Catholics may claim the Church has taught "Truth" for 2000+ years. The downside of course is no flexibility

[Bohm_Bawerk]

“Hela Weiss, now an artist in Prague, escaped death at Auschwitz by lying to Josef Mengele about her age and saying she was fit to work” (Source: The Guardian)

As outlined in the article above, Helga Weiss, a Jew living under the Nazi regime, narrowly missed being sent to the gas chambers because of a simple lie. She was one of the 150 out of 1,500 children to have avoided imminent extermination. Yet, the Catholic position would be to declare this action as sinful and recommend that she goes to Confession (assuming she was Catholic) as soon as possible. Had she died (and indeed, the article says she narrowly missed death a second time), Helga would have probably had to do some time in Purgatory. This is Catholic theology.

Whilst Catholics claim the Church has taught “Truth” for 2000+ years, what they often forget to mention is that this means no flexibility. This means in situations such as the one Helga faced, the optimal or theologically correct choice would have been to say the truth and be sent to the gas chambers. Of course, virtually everyone would lie if it meant that their life was spared. But orthodox Catholicism’s ethical system suggests otherwise.

What we aren’t dealing with is a case of rigidness “handed down from Heaven”. This isn’t a case of God and morality, which Catholics suggest must be necessarily absolute. What we are dealing with is a battle between the three major ethical systems, namely, Virtue Ethics, Deontological Ethics and Utilitarianism. The Church has historically preferred Virtue Ethics and Deontological ethics, both predicated on the thoughts of Aristotle and Immanuel Kant respectively.

We see it on these forums all the time. There is an “anomalous” case regarding a Catholic doctrine, whether it be it concerning birth control or working for an “immoral” business in time of mass unemployment. The orthodox Catholic position ignores the welfare of the agents in cases such as these and instead places precedence on laws and rules. We can clearly see Kant’s influence in this, as he held that morality must be everywhere and anywhere universal.

Helga Weiss lives today as an eminent artist. She lives today because of a simple lie she told. A better ethical system would be to take the “best of all worlds”, taking into consideration virtue ethics, deontological ethics and utilitarianism. This would extend the scope of the multitude of “exceptional cases” certain Catholics across the world face. It would be a more robust ethical system that could easily adjust to an ever-changing society.

What are your thoughts?

 

[LilyM]

No, the Catholic position would not be to unanimously declare the action as sinful at all, and few if any Catholic theologians would say that her lie was a MORTAL sin requiring confession.

It’s an issue which has been the topic of debate and if one only reads Augustine and Aquinas on the subject, one finds two very divergent opinions. The debate has not been fully resolved to this day.

Augustine would hold that more or less all lies are sinful to a greater or lesser extent, but would undoubtedly agree with orthodox Catholic thought that being in situations of huge stress and duress such as Helga’s significantly minimize if not completely eliminate the free will and free consent that is required for a sin to be mortal.

Aquinas goes further on the topic of lying and says that there are such things as helpful lies which are not sinful at all (if my memory and understanding is correct). Quite possibly he would class Helga’s life-preserving lie in this category. Certainly most Catholics would.

I speak from experience, as I hold a position closer to Augustine than Aquinas on lying, and have been robustly criticized on CAF for it, and branded heartless.

“Hela Weiss, now an artist in Prague, escaped death at Auschwitz by lying to Josef Mengele about her age and saying she was fit to work” (Source: The Guardian)

As outlined in the article above, Helga Weiss, a Jew living under the Nazi regime, narrowly missed being sent to the gas chambers because of a simple lie. She was one of the 150 out of 1,500 children to have avoided imminent extermination. Yet, the Catholic position would be to declare this action as sinful and recommend that she goes to Confession (assuming she was Catholic) as soon as possible. Had she died (and indeed, the article says she narrowly missed death a second time), Helga would have probably had to do some time in Purgatory. This is Catholic theology.

Whilst Catholics claim the Church has taught “Truth” for 2000+ years, what they often forget to mention is that this means no flexibility. This means in situations such as the one Helga faced, the optimal or theologically correct choice would have been to say the truth and be sent to the gas chambers. Of course, virtually everyone would lie if it meant that their life was spared. But orthodox Catholicism’s ethical system suggests otherwise.

