| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Chris R |
Posted - Jun 05 2009 : 2:05:31 PM
Okay okay, I know I'm not supposed to rejoice in anyone's death. That said, I can't help but feel pretty good that Tiller is finally gone.
Empasizing that I'm not an advocate of vigilantism & would never do it myself, I kinda feel like Tiller had it coming to him. In killing Tiller, what Roeder did in my view is no different than killing a mass murderer (use whatever analogy you want to... Tiller was in the business of slaughtering innocents). |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| JRJ |
Posted - Jul 19 2009 : 11:56:06 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Chris R
quote:
JRJ: Okay - I'll give it a go. [i]2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death. 104 For me, the key here is the qualifying phrase, "provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies."
Okay, but how is it possible to make use of violence without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies? It would seem to me that the only reasonable interpretation is that the perpetrator against whom the violence is justified is excluded from the group "other men and societies". Otherwise there is no application of the provision.
The use of force against another person is justified when they are harming the rights of another. Note that I say "WHEN." Self defense and defense of others (on a person-to-person basis) in western society and law has long, long been seen as being appropriate in the moment of the harmful act, not before and not after. If I shoot an intruder in my home and he is down and no longer a threat, if I then walk up and execute him with a shot to the head, I've committed murder. The threat has passed. My understanding of the Faith is that we are not required to quietly assent to harm, and self defense is not a sin. As with all things Catholic, the use of force requires careful thought BEFORE a harmful situation might arise. Force is a last resort and has all sorts of unexpected and unintended consequences. I've never read of someone who killed in self defense or defense of others who was glad about it. Glad to be alive or unharmed, yes. Glad to have taken a life, never.
Jennifer |
| JRJ |
Posted - Jul 19 2009 : 11:46:36 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Chris R
quote:
JRJ: IF Dr. Tiller had been about to abort a child and especially if that child had been the son or daughter of the shooter, that act would have been defense of life.
Do you mean to say then that it is permissable for a person, (especially if the person is the father of the unborn baby) to kill an abortionist in defense of the/his child, provided s/he waits until the abortion is imminent? If the father kills him the day before the abortion is scheduled, however, it isn't legitimate defense but murder?
My understanding of the just use of force - on a person-to-person basis - requires that an act that may cause grave harm or death is proceeding; you or someone in need of defense is in immediate danger of grave harm or death. We must understand that the laws of the United States would see using force in whatever measure to prevent an abortion in progress is unlawful, so that a person choosing to save the life of a child and prevent the damage to the mother is also choosing to commit a crime under our current statutes. This quote from Senator Tom Coburn is instructive: "We now record fetal heartbeats at 14 days post-conception. We record fetal brainwaves at 39 days post-conception. And I donÕt expect you to answer this, but I do expect you to pay attention to it as you contemplate these big issues. We have this schizophrenic rule of the law where we have defined death as the absence of those, but we refuse to define life as the presence of those."
Jennifer |
| Chris R |
Posted - Jul 18 2009 : 2:40:58 PM
quote:
JRJ: Okay - I'll give it a go. [i]2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death. 104 For me, the key here is the qualifying phrase, "provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies."
Okay, but how is it possible to make use of violence without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies? It would seem to me that the only reasonable interpretation is that the perpetrator against whom the violence is justified is excluded from the group "other men and societies". Otherwise there is no application of the provision.
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise precisely stated, the opinions/beliefs stated above do not necessarily reflect those of the author (who is prone to present arguments that are contrary to his own beliefs/opinions as a means to solicit replies that will help to clarify and strengthen his understanding of the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, which he ernestly seeks to understand and continues to follow regardless of his understanding). |
| Chris R |
Posted - Jul 18 2009 : 2:36:50 PM
quote:
JRJ: IF Dr. Tiller had been about to abort a child and especially if that child had been the son or daughter of the shooter, that act would have been defense of life.
Do you mean to say then that it is permissable for a person, (especially if the person is the father of the unborn baby) to kill an abortionist in defense of the/his child, provided s/he waits until the abortion is imminent? If the father kills him the day before the abortion is scheduled, however, it isn't legitimate defense but murder?
