The Holocaust, War, Justifiable Homicide, and War

[Salvatore123]

As an orthodox Catholic who also happens to have a bachelor’s and master’s degree with “heavy doses” of logic, in addition to a law degree (I mention this not to brag - it is simply for information/background on me for the reader of this thread), I have always wondered about the logic of the following scenarios, and to date, I have yet to find ONE priest who can LOGICALLY find fault with my logic.

Caveat: I am NOT advocating killing abortionist, nor bombing abortion clinics, nor committing any type of violence in any way. I posted this ONLY to get the views of others.

Situation A: During WWII, our strategic bombing surveys showed early on proof of the concentration camps, and our intelligence supported the surveys that people were being by the hundreds of thousands at these camps.

Solution: As we were at war, an in an attempt to at least slow down the horrific murders being committed at the concentration camps, I submit that no reasonable person would be able to fault a commando team sent in to blow up the gas and burn chambers, which would have obviously resulted in killing many enemy guards, and possibly some prisoners pressed into service by the Nazis. At that time, no one questioned that our entrance and fight in WWII met the conditions for a “just war”. Thus, I do not believe it would have been sinful for the Allies to have destroyed the death camps, and in the process, kill guards who would have tried to prevent the destruction of those camps. Why? Because such commandos were on a mission to prevent (or at least slow down) the destruction of an entire race.

Situation B: During the war with Japan, the Americans bombed Iwo Jima for weeks before landing on the beaches and engaging in horrific fighting that resulted in tremendous casualties for both sides. Iwo (and other islands in the Pacific) served a strategic purpose in that it enabled (once captured) our planes to fuel and fly shorter distances for their bombing runs over Japan. Shorter distances meant the use of less fuel, and that enabled us to load our bombers with more bombs.

Situation C: I walk in from work and see an intruder in my home who has tied up my family and appears he is about to kill one of my family members. My entrance into my home happens to take me near a cabinet where I hide a loaded gun for self protection. I retrieve the gun, point it at the intruder, tell him to stop, but he instead moves as though he is going to kill one of my family members quicker than before he heard me yell stop. I then shoot him and he is killed. By all accounts, that would be justifiable homicide.

Situation D: Given the above examples, and considering the Catholic Church teaches that human life begins at the moment of conception, why do we say it is permissible to kill to prevent others from killing (if that is the only way), to protect our homeland during war, and to prevent death to a family member, yet we say it is NOT permissible to kill an abortion doctor who is walking into a clinic to perform abortions as he does every day?

From a logician’s view, it seems to me that we find it more reprehensible to kill another if that other person is about to kill someone that we can see, touch, feel, love, as opposed to an embryo that cannot be seen with the naked eye, that we cannot really touch or feel or love. Yet, the Catholic Church has ALWAYS said that “life is life”, from the moment of conception until natural death, and that the intentional taking of that life is murder, unless “justified” by the examples I gave above.

Can someone please tell me why it would be okay for me to shoot someone who was about to hit my child with an axe, but I am told it would NOT be okay for me to shoot someone who is about to insert a vacuum device inside of a woman’s uterus for the purpose of killing her unborn child?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I don’t know the answer to your question.

But your approach reminds me of something G.K. Chesterton said:

“Life is not an illogicality, but it is a trap for logicians.”

 

[promethius]

From a logician’s view, it seems to me that we find it more reprehensible to kill another if that other person is about to kill someone that we can see, touch, feel, love, as opposed to an embryo that cannot be seen with the naked eye, that we cannot really touch or feel or love. Yet, the Catholic Church has ALWAYS said that “life is life”, from the moment of conception until natural death, and that the intentional taking of that life is murder, unless “justified” by the examples I gave above.

The first few scenarios are easy to dismiss as false analogy logical fallacies. Soldiers can be killed in a just war morally, but it is only the state that has the power to determine if a war is just. Under just war doctrine, while the vatican can offer an opinion on the justice of a war, it actually has no doctrinally based powers in determining which wars are just and which wars aren’t. So unless a nation has declared a just war against abortionists… which I’m not even sure is possible under just war doctrine, you can’t operate under just war doctrine to morally kill an abortionist. (Since I already know I’m going to get objections to this one, here is a link to the just war doctrine so that people can read it and see that due to the nature of state secrets the power to determine if war is just is reserved to the state: catholic.com/library/Just_War_Doctrine_1.asp)

As to your other example, killing someone in defense of innocents… That is actually a pretty good puzzler. I’ll give it some thought while I’m asleep and get back to you in a bit on that one…

 

[PhilipCal]

The reason I suspect no Priest has been able to “answer” your question(s) is the fact that your mind is already made up. You’re not seeking rational discussion or anything remotely approaching the application of logic.