What we aren’t dealing with is a case of rigidness “handed down from Heaven”. This isn’t a case of God and morality, which Catholics suggest must be necessarily absolute. What we are dealing with is a battle between the three major ethical systems, namely, Virtue Ethics, Deontological Ethics and Utilitarianism. The Church has historically preferred Virtue Ethics and Deontological ethics, both predicated on the thoughts of Aristotle and Immanuel Kant respectively.

We see it on these forums all the time. There is an “anomalous” case regarding a Catholic doctrine, whether it be it concerning birth control or working for an “immoral” business in time of mass unemployment. The orthodox Catholic position ignores the welfare of the agents in cases such as these and instead places precedence on laws and rules. We can clearly see Kant’s influence in this, as he held that morality must be everywhere and anywhere universal.

Helga Weiss lives today as an eminent artist. She lives today because of a simple lie she told. A better ethical system would be to take the “best of all worlds”, taking into consideration virtue ethics, deontological ethics and utilitarianism. This would extend the scope of the multitude of “exceptional cases” certain Catholics across the world face. It would be a more robust ethical system that could easily adjust to an ever-changing society.

What are your thoughts?

 

[LilyM]

To respond to the more general thrust of hour thread - certainly Catholics teach an objective, knowable and eternal truth, personified by Christ Himself and passed on to us via His church. And that His truth as a result is something that is equally relevant to all times and places.

And why not? A god whose teachings can become, in the least particle, outdated or irrelevant, is a god who himself is doomed with a use-by date and ultimate obsolescence. Such a limited deity is not only unworthy of our worship, but can scarcely be called a deity at all.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Augustine would hold that more or less all lies are sinful to a greater or lesser extent, but would undoubtedly agree with orthodox Catholic thought that being in situations of huge stress and duress such as Helga’s significantly minimize if not completely eliminate the free will and free consent that is required for a sin to be mortal.

Yes, a sin motivated by genuine fear can never be a mortal sin.

Here is a helpful article:

catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=242

It says:

One effort to do so has gained considerable favor among theologians in the last hundred years. This is the proposal to tweak the definition of lying as follows: “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth.” This sentence, in fact, is taken from the initial edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2483).

The article points out that the part “someone who has the right to know the truth” has subsequently been dropped from the Catechism. Yet I live by that interpretation of things:

“To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth.”,

and my conscience is comfortable with that. Obviously, Helga’s lie would not be a sin at all under this interpretation, while her situation is an exception. In most cases others do have the right to know the truth, so this interpretation is no easy excuse to lie whenever one “sees fit”.

 

[Sam_777]

She lives today because of a simple lie she told.

And how to judge that she is better now than if she had died and gone to heavens!!!
She is suffering now on this earth like all of us, but if she had told the truth and died, she probably be in Paradise enjoying now…

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

“Hela Weiss, now an artist in Prague, escaped death at Auschwitz by lying to Josef Mengele about her age and saying she was fit to work” (Source: The Guardian)

As outlined in the article above, Helga Weiss, a Jew living under the Nazi regime, narrowly missed being sent to the gas chambers because of a simple lie. She was one of the 150 out of 1,500 children to have avoided imminent extermination. Yet, the Catholic position would be to declare this action as sinful and recommend that she goes to Confession (assuming she was Catholic) as soon as possible. Had she died (and indeed, the article says she narrowly missed death a second time), Helga would have probably had to do some time in Purgatory. This is Catholic theology.

Whilst Catholics claim the Church has taught “Truth” for 2000+ years, what they often forget to mention is that this means no flexibility. This means in situations such as the one Helga faced, the optimal or theologically correct choice would have been to say the truth and be sent to the gas chambers. Of course, virtually everyone would lie if it meant that their life was spared. But orthodox Catholicism’s ethical system suggests otherwise.

What we aren’t dealing with is a case of rigidness “handed down from Heaven”. This isn’t a case of God and morality, which Catholics suggest must be necessarily absolute. What we are dealing with is a battle between the three major ethical systems, namely, Virtue Ethics, Deontological Ethics and Utilitarianism. The Church has historically preferred Virtue Ethics and Deontological ethics, both predicated on the thoughts of Aristotle and Immanuel Kant respectively.

We see it on these forums all the time. There is an “anomalous” case regarding a Catholic doctrine, whether it be it concerning birth control or working for an “immoral” business in time of mass unemployment. The orthodox Catholic position ignores the welfare of the agents in cases such as these and instead places precedence on laws and rules. We can clearly see Kant’s influence in this, as he held that morality must be everywhere and anywhere universal.