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise precisely stated, the opinions/beliefs stated above do not necessarily reflect those of the author (who is prone to present arguments that are contrary to his own beliefs/opinions as a means to solicit replies that will help to clarify and strengthen his understanding of the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, which he ernestly seeks to understand and continues to follow regardless of his understanding). |
| JRJ |
Posted - Jul 18 2009 : 11:36:57 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Chris R
There aren't any better sources than Fr Pacwa. Still, I think he took an unfortunate short cut on answering the question. If we assume that the shooter's intent was to save the lives of the unborn by killing Tiller, it isn't so simple as Father's answer suggests. If you've conveyed it accurately, Father suggests in his answer the the shooter's intent was less noble (that he was out to punish Tiller for sins past, rather than to rescue the babies that Tiller would have resumed killing come Monday morning).
Would Father have said the same thing if Tiller's victims (those that he had already killed AND the ones that he was going to kill) were thousands of 10 year-olds? Would you? Perhaps, but I cannot imagine that. This suggests to me that, given that abortion has become a norm in our society, even our best priests are desensitized to the horror of it.
Does anyone have thoughts on the potential application of CCC2306 yet?
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise precisely stated, the opinions/beliefs stated above do not necessarily reflect those of the author (who is prone to present arguments that are contrary to his own beliefs/opinions as a means to solicit replies that will help to clarify and strengthen his understanding of the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, which he ernestly seeks to understand and continues to follow regardless of his understanding).
Okay - I'll give it a go. 2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death. 104 For me, the key here is the qualifying phrase, "provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies." Dr. Tiller was not in the process of killing anyone when he was shot at very close range in his church. As I have pointed out before, IF Dr. Tiller had been about to abort a child and especially if that child had been the son or daughter of the shooter, that act would have been defense of life. To stalk someone to his church and endanger many other people by drawing a gun is not defense of others. It is murder. If we don't want Dr. Tiller and his like to go to the abortuaries and schedule and carry out the execution of babies each workday, then we don't want others to stalk the abortionists and murder them. The mindset is the same: someone has decided another human being must die.
Jennifer |
| Chris R |
Posted - Jul 17 2009 : 3:35:55 PM
There aren't any better sources than Fr Pacwa. Still, I think he took an unfortunate short cut on answering the question. If we assume that the shooter's intent was to save the lives of the unborn by killing Tiller, it isn't so simple as Father's answer suggests. If you've conveyed it accurately, Father suggests in his answer the the shooter's intent was less noble (that he was out to punish Tiller for sins past, rather than to rescue the babies that Tiller would have resumed killing come Monday morning).
Would Father have said the same thing if Tiller's victims (those that he had already killed AND the ones that he was going to kill) were thousands of 10 year-olds? Would you? Perhaps, but I cannot imagine that. This suggests to me that, given that abortion has become a norm in our society, even our best priests are desensitized to the horror of it.
Does anyone have thoughts on the potential application of CCC2306 yet?
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise precisely stated, the opinions/beliefs stated above do not necessarily reflect those of the author (who is prone to present arguments that are contrary to his own beliefs/opinions as a means to solicit replies that will help to clarify and strengthen his understanding of the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, which he ernestly seeks to understand and continues to follow regardless of his understanding). |
| JRJ |
Posted - Jul 17 2009 : 12:55:43 PM
I heard Fr. Mitch Pacwa, SJ on EWTN say something about this the other night. A viewer emailed a question about feeling glad that Dr. Tiller was dead. Part of Father's response was to say that, once you kill the "really bad sinners" who is to stop anyone from deciding those guilty of lesser sins are next? And I thought that Dr. Tiller did that - he decided, with the mothers, who should live and die and based on God's law we oppose that, therefore we cannot DO that. And the shooter did that.
Jennifer |
| Chris R |
Posted - Jul 17 2009 : 11:00:18 AM
I can see the parallels & wouldn't say that the comparison lacks validity. That said, I sure would like to find a direct, authoritive teaching on the specific subject. It seems that we may be left to sort this one out without one.
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise precisely stated, the opinions/beliefs stated above do not necessarily reflect those of the author (who is prone to present arguments that are contrary to his own beliefs/opinions as a means to solicit replies that will help to clarify and strengthen his understanding of the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, which he ernestly seeks to understand and continues to follow regardless of his understanding). |
| Pro-life Sarah |
Posted - Jul 16 2009 : 1:32:58 PM
Some would consider there to be a war against abortion....and with the parallels to WWII...