You’ve approached the forum with a series of scenarios in which you seemingly dare us to disagree with you. You’ve created, or attempted to create a straw man for us to do battle with to your amusement.

I have every reason to believe you could approach the most eminent theologian in the Church with your “thesis”, and remain unsatisfied with any reply you received.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The reason I suspect no Priest has been able to “answer” your question(s) is the fact that your mind is already made up. You’re not seeking rational discussion or anything remotely approaching the application of logic.

You’ve approached the forum with a series of scenarios in which you seemingly dare us to disagree with you. You’ve created, or attempted to create a straw man for us to do battle with to your amusement.

I have every reason to believe you could approach the most eminent theologian in the Church with your “thesis”, and remain unsatisfied with any reply you received.

In Salvatore’s defense… I think you’re completely wrong and are certainly being unjustifiably hostile and perhaps even judgmental.

If his approach here has any flaw, it’s probably closer to rationalistic thinking or something like that, not closed-mindedness. Maybe it’s because I tend to think in similar analogical terms, but for whatever reason, I sympathize with the structure of his presentation/question and am all but certain that he’s genuinely seeking an explanation that makes sense.

Unless you think he actually considers murdering abortionists to be moral. I for one doubt that.

 

[Vince1022]

T but it is only the state that has the power to determine if a war is just.

Not according to Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church has “just war” criteria that are independent of any nation/state.

 

[PhilipCal]

In Salvatore’s defense… I think you’re completely wrong and are certainly being unjustifiably hostile and perhaps even judgmental.

If his approach here has any flaw, it’s probably closer to rationalistic thinking or something like that, not closed-mindedness. Maybe it’s because I tend to think in similar analogical terms, but for whatever reason, I sympathize with the structure of his presentation/question and am all but certain that he’s genuinely seeking an explanation that makes sense.

Unless you think he actually considers murdering abortionists to be moral. I for one doubt that.

You’re fully entitled to your point of view, as is Salvatore. Mine remains the same. I would submit to you that logic, of and by itself, does not constitute law. In very general terms, logic is often the last consideration in the enactment of a given law.

At no point in my reply did I allege that Salvatore thinks the murdering of abortionists is moral. If I’m not mistaken he made that clear in the preface to his original post. How easily you misread my contention.

One of the problems with internet “discussions” is the fact that we’re not in the same room where misconceptions, etc can be readily addressed.

A further point for you to ponder is why a Priest, trained in the Sacred Sciences, is unable to answer Salvatore’s questions to his satisfaction. Hence, my suspicion of the straw man which I referenced in my reply.

The explanation you mention must be in conformance with Salvatore’s concepts, and that, Brother or Sister is simply wrong. If you limit any discussion to only it’s logical aspects, you do tremendous disservice to other valid considerations.

You have every right to think as Salvatore does, and you have every right to defend his thesis. I have an equal right to disagree,and that is what I have done.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

You have every right to think as Salvatore does, and you have every right to defend his thesis. I have an equal right to disagree,and that is what I have done.

Does he even have a thesis? I don’t really think so. He’s asking a question…

In any case, if his thesis is that his analogies are valid (I don’t think that’s his thesis at all), then I very much agree with you, PhilipCal, that such a thesis would be incorrect.

You’re fully entitled to your point of view, as is Salvatore. Mine remains the same. I would submit to you that logic, of and by itself, does not constitute law. In very general terms, logic is often the last consideration in the enactment of a given law.

I agree with you very much on that.

At no point in my reply did I allege that Salvatore thinks the murdering of abortionists is moral. If I’m not mistaken he made that clear in the preface to his original post. How easily you misread my contention.

Ah, forgive my misconception. Because you stated you thought his mind is “already made up,” and because his analogy - which he has invited us to try to dismantle logically - equates murdering abortionists with legitimate self-defense, I unfortunately concluded that you thought he considers his dilemma unanswerable.

A further point for you to ponder is why a Priest, trained in the Sacred Sciences, is unable to answer Salvatore’s questions to his satisfaction. Hence, my suspicion of the straw man which I referenced in my reply.