Helga Weiss lives today as an eminent artist. She lives today because of a simple lie she told. A better ethical system would be to take the “best of all worlds”, taking into consideration virtue ethics, deontological ethics and utilitarianism. This would extend the scope of the multitude of “exceptional cases” certain Catholics across the world face. It would be a more robust ethical system that could easily adjust to an ever-changing society.

What are your thoughts?

First paragraph is wrong, so the argument falls from the base.

 

[John21652]

“Hela Weiss, now an artist in Prague, escaped death at Auschwitz by lying to Josef Mengele about her age and saying she was fit to work” (Source: The Guardian)

As outlined in the article above, Helga Weiss, a Jew living under the Nazi regime, narrowly missed being sent to the gas chambers because of a simple lie. She was one of the 150 out of 1,500 children to have avoided imminent extermination. Yet, the Catholic position would be to declare this action as sinful and recommend that she goes to Confession (assuming she was Catholic) as soon as possible. Had she died (and indeed, the article says she narrowly missed death a second time), Helga would have probably had to do some time in Purgatory. This is Catholic theology.

Whilst Catholics claim the Church has taught “Truth” for 2000+ years, what they often forget to mention is that this means no flexibility. This means in situations such as the one Helga faced, the optimal or theologically correct choice would have been to say the truth and be sent to the gas chambers. Of course, virtually everyone would lie if it meant that their life was spared. But orthodox Catholicism’s ethical system suggests otherwise.

What we aren’t dealing with is a case of rigidness “handed down from Heaven”. This isn’t a case of God and morality, which Catholics suggest must be necessarily absolute. What we are dealing with is a battle between the three major ethical systems, namely, Virtue Ethics, Deontological Ethics and Utilitarianism. The Church has historically preferred Virtue Ethics and Deontological ethics, both predicated on the thoughts of Aristotle and Immanuel Kant respectively.

We see it on these forums all the time. There is an “anomalous” case regarding a Catholic doctrine, whether it be it concerning birth control or working for an “immoral” business in time of mass unemployment. The orthodox Catholic position ignores the welfare of the agents in cases such as these and instead places precedence on laws and rules. We can clearly see Kant’s influence in this, as he held that morality must be everywhere and anywhere universal.

Helga Weiss lives today as an eminent artist. She lives today because of a simple lie she told. A better ethical system would be to take the “best of all worlds”, taking into consideration virtue ethics, deontological ethics and utilitarianism. This would extend the scope of the multitude of “exceptional cases” certain Catholics across the world face. It would be a more robust ethical system that could easily adjust to an ever-changing society.

What are your thoughts?

What you have written demonstrates a great misunderstanding of what the “orthodox Catholic position” actually is.

Catholic morality is grounded in Natural Law moral reasoning. It is not strictly ontological, as you seem to think and it does indeed contain an element of Virtue Ethics and even consequentilaism. Natural Law presently functions alongside other systems of ethics that compete with it, or even compliment it, such as moral relativism and other teleological forms of moral thought like deontological ethics, utilitarianism and consequentialism. The central maxim of moral relativism, that one ought not to judge the behaviour of one culture or individual to be morally greater or lesser than that of another, is self evidently illogical and incoherent. Under moral relativism, one cannot logically conclude that to judge morally is normatively wrong, because that deduction is itself a moral judgment. That’s why moral relativists keep shooting themselves in the foot! Duty-based ethics, deontology, is a very persuasive teleological ethical frameworks, because it encourages a moral agent to act according to duty. Utilitarianism is another form of teleological ethics. Unlike deontology, which emphasises the duty to act, or to intend an action, utilitarianism places greater weight on the final utility of a moral decision you know, that old pleasure-pain moral calculus problem… Compared to Natural Law, utilitarianism is deficient in that it considers only the consequence of an action and not its means. Utilitarianism is therefore one form of consequentialism, defined as an ethical theory that focuses on the good gained and gives no weight to the morality of the way the act is achieved. Its great problem is that it descends into moral subjectivism.

Natural law is a more comprehensive ethical structure than either consequentialist or duty or intention-based moral systems. Its value can be appreciated in situations where a moral choice will bring about both good and evil results. Natural Law uses the principle of double effect when a moral dilemma is imminent. The principle of double effect has four conditions:

1. that an action is intrinsically good or indifferent. Thus, actions that are evil, regardless of their circumstances, must be avoided.
2. the good end must not depend upon the evil effect for its accomplishment.
3. the moral agent must intend only the good effects.
4. if the previous three conditions are met, then a “proportionate reason” must exist for causing a harmful effect.

