A Jacobian Dilemma

[Leonhard]

Hi I’m a naturalist, but after reading Leah Librisco’s conversion to Roman Catholicism, I’ve gotten curious about their perspective on morality. So I wondering if this was a place to air a moral dilemma that I’ve always puzzled over when reading Genesis and the account of Jacob’s deception of Isaac.

Though it seems to me that he also extorts Esau out of the birthright, I think there’s reasonable doubt about that situation (i.e whether or not Esau really was dying on thirst/hunger). However nobody denies that Jacob deceived Isaac into receiving a blessing. After that not much is made of that event (neither in commentaries or in the text). The focus on the story is mostly on Esau’s murderous rage. Jacob goes on to receive the full measure of the blessing he cheated himself to, becoming a virtuous and prosperous man in the good graces of God.

It suggest a moral dilemma to me. Imagine that there’s a convent which has a coin blessed by a saint (or an angel, or whatever medium is preferable for securing God’s blessing here). The one who picks up and kisses this coin, will be blessed by God: His life will be full of hard lessons and blessings that will transform him into a virtuous and sanctified person worthy of sainthood and good grace with God. The coin is garded by a holy monk. Knowing that by the end of your life, if you kissed that coin, you would be a great saint, ought you then to go over and murder the monk and kiss the coin?

It seems at one point that the end here is preferable. Killing the monk is a grave sin, but becoming a virtuous saint (someone held up as an example) is a greater good than anything you could ever amount to in your own life. At least I know I would become a saint if I kissed the coin. I don’t know if I’d be so examplary in my own life if I didn’t. If I walked away from that coin, I’d be walking towards a fate much less good it seems to me. If I walked towards that coin (lets say killing (there are canonized saints who have committed murders) the monk is the only way to get the coin), I’d end up with a fate much better than what I could do on my own (I try doing good as much as I can, but I fail consistently in being exemplarily virtuous… at least that’s how I see myself).

If a murder is a sin too great, then lets say I had to tell the monk a very crooked lie. Would turning away from the coin be something so good, that it would outweigh turning towards the coin? Is there something incoherent about the example?

What do you guys think?

 

[SonCatcher]

Jacob was chosen by God before he and his brother were even born. As God revealed to Rachel as she struggled through the pregnancy:
Two nations are in your womb, two peoples are separating while still within you; But one will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.
(Gen 25:23 NABRE)

It was not because of his trickery that Jacob was blessed but in spite of it. Likewise, those who are saints did not become so due to their sins, but God, in His mercy, called them to holiness even though they had committed great sin.

This is what gives me hope that I might be saved (never mind canonization). It also provides hope that you might be saved in the end, yourself.

 

[IrishRush]

It seems at one point that the end here is preferable. Killing the monk is a grave sin, but becoming a virtuous saint (someone held up as an example) is a greater good than anything you could ever amount to in your own life. At least I know I would become a saint if I kissed the coin. I don’t know if I’d be so examplary in my own life if I didn’t. If I walked away from that coin, I’d be walking towards a fate much less good it seems to me. If I walked towards that coin (lets say killing (there are canonized saints who have committed murders) the monk is the only way to get the coin), I’d end up with a fate much better than what I could do on my own (I try doing good as much as I can, but I fail consistently in being exemplarily virtuous… at least that’s how I see myself).

If a murder is a sin too great, then lets say I had to tell the monk a very crooked lie. Would turning away from the coin be something so good, that it would outweigh turning towards the coin? Is there something incoherent about the example?

I’d say the ends do not justify the means.

 

[AlexPetrosPio]

Imagine that there’s a convent which has a coin blessed by a saint (or an angel, or whatever medium is preferable for securing God’s blessing here). The one who picks up and kisses this coin, will be blessed by God: His life will be full of hard lessons and blessings that will transform him into a virtuous and sanctified person worthy of sainthood and good grace with God. The coin is garded by a holy monk. Knowing that by the end of your life, if you kissed that coin, you would be a great saint, ought you then to go over and murder the monk and kiss the coin?

