Your "conscience" versus Church teaching

  • Thread starter Thread starter jujubee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s not an example. It’s a thought experiment.

**I don’t think you can really have a conscience which is “according to the church”. It just seems like a contradictory statement. Your conscience is your own, and it is what it is based on your thoughts and experiences. **

It just seems to easy to say that anyone who doesn’t agree with something in the church “doesn’t have a properly formed conscience”.
And yet our consciences are assailed by influences every day attempting us to desire certain things and be revolted by other things.
In this country/culture arranged marriages are anethima. In other cultures it is the norm and expected.

The Kingdom Of Heaven, through it’s agent on earth (magisterium), teaches what is correct for those members of the kingdom. It behooves members of the kingdom to properly understand and adhere to those teachings. Thus one forms ones conscience to the teachings of the Church just as someone else will form their conscience to the “teachings” of Congreaa, or Greenpeace, or some other organization.

Peace
James
 
People misapply the Church’s teaching on conscience when they come to these sorts of conclusions. Much of this misinterpretation stems from out culture’s misunderstanding of the true nature of freedom.

If you’re looking for a better perspective on what the Church really means by conscience as it relates to truth and morality, I heartily recommend Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor (The Splendour of Truth). It speaks precisely to questions such as this.
 
MORAL CONSCIENCE

CCC 1776 “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.”

I. THE JUDGMENT OF CONSCIENCE

CCC 1777 Moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil. It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.

CCC 1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:

Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise. . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.

CCC 1779 It is important for every person to be sufficiently present to himself in order to hear and follow the voice of his conscience. This requirement of interiority is all the more necessary as life often distracts us from any reflection, self-examination or introspection:

Return to your conscience, question it. . . . Turn inward, brethren, and in everything you do, see God as your witness.

CCC 1780 The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral conscience. Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed. The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the prudent judgment of conscience. We call that man prudent who chooses in conformity with this judgment.

CCC 1781 Conscience enables one to assume responsibility for the acts performed. If man commits evil, the just judgment of conscience can remain within him as the witness to the universal truth of the good, at the same time as the evil of his particular choice. The verdict of the judgment of conscience remains a pledge of hope and mercy. In attesting to the fault committed, it calls to mind the forgiveness that must be asked, the good that must still be practiced, and the virtue that must be constantly cultivated with the grace of God:

We shall . . . reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.

CCC 1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”

II. THE FORMATION OF CONSCIENCE

CCC 1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

CCC 1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.

CCC 1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.

III. TO CHOOSE IN ACCORD WITH CONSCIENCE

CCC 1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

CCC 1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.

CCC 1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts.

CCC 1789 Some rules apply in every case:
  • One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
  • the Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”
  • charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.” Therefore “it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.”
IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

CCC 1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

CCC 1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

CCC 1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

CCC 1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

CCC 1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time “from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith.”

The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.
I agree but I’m curious to tough decisions.

Here is something that has always came up in my mind concerning assisted suicide for example. I generally agree that euthanasia is wrong in most cases.

but what about in a situation like war where the person is in severe pain and suffering (maybe something like 95% 3rd degree burns)
All your efforts to revive or help him have failed. He is begging for you to end his life. There is no medical help (hospital) nearby or in time. You are 99% certain that he can’t survive his burns (lets say a med doctor is with you) he is begging for you to end his life. Wouldn’t it be right and noble to end his suffering if all efforts and virtually all chance of survival are zero?

Just for a minute imagine yourself in this situation, what would you personally do?

What does the church say?
Although things like this are rare, these are things I am grey in and where my conscience which is usually anti-suicide/euthanasia in most cases, what about to allow it to end suffering?

So even with suffering and agony, and with the consent of the victim begging you to end their life AND you know there is no chance to survive or ease pain and suffering otherwise.

What would the church do? You know what jesus would do, he would perform a miracle but most people can’t do that now right?

I know I wouldn’t be able to just sit there and watch someone suffer in pain wishing for you to end their life when you KNOW there is no chance for survival. To me that seems evil since you are allowing suffering to continue when you have the power to end it. This was one interesting debate in my philosophy class.

These are some critical things when examining your personal conscience and what you feel is right or wrong and what the church teaches. Granted in 99.9% of my thinking is right with the church, there are some areas I am undecided.