Take Care and God Bless,
Sarah
Please say one Hail Mary a day for the intentions all forum members |
| Chris R |
Posted - Jul 16 2009 : 10:33:44 AM
quote:
DL "I did not judge your intentions, unless merely restating your arguments you put forward is now somehow judging them.
Each of my responses have been specifically to your arguments as a straight point/counter-point. Any objective reader can see that. If they cannot, then perhaps it is because they have allowed their emotions to obscure reality."
Okay. Let's narrow this down. Maybe I'm missing something. I maintain that you've misrepresented my arguments. Can you state precisely where you accurately restated any of my arguments?
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise precisely stated, the opinions/beliefs stated above do not necessarily reflect those of the author (who is prone to present arguments that are contrary to his own beliefs/opinions as a means to solicit replies that will help to clarify and strengthen his understanding of the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, which he ernestly seeks to understand and continues to follow regardless of his understanding). |
| Chris R |
Posted - Jul 16 2009 : 10:29:21 AM
I don't see how to tie in just war teachings with the subject with which we are now grappling. That said, I would appreciate anyone's insights on my comments/questions about CCC2306 (and other questions, like, does anyone have a clear reference wherein the Church binds the faithful to believe that violence against abortion providers is forbidden?).
That we present so much in the way of teachings about other subjects that ostensibly infer teachings about this subject (as in Sarah's entry above) is troubling. Has anyone actually seen a binding document (not someone's opinion piece) that deals with this subject?
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise precisely stated, the opinions/beliefs stated above do not necessarily reflect those of the author (who is prone to present arguments that are contrary to his own beliefs/opinions as a means to solicit replies that will help to clarify and strengthen his understanding of the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, which he ernestly seeks to understand and continues to follow regardless of his understanding). |
| Pro-life Sarah |
Posted - Jul 15 2009 : 04:57:52 AM
Here is an interesting article on why Pope John Paul II maintained that the war in Iraq was unjust. Though the topic is different, perhaps (and I'm just saying perhaps) some of the rationale could be used against the just war theory for killing Tiller?
It is a copied and pasted article....from: http://www.the-tidings.com/2009/071009/benson.htm
Friday, July 10, 2009
Turning the other cheek
From "just war" to "just peace": A growing Catholic moral focus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Rev. Richard Benson, C.M.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lead-up to the United States' second military conflict in Iraq, Vatican leadership --- including that of Pope John Paul II --- made it clear that they were unconvinced that military intervention by the U.S. was morally justified.
In an address to the Diplomatic Corps at the Vatican on January 13, 2003, Pope John Paul II declared, "War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations" and can never be "decided upon except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions."
On March 5, 2003, Cardinal Pio Laghi was sent as an ambassador from the Vatican to speak to President George W. Bush to make a final appeal for peace. Cardinal Laghi said after his meeting with Bush that a war would be "immoral ... illegal, unjust." A decision regarding the use of military force, the cardinal added, "can only be taken within the framework of the United Nations" (Catholic News Service, March 7, 2003).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By moving from a focus on "just war" to a focus on "peace building," the Church is attempting to form good consciences that challenge all disciples of Jesus to take up their call to be blessed as peace makers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even after Bush initiated the use of military force, Pope John Paul continued to voice his opposition. On June 4, 2004, in an address to Bush who was visiting him in Rome, the pope told him, "You are very familiar with the unequivocal position of the Holy See in this regard, expressed in numerous documents, through direct and indirect contacts, and in the many diplomatic efforts which have been made since you first visited me…."
Perhaps most disheartening to the president and his supporters at the time was the fact that the Vatican refused to bestow the administration's plans for Iraq with the benediction of being a "just war."
To be sure, there were Catholic voices who opposed the position of the Holy Father and the Vatican. At least one Catholic columnist and ethicist chose to publicly dissent from the Holy Father's teaching and published a number of articles defending "preventative war" as an acceptable moral position that would justify a preemptive attack on Iraq.
Another Catholic ethicist, and a member of a Washington think tank, even went to Rome where Catholic News Service reported that he gave a symposium to Vatican officials in an attempt to convince them that an American attack on Iraq was a "just war."
'Just war' vs. 'peace building'
The interchange between the Vatican and Washington raised the question in the minds of many Catholics, both here and throughout the world, about how to understand and apply the "just war" tradition that has been part of Catholic teaching since St. Augustine began its development in the fourth century.
