Adultery to save lives justifiable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAdvocate197
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A person in a concentration camp under the conditions you have described is not able to consent to intercourse because of the level of duress that she is under. Do x, y, or z and your family lives isn’t consent, it’s an order by the camp commander regardless if he uses the term “spare” or not.

Without consent it’s rape. If a perpetrator puts a weapon to the victim’s body and says do x, y, and z or else, we would say that it is rape because of the fear and duress the victim is under.
 
Socrates92 said:
The objective nature is absolute.
Click to expand...
Nope.
Because Jesus would be guilty of wrong-doing for “consenting” to being stripped, whipped, and dying by crucifixion. Jesus could have stopped the process at any moment, but chose not to use His Godly authority to do so. Does this mean that Jesus consented to assault, battery, and murder? No. It wasn’t suicide by Roman executioner either when Jesus allowed the crucifixion to occur. Christ wasn’t a moral freely choosing individual upon being sentenced to death.
 
Nm, I see what you are saying, and that brings up a very interesting point.
 
Last edited:
The executioners weren’t demanding that Jesus beat or kill someone else.
Erikaspirit16 said:
This is straight out of “Situation Ethics” by Fletcher, 1960 something. Literally. It’s one of the examples Fletcher gives
Click to expand...
Yep, it’s a situation ethics argument. And as with all such arguments I’ve seen the answer is the same.
A) You must not do evil in hopes of doing good.
B) Giving in to extortion means the extortion will continue and grow worse.
 
Last edited:
I would say of course it would be ok. IMO other than maybe denying the Lord or taking His name in vain in the true sense, preventing the loss of innocent life is worth any sin, especially if God knows youre doing so “in protest” so to speak.

I heard a story about a German lady in the 40s sleeping with a married German officer many times so he wouldnt find and exterminate the 15 Jews hidden in her house. Its obviously not the best situation, but does anyone really think God was looking down at that woman thinking “shame, shame, you should have let those 15 of my other children get gassed, how could you?” I mean if you value life as a person should, you really could argue that situations like that are rape under violent coercion, and people wouldnt count being raped as adultery.
 
nfinke said:
I would say of course it would be ok.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. The Church clearly teaches that the end does NOT justify the means. Any Catholic who disagrees with that is being disobedient to the Church and God who gave the Church authority to teach in matters of faith and morals.
Rejecting a Church teaching is rejecting Christ.
 
JoeShlabotnik said:
I don’t believe in what-if scenarios.
Click to expand...
This right here.
Morality is the evaluation of human acts. Human acts are real, circumstances are real, the objective good ends are real, intentions are real.

In these kinds of “Sophie’s Choice” dilemmas there really is not a cut and dried answer as to the culpability of the individual making the awful choice. Because the proposition is hypothetical, not real.
Yes, adultery is evil.
Yes murder is evil.
Rape is evil.

A hypothetical cannot begin to determine the intent, the knowledge and consent, in the reality of the moment.
 
I pray that none of us are put to the test.
May God guide and have mercy on those who are put to the test.
 
If you want real facts, not a hypothetical, you can look to the stories of Judith, Jael or Esther. I have no idea how this affects moral theology.
When it grew late, his servants quickly withdrew. Bagoas closed the tent from the outside and dismissed the attendants from their master’s presence. They went off to their beds, for they were all tired because the banquet had lasted so long. Judith was left alone in the tent with Holofernes, who lay sprawled on his bed, for he was drunk with wine. Judith had ordered her maidservant to stand outside the bedchamber and to wait, as on the other days, for her to come out; she had said she would be going out for her prayer. She had also said this same thing to Bagoas.

When all had departed, and no one, small or great, was left in the bedchamber, Judith stood by Holofernes’ bed and prayed silently, “O Lord, God of all might, in this hour look graciously on the work of my hands for the exaltation of Jerusalem. Now is the time for aiding your heritage and for carrying out my design to shatter the enemies who have risen against us.” She went to the bedpost near the head of Holofernes, and taking his sword from it, she drew close to the bed, grasped the hair of his head, and said, “Strengthen me this day, Lord, God of Israel!” Then with all her might she struck his neck twice and cut off his head.
Judith 13:1-8
Click to expand...
 
thistle said:
Rejecting a Church teaching is rejecting Christ
Click to expand...
Alright let’s chill out here pal.

The church definitely supports the concept of self defense, in so much as in order to preserve one’s life or the life of another, killing would potentially not be a mortal sin, seeing as the ending of a life would be an unfortunate consequence to the intended act of preserving life. I don’t have a paragraph number or anything but I coincidentally read that in the Catechism this morning.

The Catechism doesn’t teach on this specific hypothetical presented in the OP, but seeing that killing is a sin in a higher order than adultery (which the Catechism does teach), I see no reason why the same rules wouldnt apply.
 
Last edited:
nfinke said:
Alright let’s chill out here pal.

The church definitely supports the concept of self defense, in so much as in order to preserve one’s life or the life of another, killing would potentially not be a mortal sin, seeing as the ending of a life would be an unfortunate
Click to expand...
The OP’s example scenario is not self defence.

Let’s stick to the concentration camp. What if a husband was told to kill his wife then their daughter would be saved. Are you seriously suggesting that could be construed in any shape or form to be justifiable as self defence!!
 
thistle said:
The OP’s example scenario is not self defence.
Click to expand...
nfinke said:
or the life of another
Click to expand...
🤔

Also, you said ‘the OP wasn’t about self defense’, but then said ‘look at this example about murder’ when the OP was about adultery. 🤨 follow your own rules. This isn’t a fair parallel, because now your talking about committing murder to prevent murder, where the dilemma in the OP is talking about committing adultery to prevent murder, which definitely changes things.
 
Last edited:
nfinke said:
Also, you said ‘the OP wasn’t about self defense’, but then said ‘look at this example about murder’ when the OP was about adultery. 🤨 follow your own rules. This isn’t a fair parallel, because now your talking about committing murder to prevent murder, where the dilemma in the OP is talking about committing adultery to prevent murder, which definitely changes things.
Click to expand...
It the same thing - committing evil to do good. It is NOT permitted and those who agree the end sometimes justify the means are rejecting a Church teaching. The Church does not have exceptions to the teaching.
 
OP here. I am insulted that you consider it clickbait. This is a legitimate moral situation testing the moral principle “the ends don’t justify the means.” I suppose when the challenge is so great, the next thing to do is to go ad hominem and call it clickbait.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top