The difference between killing and murder

[YinYangMom]

vern humphrey:

When you brought your position on military service into the thread, you made it the place.

What I brought into the thread was the culpability of a soldier who actually kills someone because the topic of the thread is about killing vs. murder.

What you are trying to bring into the thread is the moral culpability of those who do nothing when actual killing is taking place around them. It’s a really, really important topic to discuss and I’m more than happy to do so - just not here - because it does not have to do with actual killing in light of murder.

Start the thread and email me the link…I’d be happy to participate because I believe you’ll raise some very valid points worth pondering.

 

[Ham1]

YinYangMom:

Ah, now this is a new perspective for me which has made an important distinction! Thanks.

How would I go about teaching that concept to my kids (15 and 17 years old)?

Off the top of my head…

A good analogy would probably work well to demonstrate the fact that evil can be done with no sin occurring. Example:

Student 1: Deliberately takes an MP3 player that belongs to someone else.

Student 2: Uses an MP3 player belonging to someone else and accidently forgets it is in his pocket and takes it.

Now, in both of these scenario’s an evil has occurred. The evil object of this act is that “property has been taken by one who has no right to it.”

Student 1 has knowingly and deliberately committed the act and therefore has committed a sin.

Student 2 has done something evil but it was an accident and, as such, has not committed any sin.

 

[vern_humphrey]

YinYangMom:

What I brought into the thread was the culpability of a soldier who actually kills someone because the topic of the thread is about killing vs. murder.

And that leads directly to the culpability of those who refuse to serve.

YinYangMom:

What you are trying to bring into the thread is the moral culpability of those who do nothing when actual killing is taking place around them. It’s a really, really important topic to discuss and I’m more than happy to do so - just not here - because it does not have to do with actual killing in light of murder.

Same topic – you cannot pretend that the decision not to serve or not to support those who serve is devoid of negative moral consequences.

 

[Suudy]

YinYangMom:

I am more concerned about the issue of voluntarily taking up arms to be led by another person or a governmental body. I essentially hand care of my soul over to another person and that is very risky.

I think the distinction that is most of the discussion is that those responsible for the action are the leaders, not the individual soldiers. I contend that if you were a soldier, serving in an unjust war, and obeying only lawful orders, you would not be in danger of sinning.

YinYangMom:

I may be under the leadership of a wise and moral general one day and a trigger-happy egotistical general the next. Yes, I comprehend, I would not be committing murder under either of these people, but I am still **the **person who has to live the rest of my days and my time in purgatory with the taking of the soul of another human being in my heart. How do I reconcile myself to that?

So you are saying that those who kill (assuming no atrocities) in an unjust war are not guilty of murder? And if they haven’t committed murder, how is their soul in jeopardy?

YinYangMom:

But all the more reason for me to learn as much as I can about the effects of his actions on his soul, so that I can prepare him to protect it as much as possible. He’s the one who has to sleep at night with the images of his victims in his memory.

Yet you just acknowledged it is not murder. If not murder than his soul is not in jeopardy (at least for those acts). Certainly he my feel guilt, but that is more of scruples than of actual guilt. Are you saying that you’d rather protect his sensiblities rather than his soul by discouraging miltary service?

YinYangMom:

As much as I’d like to believe the soldier would not be guilty of anything when he kills under orders, the fact remains he/she does take the life of another human being. With the commandment written as is, “Thou shalt not kill” how could he not be guilty of that when he/she has the life of that person on his hands during life and after death.

The proper reading, as I understand it, is “Thou shalt not murder.” The original Hebrew infers murder, but is transliterated as kill. You interpret the sixth commandment as condemnation of soldiers that kill in war. If we are to read the sixth command and “kill”, are you saying that all killing in war, just or unjust, is a sin?

YinYangMom:

My question is how does the Church offer the soldier with blood on his hands (or a police officer, for that matter) peace and assurrance that he will not be judged at the time of Judgement for taking the life of this person(s)?

The same way it offers peace and assurance for any other sin. The sacrament of reconciliation. But again, that assumes guilt for the particular sin of murder. For those haunted by the scruples of killing, or imagined guilt, it offers the love of Christ, especially in the eucharist. If not guilty of murder, then their soul is not in danger from that act of killing. Though they may fall into despair which can lead to other types of sin.

