What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Randy Carson]

So the Catholic Church runs into the inescapable fact that sometimes murder is less wrong (or not at all), and therefore invented this "subjective culpability." Nice.

Mike-

The Church distinguishes between self-defense and murder. This is seen in the following paragraphs from the Catechism:

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

[Randy Carson]

Let me put this in different terms to see if it makes more sense. Suppose you were a student at a major university, and you were studying some topic under a truly brilliant professor. In fact, the entire department is internationally recognized as being the best of the best. So, one day, your professor is chatting with you and a group of students about some research he has been doing, and he makes a statement that surprises you because it's counter to what you have been assuming about the topic.

Do you think, "Wow...Dr. Brightlight is the world's leading expert on this. But I can't trust what he says without verifying it for myself...even though I have no lab, no funding, no real expertise..."?

Or do you adjust your own thinking?

That's where you didn't read and perhaps didn't put into your original post, the fine print:

" I will listen to them and reexamine my thinking.  But I would never presume that anyone, anywhere, or any institution anywhere is always right. "

If the professor really is right, and he often is, then I'm going to change my mind. I will probably assume his data is accurate, but the reasoning I look at on my own.  The interesting thing is though, if he didn't change my mind, I've never had a brilliant professor not respect a rational rebuttal.  Twice, just twice, I've changed a professor's mind.

Sounds like we agree on this.

[Randy Carson]

Simple. Not every group in every age has struggled with the same issues.

However, one cannot help but wonder at the barbaric Japanese treatment of the Chinese and the Allied prisoners of war during WWII.

Any worse than Charlemagne publicly torturing to death all of his subjects who refused to convert to Catholicism in 782 during the Massacre of Verden?

Sure the Japanese got to do it to more people, but I'm sure Charlemagne would have had a go if he'd had the same technology the Japanese had more than a thousand years later.

This is but another whack-a-mole moment, but here is what Wikipedia says:

An entry for the year 782 in the Royal Frankish Annals records that, after Charlemagne lost two envoys, four counts, and around 20 nobles in battle with the Saxons, Charlemagne responded by massacring 4,500 rebelling Saxons near what is now Verden. Regarding this massacre, the entry reads:

When he heard this, the Lord King Charles rushed to the place with all the Franks that he could gather on short notice and advanced to where the Aller flows into the Weser. Then all the Saxons came together again, submitted to the authority of the Lord King, and surrendered the evildoers who were chiefly responsible for this revolt to be put to death—four thousand and five hundred of them. This sentence was carried out. Widukind was not among them since he had fled to Nordmannia. When he had finished this business, the Lord King returned to Francia.[1]

There was a rebellion.
Some of Charlemagne's homies were killed in the uprising.
Charlemagne exacted revenge.

I'm not convinced the comparison to the Japanese army is justified, but if you say so...

[Randy Carson]

That's pretty funny. And one more reason to be Protestant, I suppose!  


Let me put this in different terms to see if it makes more sense. Suppose you were a student at a major university, and you were studying some topic under a truly brilliant professor. In fact, the entire department is internationally recognized as being the best of the best. So, one day, your professor is chatting with you and a group of students about some research he has been doing, and he makes a statement that surprises you because it's counter to what you have been assuming about the topic.

Do you think, "Wow...Dr. Brightlight is the world's leading expert on this. But I can't trust what he says without verifying it for myself...even though I have no lab, no funding, no real expertise..."?

Or do you adjust your own thinking?

I myself question Dr. Brightlight, and try to verify what he taught; if I can't verify, then I continue with "I don't know" and "hopefully one day I can find out".  That's what everyone should do.  Thinking critically is one of the awesome things about being human, as Jenny pointed out.  It's too bad you and your ilk don't practice it as much as you should.

"Ilk"? I have "ilk"?

becca, it would be great, I suppose, if we all re-examined everything we learn in life, but as anyone who has ever sat through even a freshman year of college can attest, no, what we're really doing is accepting what the professors tell us because they are the professors: iow, they are knowledgable and reliable.

Same with the Catholic Church. (Yes, it is.)