That’s just not a mystery to me. There’s no guarantee that any specific individual priest will know the answer to every theological or moral question one presents him with.

If you limit any discussion to only it’s logical aspects, you do tremendous disservice to other valid considerations.

Once again I agree with you very much.

 

[PhilipCal]

Okay, the war is cancelled. Reason triumphs once more. Have a good one.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Hello Salvatore123;

Death from this Earth, is not the final problem.

If I kill someone for whatever reason, God can put all things right, by giving that person eternal life in heaven.

Sorry but I am not sure how these comments fit in with your thoughts.

Blessings

Eric

 

[Salvatore123]

Quite frankly, I simply want someone to explain to me (and I mean this sincerely) why we make into a villain (or, perhaps more correctly, recognize as a villain) someone like a Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, but we do not do the same for a “doctor” who has killed many, many more human beings than all of these men put together.

Is it that we are AFRAID to confront the real issues:

1. Why don’t we call a doctor who performs abortions, murderers? Are we scared that would hurt our “cause”? Such silence led to the Holocaust.
2. Why don’t our bishops and cardinals “lay down the law” and refuse Holy Communion to someone such as a Ted Kennedy or a Nancy Pelosi, who are so openly contemptuous of Catholic teaching (with Pelosi going so far as to say that BISHOPS WERE WRONG!!)?

As for you PhilipCal, who seem to be able to look into the window of my soul, instead of calling them “theses” and “strawmen”, why not SINCERELY answer the above two questions? Do you think THOSE are “strawmen”? I can tell you for certain - I am not alone among Catholics in wondering why American “Catholics” are so lax on such issues.

 

[PhilipCal]

Quite frankly, I simply want someone to explain to me (and I mean this sincerely) why we make into a villain (or, perhaps more correctly, recognize as a villain) someone like a Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, but we do not do the same for a “doctor” who has killed many, many more human beings than all of these men put together.

Is it that we are AFRAID to confront the real issues:

1. Why don’t we call a doctor who performs abortions, murderers? Are we scared that would hurt our “cause”? Such silence led to the Holocaust.
2. Why don’t our bishops and cardinals “lay down the law” and refuse Holy Communion to someone such as a Ted Kennedy or a Nancy Pelosi, who are so openly contemptuous of Catholic teaching (with Pelosi going so far as to say that BISHOPS WERE WRONG!!)?

As for you PhilipCal, who seem to be able to look into the window of my soul, instead of calling them “theses” and “strawmen”, why not SINCERELY answer the above two questions? Do you think THOSE are “strawmen”? I can tell you for certain - I am not alone among Catholics in wondering why American “Catholics” are so lax on such issues.

No Salvatore, I don’t claim to be able to look into the window of your soul. I simply took your statement, thesis, for want of a better word, and attempted to convey some simple thoughts as they occurred to me.

In this, your most recent post, you seem to be moving away from a solely logical stance. If that’s the case, I find that refreshing, and considerably more apt to generate some very valid discussion.

Why don’t Bishops deny Communion to figures such as Nancy Pelosi? Salvatore, I don’t know, I wish I did. It would certainly be an appropriate action on the part of her Bishop., or perhaps the Archbishop of the Washington DC Diocese, as that’s where she spends much of her time.

In stating that the Bishops are wrong, Ms Pelosi demonstrates not only her abysmal ignorance, but a towering case of arrogance as well. Another situation where we have
to “consider the source”.

Let me throw something at you that the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said.
Forgive me, I may be paraphrasing a little, but here goes. This would seem to be in support of your position.

“Catholics must demand that Bishops act like Bishops, Priests act like Priests, and Religious act like Religious”. That would seem to challenge us as laity, and the question which follows is, will we rise to the challenge?

How about taking another look at the way you phrased your original post. That’s what led me anyway, to comment as I did. The impression I received was that you thought no one was capable of replying to your question(s) in a manner which was acceptable to you. Your comment concerning several Priests inability to reply to your satisfaction clinched my suspicion that you had indeed created the proverbial “straw man”. If you assert that was not the case, I’ll certainly take your word for it.

Additionally, you seemed to want to limit the discussion solely to logic . I submit to you that to do that doesn’t do justice to the questions you asked. I feel we have to approach these questions from all possible aspects. In doing that we have a far better chance of arriving at valid conclusions.

