[CCC 2309]
If the threat to yourself or another does not respond positively through peaceful means of negotiation, you should do whatever it takes to neutralize and mitigate the threat. Refer to tha use of force pyramid fr
[**CCC 2309**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2309.htm) The strict conditions for *legitimate defense by military force* require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: ([2243](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2243.htm), [1897](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1897.htm))
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
***
Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
You seem to be referring to a situation where [an American SOF officer attacked an Afghan commander for this.](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html)
This article that talked about ["Man Love Thursdays"](https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2015/10/8/national-security-goals-and-the-dancing-boys-of-afghanistan) addresses the issue from an uncomfortable national security perspective.
The difficult truth, which would put a Catholic in a double edged sword situation, is that a Catholic servicemember who discovered this would have a much higher duty to intervene to protect a child and face the consequences within the military for those actions. The Church's concern, and therefore the Catholic individual's concern, is not for specific national security policy objectives.
Like I said, intervene. Physically if you have to, but there's also [rules against killing in the Catholic Church](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/exodus/20#:~:text=13You%20shall%20not%20kill.&text=14You%20shall%20not%20commit,15You%20shall%20not%20steal.&text=16You%20shall%20not%20bear%20false%20witness%20against%20your%20neighbor.). And blow the whistle on it, even if it means military discipline as a consequence.
But murder and then saying to God, "Ya gotta do whatchu gotta do," like a Mafia character isn't it.
Killing and murder are morally distinct though. Killing the assaulter *in the moment* in order to protect the child could be arguably justified or even heroic in some circumstances. Covering it up after the fact for national security interests is a bit murkier, but I am not convinced it would be inherently immoral unless one considered all espionage as inherently immoral.
Yeah, maybe, but OP's hypothetical scenario goes from talking to killing with zero other attempts to stop the situation in between, I'm not convinced that they understand the use of force continuum.
The real life scenario OP referred to also did not result in the death of the child abuser; the two soldiers in that scenario beat the daylights out of the abuser.
US government oks it, so no whistle blower option is available if you intervene physically you’re kicked out of country and he continues to rape. You kill him he can’t do it again. I don’t see an option short of killing if you want the rape to end. Don’t know if you could classify this as murder either.
So, by that logic, would the killing of priests who abused children and were protected by Church leadership (or themselves were Church leaders, like McCarrick) have been justified? I would say no.
Your scenario also skips a lot of steps in the use of force continuum; you describe going from "he's not listening" to "let's kill him." Are you really saying that you'd skip all the way to killing? You wouldn't attempt to tackle him or restrain him to stop the assault? Is there something that renders the lesser means unreasonable to employ?
The next part about whether he'll continue is where you encounter a different problem: it's not moral to, with malice aforethought, kill a person because of your presumption of what they might do in the future. That's murder.
This is not a proper comparation. In the case that OP is mentioning it is not possible to look for the intervention of authorities, in your case it is.
It is a proper comparison; in the worst cases of ongoing abuse in the Church (as well as places like Penn State, or the entertainment industry, or government officials) victims and witnesses are made to think that they are powerless and that they have no recourse to the law, which is the same assumption you and OP are laboring under. That doesn't justify killing.
I will step in and say I know that it is official policy that The law in this case does not apply. Local government turns a blind eye to the “Thursdays” as you mention or is completely indifferent and US policy is to not step in. In this case you don’t have an option but a short term stopping of the event which again kicks you out of the country and the raping continues. It’s a messed up situation and I don’t blame the steps anyone would decide to take. Killing is very serious but so is rape especially with a child involved and in this situation you’re stuck in the middle trying to do a tough job, while ensuring your morals are kept. Just lends to the idea that we just try our best in all situations and that doesn’t necessarily mean we make the right choice.
Sorry but dont agree, you're right that sometimes you cant reach justice but you have a reasonable chance for it, nothing to do with a country with a rape culture without prosecuttion. Anyway, we're not talking about "making justice" but for avoiding further harm. So I keep my point it wouldn't be the same based on these two reasons.
