The end never justifies the means?

[Doc_Keele]

Murder is not something that us up for debate.

I did say “apart from circular arguments”. Do you have a non-circular argument for suppressing debate?

Essentially you’re saying this thread shouldn’t have been allowed. It has, and you don’t have to post on it.

 

[kage_ar]

I did say “apart from circular arguments”. Do you have a non-circular argument for suppressing debate?

Essentially you’re saying this thread shouldn’t have been allowed. It has, and you don’t have to post on it.

I honestly want to know, how can murder of a baby be lumped in with debatable scnarios? What kind of person wants to come up with a reason to justify killing babies?

 

[Doc_Keele]

I honestly want to know, how can murder of a baby be lumped in with debatable scnarios? What kind of person wants to come up with a reason to justify killing babies?

OK, you’re still coming up with circular arguments. No chance of any progress until you actually genuinely ask a question rather than just assert your opinion as contestable.

 

[Fidelis_Unus]

You do not lie - You tell them yes therre are Jews hiding in the house.
Everyone is arrested and killed. God judges each on their merits and each receives their just reward or punishment. When the executioners die they too are judged and disposed of by Our Just God.
After all - We will all die someday and in some way. It is not important when or how we die. For Christ said, “…do not fear those who can kill the body but can do nothing after that. Better to fear the one who, after killing, can condemn you to the fires of gehenna.”

IN this one - there simply no sin incurred by the loss of “stuff” in exchange for the lives of the crew.

The Doctor refuses to kill the child - Both mother and child die anyway. The Doctor is heartbroken. Later the Doctor dies and stands before God. He says, “Father - I killed two people because I could not save them”. “I do not deserve to enter heaven”.
The father responds, “Nonsense my son. Both the mother and Child are here with me even now”. “You committed no sin in their death, for it was their time.” “Enter heaven then and meet them - see how happy they are.”

I will leave this one to you to consider how God would view the alteratives here.

The man insists, the woman refuses, and they seperate.
The woman raises the Children, lives out her life in a chaste manner and dies in grace
The man, continues in his lustful and selfish ways remarries, again insisting on ABC. Eventually he dies, unrepentant in his sin - thinking God unjust in demanding chastity and self control from us.

You, being “Clever” (at least in your own mind), choose to tell the little old lady the truth.
That she “can’t get there from here”. That her reasoning is faulty.
Now - What is the truth that you need to convey?
That she got to the the correct destination by an “alternate route”? One that you and many other “clever philosophers” have determined is wrong?
If this lady had come to you at the beginning of her journey and asked if XYZ was the right road, you might have given her better directions. But since she comes to you now and says, “Look I came here via XYZ”, and you agree that she has safely arrived (correct belief), she seems to have very cleverly disproven the “clever” theory that, “You can’t get there from here”.

Just some alternatives to consider

Peace
James

Nicely put, although in the first example, I believe that if you actually tell the truth about the Jews hiding you are culpable in their deaths. Life is to be protected. We have saints who lied, saying that Jews were not hidden in their homes. Many convents and monestaries hid Jewish people, as evidenced here: claremontmckenna.edu/hist/jpetropoulos/church/convents.html

Telling minor falsehoods to someone who has dementia or is mentally ill is not a grave sin and the intent is what drives the degree of evil involved in an untruth. As another posted, making general comments works quite well, though one often has to make the same general comments over and over throughout the day to ease someone who suffers from Alzheimer’s. You become quite skilled in what phrases to use and still be truthful.

It is NEVER acceptable to kill a child and I agree with Kage_AR; what kind of society are we that we can sit around blandly discussing such a horrible scenario?

It is also not acceptable to use BC. Killing a child to save a marriage doesn’t save a marriage, it dooms it. Anytime we insert our will ahead of God’s will we suffer. A successful marriage is not built on the loss of life, being fertilized embryos that may have existed, but were prevented from attaching to the uterus. Since it is the intent, even if en embryo is not shed, the INTENT is that if one existed it was unwelcome and not allowed to live. Marriage is the union of Man and Wife and God. Without including God in marriage, it will not be fruitful, regardless.

God is to welcomed into our decision-making process. We search to Him for Truth and guidance.

For the OP… it is important to be aware that even Catholics posting here are posting their OPINION which is not in line with Church teaching. Catholics should either a) be more truthful in representing Church teaching or b) more honest in whether they are fully Catholic or lukewarm Catholic. While I disagree with some comments by non-Catholics, at least they are honest about their beliefs.