Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => The Catholic Bunker => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on June 28, 2019, 02:25:25 PM
-
After the worldwide cataclysm, which brought about TEOTWAKI ("the end of the world as we know it"), instituting a world WROL ("without rule of law"), Catholic survivors will have a whole new set of moral problems to deal with.
Certain types of cataclysm will make the production of food almost impossible for a time (e.g., nuclear war: Polluted ground, radioactive meat, nuclear winter blocking sunlight), and in these types of disasters, cannibalism will emerge as the primary threat: People will hunt people for food.
Here is a moral scenario I wondered about:
Hidden in a field above my bunker, I spot a woman and child being pursued by a gang of men who, if they capture them (which seems imminent), will rape, murder, and eat them.
It seems there are a number of (apparent) conflicting moral principles which would lay claims upon my duties and reaction:
1) Necessity imposes a grave obligation to come to the physical aid for anyone who has the possibility of rendering it (i.e., I may sin gravely if I do nothing, and be damned);
2) Duty of state: If I attempt to intervene, I will be overwhelmed, killed, and my family will be without protection, and in turn probably suffer the same fate as the woman and child.
Questions:
1) Is it the probability of victory which determines whether or not the duty to intervene compele one?
2) Or, will I be damned for intervening, knowing I will probably betray my family to the same fate if I intervene?
What would be the Catholic thing to do?
As an aside, this difficult situation and decision suggests Catholics group themselves into their own militias/prepper groups, and you will have less liklihood of having to wrestle with such situations (i.e., If we had a militia, we would surely intervene and wipe out the marauders).
-
Cannibal prevention (if you can afford the ammo):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ivnXKuD19o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ivnXKuD19o)
-
Cannibal prevention (if you can afford the ammo):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ivnXKuD19o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ivnXKuD19o)
Savage rifles tend to be way overpriced. They do have a few winners out there, and a few losers, speaking from experience.
338 Lapua is great for the long range sniping of apocalyptoids, but likely we will encounter them at far closer distances.
308 WIN just as good for longer distances. Cheaper ammo too.
As with everything, such as daily prayer, you have to practice frequently with whatever thou hast. :cowboy:
With the moral question about the gang of men chasing a woman with or without child, I doubt they will want to have a high tea social. ;)In such a situation, you are defending the weak and helpless.Also calls up the need for a semi auto rifle. Lots of 5.56 mm and 7.62 x 39 surplus out there, even in Canada eh!
-
Savage rifles tend to be way overpriced. They do have a few winners out there, and a few losers, speaking from experience.
338 Lapua is great for the long range sniping of apocalyptoids, but likely we will encounter them at far closer distances.
308 WIN just as good for longer distances. Cheaper ammo too.
As with everything, such as daily prayer, you have to practice frequently with whatever thou hast. :cowboy:
With the moral question about the gang of men chasing a woman with or without child, I doubt they will want to have a high tea social. ;)In such a situation, you are defending the weak and helpless.Also calls up the need for a semi auto rifle. Lots of 5.56 mm and 7.62 x 39 surplus out there, even in Canada eh!
1) FCP110 is $1,300 +/-. All other weapons chambered in same caliber from ANY other mfg tend to be 2-3x higher (unless there is something out there I don't know about, which is not likely);
2) Agree: I would not pick this weapon for shots closer than 300 yards (but you wouldn't purchase it as a close quarter battle rifle);
3) .308 WIN cannot even come close to .338 in ELR shooting. .338 currently holds world record verified kill in Afghanistan at 2,708 yards. Navy seals don't use .308 WIN for anything longer than 500 yards, if they can help it.
If you were referring to .308 Win Mag or .308 short mag, those reach out a bit longer, but probably top out around 1,000 yards.
-
1) FCP110 is $1,300 +/-. All other weapons chambered in same caliber from ANY other mfg tend to be 2-3x higher (unless there is something out there I don't know about, which is not likely);
2) Agree: I would not pick this weapon for shots closer than 300 yards (but you wouldn't purchase it as a close quarter battle rifle);
3) .308 WIN cannot even come close to .338 in ELR shooting. .338 currently holds world record verified kill in Afghanistan at 2,708 yards. Navy seals don't use .308 WIN for anything longer than 500 yards, if they can help it.