It may be heartening for us to know that the USCCB recently elected Archbishop Dolan of New York as it’s head. Time will tell, but hopefully, he’ll stake out a position for our Church in the United States which may more fully address some of the issues you’ve raised.

Salvatore, your points are valid, but I suggest to you, that we attempt to address them from every valid aspect that we’re able to. Our struggle with the forces our Faith faces go beyond intellectual exercise, or logic as a sole consideration.

Keep your format a little more open,and let’s talk some more.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Quite frankly, I simply want someone to explain to me (and I mean this sincerely) why we make into a villain (or, perhaps more correctly, recognize as a villain) someone like a Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, but we do not do the same for a “doctor” who has killed many, many more human beings than all of these men put together.

Well, many Catholics here would argue that the death penalty is, like abortion, immoral and shouldn’t be used, and so see no inconsistency in their between their views on abortion and on the executions of Manson, Bundy, and Gacy.

And many people do call abortionists murderers. And silence alone did not lead to the holocaust. In fact, many Nazis were themselves murdered by opponents or victims of Nazism before and during the Nazis’ tenure in power. A list of Nazi victims (who were thereafter made martyrs) off the top of my head include Horst Wessel, after whom the official Nazi anthem was named, Wilhelm Gustloff, who got a ship named after him, and Ernst von Rath. These killings did little to impede the grand schemes of the Nazi party, and may have even strengthened their conviction (Gustloff and Rath were both murdered by Jews, and the Nazi’s used this as “evidence” of the conspiracy of World Jewry against Germany. The solution to widespread murder is not likely more murder.

On the topic of your scenarios, in all of the first three scenarios, death is an unintended consequence. American bombers wouldn’t drop bombs on death camp facilities in order to kill camp victims or even the guards (who could be easily replaced); they would’ve done so in order to destroy the facilities. It would not be an intentional act of murder, just an unintended but a likely or even unavoidable consequence).

The second scenario pertains to the issue of just war; I am not very familiar with the Church’s criteria for a just war, so I won’t comment on that. However, one could also argue that bombers didn’t drop bombs with the sole intention of killing Japanese troops. They wanted them off the island, whether dead, wounded, or in even alive and healthy but in rapid retreat.

And in the third scenario, unless you take the time to aim right at his head, and empty a few rounds into it once he’s down just to make sure, then it’s not really an intentional act of killing. You would fire at the intruder in order to incapacitate him to prevent him from attacking your family. It would be likely he would die, but that hopefully wouldn’t be your intention (which would presumable be protecting your family, whether or not the intruder survives).

So as far as I see, deliberately killing an abortionist is not the same type of scenario as any of the first three you listed. Catholic teaching does not endorse utilitarianism, it does not subscribe to the belief that the ends justify the means. There are also logical reasons for rejecting utilitarianism. One is Robert Nozick’s concept of the “Utility Monster” you can read about on Wikipedia. I won’t delve into the problems of utilitarianism here, as it would be something of a tangent, and a long one at that.

 

[Vince1022]

Quite frankly, I simply want someone to explain to me (and I mean this sincerely) why we make into a villain (or, perhaps more correctly, recognize as a villain) someone like a Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, but we do not do the same for a “doctor” who has killed many, many more human beings than all of these men put together.

My simple thought is that because, unfortunately, society does not consider the value of human life to apply equally to those in the womb and out of the womb.

It seems our contemporary culture/society does not place the same understanding and value on human life as the Catholic Church does.

 

[Vince1022]

Well, many Catholics here would argue that the death penalty is, like abortion, immoral and shouldn’t be used, and so see no inconsistency in their between their views on abortion and on the executions of Manson, Bundy, and Gacy.

But the death penalty and abortion are not the same, according to Catholic teaching, regardless of what individuals might think.

The Catholic Church teaches abortion is always wrong.

The Catholic Church teaches that the death penalty, while not good in and of itself, may be morally justifiable in certain circumstances.

Raskolnikov? Curious…why? Just reread Crime and Punishment.

 

[Raskolnikov]

But the death penalty and abortion are not the same, according to Catholic teaching, regardless of what individuals might think.

The Catholic Church teaches abortion is always wrong.

The Catholic Church teaches that the death penalty, while not good in and of itself, may be morally justifiable in certain circumstances.

Which is why I avoided generalizing about the Catholic position on capital punishment, as I am aware that there is disagreement on the issue among Catholics, so each one must defend the consistency of his own positions toward capital punishment in relation to church teaching separately. I also didn’t much feel like delving into the moral differences between executing serial killers and executing abortionists. Honestly, it’s not something I’ve thought much about.