I’d like to point out: kissing a coin (or any other 2nd Class relic) does not sanctify you. If you want graces from God, and the only 2nd Class relic is heavily guarded by a monk who for reasons of his own chooses not to bring out said relic, then there are other ways of receiving graces. If you are next to a monastery in the first place, visit their chapel for graces.

What you describe is superstition, which is also grave matter.

 

[AlTheCollegeGal]

Hi I’m a naturalist, but after reading Leah Librisco’s conversion to Roman Catholicism, I’ve gotten curious about their perspective on morality. So I wondering if this was a place to air a moral dilemma that I’ve always puzzled over when reading Genesis and the account of Jacob’s deception of Isaac.

Though it seems to me that he also extorts Esau out of the birthright, I think there’s reasonable doubt about that situation (i.e whether or not Esau really was dying on thirst/hunger). However nobody denies that Jacob deceived Isaac into receiving a blessing. After that not much is made of that event (neither in commentaries or in the text). The focus on the story is mostly on Esau’s murderous rage. Jacob goes on to receive the full measure of the blessing he cheated himself to, becoming a virtuous and prosperous man in the good graces of God.

It suggest a moral dilemma to me. Imagine that there’s a convent which has a coin blessed by a saint (or an angel, or whatever medium is preferable for securing God’s blessing here). The one who picks up and kisses this coin, will be blessed by God: His life will be full of hard lessons and blessings that will transform him into a virtuous and sanctified person worthy of sainthood and good grace with God. The coin is garded by a holy monk. Knowing that by the end of your life, if you kissed that coin, you would be a great saint, ought you then to go over and murder the monk and kiss the coin?

It seems at one point that the end here is preferable. Killing the monk is a grave sin, but becoming a virtuous saint (someone held up as an example) is a greater good than anything you could ever amount to in your own life. At least I know I would become a saint if I kissed the coin. I don’t know if I’d be so examplary in my own life if I didn’t. If I walked away from that coin, I’d be walking towards a fate much less good it seems to me. If I walked towards that coin (lets say killing (there are canonized saints who have committed murders) the monk is the only way to get the coin), I’d end up with a fate much better than what I could do on my own (I try doing good as much as I can, but I fail consistently in being exemplarily virtuous… at least that’s how I see myself).

If a murder is a sin too great, then lets say I had to tell the monk a very crooked lie. Would turning away from the coin be something so good, that it would outweigh turning towards the coin? Is there something incoherent about the example?

What do you guys think?

Well, I also do not believe that the ends justify the means. Also, seeing as this is a hypothetical scenario, what’s to say that you would be able to kiss the coin after killing the priest/lying to him? You might have a heart attack/be struck down by God/be extraordinarily remorseful to the point of not being able to kiss the coin. So, what then? Plus, if one was driven to murder/horribly deceive an individual as such, it would be essentially feeding into the theory created by Hobbes of an overpowering self-interest as the heart of every action. Personally, I do not subscribe to this social contract theory, for I think that most are good at the core (or, I would hope). I would think that a rational individual would realize that though this coin would be the focal point of one’s desires, it should not come at a cost to another individual. Furthermore, as charitable Christians, we should realize that Jesus shared his fortune with others. Why should we strive to transcend morality in order (in essence) to make ourselves above that? Most saints had the humility and grace to realize that they were mere mortals, and that reward in Heaven would be great depending on their actions. Which (with some exceptions) did not generally consist of murder for selfish greed/want of glory.

 

[Deinceps]

Granted all your premises, which as other posters have indicated are very difficult to grant, I substantially agree with AITheCollegeGal’s take on the dilemma, and take it one step futher:

I find it doubtful that God’s Providence would allow someone to kiss the coin under such circumstances. Put another way, though to us it may appear that all those who kiss the coin become great saints, from God’s perspective it could be that He only allows those who will become great saints to kiss the coin.

