I had a conversation in class today and Isis came up. The question was whether or not Isis is committing mortal sin. Another question was whether or not they could “justify” themselves by saying that their conscience had been “blackened” by their surroundings.
If they had grown up in an atmosphere that believed that murdering someone that didn’t share their belief, can they later justify, once they have “reached the age of reason”, their committing acts of murder as well?
No because there is a base level of morality that all humans can reach through the use of basic reasoning. Causing the death of someone just because they don’t share one’s beliefs would be something anyone with the ability to use basic reason would know is immoral.
Is it possible that certain memebers of ISIS do not have full culpability for grave sins they commit? Yes.
It is possible that certain members of ISIS do have full culpability for grave sins they commit? Again yes.
While it is clear enough (from our perspective) to see the fundamental evil in the principles and tactics of ISIS, we cannot presume that each and every member is fully responsible. In much the same way as we can see evil clearly in the Nazis, but we don’t presume every German soldier in WWII was committing personal mortal sin in fighting for their side.
The private sins of citizens in a nation, particularly one as populous as the current USA, do not factor into the morality of the nation’s actions as an entity.
The war we are currently fighting is not to extend our society’s favorite private immoralities, but to protect its citizens and other innocents, something the country has every right to do, irrespective of the sins its citizens commit.
BTW, when the USA fought WW2, it had about 1/3 the population it does now. So it would make sense we have more sin; we have far more sinners.
I don’t know for sure, and I wonder about that exercise because it’s really not good form for someone who is not a qualified spiritual director to assess someone else’s conscience individually. We all know how backwards ISIS is.
The easy answer would be yes, but then again many Native Americans would break arms and legs during wars in America because they believed it would give their enemies a disadvantage in the after-life.
But when mass murder, sex slavery and mass rape and even genocide are on the list, well, I think it needs to be said in general it would take some doing to have invincible ignorance on that.
The bottom line with all of this as I had often written on other Forums is that you cannot fool God in the end, so if you’re not fooling me or anyone else, what chance really do you think you have?
Both are technically correct. The killing referenced is the intentional unjust taking of a life- i.e. murder. The modern understanding and usage of the two terms- “kill” and “murder” makes the term “murder” the more correct one to use because it never references the just taking of a life (i.e. the statement- “the police officer murdered the criminal” would be wrong if said police officer justly ended the life of the criminal, but “the police officer killed the criminal” would be right). Or at least this is how I understand it.
The only way it wouldn’t be, it seems, is if they had no idea what they were doing was a sin. They are all fully aware that the Catholic Church condemns their actions, so, simply by that, it would seem that a vast majority of them are 100% responsible for the sinful nature of their actions.