[Randy Carson]

Let me put this in different terms to see if it makes more sense. Suppose you were a student at a major university, and you were studying some topic under a truly brilliant professor. In fact, the entire department is internationally recognized as being the best of the best. So, one day, your professor is chatting with you and a group of students about some research he has been doing, and he makes a statement that surprises you because it's counter to what you have been assuming about the topic.

Do you think, "Wow...Dr. Brightlight is the world's leading expert on this. But I can't trust what he says without verifying it for myself...even though I have no lab, no funding, no real expertise..."?

Or do you adjust your own thinking?

I see whre you are going with this Randy and it is not a viable comparison.

Dr. Brightlight cannot make a claim that cannot be verified via replication. Dr.Brightlight if he wishes to be recognized as a legitimate reliable academic must submit all his findings to peer review of those who have the resources we may lack to test theories and should they be found wanting he and his work will be ejected from the establishment.

There is no peer review in Catholicism; it's "believe me because I tell you to". There's no other theologians to ask, there's no reading the books for oneself. Not a viable comparison.

No, peer review?

Well, let's see...

First, the theologian must be in accord with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
Then, there are the writings of the Early Church Fathers which must be considered.
Then, there are 2,000 years of theology from the Scholastics such as Duns Scotus, Thomas Aquinas, etc which must be considered.
Then, there are living theologians who may or may not agree with a given position.
Then, there is the Magisterium of the Church of the Church which may be exercised through an Ecumenical Council called to settle a matter of dispute.
Finally, there is the Pope himself who may agree or disagree and pass judgment on the basis of his own authority.

So, yeah. There is peer review.

[Randy Carson]

Could God force us to do something? Sure.

But He has chosen to give us free will and to honor it.

How much resentment would we have against God if He didn't?

None at all, by definition.

That's not what Christopher Hitchens said. But whatever.

[Randy Carson]

However, one cannot help but wonder at the barbaric Japanese treatment of the Chinese and the Allied prisoners of war during WWII.

Yes, especially since that came after the introduction of the christer faith to their culture.

What percentage of the Japanese in years 1941-1945 were Christian, SOW?

[The Valkyrie]

What is good/best in life?

[Randy Carson]

Correct. That would be capital punishment...same as when we put a prisoner to death for a serious crime.

I think capital punishment is immoral.

Many Catholics agree...because they believe that the taking and giving of life belongs to God alone.

For context, in which verse does God do this?

Try verses:

Deut. 20:10-14 (command about attacking the town and taking women for themselves)
"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.  If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.  But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.  When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

If only you had read a little further, you would understand more. This is just ONE CHAPTER later:

Deuteronomy 21
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

The captured woman is allowed time to mourn. She is then MARRIED...not raped. Thus,

THE LIE HAS BEEN EXPOSED. TIME TO LET IT GO.

Deut. 22:23-24 (rules for stoning a rape victim to death)
"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife."

Harsh, but the obvious issue here is that if the girl did not protest, then the sex may have been consensual. We see this in the headlines EVERY DAY. The cry of "rape" only occurs a few days later. Anyone remember the Duke Lacrosse team?

Numbers 31:18 (what do you think keeping virgins for themselves entailed?)
"Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

Marrying them according to the law. See the passage quoted above.

THE LIE HAS BEEN EXPOSED AGAIN. TIME TO LET IT GO.

Deut. 22:28-29 (rules about a rape victim being made to marry her rapist)
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

The man was guilty of raping her, and he was required to pay restitution, to marry her and NEVER divorce her caring for her all the rest of his days.

THE LIE HAS BEEN EXPOSED A THIRD TIME. TIME TO LET IT GO.

[Ravenshire]

Yes, especially since that came after the introduction of the christer faith to their culture.

What percentage of the Japanese in years 1941-1945 were Christian, SOW?

Are you going to argue that the christer faith hadn't found them by then? Besides, what happened to your unsubstantiated claim that your pet religion is the reason for slavery's decline? The war crimes committed by the Japanese makes for a nice red herring, but you've still to show why your pet religion helped destroy slavery while the Japanese without the taint of christer faith managed to enslave fewer people and treat them far less heinously, and dispense with the practice without being forced to at the point of a bayonet.

C'mon Randy, show some intellectual honesty for a change.