I’ve always felt kind of the same way about the Brown Scapular. I’ve had two of them break on me, and so I am confident that although it is promised that all those who die wearing the scapular will enter heaven, it is equally certain that almighty God is quite capable of ensuring that someone who will not enter heaven does not die whilst wearing the scapular.

Superstition just can’t win against Providence. And the ends don’t justify the means, ever.

Also, doubled up in parentheses in your OP is the claim,

There are canonised saints who have committed murders.

It’s worth reflecting on the nature of sin, redemption, and reconciliation as the Church understands it. An illustration from Augustine’s thought should suffice:

When asked whether a man should receive a reconciled adulteress back into his house as his wife, since it is “lawful to dismiss,” i.e., not cohabitate nor pay the marriage debt to a spouse on grounds of adultery, Augustine answers that of course she should be received, because a repentant and reconciled adulteress is no adulteress at all.

Likewise, although some saints have committed murders, by their repentance and reconciliation they are, in the eyes of a Catholic, not murderers, and they are never, ever saved qua murderers, for “Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.” In repentance and conversion, by God’s grace, we really cease to be what our actions have otherwise made us. “Innocence preserved or innocence regained.”

 

[Leonhard]

Thanks for the responses, its definitely something to think about. I think the answers people give here are completely reasonable. The situation definitely has some suspicious premises that needs to be granted for the scenario to have any force. Its definitely a high-energy particle (i.e speculate and extreme) moral scenario and a lack of a clear answer here wouldn’t be a problem for the mundane problems we all face. I hope the scenario is not too far out, I thought the forum was saturated enough with discussions about sexuality and I wanted to choose something I found an interesting dilemma instead.

I won’t quote respond but I can at least examine some of the proposals.

There are those attacking the plausibility of the story in itself. I guess it depends here on whether you believe Isaac was really in the position of being able to grant a blessing. Do you guys believe that the words he said really had a causal connection to what happened to Jacob? If he had said the blessings over Esau, would it have been Esau that had ruled over his brothers? Or was it just a verbal blessing, of a similar kind that you can receive by your own dying parents which may or may not result in what is being promised? I wasn’t aware that there is such a thing as a brown scapular, but if you grant that such a thing is possible I don’t see why you couldn’t grant the existence of such a coin.

Superstitious? I’d say that the whole Christendom is superstitious… worries about effects of actions you don’t have the power to absolutely prevent “What if I die, immediately after having done that crime I try but fail at stopping myself from? … What if we don’t pray enough, is that the cause of the fall of the church?”. If you believe though that prayer had efficacy and is linked what the actions of a God, and if you believe that blessings can be genuine, then I don’t see how it could be superstitious if you have reason to think its the case. Say a monk boy in that convent, who is schooled in the blessings and actions of saints and the visions that the earlier monks in that monastery had received.

I can see him continually saddened by his lack of virtue and his continual failings at being a good person… looking up forever at the canonized saints, wishing that he could show a love of God as great as they had, dreaming of the beatific vision bestowed to someone of such character. Looking at Brother Cirillo who’s guarding the coin, he’s old and failing. The young monk knows that killing his brother would be wicked, and that he’d have to become true repentance of the fact (and perhaps even of these selfish thoughts leading to it), but if he kissed the coin… wouldn’t that mean that God had foreordained him to do that? With a sin, he’d buy a blessing that would secure for himself, and the world, a great saint. Becoming truly repentant (as he would if the saying about the coin is true), he wouldn’t be a murderer after all (going by what Deinceps said). Killing the monk, kissing the coin… he embarks on a long shameful and repentant journey, living of honeydew and locusts, sackcloth, the bible and the word of god his only fruit etc… dies a saint who many looks up, his final work is a tome of a book decrying the thing he had done to attain this. Dies and sees a beatific vision that few of few of few people will ever have the fortune to experience.

Its probably no secret now that I’m an aspiring writer of extraordinary tales.

