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).