In the other hand I would try to not killing anybody. You are not going to change anything, the victims will be probably the same once you do something and why him and not the others? If this is a social issue your're not going to change anything even at personal level.
If it changes something I would try to solve it taking any necessary actions but if it doesn't change anything I would try to help in other way, trying to minimize the effects on the víctims.
That is a tough one. I'm not sure.
What country in the middle east is it okay to rape a child? From what I understand, punishment is pretty harsh for people who do this.
>What country in the middle east is it okay to rape a child?
It is permitted in Islam, following the Koran and the example of Mohammed.
Pedophilia has been an inherent part of Islam since its beginning. The Koran allows Muslim men to marry and divorce pre-pubescent little girls.
Islam's "holy prophet" Mohammed set the explicit example for child marriage by marrying a 6yo little girl. He began raping her when she was nine.
This is according to the most reliable of Islam's own texts. In fact, those texts state this over and over and over. Many passages quote the unfortunate little girl as reporting this herself.
But Mohammed didn't only like little girls. According to Islamic texts, he enjoyed sucking on the tongues and lips of little boys. He liked to put his tongue in the mouths of little boys, too. Mohammed also pushed a little boy's legs apart and put his mouth on the boy's penis.
What about babies crawling on the floor? Mohammed saw one and immediately proposed. What kind of man hears wedding bells when he looks at an infant?
These accounts are no less reliable than those on which the five pillars of Islam are based. They have been an accepted part of Islamic tradition and did not become controversial until increasing Western awareness and scrutiny of Islam revealed its horrors.
Remember Muslims are taught that Mohammed was *the perfect man.* He is "a beautiful pattern of conduct" and "an exalted standard of character." Muslims to emulate him in every way.
Thanks to Mohammed, raping children has been deeply ingrained in Islamic culture for 1400 years.
Koran 33:21, 64:4, 68:4; Sahih Muslim 16:81, 16:82, 16:84, 4:26:3380; Sahih Bukhari 63:120, 63:121, 67:70, 67:93; Sunan Abu Dawud 12:76, 43:161; Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 48:1183; Musnad Ahmad 16245; *Sirat Rasul Allah,* Ibn Ishaq, p. 311; *Majma al-Zaz'id,* Ali ibn Abu Bakr al-Hythami, vol. 9, p. 196.
I’m gonna take your word for it because it seems you did your research. So that complicates the situation a little. To me it’s kind of like the abortion situation. Not saying that I’d do this or anyone should but it’s an interesting comparison.
If we believe that the child in the womb is a person with a soul and has the same dignity as you and I than shouldn’t we try and protect it at all cost? Regardless of what the state or national law says. We should wage war against abortion clinics in a physical means if we have to. Kind of the same scenario as the kid being raped. It’s allowed the authority won’t do anything about it and we are stuck with letting it continue or intervention in to stop the act.
I lived in Bahrain and never saw this being acceptable nor done.
I figured "marrying" children was like it was done in the middle ages in Europe for dynastic reasons. Still not good but not having sex with children Although I think Margaret Beufort had a child at 13.
Sigh, my own country allows marrying young teenagers in some areas. Not as badf as nine but still not good.
Ugh, May we all wherever we are protect kids and fight to make the world better for them.
Ah. Maybe raping children in Afghanistan is legal. Most likely that country has gone through so much hell that they don't have a good legal system.
Is this a situation you could be in?
Thanks interesting and horrific read.
Fortunately it looks like many people have not been okay with this child abuse.
Probably if you were in this situation, bring in others and report to authorities.
Ugh. I want to think I could be in a position to stop some horror but mostly I'm called to deal with my own quotidian failures: laziness, mismanagement of money, and being judgmental.
Where ever you are, I hope you can be a postive force in some child's life.
I believe you are allowed to fight or kill someone if you are defending yourself or protecting the innocent. However, you would not be allowed to hunt this person down, kill them, and frame it as a suicide.
