Assassinating tyrannical dictators like Hitler...would you?

[TheAdvocate]

The Church teaches that you may not commit an intrinsically evil act, and that circumstances and good intent cannot make an evil act good. (CCC 1752-1754)

For example, you murder a drug lord (intrinsically evil act) in a corrupt country where the police and government will do nothing to stop him; you do so because people innocent people are being killed and more and more people are joining his organization out of fear and desperation (difficult circumstance); you want to protect your fellow citizens and loved ones (good intent).

Would this be sinful? Is this not murder? Murder is defined by the CCC as “direct and intentional killing.” The scenario above fits the bill. You personally shoot him, and you wish him dead.

Or what about this? Would you condone the assassination of Hitler during WWII?

 

[TheQuestioner]

Murder is an intrinsically evil act.

Killing isn’t.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. 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.

From the Catechism

 

[TheQuestioner]

So yes, I would blow Hitler away. I may even be obligated to.

 

[JohnDamian]

Slaying any other human being in cold blood is a grave and possibly mortal sin.

There can be arguments for slaying people in warfare or self defence; but no moral person would ever slay a human in cold blood - no matter how great a villain.-- It would be pure relativism.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Slaying any other human being in cold blood is a grave and possibly mortal sin.

There can be arguments for slaying people in warfare or self defence; but no moral person would ever slay a human in cold blood - no matter how great a villain.-- It would be pure relativism.

Yes, you cannot kill the aggressor primarily for the sake of killing him, but primarily for the sake of defending yourself or others.

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes ** intentional killing**. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66

 

[Joe_Kelley]

21 And Ehud reached with his left hand, took the sword from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly; 22 and the hilt also went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not draw the sword out of his belly; and the dirt came out. 23 Then Ehud went out into the vestibule, * and closed the doors of the roof chamber upon him, and locked them. 24 When he had gone, the servants came; and when they saw that the doors of the roof chamber were locked, they thought, “He is only relieving himself in the closet of the cool chamber.” 25 And they waited till they were utterly at a loss; but when he still did not open the doors of the roof chamber, they took the key and opened them; and there lay their lord dead on the floor. 26 Ehud escaped while they delayed, and passed beyond the sculptured stones, and escaped to Se-irah.

Judges 3:21-26

18 And Jael came out to meet Sisera, and said to him, “Turn aside, my lord, turn aside to me; have no fear.” So he turned aside to her into the tent, and she covered him with a rug. 19 And he said to her, “Pray, give me a little water to drink; for I am thirsty.” So she opened a skin of milk and gave him a drink and covered him. 20 And he said to her, “Stand at the door of the tent, and if any man comes and asks you, ‘Is any one here?’ say, No.” 21 But Jael the wife of Heber took a tent peg, and took a hammer in her hand, and went softly to him and drove the peg into his temple, till it went down into the ground, as he was lying fast asleep from weariness. So he died.

Judges 4:18-21

Then Judith, standing beside his bed, said in her heart, “O Lord God of all might, look in this hour upon the work of my hands for the exaltation of Jerusalem. 5 For now is the time to help thy inheritance, and to carry out my undertaking for the destruction of the enemies who have risen up against us.” 6 She went up to the post at the end of the bed, above Holofernes’ head, and took down his sword that hung there. 7 She came close to his bed and took hold of the hair of his head, and said, “Give me strength this day, O Lord God of Israel!” 8 And she struck his neck twice with all her might, and severed it from his body. 9 Then she tumbled his body off the bed and pulled down the canopy from the posts; after a moment she went out, and gave Holofernes’ head to her maid, 10 who placed it in her food bag…
15 Then she took the head out of the bag and showed it to them, and said, “See, here is the head of Holofernes, the commander of the Assyrian army, and here is the canopy beneath which he lay in his drunken stupor. The Lord has struck him down by the hand of a woman. 16 As the Lord lives, who has protected me in the way I went, it was my face that tricked him to his destruction, and yet he committed no act of sin with me, to defile and shame me.” 17 All the people were greatly astonished, and bowed down and worshipped God, and said with one accord, “Blessed art thou, our God, who hast brought into contempt this day the enemies of thy people.” 18 And Uzziah said to her, “O daughter, you are blessed by the Most High God above all women on earth; and blessed be the Lord God, who created the heavens and the earth, who has guided you to strike the head of the leader of our enemies. 19 Your hope will never depart from the hearts of men, as they remember the power of God. 20 May God grant this to be a perpetual honor to you, and may he visit you with blessings, because you did not spare your own life when our nation was brought low, but have avenged our ruin, walking in the straight path before our God.” And all the people said, “So be it, so be it!”