That lets Hela Weiss out of Purgatory!!

Natural Law accounts for the ends, means, and circumstances of an action as well as the experience and disposition of the moral agent. Natural law has also been enhanced, from its ancient beginnings to contemporary developments that better consider the subjective and relational nature of the human person in addition to the objectivity of moral truth. So, throw away Kant and go read what Cicero, Augustine and JP II had to say. All three emphasised the use of reason. And reason surely tells you that some truths can never be anything but truths, even after 2000 years!

 

[JRKH]

What are your thoughts?

Bohm,
My thoughts are these…
What you conflate as rigidity is in fact strength. The strength of something will allow for flexibility while at the same time retaining the core of strength. However, if even a strong material is flexed too much the core strength is overcome and the result is fracture, breakage and collapse.

As to how we respond to the questions that people ask here on an open an public forum, we have no choice but to answer with official Church teaching. It is the public and impersonal nature of the forums that force us to do this because to do otherwise risks misleading either the person asking or others who might be looking in.
Additionally, we do not know the questioner personally and intimately and do not have access to ALL of the details (often private) of the case they are asking about. You will note that often when someone asks about this or that being a sin, a respondent will advise them that we cannot know for sure and that they need to talk to their confessor about it.
Certainly there are cases where the culpability for sin is mitigated but a public forum is not the place to try and get into all the possible permutations of every sin.

In the example you relate above, it is impossible for us to make judgement on what the person did and, indeed, it is not our place to do so. However, in answering publicly asked questions on a public forum, we must be very careful for our answers are, in fact, teaching and Jesus warns us that those who teach are held to a higher standard.

Those are my thoughts.

Peace
James

 

[You]

“Hela Weiss, now an artist in Prague, escaped death at Auschwitz by lying to Josef Mengele about her age and saying she was fit to work” (Source: The Guardian)

As outlined in the article above, Helga Weiss, a Jew living under the Nazi regime, narrowly missed being sent to the gas chambers because of a simple lie. She was one of the 150 out of 1,500 children to have avoided imminent extermination. Yet, the Catholic position would be to declare this action as sinful and recommend that she goes to Confession (assuming she was Catholic) as soon as possible. Had she died (and indeed, the article says she narrowly missed death a second time), Helga would have probably had to do some time in Purgatory. This is Catholic theology.

Whilst Catholics claim the Church has taught “Truth” for 2000+ years, what they often forget to mention is that this means no flexibility. This means in situations such as the one Helga faced, the optimal or theologically correct choice would have been to say the truth and be sent to the gas chambers. Of course, virtually everyone would lie if it meant that their life was spared. But orthodox Catholicism’s ethical system suggests otherwise.

What we aren’t dealing with is a case of rigidness “handed down from Heaven”. This isn’t a case of God and morality, which Catholics suggest must be necessarily absolute. What we are dealing with is a battle between the three major ethical systems, namely, Virtue Ethics, Deontological Ethics and Utilitarianism. The Church has historically preferred Virtue Ethics and Deontological ethics, both predicated on the thoughts of Aristotle and Immanuel Kant respectively.

We see it on these forums all the time. There is an “anomalous” case regarding a Catholic doctrine, whether it be it concerning birth control or working for an “immoral” business in time of mass unemployment. The orthodox Catholic position ignores the welfare of the agents in cases such as these and instead places precedence on laws and rules. We can clearly see Kant’s influence in this, as he held that morality must be everywhere and anywhere universal.

Helga Weiss lives today as an eminent artist. She lives today because of a simple lie she told. A better ethical system would be to take the “best of all worlds”, taking into consideration virtue ethics, deontological ethics and utilitarianism. This would extend the scope of the multitude of “exceptional cases” certain Catholics across the world face. It would be a more robust ethical system that could easily adjust to an ever-changing society.

What are your thoughts?

You need to take this up with Moses and God. I think.
Thou shalt not…etc., etc.
I don’t believe the Catholic Church ever specifically said you cannot lie to save your life.
Neither did it say you can lie to save your life.
The God of Helga Weiss said you cannot bear false witness.
The Messiah of Helga Weiss’s religion said if you try to save your life you will lose it.
But then He was talking about people who believed in Him who might be tempted to betray Him with a lie possibly, to save their lives.
These are the people in particular the Catholic Church would most likely say must not lie, if it ever says one must not lie, as the consequences of this lie are eternal.
Do you understand that old saying about a moment of weakness, especially when ones life is threatened and the question was not; will you, jewish people, betray your awaited messiah and your faith with a lie, it was a simple question about someones age.