The end doesn’t justify the means? Probably that’s true if catholicism is true. Would he be granted a similar vision, for turning down the violent desire in him to kiss that coin? Would not becoming Augustine-like make him a bigger man in gods eyes? Repenting of that desire and dying… a humble and simple monk, still occasionally masturbating and having lurid fantasies, still struggling with that horrid selfishness in his chest. Perhaps he’s lucky and gets into heaven, but does he get into heaven as deeply as he would have if he was like Augustine?

To really drive the point home. Imagine if you could see yourself facing such a choice. What would you say to yourself, to prevent yourself from committing that vile crime of murder to secure the great good of virtuous sainthood.

I admit the situation is designed to give an example of where a lesser good end is the right thing to do. This probably (very probably) has dubious premises, but in that case its good to tease them out. I think the strongest answer people could give is simple the deontological ethics response, sweeping aside the premises. However I can’t help but feel that this is choosing a lesser good. If Augustine could have chosen between becoming the saint he has become in our history, and not killing someone, should he have chosen ‘not killing someone?’. (Possible a false dichotomy, but in the story I’ve presented I’ve tried to make it a legitimate dichotomy. To get the coin and the blessing, he has to kill brother Cirillo, and if not then he turns back to the simple monk life he’s always led… becoming whatever he naturally becomes on his own with the grace granted to him).

As for why God wouldn’t strike someone down like that… why doesn’t he strike down you when you do something bad? I’m not sure this is a strong objection at all. Jacob extorted Esau’s rightful heritage from him and stole his father’s blessing. At no point in the story is Jacob made to repent. The only suffering he seems to endure is to flee from his brothers anger. Why didn’t God strike him down the moment he had offspring and had secured his bloodline? You’ll probably say grace, and if that’s the answer, then that’ll be the answer for the monk boy I envision.

Perhaps off topic. Why do commentaries make it out that Esau’s anger is unjust? If someone took your vocation, and the blessings you had coming, wouldn’t you be righteously angry?

 

[SonCatcher]

There are those attacking the plausibility of the story in itself. I guess it depends here on whether you believe Isaac was really in the position of being able to grant a blessing. Do you guys believe that the words he said really had a causal connection to what happened to Jacob? If he had said the blessings over Esau, would it have been Esau that had ruled over his brothers? Or was it just a verbal blessing, of a similar kind that you can receive by your own dying parents which may or may not result in what is being promised?

Jacob’s name means “grabber” or “supplanter.” In the Bible, names have meanings that are significant in the lives of those they are given to. Jacob fulfills his name by taking Esau’s birthright and his blessing. It also foreshadows his descendants taking the entire country away from the Canaanites.

Is it right? I also have trouble seeing any human justice of those particular actions. However, God’s justice is different from ours. There is something He wants us to learn from it spiritually.

Jacob extorted Esau’s rightful heritage from him and stole his father’s blessing. At no point in the story is Jacob made to repent. The only suffering he seems to endure is to flee from his brothers anger. Why didn’t God strike him down the moment he had offspring and had secured his bloodline? You’ll probably say grace, and if that’s the answer, then that’ll be the answer for the monk boy I envision.

Jacob did repent, however. When he returned to the land he was raised in, Jacob, in Genesis 32 and 33, goes to great lengths to obtain peace with his brother. Whether his repentance is motivated by a change of heart or mainly out of fear is not mentioned, nor is it relevant.

Perhaps off topic. Why do commentaries make it out that Esau’s anger is unjust? If someone took your vocation, and the blessings you had coming, wouldn’t you be righteously angry?

Most commentaries try to make such a distinction to illustrate why God chose Jacob to be the father of the blessed nation. It does seem, however, that Esau was prone to volatile moods.

No one can steal a true vocation, though it may be delayed. Likewise, no one can take a true blessing.

Lastly, righteous anger cannot be about self. In order for anger to be just, it must be motivated by an objective injustice and motivate positive response (e.g. being angry about war and therefore working in an organization that serves orphans in war-torn countries).