Judith 13:4-10, 15-20

I don’t see these actions condemned anyplace. It would appear that all three were following direction from God.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Judges 3:21-26
Judges 4:18-21

Judith 13:4-10, 15-20

I don’t see these actions condemned anyplace. It would appear that all three were following direction from God.

Lots of horrible things they did in the Old Testament weren’t condemned. Do you really want to use the O.T. as a standard?

 

[TheQuestioner]

Was the Catechism not enough for you?

 

[RobHom]

For the normal person the Catechism creates a barrier. However, if one is a soldier in the Army (or any other force) of a Sovereign Nation engaged in war against, in this case, Nazi Germany, and the opportunity arises to eliminate Hitler, but the situation negates the possibility to capture him, then killing him is in a very different category:

2309
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

    * the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

    * all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

    * there must be serious prospects of success;

    * the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

Considering history, and even common knowledge at the time… the elimination of Hitler would have been according to the “just war” doctrine.

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.shtml#2309

 

[TheAdvocate]

There seems to be agreement with the Hitler scenario. Thanks for your posts so far. But what about the drug lord scenario in my original post? In that case, there is no officially declared war, and no official combatants. Just a citizen trying to protect his town from a tyrannical drug lord.

 

[RobHom]

There seems to be agreement with the Hitler scenario. Thanks for your posts so far. But what about the drug lord scenario in my original post? In that case, there is no officially declared war, and no official combatants. Just a citizen trying to protect his town from a tyrannical drug lord.

Its a bit of a "conundrum’…

I say that because it would be possible to rationally justify the killing of the drug lord, say in this case we were talking about Pablo Escobar who ran amok in Columbia and was responsible for the deaths of a tremendous number of innocents, judges, and police… based on 1752 to 1754, but… 1756 is the capstone:

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

A further conundrum is created by the fact that the legal authorities are corrupt and refuse to do their lawful duties to protect their society, sooooo, its could be said that it would be proper for the people to assume the duties of protecting their society…but…do we then enter a vicious cycle of death and violence because the successor of the assassinated drug lord seeks revenge and unleashes a greater level of violence and death on the people?

The book “Killing Pablo”… independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/killing-pablo-by-mark-bowden-752803.html is a rather substantial read regarding this situation… I think your question is very relative to the scenario played out in Columbia with Escobar.

So, in my minds eye…well, never mind…its not the answer to your question…

 

[rwoehmke]

There seems to be agreement with the Hitler scenario. Thanks for your posts so far. But what about the drug lord scenario in my original post? In that case, there is no officially declared war, and no official combatants. Just a citizen trying to protect his town from a tyrannical drug lord.

Vigilantism is not legitimate killing. Self defense is operative only if your life is in immediate danger.

 

[Catholic1954]

There seems to be agreement with the Hitler scenario. Thanks for your posts so far. But what about the drug lord scenario in my original post? In that case, there is no officially declared war, and no official combatants. Just a citizen trying to protect his town from a tyrannical drug lord.

We have law enforcement and the court system to deal him.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I think it is forbidden to kill for the purpose of having that person dead. But one is permitted to use such means as necessary, including killing if nothing else will suffice, to prevent his further participation in the conflict.

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

If assassinating Hitler would have been a good idea, why didn’t the Pope order it? Joe Kelly gave some good OT examples, but can anyone come up with examples of saints doing such? But then, if it were even possible to assassinate Hitler, forget the Pope, wouldn’t the Prez order it?

Yes, I know there was a plot that came close, but not associated with the Church, to my knowledge.