 

[JRKH]

And how to judge that she is better now than if she had died and gone to heavens!!!
She is suffering now on this earth like all of us, but if she had told the truth and died, she probably be in Paradise enjoying now…

You have posed, in just a few words, a very profound truth…and one so often overlooked. It really speaks to one’s world view…

Scripture puts it thus…What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?

Peace
James

 

[jbarbaretta]

“Hela Weiss, now an artist in Prague, escaped death at Auschwitz by lying to Josef Mengele about her age and saying she was fit to work” (Source: The Guardian)

As outlined in the article above, Helga Weiss, a Jew living under the Nazi regime, narrowly missed being sent to the gas chambers because of a simple lie. She was one of the 150 out of 1,500 children to have avoided imminent extermination. Yet, the Catholic position would be to declare this action as sinful and recommend that she goes to Confession (assuming she was Catholic) as soon as possible. Had she died (and indeed, the article says she narrowly missed death a second time), Helga would have probably had to do some time in Purgatory. This is Catholic theology.

Whilst Catholics claim the Church has taught “Truth” for 2000+ years, what they often forget to mention is that this means no flexibility. This means in situations such as the one Helga faced, the optimal or theologically correct choice would have been to say the truth and be sent to the gas chambers. Of course, virtually everyone would lie if it meant that their life was spared. But orthodox Catholicism’s ethical system suggests otherwise.

What we aren’t dealing with is a case of rigidness “handed down from Heaven”. This isn’t a case of God and morality, which Catholics suggest must be necessarily absolute. What we are dealing with is a battle between the three major ethical systems, namely, Virtue Ethics, Deontological Ethics and Utilitarianism. The Church has historically preferred Virtue Ethics and Deontological ethics, both predicated on the thoughts of Aristotle and Immanuel Kant respectively.

We see it on these forums all the time. There is an “anomalous” case regarding a Catholic doctrine, whether it be it concerning birth control or working for an “immoral” business in time of mass unemployment. The orthodox Catholic position ignores the welfare of the agents in cases such as these and instead places precedence on laws and rules. We can clearly see Kant’s influence in this, as he held that morality must be everywhere and anywhere universal.

Helga Weiss lives today as an eminent artist. She lives today because of a simple lie she told. A better ethical system would be to take the “best of all worlds”, taking into consideration virtue ethics, deontological ethics and utilitarianism. This would extend the scope of the multitude of “exceptional cases” certain Catholics across the world face. It would be a more robust ethical system that could easily adjust to an ever-changing society.

What are your thoughts?

First, I have to admit, I always enjoy your questions. Some questions on CAF are easy to respond to and require very little thought to put together a reasonable response. Your questions usually require some serious thought and more often then not some research.

Your premise that she would have died if she did not lie is a bit of a red herring. The Guardian or even Ms. Weiss could not really know what would have happened if she told the truth. It is all hypothetical. Granted, that was the likely outcome. But, in the end we can’t know. Many survivor’s of the horrors of the Nazi death camps have almost unbelievable stories of how they were not put to death for one reason or another. If God wanted her alive after WWII, she would have survived.

As for the sinfulness of the action, the Nazi guards or leadership had no right to know how old she was. There is a story, hopefully somebody here can provide a link, of a group of monks that were hiding Jews during WWII - as most monasteries did during the war. The Nazis found out that they were hiding them and went to the monastery on multiple occasions to question the monks and search for the Jews. The monks managed to keep their guests hidden by deceiving the Nazis. In fact, that type of thing happened all over Europe. The belief was that the Nazis had no right to know where the Jews were hidden, therefore, the monks were under no moral obligation to provide that information.

I can’t imagine God in heaven as each is being judged saying something like, “I understand you were protecting your older brothers in the faith, but you misled the Nazis. Off to purgatory for you!” I think Jesus would have thrown his arms around each one and said, “Well done my good and faithful servant.”

As for Ms. Weiss, I am glad that she survived and has flourished after such a horrific experience. Her drawings are haunting and stark reminders of what mankind is capable of doing to itself when it has no moral base and therefore sees mankind as nothing more than a particularly clever animal.

