May I know why was this question downvoted? I honestly don't know what am I doing wrong.
OK, I've been told a few things:
I’m interpreting Veritatis Splendor retroactively.
I don't think this argument is applicable to this problem. IIUC if the Church declares something "inherently evil", as it has in this case, then it does not mean that the Church issues a new law that comes to force at the moment it is published; rather, the Church describes objective reality, describes some absolute moral law that is unaffected by any circumstances including time. Note the Church doesn't create a new moral law, or put a moral law in force, but rather it describes an absolute moral law that is, has always been and will always be in force from the will of God. Similarly, when scientists discover a new law of nature, they do not create it: instead, they only describe a law that was applicable even before their discovery.
Therefore, the "Lex retro non agit" argument is not applicable here: if the Church says that genocide is "inherently evil", then it means it is, has always been and will always be evil, and whoever commits it is guilty of a sin, whatever the circumstances: he may have lived a few thousands years ago, he may live now or he even may haven't been born yet and will only live and commit this crime in the future; also he may know genocide is a crime, or may not think of his deed as evil, or he may think his deed is actually good, or he may not even know what genocide is! - This is all irrelevant: if genocide is inherently evil, then in all these cases its perpetrator commits a sin and defies God's will.
I am looking for a debate, not for an answer.
I disagree with this. Most definitely, I am looking for an answer, that is for a solution of my problem. My noticeable activity in the comments stems from a few reasons:
I got an answer, but this answer is, sadly, very dubious to me. In this case I indeed discuss this answer. My only alternative is to downvote this answer, but I don't want to do this, mainly because I don't think this answer is a careless one, and also because this way I can't learn. If I impeach an answer I disagree with, I hope to somehow reach the real, correct answer to this problem (or learn I was wrong); if I just downvote the answer, I'll waste the opportunity to do so.
If someone criticizes my statements then I feel I have the right to defend them or at least to explain them.
I did post other people's opinions, and arguably this was abusing the comments section. I did this because my question looked like an attack on the Church; so I had to post whatever I knew in defense of the Church, just to calm my consciousness... else I feared I'd join those who fight the Church, and I didn't want to do this, so I had to make my post as balanced as I could. Arguably though, I could post these possible explanations as an answer, and then impeach my own answer at the comments section. This would clean up the comments. In any case this shows I’m constantly doing my own research on the subject... which is exactly what I’m supposed to be doing, right?