If you were referring to .308 Win Mag or .308 short mag, those reach out a bit longer, but probably top out around 1,000 yards.
The 338 Lapua is indeed a great calibre to shoot them zombiefied demoncrats at longer distances. It is a Canadian sniper who holds that record. :) Used a TAC 50 rifle. Crazy!
308 is more readily available to stockpile thy bunker. Picking up a .50 cal also not a bad idea.
If my aches will abate for even a small window of time, I want to get out and shoot my yet to be fired Marlin in 45.70 with a 405 grain Bear Load.
And some 3.5 in shotgun shells too with my also YTBF Mossy. :)
I wuv mah Ruger American Ranch in 5.56. :cowboy:
My eyesight is still excellent amidst the rest of me which feels like it wants to fall apart completely most days. ;D
Czuwaj!
-
3) .308 WIN cannot even come close to .338 in ELR shooting. .338 currently holds world record verified kill in Afghanistan at 2,708 yards. Navy seals don't use .308 WIN for anything longer than 500 yards, if they can help it.
You're picking on my go to cartridge.
Here's an amusing video for those who think that the .308 is inadequate.
https://youtu.be/X232rB_Cj8g
-
Yes, the probability of success factors in to the morality of the decision. Prudential considerations do inform the morality of actions. If you think there's a low chance for success, and a high risk of harm done to your family, it would not be a mortal sin not to intervene.
Let's say there are 50 well-armed men about to attack an innocent person If you go intervene, the only thing you'll accomplish is getting yourself killed. In that case, it might even be a sin to intervene, since you're putting your life on the line for no reason. But this is an extreme example. Things could get blurry depending on the circuмstances. If you think you might have a 50-50 shot of saving them, while the penalty for failure would be possibly risking your family ... let's say that if you're killed off, they would go after your wife and children as well, or longer term because they would have no one around to protect them after your death ... then, wow, those become some very blurry scenarios. And you wouldn't have the luxury of time to consult a priest about the scenario.
-
After the worldwide cataclysm, which brought about TEOTWAKI ("the end of the world as we know it"), instituting a world WROL ("without rule of law"), Catholic survivors will have a whole new set of moral problems to deal with.
Certain types of cataclysm will make the production of food almost impossible for a time (e.g., nuclear war: Polluted ground, radioactive meat, nuclear winter blocking sunlight), and in these types of disasters, cannibalism will emerge as the primary threat: People will hunt people for food.
Here is a moral scenario I wondered about:
Hidden in a field above my bunker, I spot a woman and child being pursued by a gang of men who, if they capture them (which seems imminent), will rape, murder, and eat them.
It seems there are a number of (apparent) conflicting moral principles which would lay claims upon my duties and reaction:
1) Necessity imposes a grave obligation to come to the physical aid for anyone who has the possibility of rendering it (i.e., I may sin gravely if I do nothing, and be damned);
2) Duty of state: If I attempt to intervene, I will be overwhelmed, killed, and my family will be without protection, and in turn probably suffer the same fate as the woman and child.
Questions:
1) Is it the probability of victory which determines whether or not the duty to intervene compele one?
2) Or, will I be damned for intervening, knowing I will probably betray my family to the same fate if I intervene?
What would be the Catholic thing to do?
As an aside, this difficult situation and decision suggests Catholics group themselves into their own militias/prepper groups, and you will have less liklihood of having to wrestle with such situations (i.e., If we had a militia, we would surely intervene and wipe out the marauders).
Interesting question.
The Catholic thing to do would be to do what you can to help the innocent at the same time not getting killed yourself. But should you get killed, it would not have been in vain or for no good reason, so your own well being is secondary to trying to save the woman and child.
If the woman and child were your mother and sister and some other man in a bunker saw them fleeing the gang, what would you want that man to do - nothing or turn his back and just ignore the situation?
Then there's the Golden Rule; if you were the woman and child, wouldn't you want the man in the bunker to do something, anything? Futile though it may be, it might give you and child the chance to get away - even if it meant he got killed.