Raskolnikov? Curious…why? Just reread Crime and Punishment.

I suppose because I am a huge fan of Dostoevsky, and especially of Crime and Punishment. I could have chosen ‘Prince Myshkin’ or ‘Alyosha’ as my username, the names of two other Dostoevsky protagonists, but I figured it might be a bit arrogant (and dishonest) to equate myself to either of those two Jesus-figures. I’m not as saintly as them, so I picked Raskolnikov. Though he is also one of my favorite literary characters, so that’s another reason.

 

[Vince1022]

Which is why I avoided generalizing about the Catholic position on capital punishment, as I am aware that there is disagreement on the issue among Catholics, so each one must defend the consistency of his own positions toward capital punishment in relation to church teaching separately. I also didn’t much feel like delving into the moral differences between executing serial killers and executing abortionists. Honestly, it’s not something I’ve thought much about.

I suppose because I am a huge fan of Dostoevsky, and especially of Crime and Punishment. I could have chosen ‘Prince Myshkin’ or ‘Alyosha’ as my username, the names of two other Dostoevsky protagonists, but I figured it might be a bit arrogant (and dishonest) to equate myself to either of those two Jesus-figures. I’m not as saintly as them, so I picked Raskolnikov. Though he is also one of my favorite literary characters, so that’s another reason.

Thanks!

Brothers K is next on my rereading list.

 

[hxcCatholic413]

. I also didn’t much feel like delving into the moral differences between executing serial killers and executing abortionists. Honestly, it’s not something I’ve thought much about.

Wow! You just brought up a good point even though I assume you weren’t trying to. I think executing serial killers is justifiable because the Government sees it as being good whereas executing abortionists isn’t good because there has been no trial beforehand/the Government supports abortion because it is a means to control its citizens. For the record I am against the death penalty (perhaps you’ve seen my other posts). Another poster had a good response by saying that the Government doesn’t see life in the womb as the same as life outside the womb.

I’d suggest that you read “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley if you haven’t already and compare it to the society we live in today. Eerily similar in my opinion. God Bless!

 

[Raskolnikov]

Thanks!

Brothers K is next on my rereading list.

Great! It’s a wonderful novel, with a profound message. You can hardly go wrong with Dostoevsky.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Wow! You just brought up a good point even though I assume you weren’t trying to. I think executing serial killers is justifiable because the Government sees it as being good whereas executing abortionists isn’t good because there has been no trial beforehand/the Government supports abortion because it is a means to control its citizens. For the record I am against the death penalty (perhaps you’ve seen my other posts). Another poster had a good response by saying that the Government doesn’t see life in the womb as the same as life outside the womb.

I don’t think serial killers can be accurately compared with abortionists for several reasons. They are similar in so far as they both kill other human beings. However, serial killers are aware that what they are doing is wrong and illegal; doctors who perform abortions know that doing so is legal and they do not think it is immoral, because they don’t believe that they killing human bings. Serial killers are usually sociapaths, and cannot (as far as modern medicine can tell) be changed; abortionists are simply mistaken, horrible mistaken, but still have consciences, however logically errant they are. Also, serial killers don’t think they are engaged in a culture war against people trying to attack their rights; if the state, or a vigilante kills a serial killer, other serial killers don’t turn them into a martyr for the serial killer cause. Every act of violence against an abortionist, however, rallies supporters of abortion and is a huge step back for the pro-life cause.

As for why the government supports abortion, this, I think, is because the people who have the most influence on the government support abortion, and they support abortion,not because they want eradicate their enemies in the womb (in fact, their enemies are the ones least likely to have abortions; it is the children of pro-choice parents, likely the next generation of pro-choicers, who are probably the greatest victims of the pro-choice cause); I think they support partly because they have simply been mislead to think that abortion is an issue of whether or not to “legislate morality” when in fact it is about whether or not a fetus should constitute a legal person, an issue they rarely address. Ironically, defenders of abortion assert that pro-lifers are attempting to impose their sexual morals on others, when, in fact, for pro-lifers abortion has nothing to do with sex; only for its supporters, who unfortunately forsake logical consistency in the name of sexual freedom, at the expense of the rights of others.

This is, of course, only my speculation about why some people believe what they do. One can only speculate.