death by going underground to avoid his civil obligation rather than kill anyone under orders?

In the U.S. service is not mandatory, it’s voluntary. A person volunteers to learn how to kill people. Granted the goal is to minimize the killing, but they are taught varying techniques of how to bring about the death of the opposition. The military is certainly a noble and honorable profession and vital to every civilized population. Our soldiers sign up trusting completely that they will only be ordered to kill justifiably and that’s why we keep all our leaders in our prayers. I believe this is what saves their individual souls.

My only comment was without a definitive way of determining whether or not a war is just I, personally, and for my kids, could not risk our souls without knowing for certain any single death resulting from our own hands would be viewed by God as justifiable. Public and Governmental opinion is not my gage and the Vatican doesn’t rule definitively so it’s just too risky for me and mine. But for all those who are strong enough to serve, regardless of the lack of clarity of purpose, I pray daily in thanksgiving for their sacrifice and for their souls should any of them be responsible for the death of even one person - just in case.

The Church does not teach us we can hide our heads in the sand. We cannot say, “I will refuse to do my duty under Paragraph 2310 of the CCC because it hasn’t been proven to my satisfaction the war is just.” That is a sin, too. And it can result in the deaths of human beings as easily as if you were shooting them.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Steven Merten:

Hello Andreas,

So in answer to Suudy’s question, you would say that murder is relative to what a soldier believes? Moral relativity.

What about Hitler’s war in general? Could/did Popes, Bishops and Priests preach to the German and Italian soldiers that they were fighting an unjust war where if they killed in this war, rather than accept execution for sedition, they would have a great chance of going to hell for committing mortal sin murder?

Is it a sin for Pope’s, Bishops and Priests to withhold “grave matter”, “full knowledge” preachings and warnings to German and Italian soldiers in order to disconnect the “conditions for mortal sin” to make killing for Hitler not a mortal sin and/or save their own physical lives?

Can the Church only teach Catholics the difference between just and unjust war and they must let Catholic individuals decide for themsleves whether or not they are committing murder when killing in war? Moral relativity.

I am throwing out some ideas in hopes that we can zero in on the best possible answer to Suudy’s question.

You mustn’t confuse the issues of objective morality and imputably. To intentionally take an innocent life is objectively grave matter. The question is not whether that is a sinful act. The question is whether Person X becomes guilty of mortal sin by committing the murder. I pointed out that no one would issue a blanket proclamation of mortal sin on behalf of every soldier. That deals with the subjective guilt resulting from the act. You turned that into a claim that the deliberate taking of innocent life ceases to be murder if the killer believes what he is doing is just. That’s not what I explained.

Furthermore, although the just or unjust character of a war, either *ad bellum *or in bello, is not determined by personal opinion, an individual is bound in conscience not by the decision of a bishop or even pope, but by his own informed decision based on a well-formed conscience. Pious and informed people can legitimately disagree about whether a war is just or unjust. The preacher’s duty is to form his charges to be able to make the prudential decision regarding individual cases of war, not to pronounce upon the cases himself.

The example you give of preachers withholding information in order to remove the conditions for mortal sin isn’t a very fair one. It’s not fair because it’s used to imply base motives for restraint. It’s true that Ezekiel’s watchman will be held accountable for the death of the man he did not warn, but there is prudence involved in deciding when to hold one’s tongue, as well. There is a time to speak and a time to remain silent. Some priests decided it was necessary to speak out and make the Church’s stand explicit, even though it might endanger and even kill others. Other priests decided that the Church’s position was clear enough (in condemning murder, rape, euthanasia, genocide, etc.) and that the common good could best be served by covert opposition.

You have to consider that either the injustice of the war was clear enough that it would take no rocket scientist to come to an informed conclusion about it or else the information held by the general public did not contain the atrocities committed by the Axis powers and the justice of the war was, perhaps, doubtful. Nazi Germany did, after all, have a rather extensive propoganda department. In neither case would it be necessary for the Church to explicitly condemn a war which was either obviously wrong or else of doubtful, and thus not officially condemnable, nature.

