>I am not talking about the Catechisms, I am talking about Aquinas' position.
The Catechism's position is literally just Aquinas' position but less verbose and a bit more theologically oriented. There is no difference.
>Your point about torture is irrelevant.
No it isn't. I'm talking when an act that's justified becomes unjustified due to using more force than is necessary and being necessarily cruel to the burglar. There's nothing wrong with incapacitating him in order to protect your family, but torturing afterwards nullifies the loss of culpability given by double effect.
>Aquinas' thinks killing the burglar is justified only if one doesn't intend to kill him.
Yeah, the whole intention should be doing what is necessary for protecting your family primarily, not to kill the burglar. In the breakdown of how double effect could apply, I said that defending your family is an intrinsic good that all people just by the very nature of being a member of the family (who is reasonably able to do so).
>Are you rejecting the Stanford source?
I'm not. I just think you genuinely don't understand it. Right below that quote it says:
> As Aquinas’s discussion continues, a justification is provided that rests on characterizing the defensive action as a means to a goal that is justified: “Therefore, this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in being as far as possible.” However, Aquinas observes, the permissibility of self-defense is not unconditional: “And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore, if a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful, whereas, if he repel force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.”