 

[Al_Moritz]

As for the sinfulness of the action, the Nazi guards or leadership had no right to know how old she was. There is a story, hopefully somebody here can provide a link, of a group of monks that were hiding Jews during WWII - as most monasteries did during the war. The Nazis found out that they were hiding them and went to the monastery on multiple occasions to question the monks and search for the Jews. The monks managed to keep their guests hidden by deceiving the Nazis. In fact, that type of thing happened all over Europe. The belief was that the Nazis had no right to know where the Jews were hidden, therefore, the monks were under no moral obligation to provide that information.

(Emphasis added.)

Precisely, that is the point.

 

[bz5]

Lying is always wrong, but you aren’t required to tell all you know to someone with no right to the information.
She said she could work. So can everyone. She didn’t have to specify how well. Where was the lie? If she had not indeed worked, we can be pretty certain she would have been killed later.
Another question is would it be wrong to tell a soldier who asked whether you were hiding Jews yes if you were. Well you might say “No,” leaving off the part (I will not tell you, or you have no right to know that). That’s called mental reservation.
Let’s also admit that Hitler, Stalin, Communist China etc…were all hostile to Christianity with all of its “rules,” and look where that got us.

 

[JRKH]

As to the specific of lying - and the sinful nature of it - there is actually no “commandment” against lying among the ten commandments.
What is commanded is to not bear false witness against ones neighbor. (Ex 20:16 and De 5:20)

The various considerations that have been posted above such as the right to know etc come from the study and proper understanding of what constitutes a false witness and to whom the witness is given and against whom the witness is given.

Peace
James

 

[ivory]

You intrigue me, Bohm. As someone who described himself as a former devout Catholic, I’d imagine you would know the answers to some of these questions

On topic, I don’t remember seeing anything anywhere that described lying about something as trivial as your age to preserve your life as a mortal sin. And even if it was considered mortal, it was likely committed in a moment of extreme anxiety and fear (and I couldn’t think of anything more terrifying than being stared down by Josef Mengele himself). As I’m sure you know, for the sin to be mortal, it requires that the sin be grave (and I don’t think lying about your age is that serious), be committed with full knowledge that it is a mortal sin, and be committed with deliberate consent.

Do you think these apply to a woman being examined by the Angel of Death, with the wrong answer condemning her to a painful death in the showers? Not to mention the horrible conditions that Jews had to endure before being herded into those evil places. This lie was more than likely a heat-of-the-moment decision that ended up saving her life. Hardly a mortal sin.

 

[tonyrey]

Have you never heard of the principle of choosing the lesser evil?

 

[_L]

“Hela Weiss, now an artist in Prague, escaped death at Auschwitz by lying to Josef Mengele about her age and saying she was fit to work” (Source: The Guardian)

As outlined in the article above, Helga Weiss, a Jew living under the Nazi regime, narrowly missed being sent to the gas chambers because of a simple lie. She was one of the 150 out of 1,500 children to have avoided imminent extermination. Yet, the Catholic position would be to declare this action as sinful and recommend that she goes to Confession (assuming she was Catholic) as soon as possible. Had she died (and indeed, the article says she narrowly missed death a second time), Helga would have probably had to do some time in Purgatory. This is Catholic theology.

Whilst Catholics claim the Church has taught “Truth” for 2000+ years, what they often forget to mention is that this means no flexibility. This means in situations such as the one Helga faced, the optimal or theologically correct choice would have been to say the truth and be sent to the gas chambers. Of course, virtually everyone would lie if it meant that their life was spared. But orthodox Catholicism’s ethical system suggests otherwise.

What we aren’t dealing with is a case of rigidness “handed down from Heaven”. This isn’t a case of God and morality, which Catholics suggest must be necessarily absolute. What we are dealing with is a battle between the three major ethical systems, namely, Virtue Ethics, Deontological Ethics and Utilitarianism. The Church has historically preferred Virtue Ethics and Deontological ethics, both predicated on the thoughts of Aristotle and Immanuel Kant respectively.

We see it on these forums all the time. There is an “anomalous” case regarding a Catholic doctrine, whether it be it concerning birth control or working for an “immoral” business in time of mass unemployment. The orthodox Catholic position ignores the welfare of the agents in cases such as these and instead places precedence on laws and rules. We can clearly see Kant’s influence in this, as he held that morality must be everywhere and anywhere universal.