To return to crux of the matter, then, saying that the nature of the war depended on each soldier’s opinion would be relativity. Saying, however, that accountability for each soldier’s actions depended upon the opinion of his well-formed conscience does not.

Relativity denies the existence of any objective truth to the matter; it makes the contradictory claim that, for instance, murder is both good and evil. Subjectively differing culpability leaves the objective reality of an act (that murder is evil) untouched while only speaking to the guilt acquired (to what extent the person’s objectively evil act damaged his relationship with God) according to the Catholic concept of sin.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

vern humphrey:

The Church does not teach us we can hide our heads in the sand. We cannot say, “I will refuse to do my duty under Paragraph 2310 of the CCC because it hasn’t been proven to my satisfaction the war is just.” That is a sin, too. And it can result in the deaths of human beings as easily as if you were shooting them.

Without expressing an unalterable conviction, I think one is obliged to serve in doubtful cases, since the burden lies with the authority empowered to wage war. In other words, if the justice of a war is uncertain, it is not to me to decide on the matter but to abide by the president’s (and Congress’s) decision, as it is their’s to make. Even in instances where I think the war is clearly wrong but believe the legitimate authority to be acting in good faith according to the right principles, I would still defer, since they are likely better informed than I.

Only if the government admitted unjust motives or began openly prosecuting a dirty war do I think I would feel justified in refusing to serve. Of course, when it comes to particular actions, the individual has much more discretion; I wouldn’t massacre civilians even in a war that was just ad bellum, for obvious starters.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Andreas Hofer:

Without expressing an unalterable conviction, I think one is obliged to serve in doubtful cases, since the burden lies with the authority empowered to wage war. In other words, if the justice of a war is uncertain, it is not to me to decide on the matter but to abide by the president’s (and Congress’s) decision, as it is their’s to make. Even in instances where I think the war is clearly wrong but believe the legitimate authority to be acting in good faith according to the right principles, I would still defer, since they are likely better informed than I.

Only if the government admitted unjust motives or began openly prosecuting a dirty war do I think I would feel justified in refusing to serve. Of course, when it comes to particular actions, the individual has much more discretion; I wouldn’t massacre civilians even in a war that was just ad bellum, for obvious starters.

You’re absolutely right – and in tune with American miltiary law, too. You must give the government the benefit of the doubt, and must also – even if ordered – refrain from committing (and prevent others if you can) from committing war crimes.

And, as I pointed out, it has been my experience that people who adopt the situational ethics approach all too often find themselves “morally impelled” to take the course of action that is most aligned with their own self interest or agenda.

 

[Suudy]

Wow! Quite the flurry of responses. I spent the weekend out of town, and I missed all the fun. The thread of discussion, while not exactly covering my intended question, sure sparked a debate I find intensely interesting. The debate over whether combatants in a unjust (or even just) war is something worth discussion.

However, I was more in a discussion of whether murder is objectively evil, and how can we know it? These questions may be more philosophical than religous, and perhaps need not be answered within the context of Catholic theology (thanks for the Catholic perspective Ani, Steven, and Ender).

Interestingly, I listened to a talk by Dr. William Marra titled “Can Man Know Objective Truth and Value” (you can get it from keepthefaith.org the website for Keep the Faith). While much of the talk discusses the “liberal” viewpoint of moral relativism and objective truth, he does make a point at the end. While it makes sense that each of us may not be able to know objective truth, it exists regardless. Just because everyone of us does know a particular objective truth, such as in the case of murder being evil or that divorce is wrong, does not mean that objective truth does not exist. We need, however, to be able to acknowledge that we, as individuals, currently do now know it and must continue to strive to find it. (As a side, I think his implication is that the relativity lies in our inability to accept that an objective truth exists. And also whether we know the truth objectively is a matter of individual evaluation. The truth, in and of itself, is not subject to individual interpretation.)

So getting back to the discussion at hand, I guess I was trying to get at how we can know that murder is objectively evil. And now given the point of view of Dr Marra, the discussion with my friend was more about how we can objectively know that murder is evil, and how can we make an argument for those that do not agree.