Perhaps it's easier to justify the above if you were to take the word "Catholic" out of the question, in which case it'd play out along these lines; "Sorry lady, you and the kid are on your own". Then you just go back in the bunker pitying them, close the door safe and sound, and get back to whittling spearheads.
-
Yes, the probability of success factors in to the morality of the decision. Prudential considerations do inform the morality of actions. If you think there's a low chance for success, and a high risk of harm done to your family, it would not be a mortal sin not to intervene.
Let's say there are 50 well-armed men about to attack an innocent person If you go intervene, the only thing you'll accomplish is getting yourself killed. In that case, it might even be a sin to intervene, since you're putting your life on the line for no reason. But this is an extreme example. Things could get blurry depending on the circuмstances. If you think you might have a 50-50 shot of saving them, while the penalty for failure would be possibly risking your family ... let's say that if you're killed off, they would go after your wife and children as well, or longer term because they would have no one around to protect them after your death ... then, wow, those become some very blurry scenarios. And you wouldn't have the luxury of time to consult a priest about the scenario.
Good analysis.
-
Interesting question.
The Catholic thing to do would be to do what you can to help the innocent at the same time not getting killed yourself. But should you get killed, it would not have been in vain or for no good reason, so your own well being is secondary to trying to save the woman and child.
If the woman and child were your mother and sister and some other man in a bunker saw them fleeing the gang, what would you want that man to do - nothing or turn his back and just ignore the situation?
Then there's the Golden Rule; if you were the woman and child, wouldn't you want the man in the bunker to do something, anything? Futile though it may be, it might give you and child the chance to get away - even if it meant he got killed.
Perhaps it's easier to justify the above if you were to take the word "Catholic" out of the question, in which case it'd play out along these lines; "Sorry lady, you and the kid are on your own". Then you just go back in the bunker pitying them, close the door safe and sound, and get back to whittling spearheads.
Your whole post ignores the fact that the man debating about helping *has a wife a children back in the bunker*.
You said "so your own well being is secondary to trying to save the woman and child." You assume the man is single and unmarried, with no dependents either.
Why should that stranger woman and child have a higher claim on this man's life than his own wife and large family back in the bunker?
You even mock him, suggesting his day-to-day life isn't very noble, describing him whittling spearheads like some lonely bachelor or MGTOW, instead of having him hug his large number of children when he gets back.
-
Your whole post ignores the fact that the man debating about helping *has a wife a children back in the bunker*.
You said "so your own well being is secondary to trying to save the woman and child." You assume the man is single and unmarried, with no dependents either.
Why should that stranger woman and child have a higher claim on this man's life than his own wife and large family back in the bunker?
You even mock him, suggesting his day-to-day life isn't very noble, describing him whittling spearheads like some lonely bachelor or MGTOW, instead of having him
Actually, I mocked no one, I said the guy whittling spearheads is not a Catholic: "Perhaps it's easier to justify the above if you were to take the word "Catholic" out of the question..." Would hugging your children after ignoring the woman and child's peril be more Catholic than whittling spearheads?
Also, what about your post (along with the other's) assuming the woman and child are "single", while ignoring that the woman and child, who themselves had a large Catholic family waiting for them to come home so she could hug her large number of children, are totally out of luck if they were hoping for any help from a Catholic.
Does the Golden Rule simply not apply in anyway whatsoever? Are we not our brother's keepers? - if so, then are we not bound to attempt to at least do *something*? Whether it be throw rocks at them from the bushes, mow them down with an automatic rifle, or pick them off one at a time with a hunting rifle or ? BTW, my idea of a "gang" is 5 or 6, not 50, that would be a mob, not a gang.
I still think "the Catholic thing to do would be to do what you can to help the innocent at the same time not getting killed yourself". Which is to say the Catholic would need to think of some way to stop or forestall the gang without purposely getting himself killed, but if that's what it came to and he did get killed, he would be justified. His family is not going to die because he did, they have provisions and enough ammo to last them.
-
Are we not our brother's keepers? - if so, then are we not bound to attempt to at least do *something*? Whether it be throw rocks at them from the bushes, ...
