I will stipulate that I’m the worst Catholic in the world. OK. So if anyone wants to call me that I beat you to it so don’t bother putting it in the combox.
I’m against torturing people. For a number of reasons. I do not believe in using other people as a means to my own end, no matter how noble I believe my end to be.
And big government scares the heck out of me. A government that can torture you will torture you…eventually.
Jesus Christ had a run in with big government that didn’t end well. (Well it ended well but things looked pretty grim for about three days.)
But I do want to ask this question. As Catholics we have the Just War Theory and theories on legitimate defense so it’s not that all violence is disallowed.
I accept it’s wrong to torture a surrendered enemy but is an enemy truly “surrendered” if he has knowledge of an imminent attack and his silence is preventing someone from stopping it? Aren’t they still essentially an active combatant if their silence furthers the goals of their violence?
So, couldn’t doing violence to this person still be covered under legitimate defense?
The Catechism states:
2265. Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.[66]
But in this case the unjust aggressor is still seeking to do harm by their silence. So repelling this attack could possibly mean repelling the aggressors by physically harming the person.
I’m asking this question in all honesty.
May 7, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Look, maybe I’m just a simpleminded convert, but there is no difference between what you are doing and what a Protestant does, except that you are appealing to extrabiblical sources.
The whole reason for an authoritative Church is that you need to have a living teacher: it is very easy to misinterpret and/or cherrypick written documents to get the answer that you want. It is also meaningless to say that you believe in an authoritative Church if the only time you accept her teaching is when you already agree with it.
I know that there are difficulties with both the teaching on capital punishment and that on torture. I’m in no way qualified to address them, but I’m aware of their existence. And if the Church had made no clear statements about either subject, I’d say knock yourself out.
But she has, multiple times, and quite clearly. And whether or not those statements rise to the standard of infallibility, it is my understanding that we owe them the assent of faith.
And, in particular, to flatly deny the clear teaching of a document of an ecumenical council just floors me.
May 7, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Karen LH, can you please make arguments instead of personal attacks?
First Kate is some kind of dog because she responds in the same tone you used, (“Down girl”?) now those who are trying to follow the grand tradition of reason and the actual rules of the Church as to what is binding and what is not are “acting protestant.”
If you want to argue against something, act like a Catholic and use reason.
May 7, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Foxfier, you’re seeing personal attacks where none are intended.
May 7, 2009 at 7:41 pm
I really don’t care if you mean to be responding in an attacking matter or not, I only care that you’re not responding to the arguments.
Hard to learn anything if folks don’t bother to do the work of research and careful phrasing because they’ll just be told “you’re acting protestant!” or “gee, down girl!”
May 7, 2009 at 8:38 pm
I’m responding to the arguments as well as I know how. I’m sorry if that’s not coming across. I don’t know what else to say.
May 7, 2009 at 8:52 pm
You might try starting a post with “your argument is wrong because ____” or “this statement is binding because ___” or “the logic of ____ argument is incorrect in ____ statement.”
Your statement that It is also meaningless to say that you believe in an authoritative Church if the only time you accept her teaching is when you already agree with it. could just as easily apply to your own choice of holding up opinion statements as binding, without supporting arguments– similar to the "Pope hates Harry Potter" kerfluffle a while back, or the "D&D is satanic, Catholics can't play it" urban legend of the 80s.
Both of those rather silly little examples drove a wedge between the Church and people I personally know– shouldn't something so much more serious be treated with an equal amount of more serious insight?
If you don't feel you can make an argument, that's not a mark against you; you'll notice that I'm not exactly leaping forward to put my research and reasoning out there.
That said, just because you don't feel able to sufficiently defend your views in the context of the conversation doesn't mean you should jump in and start yelling about those who disagree with you "acting protestant", or responding with "down girl" for someone daring to disagree with you.
We get it, you don’t want to answer Mr. Archbold’s question–basically, given that they are still complicit in doing harm, could violence to that person be considered legitimate defense.
There is nothing wrong with not wanting to answer the question, but jumping in to short-circuit those who are trying to do so is just flat annoying. Doing so when you admitted that you haven’t even bothered to keep up with the conversation is…well, not really helpful.
May 7, 2009 at 9:38 pm
The whole reason for an authoritative Church is that you need to have a living teacher: it is very easy to misinterpret and/or cherrypick written documents to get the answer that you want. It is also meaningless to say that you believe in an authoritative Church if the only time you accept her teaching is when you already agree with it.
I am certainly aware of this tension. However, when faced with the restoration, the Church did not baten down the hatches, but instead came up with the Counter-reformation. The point being is that sometimes the Church is wrong, and changes to meet that. This argument, I am well aware, cuts both way, but it also defuses your charge that by disagreeing, I am being protestant.
But she has, multiple times, and quite clearly. And whether or not those statements rise to the standard of infallibility, it is my understanding that we owe them the assent of faith.
The Church has expressed an OPINION on something, and has not made a declarative and binding statement. When they do, I’ll buckle down and live with it. Furthermore, why would you expect me to accept a council as infallible and immutable when even the clergy says that it is not? I cannot help that. Catholicism is supposed to be a kingdom of conscience – as such, and in light of a lack of binding teaching, I will follow my conscience.
Basically, our disagreement is that I say priests can be wrong, and you don’t. I have experienced first-hand bad and incorrect priests, and so I look to the history of church teaching, church history, and the theology, and not on whatever moral teaching or idea is in vogue. The Faith is more than here and now, it is historical and ancient. More people have a say than our current crop of bishops, including the doctors and fathers of our Church.
So, yes, I do disagree – and it is clear that the church has made room for that disagreement, the same as with the death penalty.
We’ve got a culture to run, and a civilization to save and I do not have patience for those who would tie our hands based on pop theology.