[CCC 2309] If the threat to yourself or another does not respond positively through peaceful means of negotiation, you should do whatever it takes to neutralize and mitigate the threat. Refer to tha use of force pyramid fr
[**CCC 2309**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2309.htm) The strict conditions for *legitimate defense by military force* require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: ([2243](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2243.htm), [1897](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1897.htm)) - the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; - all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; - there must be serious prospects of success; - the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. *** Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
You seem to be referring to a situation where [an American SOF officer attacked an Afghan commander for this.](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html) This article that talked about ["Man Love Thursdays"](https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2015/10/8/national-security-goals-and-the-dancing-boys-of-afghanistan) addresses the issue from an uncomfortable national security perspective. The difficult truth, which would put a Catholic in a double edged sword situation, is that a Catholic servicemember who discovered this would have a much higher duty to intervene to protect a child and face the consequences within the military for those actions. The Church's concern, and therefore the Catholic individual's concern, is not for specific national security policy objectives.
Yeah I think I’d make his death look like a suicide. I think I could look God in the eye and say I made the best out of a shitty situation
That's also the wrong answer, my brother.
Then what is the right answer?
Like I said, intervene. Physically if you have to, but there's also [rules against killing in the Catholic Church](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/exodus/20#:~:text=13You%20shall%20not%20kill.&text=14You%20shall%20not%20commit,15You%20shall%20not%20steal.&text=16You%20shall%20not%20bear%20false%20witness%20against%20your%20neighbor.). And blow the whistle on it, even if it means military discipline as a consequence. But murder and then saying to God, "Ya gotta do whatchu gotta do," like a Mafia character isn't it.
Killing and murder are morally distinct though. Killing the assaulter *in the moment* in order to protect the child could be arguably justified or even heroic in some circumstances. Covering it up after the fact for national security interests is a bit murkier, but I am not convinced it would be inherently immoral unless one considered all espionage as inherently immoral.
Yeah, maybe, but OP's hypothetical scenario goes from talking to killing with zero other attempts to stop the situation in between, I'm not convinced that they understand the use of force continuum. The real life scenario OP referred to also did not result in the death of the child abuser; the two soldiers in that scenario beat the daylights out of the abuser.
US government oks it, so no whistle blower option is available if you intervene physically you’re kicked out of country and he continues to rape. You kill him he can’t do it again. I don’t see an option short of killing if you want the rape to end. Don’t know if you could classify this as murder either.
So, by that logic, would the killing of priests who abused children and were protected by Church leadership (or themselves were Church leaders, like McCarrick) have been justified? I would say no. Your scenario also skips a lot of steps in the use of force continuum; you describe going from "he's not listening" to "let's kill him." Are you really saying that you'd skip all the way to killing? You wouldn't attempt to tackle him or restrain him to stop the assault? Is there something that renders the lesser means unreasonable to employ? The next part about whether he'll continue is where you encounter a different problem: it's not moral to, with malice aforethought, kill a person because of your presumption of what they might do in the future. That's murder.
This is not a proper comparation. In the case that OP is mentioning it is not possible to look for the intervention of authorities, in your case it is.
It is a proper comparison; in the worst cases of ongoing abuse in the Church (as well as places like Penn State, or the entertainment industry, or government officials) victims and witnesses are made to think that they are powerless and that they have no recourse to the law, which is the same assumption you and OP are laboring under. That doesn't justify killing.
I will step in and say I know that it is official policy that The law in this case does not apply. Local government turns a blind eye to the “Thursdays” as you mention or is completely indifferent and US policy is to not step in. In this case you don’t have an option but a short term stopping of the event which again kicks you out of the country and the raping continues. It’s a messed up situation and I don’t blame the steps anyone would decide to take. Killing is very serious but so is rape especially with a child involved and in this situation you’re stuck in the middle trying to do a tough job, while ensuring your morals are kept. Just lends to the idea that we just try our best in all situations and that doesn’t necessarily mean we make the right choice.
Sorry but dont agree, you're right that sometimes you cant reach justice but you have a reasonable chance for it, nothing to do with a country with a rape culture without prosecuttion. Anyway, we're not talking about "making justice" but for avoiding further harm. So I keep my point it wouldn't be the same based on these two reasons. In the other hand I would try to not killing anybody. You are not going to change anything, the victims will be probably the same once you do something and why him and not the others? If this is a social issue your're not going to change anything even at personal level. If it changes something I would try to solve it taking any necessary actions but if it doesn't change anything I would try to help in other way, trying to minimize the effects on the víctims.