YinYangMom:

There is no war without civilian casualties. It’s one thing to be able to reconcile one’s conscience with the life of a combatant, but just by the nature of being in a war zone one opens themselve up to the high probability of taking the life of a civilian by mistake or collaterally. That’s the kicker which keeps me on the conscientious objector side. There are too many officers willing to sacrifice the lives of innocents in order to achieve their objective. It is their hands into which I would be placing the condition of my soul at any given hour, and that, I just can’t bring myself to do.

Is the indvidual GI responsible for the deaths of those civlians if we killed them accidentally or unknowingly? If the officer orders the execution of several civilians, that would be an unlawful order and should not be followed. If the officer order the bombing of a bunker containing military personnel and a piece of shrapnel kills a civlian bystander, would that be murder? I think executions of civilians would definitely be murder, but the collateral killing when attacking military personnel is not.

 

[edchip]

The simple definition of murder goes like this:

When acting with INTENT to UNLAWFULLY cause the DEATH of a PERSON, one engages in CONDUCT which causes the death of that person or another.
The key elements of the offense (capitalized) must all be present.
INTENT: You meant to take a life.
UNLAWFULLY: It was against the law. (excludes lawful executions, military combat, etc.)
DEATH: Permanently dead (not died and revived/resuscitated)
PERSON: Was born and is alive (in some jurisdictions may not have to be born i.e., unlawfully causing the death of a fetus.
CONDUCT: may include “failure” to do something.

 

[Milliardo]

vern humphrey:

You said;

If you weren’t apologizing for them, implying that somehow they were forced to commit murder, why say “for some reason they had to kill?”

For instance, the robbers had a struggle with the victim, resulting in the shooting of the victim. The intent was not to kill, but in the struggle, they inadvertently killed the victim.

No. Killing a victim in the course of a felony is murder, and all those involved in the commission of the crime are guilty.

There is no doubt of their guilt; that is not disputed. What would then be in question is their complicity in the crime. If they were not the gunman, then their responsibility would be lesser than the gunman himself.

The motive is to rob – a felony. The method is by deadly force. The expression of that force is murder.

The law is not actually that strict; motives have to be established first of all. Carrying a weapon per se would not be sufficient to warrant murder. It’s like all cops having a gun is licensed to kill, but you know that’s not exactly so.

u admit a man who never personally kills can be as guilty as the man who pulls the trigger or who dumps the chemicals into the gas chamber?

Again, establish first the motive, the agenda, etc. That is why there is a distinction between homicide and murder. One cannot just go out and say that such and such person is a murderer, simply because he killed someone. That is not how the law works.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Milliardo:

For instance, the robbers had a struggle with the victim, resulting in the shooting of the victim. The intent was not to kill, but in the struggle, they inadvertently killed the victim.

An armed robber cannot claim self-defense. He has no right to “struggle” with his victim.

To say he “had to kill” is to defend the indefensible.

Milliardo:

There is no doubt of their guilt; that is not disputed. What would then be in question is their complicity in the crime. If they were not the gunman, then their responsibility would be lesser than the gunman himself…/quote]

Do you say Eichmann’s guilt is less than that of a concentration camp guard who killed an inmate?

/
The law is not actually that strict; motives have to be established first of all. Carrying a weapon per se

would not be sufficient to warrant murder. It’s like all cops having a gun is licensed to kill, but you know that’s not exactly so.

Strawman – no one said carrying a weapon is the determining factor. It’s committing a felony – armed robbery – that is the determining factor.

/
Again, establish first the motive, the agenda, etc. That is why there is a distinction between homicide and murder. One cannot just go out and say that such and such person is a murderer, simply because he killed someone. That is not how the law works.

Another strawman. No one proposed placing the burden of proof on the accused.

 

[YinYangMom]

vern humphrey:

And that leads directly to the culpability of those who refuse to serve.

Yes, it logically leads to that discussion, but that discussion is better served on another thread. To conduct that discussion here would be to branch off the original topic - that of physically taking a life - and that would result in hijacking the thread, which is not allowed in these forums.

Same topic – you cannot pretend that the decision not to serve or not to support those who serve is devoid of negative moral consequences.

I agree, so let’s talk about this on another thread. I honestly believe a lot of people will want to weigh in on the subject and anticipate quite a number of posts. To invite those posts here in this thread would result in you and I hijacking it so I won’t get into it here. You seem to think that means I don’t want to discuss it, but that’s not the case. I just don’t want to hijack the OPs thread. Why are you so opposed to doing so? Don’t you see it’s the courteous thing to do?