So you throw a rock at them just so you can pretend you're doing something? In doing so, you reveal your position and expose your family to slaughter. But, hey, you threw a rock. If on the other hand you did happen to have "a machine gun", and therefore a good/reasonable chance of saving the person without jeopardizing your family, then of course you would intervene.
Here's where it gets very blurry. I have a weapon and think I have about a 90% chance of success. But if that 10% comes about, then I've just killed my family. That's a real tough one. I would think that your obligation to protect your family comes first. You are the head of your family and are duty-bound to protect them moreso than you are to protect a stranger. As Matthew said, this was a big part of the OP's scenario. Now, if you're a loner, then absolutely I agree with you, that if you have ANY halfway realistic chance of saving the person, you would be duty bound to try ... even at risk of your own life. But that is not OP's scenario.
-
Why should that stranger woman and child have a higher claim on this man's life than his own wife and large family back in the bunker?
This pretty well sums it up... "The Order of Charity."
-
You are the head of your family and are duty-bound to protect them moreso than you are to protect a stranger. As Matthew said, this was a big part of the OP's scenario.
I agree, family comes first. As St Paul says, we are obligated to take care of our household first, then those of the "household of the Faith" second (i.e. Trad catholics). Strangers would be "dead" last (pun intented). ...I don't think you're obligated to put yourself in danger of death for most people (family excluded). In such a situation, you'd have to rely on your gut instinct and a quick prayer.
.
Another simpler scenario would be related to food. Supposed you're on your way to the grocery to buy some very necessary things and you don't have much money to spare (i.e. think of an inflationary, food-ration situation). On the way to the grocery (or after you bought the food) you come across a starving family. I would give them a little of money or food I had, but I could not give them all, since my family's needs come first.
.
Certainly, God has worked many miracles in such situations for saints that gave away all the food they had, and they returned home to the house/monastery empty handed. Yet, God miraculously provided them food later. Surely God can work such miracles for us too, if we had Faith, but there's also prudence to think about. I'm no saint, so I don't know if such circuмstances were meant to test the Faith of the house/monastery and if the actual saint was given the inspiration to give all he had to the strangers. In absence of such an inspiration, I would think you help them out some, but not give them all. Maybe my Faith is just lacking? Maybe I'm just looking at this too materially? It's very possible.
.
Though there was a story where the Cure of Ars gave away all the school's food and had the children pray all night for a miracle. In the morning, the food prayed for was there, but St John Marie made the comment that he would never do such a thing again, because he didn't want to tempt Divine Providence. St John worked many miracles but even he knew that there were limits. Where does one draw the line between Faith in God and human prudence? That's a difficult question.
-
So you throw a rock at them just so you can pretend you're doing something? In doing so, you reveal your position and expose your family to slaughter. But, hey, you threw a rock. If on the other hand you did happen to have "a machine gun", and therefore a good/reasonable chance of saving the person without jeopardizing your family, then of course you would intervene.
Here's where it gets very blurry. I have a weapon and think I have about a 90% chance of success. But if that 10% comes about, then I've just killed my family. That's a real tough one. I would think that your obligation to protect your family comes first. You are the head of your family and are duty-bound to protect them moreso than you are to protect a stranger. As Matthew said, this was a big part of the OP's scenario. Now, if you're a loner, then absolutely I agree with you, that if you have ANY halfway realistic chance of saving the person, you would be duty bound to try ... even at risk of your own life. But that is not OP's scenario.
I quite clearly understand this, so are you saying that in this scenario, the Golden Rule does not apply - and if so, are you also admitting that in this scenario, that we are not our brother's keeper?
"He that hath the substance of this world, and shall see his brother in need, and shall shut up his bowels from him: how doth the charity of God abide in him?" [1 John 3:17 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=69&ch=3&l=17#x)]
So explain, how doth the charity of God abide in this Catholic who "shut up his bowels" from "his brother in need"?
I am obviously thinking more about the "brother in need" than about the Catholic man's own needs in this scenario. Which is to say that in order to go along with your scenario, you would need to explain how the Catholic is justified in "shutting up his bowels" from "his brother in need" as being the Catholic thing to do.