However, beyond a renewed interest in the laity in understanding what constitutes a "just war," it became clear that Catholic leadership was becoming more interested in helping Catholics move from a "minimalist" morality of "just war" to a "maximalist" morality of peace building. The common saying, "The best defense is a good offense," has been evolving in Catholic theology --- especially since the end of World War II and the advent of the nuclear arsenal --- to move the meaning of "offense" from a primary focus on superior military capability (offensive and defensive) to a renewed focus on superior "peace building."
In their 1983 pastoral on peace, The Challenge of Peace, the U.S. bishops raise the provocative question about whether there could ever really be a "just war" in a nuclear age, since the huge amount of innocent civilian casualties that would inevitably result from such a conflict could never be morally justified:
"A nuclear response to either conventional or nuclear attack can cause destruction which goes far beyond 'legitimate defense.' Such use of nuclear weapons would not be justified.… We therefore express our view that the first imperative is to prevent any use of nuclear weapons and our hope that leaders will resist the notion that nuclear conflict can be limited, contained, or won in any traditional sense" (n. 160, 161).
At the same time, the Church continues to teach that both individuals and societies have a right to "legitimate self defense." Embedded in this right is the "just war" theory, long accepted by the Church:
"The Fifth Commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war. All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
"However, 'as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2307, 2308).
What did Jesus say?
Perhaps the best way to understand how 16 centuries of "just war" tradition is moving to a focus on "just peace" would be to begin with Jesus' teachings.
Jesus proclaimed to his disciples, "Blest too are the peacemakers; they shall be called the children of God" (Matthew 5: 9). This theme was woven throughout his teachings; the theme of non-violence is a clear challenge that he leaves to his Church:
---"Blest shall you be when people hate you, when they ostracize you and insult you and proscribe your name as evil because of the Son of Man. On the day they do so, rejoice and exult, for your reward shall be great in heaven" (Luke 6: 22-23).
---"Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you; bless those who curse you and pray for those who maltreat you. When someone slaps you on one cheek, turn and give them the other; when someone takes your coat, let them have your shirt as well.… When someone takes what is yours, do not demand it back.… Love your enemy and do good…. Be compassionate, as your Father is compassionate. Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned" (Luke 6: 27-36).
---"Put your sword back in its place, for all those who take up the sword perish by the sword" (Matthew 26: 52).
A question that Catholics must continue to wrestle with is how to integrate these clear teachings from Jesus into the complexities of the political situations that confront the human population around the globe, especially when the political leaders of one's country declare the nation to be at risk and are contemplating declaring war or otherwise engaging in the use of military force against another nation perceived as an aggressor.
However, Jesus also said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's but give to God what is God's" (Matthew 22: 21). And Jesus' righteous wrath erupted when he chased the merchants from the temple (John 2: 13-16).
How does this teaching and this action of Jesus participate in forming our consciences about acting rightly as Catholics, as authentic disciples of Christ?
Power and stewardship
What is clear are two points. First, this question Jesus asks about Caesar is obviously a rhetorical question and every politician needs to recognize it as such. In fact, everything, all creation, belongs to God. In reality, nothing belongs to Caesar. The best political leaders always recognize that they hold their power in stewardship and they answer to God also regarding their stewardship.
Secondly, stewardship implies moral boundaries. Caesar cannot demand that citizens render unto him that which only belongs to God. It is clear that from the Catholic perspective, war is never the best moral answer, but at best, only a toleration of the lesser of two evils.
In his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, Pope Benedict XVI, made a statement, clearly embedded in the tradition of Catholic teaching, that was nevertheless a bit startling to some who may have been expecting something a bit more normatively directive:
"…it is not the Church's responsibility to make this (social) teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest."
Pope Benedict is convinced that by engaging in the formation of good consciences, Catholics who understand the consistent ethic of life and who believe that every human being has been created in the image of God, will bring these convictions into the political square. Catholics will see that peace building is integral to being pro-life.
The Catholic moral vision is one that ensures the protection of every human life from conception to natural death. War is the enemy of life. By moving from a focus on "just war" to a focus on "peace building," the Church is attempting to form good consciences that challenge all disciples of Jesus to take up their call to be blessed as peace makers. Peace, as always our primary goal and first choice, is foundationally pro-life.