 

[vern_humphrey]

YinYangMom:

Yes, it logically leads to that discussion, but that discussion is better served on another thread. To conduct that discussion here would be to branch off the original topic - that of physically taking a life - and that would result in hijacking the thread, which is not allowed in these forums.

Again, nice try, but no cigar. It is not branching off the threat to show that murder can be committed by those who never held a gun or a knife.

 

[YinYangMom]

edchip:

The simple definition of murder goes like this:

When acting with INTENT to UNLAWFULLY cause the DEATH of a PERSON, one engages in CONDUCT which causes the death of that person or another.
The key elements of the offense (capitalized) must all be present.
INTENT: You meant to take a life.
UNLAWFULLY: It was against the law. (excludes lawful executions, military combat, etc.)
DEATH: Permanently dead (not died and revived/resuscitated)
PERSON: Was born and is alive (in some jurisdictions may not have to be born i.e., unlawfully causing the death of a fetus.
CONDUCT: may include “failure” to do something.

That’s the legal distinction, yes.
I thought the discussion was about the MORAL distinctions.

It’s pretty much summing up along the same lines though, it seems, that even morally, the intent of the action determines whether or not the action is moral or immoral.

It also seems we’re in agreement that when it comes to war, the soldiers executing the orders are killing ‘morally’ so long as their personal intent is solely following ‘just’ orders.

We’ve not discussed at length yet, the role of the executioner for any government. I would submit that the executioner’s role is the same as the soldier’s. He is following the orders sent down through the system. It is the jury and the judge who have rendered the sentence, so when the executioner carries out the sentence it is not on his conscience.

But my question then becomes, can a Catholic morally seek that job? Executioner is a job one applies for, and the Pope has been rather clear that the death penalty should be used only in rare circumstances and that in this day and age, with our nation’s resources, executions are not necessary to protect society.

 

[YinYangMom]

vern humphrey:

Again, nice try, but no cigar. It is not branching off the threat to show that murder can be committed by those who never held a gun or a knife.

You do not consider it branching off.
I do.

We are at an impass.

 

[Ham1]

In response to the executioner example:

Certainly, I would say there is no explicit prohibition on a Catholic working as an executioner. As you stated, he is no way a murderer but rather, like the soldier, is fulfilling his lawful duty. I do think, however, that given the teaching of the Church on the death penalty, it would not be prudent for a Catholic to seek such a position if there were other alternatives.

 

[vern_humphrey]

YinYangMom:

But my question then becomes, can a Catholic morally seek that job? Executioner is a job one applies for, and the Pope has been rather clear that the death penalty should be used only in rare circumstances and that in this day and age, with our nation’s resources, executions are not necessary to protect society.

I’m not sure I understand. Do you say the pope said in this day and age, with our nation’s resources, executions are not necessary to protect society?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

YinYangMom:

But my question then becomes, can a Catholic morally seek that job? Executioner is a job one applies for, and the Pope has been rather clear that the death penalty should be used only in rare circumstances and that in this day and age, with our nation’s resources, executions are not necessary to protect society.

For clarity’s sake, John Paul was rather clear the the death penalty should be used only in CERTAIN circumstances and that in this day and age, without our nation’s resources, HE BELIEVES executions are not necessary to protect society IN MOSTLY ALL CASES.

I imagine I wind up coming off as a bold champion of capital punishment, but I always hate to see the lack of clarity involved with the presentation of the Church’s teaching on the subject. Should the pope’s opinion on the matter be given pride of place? Yes. But should his judgment on the effectiveness of modern penal systems (which is not very high on the list of areas in which he is an authority) be considered binding on all Catholics? Not at all.

I would agree, however, that given the contentious nature of the issue and for the sake of the weaker brethren, it would be best to seek other employment before the post of executioner.

 

[YinYangMom]

vern humphrey:

I’m not sure I understand. Do you say the pope said in this day and age, with our nation’s resources, executions are not necessary to protect society?

From the Vatican website (emphasis mine):

John Paul II, General Audience, Wednesday 13 September 2000
*"At the end of his catechesis, the Holy Father appealed for the life of Derek Rocco Barnabei, imprisoned in Virginia, USA. *

In the spirit of clemency that is characteristic of the Jubilee Year, I once again add my voice to that of all those who are asking that young Derek Rocco Barnabei’s life be spared.