 

[RobHom]

If assassinating Hitler would have been a good idea, why didn’t the Pope order it? Joe Kelly gave some good OT examples, but can anyone come up with examples of saints doing such? But then, if it were even possible to assassinate Hitler, forget the Pope, wouldn’t the Prez order it?

Yes, I know there was a plot that came close, but not associated with the Church, to my knowledge.

Its highly unlikely that the Pope would have even considered ordering it…simply because its not something he would have likely considered…and were he to do so and it fail and be found out…Catholics all over Europe probably would have ended up in cattle cars with the Jews, and the Vatican City would have been occupied or destroyed.

The Russians had three separate plans to assassinate Hitler but Stalin canceled all of them:

dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1281563/Stalin-blocked-attempts-assassinate-Hitler-overs-fears-West-make-peace-Nazis-plans-carried-out.html

From my memories of that era and the reading I have done, the US and British as well as the Canadians looked for every opportunity, and all told with everybody in sight there were about 40 different plots to kill Hitler, non of which succeeded…

macleans.ca/culture/entertainment/article.jsp?content=20060424_125787_125787

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I think most of the Leadership of the Allies was opposed to any assassination of Hitler. They were afraid that, with him out of the way, a moderate leadership would negotiate a peace. Having gone down that road 15 years earlier with the exile of the Kaiser, they didn’t want to have WWIII when the Germans decided that they had been betrayed into surrender. They wanted it very clear who won and who lost this time.

 

[RobHom]

I think most of the Leadership of the Allies was opposed to any assassination of Hitler. They were afraid that, with him out of the way, a moderate leadership would negotiate a peace. Having gone down that road 15 years earlier with the exile of the Kaiser, they didn’t want to have WWIII when the Germans decided that they had been betrayed into surrender. They wanted it very clear who won and who lost this time.

Joe, I’m not sure if you are right or wrong…but I have to give your answer at least 50% because the Russians came up with several plans to assassinate Hitler, but Stalin said no to all of them…and his reasoning was that if they did the job, Hitler’s successors might rush to make peace with the US and Britain…and that we confound his plans to stomp Hitler badly and further his (Stalin’s) hegemony over as much of Europe as he planned to. His other fear was that not only would the Germans make peace with the US and Britain, but would broker a deal where they would join up and all would attack Russia.

Stalin seemed to have been rather paranoid…considering that the US and Britain gave the USSR as much material and logistical support via the Lend Lease program…from 1941 on til the end of the war…

Post not intended as a “hijack”…

 

[elts1956]

The Church teaches that you may not commit an intrinsically evil act, and that circumstances and good intent cannot make an evil act good. (CCC 1752-1754)

For example, you murder a drug lord (intrinsically evil act) in a corrupt country where the police and government will do nothing to stop him; you do so because people innocent people are being killed and more and more people are joining his organization out of fear and desperation (difficult circumstance); you want to protect your fellow citizens and loved ones (good intent).

Would this be sinful? Is this not murder? Murder is defined by the CCC as “direct and intentional killing.” The scenario above fits the bill. You personally shoot him, and you wish him dead.

Or what about this? Would you condone the assassination of Hitler during WWII?

Without a doubt.

I know this is a movie, but it has an historical basis. The Valkyrie Plot to assassinate Hitler in 1944 Go to jpisbouts.org/Valkyrie.html I believe the square where the protagonists were shot in retaliation for the attempted coup is now held in reverence by the German people. Also some statues of those German officers and citizens involved in the assassination attempt? Not sure about the statues.

 

[St_Francis]

We have law enforcement and the court system to deal him.

Yes, in the US where the law enforcement and courts are not very corrupt and there are higher levels to appeal to if the local ones are corrupt, then I totally agree with you.

In an area where the drug lords have taken control and there are no government forces ranged against him? That I think is the question.

And given what we can learn from the CCC on just war and civil insurrection, I think that the answer would be, it depends. What would be the likely result? If the likely result would only be that another drug lord would move in on that territory, maybe not moral. If the result would be that the drug lord’s henchmen would go out and kill a lot of people, no, not moral. But if the result would be that most of the people would pull together and get some sort of civil order restored, then maybe yes. One has to look at *all *the criteria in order to decide.