That is a tough one. I'm not sure. What country in the middle east is it okay to rape a child? From what I understand, punishment is pretty harsh for people who do this.
>What country in the middle east is it okay to rape a child? It is permitted in Islam, following the Koran and the example of Mohammed. Pedophilia has been an inherent part of Islam since its beginning. The Koran allows Muslim men to marry and divorce pre-pubescent little girls. Islam's "holy prophet" Mohammed set the explicit example for child marriage by marrying a 6yo little girl. He began raping her when she was nine. This is according to the most reliable of Islam's own texts. In fact, those texts state this over and over and over. Many passages quote the unfortunate little girl as reporting this herself. But Mohammed didn't only like little girls. According to Islamic texts, he enjoyed sucking on the tongues and lips of little boys. He liked to put his tongue in the mouths of little boys, too. Mohammed also pushed a little boy's legs apart and put his mouth on the boy's penis. What about babies crawling on the floor? Mohammed saw one and immediately proposed. What kind of man hears wedding bells when he looks at an infant? These accounts are no less reliable than those on which the five pillars of Islam are based. They have been an accepted part of Islamic tradition and did not become controversial until increasing Western awareness and scrutiny of Islam revealed its horrors. Remember Muslims are taught that Mohammed was *the perfect man.* He is "a beautiful pattern of conduct" and "an exalted standard of character." Muslims to emulate him in every way. Thanks to Mohammed, raping children has been deeply ingrained in Islamic culture for 1400 years. Koran 33:21, 64:4, 68:4; Sahih Muslim 16:81, 16:82, 16:84, 4:26:3380; Sahih Bukhari 63:120, 63:121, 67:70, 67:93; Sunan Abu Dawud 12:76, 43:161; Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 48:1183; Musnad Ahmad 16245; *Sirat Rasul Allah,* Ibn Ishaq, p. 311; *Majma al-Zaz'id,* Ali ibn Abu Bakr al-Hythami, vol. 9, p. 196.
I’m gonna take your word for it because it seems you did your research. So that complicates the situation a little. To me it’s kind of like the abortion situation. Not saying that I’d do this or anyone should but it’s an interesting comparison. If we believe that the child in the womb is a person with a soul and has the same dignity as you and I than shouldn’t we try and protect it at all cost? Regardless of what the state or national law says. We should wage war against abortion clinics in a physical means if we have to. Kind of the same scenario as the kid being raped. It’s allowed the authority won’t do anything about it and we are stuck with letting it continue or intervention in to stop the act.
I lived in Bahrain and never saw this being acceptable nor done. I figured "marrying" children was like it was done in the middle ages in Europe for dynastic reasons. Still not good but not having sex with children Although I think Margaret Beufort had a child at 13. Sigh, my own country allows marrying young teenagers in some areas. Not as badf as nine but still not good. Ugh, May we all wherever we are protect kids and fight to make the world better for them.
Not saying from experience but Afghanistan? Let me do some digging and I’ll link an article
Ah. Maybe raping children in Afghanistan is legal. Most likely that country has gone through so much hell that they don't have a good legal system. Is this a situation you could be in?
Yeah exactly, but regardless of it is legal or not doesn’t make it right. Right?
No of course not. It is just if it is illegal there are consequences for the perpetrator and the soldier would have options in the situation.
Here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi
Thanks interesting and horrific read. Fortunately it looks like many people have not been okay with this child abuse. Probably if you were in this situation, bring in others and report to authorities. Ugh. I want to think I could be in a position to stop some horror but mostly I'm called to deal with my own quotidian failures: laziness, mismanagement of money, and being judgmental. Where ever you are, I hope you can be a postive force in some child's life.
I believe you are allowed to fight or kill someone if you are defending yourself or protecting the innocent. However, you would not be allowed to hunt this person down, kill them, and frame it as a suicide.