I also hope, more generally, that we will reach the point of giving up recourse to capital punishment, since today the State has other means available to suppress crime effectively, without definitively depriving the offender of the possibility of redeeming himself."

From the Catechism on the Vatican Website (emphasis mine):

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

 

[vern_humphrey]

YinYangMom:

From the Vatican website (emphasis mine):

John Paul II, General Audience, Wednesday 13 September 2000

*"*At the end of his catechesis, the Holy Father appealed for the life of Derek Rocco Barnabei, imprisoned in Virginia, USA.

In the spirit of clemency that is characteristic of the Jubilee Year, I once again add my voice to that of all those who are asking that young Derek Rocco Barnabei’s life be spared.

I also hope, more generally, that we will reach the point of giving up recourse to capital punishment, since today the State has other means available to suppress crime effectively, without definitively depriving the offender of the possibility of redeeming himself."

From the Catechism on the Vatican Website (emphasis mine):

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

In other words, John Paul the Great did not say in this day and age, with our nation’s resources, executions are not necessary to protect society.

I didn’t think he did – John Paul the Great never ran a prison or administered a criminal justice system and would not have the detalied knowledge or expertise to say such a thing.

 

[YinYangMom]

vern humphrey:

In other words, John Paul the Great did not say in this day and age, with our nation’s resources, executions are not necessary to protect society.

Are you denying he said:

I also hope, more generally, that we will reach the point of giving up recourse to capital punishment, since today the State has other means available to suppress crime effectively, without definitively depriving the offender of the possibility of redeeming himself.

How else would you suggest understanding his words:

"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

He’s clearly stating his hope that our government would stop using capital punishment because he believes we have other means available to protect society from offenders without having to kill them.

Yes, capital punishment is still necessary to have ‘on the books’ just in case, but our use of it should be 'very rare, if not practically non-existent."

I’ve not suggested anywhere that our government should strike capital punishment off the books, I’m not even debating capital punishment period. I was asking whether or not a Catholic should seek the job of public executioner given the pope’s statements on the matter.

 

[vern_humphrey]

YinYangMom:

Are you denying he said:

I also hope, more generally, that we will reach the point of giving up recourse to capital punishment, since today the State has other means available to suppress crime effectively, without definitively depriving the offender of the possibility of redeeming himself.

How else would you suggest understanding his words:

"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

He’s clearly stating his hope that our government would stop using capital punishment because he believes we have other means available to protect society from offenders without having to kill them.

Yes, capital punishment is still necessary to have ‘on the books’ just in case, but our use of it should be 'very rare, if not practically non-existent."

I’ve not suggested anywhere that our government should strike capital punishment off the books, I’m not even debating capital punishment period. I was asking whether or not a Catholic should seek the job of public executioner given the pope’s statements on the matter.

Are you claiming John Paul the Great said, “In this day and age, with our nation’s resources, executions are not necessary to protect society?”

 

[YinYangMom]

vern humphrey:

Are you claiming John Paul the Great said, “In this day and age, with our nation’s resources, executions are not necessary to protect society?”

Not now. Not earlier.

What I posted was:

the Pope has been rather clear that the death penalty should be used only in rare circumstances and that in this day and age, with our nation’s resources, executions are not necessary to protect society.

Nowhere did I use quotations, did I?
Nowhere did I say “John Paul the Great said”, did I?

YOU’RE the one who took my statement, wrapped quotes around **a **part of it and added “John Paul the Great said,” before that part then challenged me to prove he said what you posted.

 

[vern_humphrey]

YinYangMom:

Not now. Not earlier.

What I posted was:

the Pope has been rather clear that the death penalty should be used only in rare circumstances and that in this day and age, with our nation’s resources, executions are not necessary to protect society.

Nowhere did I use quotations, did I?
Nowhere did I say “John Paul the Great said”, did I?

YOU’RE the one who took my statement, wrapped quotes around **a **part of it and added “John Paul the Great said,” before that part then challenged me to prove he said what you posted.

Let me get this straight. You say:

the Pope has been rather clear

that the death penalty should be used only in rare circumstances and that in this day and age, with our nation’s resources, executions are not necessary to protect society.

And then you say it’s not right to challenge you on that?

It’s a simple proposition – either John Paul the Great said “in this day and age, with our nation’s resources, executions are not necessary to protect society” or he didn’t.