CathInfo.com

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):

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. 
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.

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. 
My eyesight is still excellent amidst the rest of me which feels like it wants to fall apart completely most days. ;D
Czuwaj!