Any thoughts?
 
I agree but I’m curious to tough decisions.

Here is something that has always came up in my mind concerning assisted suicide for example. I generally agree that euthanasia is wrong in most cases.

but what about in a situation like war where the person is in severe pain and suffering (maybe something like 95% 3rd degree burns)
All your efforts to revive or help him have failed. He is begging for you to end his life. There is no medical help (hospital) nearby or in time. You are 99% certain that he can’t survive his burns (lets say a med doctor is with you) he is begging for you to end his life. Wouldn’t it be right and noble to end his suffering if all efforts and virtually all chance of survival are zero?

Just for a minute imagine yourself in this situation, what would you personally do?

What does the church say?
Although things like this are rare, these are things I am grey in and where my conscience which is usually anti-suicide/euthanasia in most cases, what about to allow it to end suffering?

So even with suffering and agony, and with the consent of the victim begging you to end their life AND you know there is no chance to survive or ease pain and suffering otherwise.

What would the church do? You know what jesus would do, he would perform a miracle but most people can’t do that now right?

I know I wouldn’t be able to just sit there and watch someone suffer in pain wishing for you to end their life when you KNOW there is no chance for survival. To me that seems evil since you are allowing suffering to continue when you have the power to end it. This was one interesting debate in my philosophy class.

These are some critical things when examining your personal conscience and what you feel is right or wrong and what the church teaches. Granted in 99.9% of my thinking is right with the church, there are some areas I am undecided.

Any thoughts?
You are wrong. Euthansia is wrong in ALL cases. There is NEVER a justification for euthanasia. I also do not like the word because euthanasia is simply a nice sounding word for MURDER.
 
This came up in a conversation with another Catholic at my new parish in the context of the whole birth control issue.

She tried to tell me that even though the Church teaches against birth control that if my conscience tells me otherwise then it is perfectly ok to use birth control.

I know that’s nonsense.

What I would like to hear about is where so many Catholics get this idea. They seem to think it is still a Catholic thing even when it is in conflict with the Church. I don’t get their thinking. Either the Church teaches it, and it is therefore Catholic. Or the Church doesn’t teach it and it is therefore not. Protestant at best.

I’m hoping I can have fruitful discussions with this woman in the future. But before I do, I need to get a better perspective of how, when, and where this rationalization comes from. What is she misinterpretting?

Can someone shed some light on this for me? Thanks, Julie
A lot of Catholics think abortion should be legal. If they can’t figure out how evil and heretical THAT position is, you’ll never get them to understand that they’re wrong on contraception. Did you know that in a recent poll, about 40% of proclaimed Catholics don’t believe in Transubstatiation?

Yup, we’re in bad times. The protestant converts like Scott Hahn make the best Catholics. 😃
 
I agree but I’m curious to tough decisions.

Here is something that has always came up in my mind concerning assisted suicide for example. I generally agree that euthanasia is wrong in most cases.

but what about in a situation like war where the person is in severe pain and suffering (maybe something like 95% 3rd degree burns)
All your efforts to revive or help him have failed. He is begging for you to end his life. There is no medical help (hospital) nearby or in time. You are 99% certain that he can’t survive his burns (lets say a med doctor is with you) he is begging for you to end his life. Wouldn’t it be right and noble to end his suffering if all efforts and virtually all chance of survival are zero?

Just for a minute imagine yourself in this situation, what would you personally do?

What does the church say?
Although things like this are rare, these are things I am grey in and where my conscience which is usually anti-suicide/euthanasia in most cases, what about to allow it to end suffering?

So even with suffering and agony, and with the consent of the victim begging you to end their life AND you know there is no chance to survive or ease pain and suffering otherwise.

What would the church do? You know what jesus would do, he would perform a miracle but most people can’t do that now right?

I know I wouldn’t be able to just sit there and watch someone suffer in pain wishing for you to end their life when you KNOW there is no chance for survival. To me that seems evil since you are allowing suffering to continue when you have the power to end it. This was one interesting debate in my philosophy class.

These are some critical things when examining your personal conscience and what you feel is right or wrong and what the church teaches. Granted in 99.9% of my thinking is right with the church, there are some areas I am undecided.

Any thoughts?
You know, that is a really great example… If nothing else those that would let the person suffer are actually doing it merely for their own conscience. Where is the greater good in this situation in letting a person suffer in this way.
 