I think the quote below exhibits some of what I was trying to say, but without any particular application (such as action within a war, either just or unjust).

YinYangMom:

My only comment was without a definitive way of determining whether or not a war is just I, personally, and for my kids, could not risk our souls without knowing for certain any single death resulting from our own hands would be viewed by God as justifiable…

Can we know the objective truth of the evilness of murder? The implication, of course, is that we view it as God does.

There are few questions that need to be answered:

1. What exactly is murder? Certainly we cannot know objectively that murder is evil if we cannot agree on a definition.
2. Given our definition, how do we know it is objectively evil?
3. Once we know it is objectively evil, how do we help others see it?

One final point, in response to Andreas.
Andreas Hofer:

In addition to other posters’ comments and clarifications, I’d like to point out that the Church on earth is entirely incapable of declaring with certainty what a man’s knowledge and consent to a particular sin were.

The point of the discussion is not to judge, or to have the Church judge, actions of individuals. While the implication that knowing objective truth perhaps allows us to view actions as God does, it does not give us any right of judgement. Judgement is God’s alone. However, it does allow us to live, teach, and govern in accordance with His will.

 

[Milliardo]

There is a difference between murder and homicide; murder is killing with a premeditated intent, and no justifiable cause. Homicide is when there is probable cause to kill, but is not premeditated. In other words, murder is planned, and the killer’s intent is to do just that–to kill. Homicide is when you have killed someone, but not intentionally; it could be the result of a fight, or a struggle. To that degree then, soldiers in combat do not commit murder, but under ordinary circumstances they might be committing homicide. Since it is a war, though, it can hardly be called an ordinary circumstance.

 

[Ender]

Suudy:

While it makes sense that each of us may not be able to know objective truth, it exists regardless.

I believe that objective (moral) truth does exist but I’m not sure how to prove it so I take this approach: what are the implications if it doesn’t exist? If morality is subjective then I don’t believe it could exist as anything more than personal preference. You might ask your friend if he thinks there is any way to prove that morality itself exists.

Suudy:

I think his implication is that the relativity lies in our inability to accept that an objective truth exists. And also whether we know the truth objectively is a matter of individual evaluation.

Objective truth cannot exist as a matter of individual opinion or it is not objective but subjective. We all live as if objective moral truth exists, that is, we want to be treated as if it does - but we also want to be able to act as if it was subjective so there is no basis for condemning our actions regardless of the choices we make. We can’t logically have it both ways: if moral truth is objective then we are bound by it whether we like it or not, but if it is subjective then there is no more basis for condemning murder as immoral than in condemning the wearing of brown shoes with blue pants.

Ender

 

[Suudy]

Suudy:

As a side, I think his implication is that the relativity lies in our inability to accept that an objective truth exists. And also whether we know the truth objectively is a matter of individual evaluation. The truth, in and of itself, is not subject to individual interpretation.

I think I misspoke. I re-read what I wrote before I posted, but after sleeping on it, it’s not reading the same. Let me try again.
I think that Dr. Marra is saying that the appearances of moral relativity exist only in our individual ability to determine if we know the objective truth. The objective truth exists regardless, whether we know it or not. What is subjective, is our evaulation of our ability to know objective truth.

I do not think that we can pick and choose our truths. They are externally true, and we must make every effort to know those truths. If, as an individual, I am as yet unable to know that truth, I must make every effort to learn it.

Fortunately, we as Catholics have the Church to help. The Church has come to know many objective truths, is here to help us. Until we are able to know them ourselves, we should submit to the knowledge and authority of the Church until we do. So while we may not know some objective truths, we at least are able to live according to them until we are.

But for those that are not Catholic (or even with any other source of authority outside themselves), how are they to live? Certainly they cannot be expected to live according to something they do not know. I guess that is our job as evangelists to teach them and help them understand.

Most of this is philosophical. While I find it interesting to have such discussions, it may have very little practical use for those discussing moral theology here. Thanks to everyone for their insightful contributions!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Suudy:

I think that Dr. Marra is saying that the appearances of moral relativity exist only in our individual ability to determine if we know the objective truth. The objective truth exists regardless, whether we know it or not. What is subjective, is our evaulation of our ability to know objective truth.