-
I quite clearly understand this, so are you saying that in this scenario,
Which scenario - the husband with a family or the single guy with nothing to lose? Two vastly different moral scenarios.
.
However, I would argue that even if there was a "lone wolf" single guy out there who came across a distressed lady/child, it depends on the # of criminals and his skills on whether he should risk his life to help. I said "should" because one is not allowed to put themselves in danger of death, except for extreme circuмstances. If you enter a fight you know you can't win (assuming you don't have a duty to be in the fight), then I think that would be morally wrong. False courage is not a virtue and God does not require the impossible.
-
So you throw a rock at them just so you can pretend you're doing something? In doing so, you reveal your position and expose your family to slaughter. But, hey, you threw a rock. If on the other hand you did happen to have "a machine gun", and therefore a good/reasonable chance of saving the person without jeopardizing your family, then of course you would intervene.
Here's where it gets very blurry. I have a weapon and think I have about a 90% chance of success. But if that 10% comes about, then I've just killed my family. That's a real tough one. I would think that your obligation to protect your family comes first. You are the head of your family and are duty-bound to protect them moreso than you are to protect a stranger. As Matthew said, this was a big part of the OP's scenario. Now, if you're a loner, then absolutely I agree with you, that if you have ANY halfway realistic chance of saving the person, you would be duty bound to try ... even at risk of your own life. But that is not OP's scenario.
Excellent post! I’ll add another factor into the scenario, what if the woman being chased was covered in tattoos and piercings? What is she had a rainbow flag shirt?
-
Which scenario - the husband with a family or the single guy with nothing to lose? Two vastly different moral scenarios.Start with the OP scenario:
OP Said: "Hidden in a field above my bunker, I spot a woman and child being pursued by a gang of men who, if they capture them (which seems imminent), will rape, murder, and eat them".
He makes no mention of, and says nothing of concern for any wife or children, so go with "the single guy with nothing to lose" (except his life) first. Who said anything about a wife and children any way?
However, I would argue that even if there was a "lone wolf" single guy out there who came across a distressed lady/child, it depends on the # of criminals and his skills on whether he should risk his life to help. I said "should" because one is not allowed to put themselves in danger of death, except for extreme circuмstances. If you enter a fight you know you can't win (assuming you don't have a duty to be in the fight), then I think that would be morally wrong. False courage is not a virtue and God does not require the impossible.
Make the number of criminals, "the gang", 5 or 6.
Certainly, there is much left out of the scenario. Are the woman/child faithful Catholics? Is the guy in the bunker married with children? If any, what weapons does he / the gang have? Are they being chased in a subdivision, desert, woods or ? How many are chasing them? and on and on.
He did not ask "what to do?", he asked, "What is the Catholic thing to do?" Which of course, obviously it'd be plain stupid to stand in front of a tank, or to think it worth trying to help if 50 raving, drooling gang members are almost on her and the child.
For me, I imagined it to be at least a somewhat workable scenario. In which case, the Catholic should at least do something to help them escape - because *that* would be the Catholic thing to do.
-
Excellent post! I’ll add another factor into the scenario, what if the woman being chased was covered in tattoos and piercings? What is she had a rainbow flag shirt?
If you could get yourself one of these weapons, (see video) it would definitely give you a leg up to try to rescue said female.
My honest opinion is that whether you engage the enemy or not, the woman will die. Dead after torture and rape. Dead through crossfire.
Dead because one of the mob, being a feral beast, decides she aint worth it.
If said female survives the firefight, hopefully a lop-sided one on our favour, she will be informed that things are now operating under a new law (God's Law, Church Law - and the laws that flow from it. i.e. Sodomy et all punishable by death) she has an option whether to straighten out or else she can go back into the world and try her chances once again.
Prudence and charity cannot be divorced from one another here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyUtUwmjlJ4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyUtUwmjlJ4)
-
Make the number of criminals, "the gang", 5 or 6.
Properly armed and trained (which ALL TradCat men should aim for, no pun intended) then it will be easier to shoot and kill the 5.
Then the female survivors et al.......see my previous post.
-
If you could get yourself one of these weapons, (see video) it would definitely give you a leg up to try to rescue said female.