You are wrong. Euthansia is wrong in ALL cases. There is NEVER a justification for euthanasia. I also do not like the word because euthanasia is simply a nice sounding word for MURDER.
is there a justification for hastening death. I.e. not killing outright, but helping them along? i.e. if treatment for example would mean the person would suffer longer, and still die. But not treating would mean they would die sooner.
 
is there a justification for hastening death. I.e. not killing outright, but helping them along? i.e. if treatment for example would mean the person would suffer longer, and still die. But not treating would mean they would die sooner.
No, you should and can do everything in your power to control pain and suffering, provide what assistance you are able …

In doing those things you could provide painkillers [and not your exact example] like in cases of terminal cancer patients where the amount of pain killers necessary to control pain could have the unintended affect of hastening death … you cannot give the pain killers to firectly cause the death …

To place yourself in the position to “Play God” [remember God is the author of life, it is God who determines when life begins and ends] is sinful. When you choose the day and time of anothers death that is an affront to and denial of God …
 
You are wrong. Euthanasia is wrong in ALL cases. There is NEVER a justification for euthanasia. I also do not like the word because euthanasia is simply a nice sounding word for MURDER.
You didn’t answer the question though. What would you do in that situation? It’s a valid answer for anyone because it’s tough. Would you seriously do anything you can to allow suffering to continue and keep him alive? Would you seriously just stand there and watch the suffering and pain? Or would you just walk way and say good luck?

I’m not saying I’m for killing him in this situation but I’m not for keeping him alive either. I’m undecided.

It’s a valid argument though and one of the toughest Philosophical moral questions throughout history.

This is why a lot of people especially some military fall away from the church is because they were put in those situations and acted on their heart and were told they are going to hell and are wrong ect. Could you imagine going through that and being condemned and damned when you thought you were doing the best thing you can!?

I completely understand them.

It’s easy to sit there and say “oh it’s always wrong ALL the time”
can you justify that statement? Don’t use “because the church/bible/Jesus said so” either because for a lot of people outside the church that doesn’t fly.

You need to validly argumentatively reasonably justify your claim. That by no means is easy but if you can it can really change even pro-euthanasia people’s thinking.

I’m sure some theologians out there have, when I have time I’ll look into it.

challenging isn’t it.
 
No, you should and can do everything in your power to control pain and suffering, provide what assistance you are able …

In doing those things you could provide painkillers [and not your exact example] like in cases of terminal cancer patients where the amount of pain killers necessary to control pain could have the unintended affect of hastening death … you cannot give the pain killers to firectly cause the death …

To place yourself in the position to “Play God” [remember God is the author of life, it is God who determines when life begins and ends] is sinful. When you choose the day and time of anothers death that is an affront to and denial of God …
[REMEMBER NO PAIN MEDS OR PAIN CONTROL IS AVAILABLE]

NO MEDICAL HELP IS AVAILABLE ]

this was common on the battlefield just a few decades ago, even today sometimes

You could also argue that God was acting through you.

Here is a valid solution: you can place a loaded gun just out of reach from him (not easily accessible but possible) and say “do what you must, it is ultimately your choice” Therefore for him to reach acquire the gun he would have to act out of his own effort

Are you held responsible? You could easily argue no because if he chose to shoot himself, he killed himself because he choose suicide. You didn’t hand him the gun he sought it out and used it and made the choice to kill himself. That was God’s free will in action and he acted out of his own actions. The gun simply existed.

Another counter argument also is that if you actively withheld the gun and did everything to keep him alive you witheld the opportunity or his right of choice and free will from God for him to kill himself. It could also be consider torture and inhumane. In America today that can land you in jail!

Believe me these are the toughest questions.

If you can answer them justified with accordance to the church and in a humane manner respecting humanity and defeat most counter arguments(there will always be arguments) then you have justified the churches reasoning.

“because the Church/God/Jesus said so” isn’t valid

It is valid if God really did say and everyone heard it loud and clear it is justified because God knows all

But where in the bible does it say what you should do in this situation? Does Jesus explicitly say “Euthanasia is ALWAYS wrong” Not that I remember. It is deducted and assumed that is what he “would have” said.

The church reasoned it out somehow and I’m sure there is a book or essay out there about it that validly answers it. I don’t have the time to look it up but I will eventually.