The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church tells us, "Peace is a value and a universal duty founded on a rational and moral order of society that has its roots in God… Peace is not merely the absence of war, nor can it be reduced solely to the maintenance of a balance of power between enemies. Rather it is founded on a correct understanding of the human person and requires the establishment of an order based on justice and charity" (n. 494).
The Church, the Compendium continues, is challenging Catholics to form a conscience in which the desire to act on behalf of peace is united fundamentally with a desire to act on behalf of justice: "Peace is the fruit of justice" (n. 494).
In her contemporary teaching, the Church makes it clear that it condemns "the savagery of war" (Gaudium et Spes, n. 77). "War is a scourge and is never an appropriate way to resolve problems that arise between nations, it has never been and it will never be" (John Paul II, L'Ossevatore Romano, Jan. 21, 1991).
Catholic peace-building
In April 2008, Notre Dame University hosted a conference on the future of Catholic Peace-building designed to "showcase and contribute to a larger effort to develop a conceptually coherent, theologically accurate, spiritually enlivening and practically effective approach to Catholic peace-building that can begin to match the sophistication of Catholic thinking on the ethics of war and peace." This is an example of the emergence of how "just peace" is coming more and more to the fore in Catholic theology and magisterial teaching.
Without abandoning the right of individuals and societies to self defense, the Church is beginning to more deeply and fully understand all the implications of the consistent ethic of life.
Preaching in word and action the salvation won by Jesus and working tirelessly for the end to abortion, the end of the death penalty, the end of war, the end of racial injustice, the end of hunger, the end of poverty and helping to build a just and lasting global peace, are all part of proclaiming the reign of God and are all part of the bringing the Good News to the poor.
Take Care and God Bless,
Sarah
Please say one Hail Mary a day for the intentions all forum members |
| Pro-life Sarah |
Posted - Jul 08 2009 : 12:59:07 PM
Gosh, I missed a very good discussion while taking time to have a baby....something that could be inserted into the argument is what other things can and should be done besides taking a life to get the end result? There are sooooo many things that can be done to fight abortion besides killing the abortion doctors. And though it didn't seem that way, there were a lot of things that could be done to fight the Nazis during the Holocaust. Does it make all options safe? No. Absolutely not....but does it mean other options are not there? And truly, if more people banded together to resist/fight both the Nazis back then and abortion supporters now, more would have and can be accomplished. There is strength in numbers.
Take Care and God Bless,
Sarah
Please say one Hail Mary a day for the intentions all forum members |
| DeniseLawson |
Posted - Jul 04 2009 : 1:47:37 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Chris R
DL how dare you judge my intentions? Any objective reader would see that I've gone to great pains to clearly show that your arguments are exact examples of strawman arguments (a term which, despite my best effort to explain, you still don't grasp). I haven't obscured a thing -- I believe that you have muddied the waters by hurling insults & adding heat rather than light to the discussion.
Anyhoo, I didn't plan for this to be a to/fro between us & I am interested in getting on with the subject. Maybe someone else could chime in?
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise precisely stated, the opinions/beliefs stated above do not necessarily reflect those of the author (who is prone to present arguments that are contrary to his own beliefs/opinions as a means to solicit replies that will help to clarify and strengthen his understanding of the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, which he ernestly seeks to understand and continues to follow regardless of his understanding).
I did not judge your intentions, unless merely restating your arguments you put forward is now somehow judging them.
Each of my responses have been specifically to your arguments as a straight point/counter-point. Any objective reader can see that. If they cannot, then perhaps it is because they have allowed their emotions to obscure reality.
------------------------
Jesus meek and humble of heart, make my heart like yours. |
| Chris R |
Posted - Jul 02 2009 : 5:14:46 PM
DL how dare you judge my intentions? Any objective reader would see that I've gone to great pains to clearly show that your arguments are exact examples of strawman arguments (a term which, despite my best effort to explain, you still don't grasp). I haven't obscured a thing -- I believe that you have muddied the waters by hurling insults & adding heat rather than light to the discussion.
Anyhoo, I didn't plan for this to be a to/fro between us & I am interested in getting on with the subject. Maybe someone else could chime in?
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise precisely stated, the opinions/beliefs stated above do not necessarily reflect those of the author (who is prone to present arguments that are contrary to his own beliefs/opinions as a means to solicit replies that will help to clarify and strengthen his understanding of the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, which he ernestly seeks to understand and continues to follow regardless of his understanding). |
|
|