That’s exactly right – objective truth exists, but our ability to know it is limited.

 

[YinYangMom]

Originally Posted by YinYangMom
*As I read all this about the soldier’s culpability what comes to mind is Pope Benedict. There was an example of a war with mandatory service of all men. Didn’t he risk death by going underground to avoid his civil obligation rather than kill anyone under orders?

In the U.S. service is not mandatory, it’s voluntary. A person volunteers to learn how to kill people. Granted the goal is to minimize the killing, but they are taught varying techniques of how to bring about the death of the opposition. The military is certainly a noble and honorable profession and vital to every civilized population. Our soldiers sign up trusting completely that they will only be ordered to kill justifiably and that’s why we keep all our leaders in our prayers. I believe this is what saves their individual souls.

My only comment was without a definitive way of determining whether or not a war is just* I, personally, and for my kids, could not risk our souls without knowing for certain any single death resulting from our own hands would be viewed by God as justifiable. Public and Governmental opinion is not my gage and the Vatican doesn’t rule definitively so it’s just too risky for me and mine. But for all those who are strong enough to serve, regardless of the lack of clarity of purpose, I pray daily in thanksgiving for their sacrifice and for their souls should any of them be responsible for the death of even one person - just in case.

vern humphrey:

The Church does not teach us we can hide our heads in the sand. We cannot say, “I will refuse to do my duty under Paragraph 2310 of the CCC because it hasn’t been proven to my satisfaction the war is just.” That is a sin, too. And it can result in the deaths of human beings as easily as if you were shooting them.

I don’t get where you get that I said anyone should hide their heads in the sand from my statement.

IF a person volunteers for active military duty, then absolutely he/she is obliged to fulfill that duty even if it requires they take the life of another human being.

But military duty in the U.S. is **not **mandatory, therefore it is not every U.S. citizen’s duty to follow an order to kill or to volunteer to enlist in the military because our government determines there is a reason to go to war.

My point was I, personally, as a Catholic, can only envision myself or my children taking the life of another human being if it was **the **only course of action forced upon us by an attacker. It kind of goes along with that whole concept of valuing the state of your soul above all other earthly things. It’s not that I don’t respect and appreciate the role our government plays in protecting the overall body of citizens it governs, but historically governments everywhere tend to go to war over matters of economics and land, and as for police/sheriff/secret service type work, well that is me putting myself into situations where an attack on me or the people I’m guarding is greatly increased and I’m being trained to kill people efficiently and effectively, whereas in a personal attack it’ll be all instinct and the will of God fighting for protection, not my mind or trained reflexes. But that’s just me.

I recognize other Catholics are able to put themselves in that position and I admire them for their courage and service. Thank the Lord we have the Sacrament of Reconciliation for all those who have had to take a life, whether justly or not. Even if I were to forced to kill someone to protect the lives of my children, I’d still run to confession ASAP and I’d have to seek the forgiveness of the parents and loved ones of the assailant.

With regard to this thread, what we’ve just addressed in this post is what I would regard to be ‘killing’ not murder. The situations addressed in this particular post, while not murder, would still require confession, wouldn’t it? The commandment states “Thou shalt not kill”. Is there a distinction between justifiable killing and intentional killing with regard to the commandment?

 

[vern_humphrey]

YinYangMom:

IMy point was I, personally, as a Catholic, can only envision myself or my children taking the life of another human being if it was **the **only course of action forced upon us by an attacker.

There are many ways to take human life. One way is to encourage those who are bent on terrorism by giving them the idea that we will fold due to internal pressures.

 

[YinYangMom]

vern humphrey:

There are many ways to take human life. One way is to encourage those who are bent on terrorism by giving them the idea that we will fold due to internal pressures.

In this thread the discussion is centered around physically ending another person’s life with your own hands and trying to distinguish between ‘killing’ and ‘murder’. That’s the concept I’m focusing on at the moment.

The morality behind the other ways of ending a life can be discussed in another thread.