My point here is no one is giving a valid claim or argument.

Very few people without a Ph.d in philosophy or theology can do that.
 
You know, that is a really great example… If nothing else those that would let the person suffer are actually doing it merely for their own conscience. Where is the greater good in this situation in letting a person suffer in this way.
Exactly, it’s one of philosophies mysteries and easily a way to divide pro vs. con.

Just like the abortion debate in where the question is, is what define’s murder and at what point in pregnancy is the baby considered to have the human right to live. There are valid pro and con arguments and a true answer is hard to give. Unfortunately Jesus didn’t explicitly write an essay about these questions either (if I ever get to heaven I’m asking him though!)

(I took several philosophy classes at college and these things really intrigued me)

My first essays and reasoning (pro-church) were easily shot down or counter argued with really valid arguments. It takes a lot of thinking to validly justify it.

So far the only solution I have come up with in my mind is to put a loaded gun out of reach and not easily accessible but not hard or impossible either for him to get and say “it’s your choice”.

in addition:
out of my personal choice and out of my heart I’d try and logically lay out every reason and try to aid in a choice not resulting in death but not prevent it either.
  1. It validly has the claim that you did not hand him the gun (aid in his death)
  2. You affirmed his right and his free will given to him by God
  3. You are safe of accusations of actively withholding the chance to end his suffering and pain and keeping him in pain. (torture)
  4. His choice was ultimately his and his death his action removing any possibility of your responsibility.
 
What would the church do? You know what jesus would do, he would perform a miracle but most people can’t do that now right?
Wrong - Jesus is still here, remember, and can and does still perform miracles. So the first thing we all should do in such situations is pray.

Secondly - yes, suffering is awful to watch, and awful to experience. Remember, though, Jesus embraced His suffering willingly once it became clear that it could not be avoided. Why? Because His suffering served a greater purpose - for those around Him if not for Himself (He had no need of any of its benefits). So does ours if we embrace it and unite it with His. For this reason He admonished everyone who wants to follow Him to take up their own crosses.
 
You know, that is a really great example… If nothing else those that would let the person suffer are actually doing it merely for their own conscience. Where is the greater good in this situation in letting a person suffer in this way.
Perhaps it would do well to read some things like this to understand suffering. Number one, the Bible for example.
Gen 9:5… For your own lifeblood, too, I will demand an accounting: from every animal I will demand it, and from man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life.
Ex 20:13… You shall not kill.
and again in Dt 5:17…You shall not kill.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM

Then there is this:
**Salvifici Doloris (On the Christian Meaning of Human Suffering). **by John Paul II
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/hlthwork/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris_en.html

Another good thing to read:
The author Victor Frankel in his book **Man’s Search for Meaning **describes his horrifying experiences in Nazi concentration camps. He notes that although all the prisoners were in the same material circumstances—the most horrible imaginable—they did not all react in the same way…
…Faith in sharing in the suffering of Christ brings with it the interior certainty that the suffering person “completes what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions”; the certainty that in the spiritual dimension of the work of redemption he is serving, like Christ, the salvation of his brothers and sisters. Therefore he is carrying out an irreplaceable service.
catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0701fea1.asp
 
Wrong - Jesus is still here, remember, and can and does still perform miracles. So the first thing we all should do in such situations is pray.

Secondly - yes, suffering is awful to watch, and awful to experience. Remember, though, Jesus embraced His suffering willingly once it became clear that it could not be avoided. Why? Because His suffering served a greater purpose - for those around Him if not for Himself (He had no need of any of its benefits). So does ours if we embrace it and unite it with His. For this reason He admonished everyone who wants to follow Him to take up their own crosses.
But in the situation given. Or in the case of somebody who is not able to understand the virtue of the suffering (a baby for example), what is the benefit? Where is the good in that kind of sufferring?
 
Another good thing to read:
The author Victor Frankel in his book **Man’s Search for Meaning **describes his horrifying experiences in Nazi concentration camps. He notes that although all the prisoners were in the same material circumstances—the most horrible imaginable—they did not all react in the same way…

Yes, I have read this book (I really enjoyed it). And yes, if one can find meaning in the suffering - ok.

