I believe,
CatMuse, it is not a conflation as much as a very precise distinction. Intentional killing of an innocent is different from intentional killing as by-product of legitimate defense. Intention, while notoriously difficult to prove in a legal context, is central to how The Church addresses the issue of self-defense.
The murder of an innocent has, naturally, death as its
intended outcome. Legitimate defense, however, does
not. The intent of a legitimate defense is to preserve one's own life (and by extension those one seeks to protect), nothing further. That last point is vitally important. If, while securing
that intent, the aggressor dies it was
not deliberately sought out. The agressor's death was never intended.
Let's see if I can clarify the two. Think back to the original story in Genesis, Cain beat Abel to death. Definitely an
intentional killing. Cain wanted Abel dead.
Now suppose Moshe decides to kill Cain over a land dispute. Moshe botches the job and Cain hits Moshe on the head with a staff. Moshe get knocked out. Cain's
intent is to protect himself. He isn't trying to
kill Moshe, he's trying to
stop Moshe. If Moshe dies as the result of that blow, the death is unintentional. Under those circumstances, Cain would be blameless according to CCC 2263/ 2264.
Now let's suppose every time Moshe crawls dazedly to his hands and knees, Cain smashes Moshe over the head as hard as he can. Depending on where Cain lives, this might be entirely legal. Cain is "standing his ground".
Cain's fast-talking attorney would argue Cain was still "in fear of his life" and believed Moshe was attempting to "continue the attack", etc. etc.
The reality, of course, is Cain was murderously angry at being attacked and very deliberately set out to kill Moshe once he (Cain) gained the upper hand.
The city prosecutor, looking over the specifics of the law and the vague circumstances of the case, doesn't prosecute. Cain walks.This might be legal, but it goes against the teachings of The Church.
"Furthermore, the killing of the aggressor is always intended in State executions."...for the subject of the death penalty,, see Paragraph 2267.
"Certainly also in issues of self defence I may intend to kill the aggressor to preserve my own life or the life of those to which I have care."As a private citizen, according to the Catechism, that's a no-no.
You should not
intend to kill an aggressor or anyone else. Unintentionally killing someone during self-defense and deliberately intending to kill someone from the outset are entirely different intentions.
Paragraph 2265 addresses those in professions where they are responsible for the lives of others, i.e. police and military, hence the explicit reference to
"the defense of the common good".
A husband, say, protecting his family is not defending
"the common good", merely his own. This is made even more clear in the final sentence.
"For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility."Private citizens do not, outside of some extraordinarily specific circumstances, legitimately hold
any authority whatsoever.
Likewise, they haven't been entrusted with or given the responsibility to
"to repel aggressors against the civil community". This paragraph is clearly aimed at those in such professions (or perhaps drafted into them).
Simply put, this paragraph isn't for Mr. NRA who just realized he can legally mag-dump his shiny new Sig Sauer "Molon Labe" .45 handgun into someone's else's head.
Secular law might side with him, but the Church's teachings are firmly opposed to this, both in action and intent. The Catechism is focuses on the
true facts of what happened. What a person knows, truly, in their heart.
Not what they told everyone else, not the story their clever criminal lawyer told the police, or even whatever justifications they self-righteously talk themselves into half-believing. The Church is addressing why they
really did what they did,