My honest opinion is that whether you engage the enemy or not, the woman will die. Dead after torture and rape. Dead through crossfire.
Dead because one of the mob, being a feral beast, decides she aint worth it.
If said female survives the firefight, hopefully a lop-sided one on our favour, she will be informed that things are now operating under a new law (God's Law, Church Law - and the laws that flow from it. i.e. Sodomy et all punishable by death) she has an option whether to straighten out or else she can go back into the world and try her chances once again.
Prudence and charity cannot be divorced from one another here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyUtUwmjlJ4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyUtUwmjlJ4)
That is one amazing gun!
-
If you could get yourself one of these weapons, (see video) it would definitely give you a leg up to try to rescue said female.
My honest opinion is that whether you engage the enemy or not, the woman will die. Dead after torture and rape. Dead through crossfire.
Dead because one of the mob, being a feral beast, decides she aint worth it.
Ha! that weapon could take on 50, maybe 100 gang members no problem! Awesome!
But the OP asked what is the Catholic thing to do? I take that to imply that something could actually be done to help them, ergo, the woman and child's situation was not hopeless. If the situation was in fact meant to be altogether hopeless, then no sense to ask the question at all because there's nothing that could be done for them.
-
If I were heavily armed, and the rabble wasnt (such mobs usually are not) then the objective is to make an attempt to save the woman with or sand child. Kill a pile of the offenders quickly and the rest will run away like the feral pigs they are.
And since the world has gone to pot, I would check into the feasibility of removing the remainder of the vermin from the face of the Earth.
Shoot, I would go HK on them. :D :cowboy:
We need to continue working on those G's.!
-
I think we should trust in Jesus.
-
.308 WIN cannot even come close to .338 in ELR shooting.
And .338LM cannot come close to .375CT and .416 Barrett in KO2M shooting. :-)
https://precisionrifleblog.com/2018/07/05/what-the-pros-use-king-2-miles-edition/ (https://precisionrifleblog.com/2018/07/05/what-the-pros-use-king-2-miles-edition/)
-
If you could get yourself one of these weapons, …
You have heard of "The Butter Knife Strategy"?
-
You have heard of "The Butter Knife Strategy"?
No I have not. So off to research go I! :)
-
And .338LM cannot come close to .375CT and .416 Barrett in KO2M shooting. :-)
https://precisionrifleblog.com/2018/07/05/what-the-pros-use-king-2-miles-edition/ (https://precisionrifleblog.com/2018/07/05/what-the-pros-use-king-2-miles-edition/)
3800 yards with 375 CT.......woof! :(
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlhHBZDZMKY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlhHBZDZMKY)
-
As was suggested above, there are many factors to consider. What kind of training and skills do you have? What kind of firepower do you have? What kind of perceived capabilities do your adversaries have? The consideration that if you choose to walk away from this, you and your family will most likely be encountering this group in the near future. The possibility that taking one or two of them out could very well scare the others away. As Sean mentioned, considering this scenario or one similar to it certainly makes the case for becoming trained and prepared before such a WROL situation occurs. It is also a good reason to be open to becoming part of a neighborhood militia group or examining the potential for forming one. Doing so could go a long way to insuring your neighborhood is safer than the one in the scenario. When considering forming a neighborhood defense group, trust and like-mindedness are key. Since there's so few of us, forming a Trad-militia group probably isn't going to happen. These aren't easy scenarios to consider, however, they are very helpful emotional/mental training exercises. "Fortitudine et Deo Duce Ferro Comitante".
-
Since the topic is TEOTWAKI ("the end of the world as we know it"), instituting a world WROL ("without rule of law") and the then morality, my question is......, what is the moral obligation if instead of a woman and child it's a man they are after for the same purposes?
-
Thanks for posing a slightly different scenario. Others will respond, however, nothing changes for me from the way I responded in my earlier post. A human being is a human being, man or woman. Factors I detailed all still need to be considered. The take-away is, get prepared, be prepared, and stay prepared. This is a dangerous world we're living in and it's not headed in a safer direction. "Fortitudine et Deo Duce Ferro Comitante".