But there will always be cases (as the one desribed about the burning man) where there will not be the time, possibilty to find meaning in the suffering, and no good reason to let it go on any longer than necessary - other than “we should not play god”…

I ask this - if the church can never find a case where killing to stop suffering (i.e. euthanasia) is possible. How can they say that there are cases where capital punishment *may *be appropriate (this still amazes me to be honest)
 
But in the situation given. Or in the case of somebody who is not able to understand the virtue of the suffering (a baby for example), what is the benefit? Where is the good in that kind of sufferring?
The benefit and good may be for people other than the sufferer, of course - or something simply known to God alone.

Jesus’ sufferings certainly were of no benefit or good to Himself. He was God and didn’t need any redemptive suffering on His own account, but He suffered for the good and benefit of the rest of mankind.

So a baby’s suffering invariably will serve some greater purpose or greater good - perhaps one only known to God alone, perhaps something that becomes obvious to all as the benefit and purpose of Jesus’ death did.

God sees the whole picture, remember, an individual sufferer can only see one part.
 
But in the situation given. Or in the case of somebody who is not able to understand the virtue of the suffering (a baby for example), what is the benefit? Where is the good in that kind of sufferring?
also why suffer if death is reasonably deemed inevitable in the situation?

If you are in medical care and there is even a very slight chance of survival then yes you must strive to live even if it means to suffer but in the case I stated there is no care.

Yea you could say you could pray and hope a miracle happens but how often does God perform miracles? Yes I’ve heard lots of miracle stories modern day and I believe in miracles but statistically they are rare. In these cases you need to use your best reason and judgement that God gave you and trust that you are acting out of faith or at the very least what is right.

I would personally pray that something happens and God takes over but waiting for it to happen is like sitting there hoping to win the lottery first draw. It could happen but the odds?

Sure have faith but also be reasonable and use commons sense too especially when someone’s life and/or suffering is on your hands.

When the romans crucified people like they did to jesus they also eventually made sure the person died within reason after a certain amount of time of suffering in most cases usually after 3 to 5 hours. Otherwise and even in some cases the person was left on there and could live for days on the cross before dying. Imagine that.

i’m not justifying suicide or euthanasia but merely stating it’s easier to say than actually doing.

Just imagine yourself full of burns knowing your going to die but left alive and in pain.
 
The benefit and good may be for people other than the sufferer, of course - Jesus’ sufferings certainly were of no benefit or good to Himself. He was God and didn’t need any redemptive suffering on His own account, but He suffered for the good and benefit of the rest of mankind.

So a baby’s suffering invariably will serve some greater good - perhaps one only known to God alone, perhaps something that becomes obvious to all as the benefit of Jesus’ death did.

God sees the whole picture, remember, an individual sufferer can only see one part.
hmmm. Can you think of an example of how a baby suffering before it dies as being beneficial? It’s a bit of stretch for me to be honest.

I guess you could say that all the people who suffer and die of cancer has spurred us on to find cures etc, but still it’s really a stretch for me.

I think it part of the human condition to want to alleviate the suffering of others.
 
also why suffer if death is reasonably deemed inevitable in the situation?

If you are in medical care and there is even a very slight chance of survival then yes you must strive to live even if it means to suffer but in the case I stated there is no care.

Yea you could say you could pray and hope a miracle happens but how often does God perform miracles? Yes I’ve heard lots of miracle stories modern day and I believe in miracles but statistically they are rare. In these cases you need to use your best reason and judgement that God gave you and trust that you are acting out of faith or at the very least what is right.
And the reason I have tells me that God commanded us not to kill - and also that good can come even out of terrible suffering. And the faith I have tells me that God can and will bring His own purposes to fruition even in terrible circumstances if only we stop assuming that we know better than Him. Which altogether tells me that it is right to not kill someone merely to alleviate a small part of their suffering.
 
And the reason I have tells me that God commanded us not to kill - and also that good can come even out of terrible suffering. And the faith I have tells me that God can and will bring His own purposes to fruition even in terrible circumstances if only we stop assuming that we know better than Him. Which altogether tells me that it is right to not kill someone merely to alleviate a small part of their suffering.
Then why capital punishment? Why go to war and kill people? These are two things that are “ok” in given circumstances by the RCC.

Surely your “thou shalt not kill” would apply here?

Again - the baby - suffering, doesn’t know why. What good?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top