Helga Weiss lives today as an eminent artist. She lives today because of a simple lie she told. A better ethical system would be to take the “best of all worlds”, taking into consideration virtue ethics, deontological ethics and utilitarianism. This would extend the scope of the multitude of “exceptional cases” certain Catholics across the world face. It would be a more robust ethical system that could easily adjust to an ever-changing society.

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are that as human beings, made in the image and likeness of God we are called to live the ideal in a world that is not only not ideal but in many instances actively opposed to the ideal. Now considering this world is fallen as are the people in it, there will be conflict between people living the ideal way and people living the fallen way. If God is God and Good is good, then that which is good cannot change because it’s goodness is rooted in God who never changes. Truth is good, the absence of truth is falsehood, and falsehood is evil, always evil regardless of the consequences. I know it is an intimidating idea in the context that you present, but consider the alternative: a God who not only coexists alongside that which is opposed to him but actively embraces that which is opposed to Him as righteous, it opens the door for an image for God that is dualistic. And then the question becomes, what is man’s primary responsbility? Is our primary responsibility being righteous/virtuous? or is our primary responsibility to survive? It seems to me that if God deemed lying in this case as morally acceptable then our purpose as humans made in the image of God changes; it changes from being oriented towards obedience to God to being primarily oriented towards bodily survival. The preservation of our earthly life supersedes allegiance to God in that sense and I do not see how God could accept that. One of the basic challenges of Christ is just the opposite, that we should live on Earth as though we are in Heaven even if that costs us our lives on Earth; professing the Truth always even if it means our death, and professing the truth can be made manifested in many forms even in the situation you relate here.

Now let’s say that she didn’t lie, she knew it was wrong to lie, but embraced death defiantly for the sake of what is right. I feel that in that sense she makes herself tantamount to a martyr for the Truth; so in this view, what appears to be a tragic and meaningless death is something that God can potentially draw tremendous good from as she loses her remaining years of her earthly life but gains eternity. God is the just judge, He draws good from bad, and so I do not see how dying for what is true, (which is intrinsically linked to God for God is Truth) can go unnoticed by God to the point where He refuses to reciprocate that type of love/devotion even to something seemingly so minuscule as the question posed in your example.

 

[_L]

Helga Weiss lives today as an eminent artist. She lives today because of a simple lie she told. A better ethical system would be to take the “best of all worlds”, taking into consideration virtue ethics, deontological ethics and utilitarianism. This would extend the scope of the multitude of “exceptional cases” certain Catholics across the world face. It would be a more robust ethical system that could easily adjust to an ever-changing society.

What are your thoughts?

continued…

Now in regards to an ethical system that changes with the society as you stated in your last paragraph. I believe that an ethical system that changes (in the sense that is contradicts itself) is ultimately meaningless. It is merely a convenient fabrication for a certain place at a certain time to preserve the status quo which is presumably comfortable for the majority. A transient system of ethics in place of objective morality is meaningless in comparison to the laws of nature which dictate that survival is the ultimate goal of all living things. A particular system of ethics that a certain society agrees on may work for a while as long as mutual survival is possible, but when the environment changes negatively past a certain point, acting ethical is always tossed aside in favor of survival of the fittest. I’m sure it was easy to act ethically in France prior to the conditions that caused the French Revolution, but once the situation got irreparably negative, living by a code of ethics was abandoned. Survival was deemed more important and as a result you had food riots, murder, theft, vandalism, and so on.

My basic point is that if there is no objective morality, then having a made up system of ethics that everyone in a particular society lives by is both illusory and a luxury because all it does is attempt to disconnect humans from the harsh reality of the world we live in. And I do not think it is a coincidence that it seems to be only the prosperous societies that find the time to produce their own codes of ethics because it is only these societies that have the luxury of doing so and live the fantasy that made up codes of ethics can replace the nature of humanity and all living things which is to survive.

 

[promethius]

What we aren’t dealing with is a case of rigidness “handed down from Heaven”. This isn’t a case of God and morality, which Catholics suggest must be necessarily absolute. What we are dealing with is a battle between the three major ethical systems, namely, Virtue Ethics, Deontological Ethics and Utilitarianism. The Church has historically preferred Virtue Ethics and Deontological ethics, both predicated on the thoughts of Aristotle and Immanuel Kant respectively.

Minor correction: the church does not teach any of the theories you posit… and in fact “Deontological Ethics” is not a theory itself, but rather a school of ethical theories. Kant did not author the school, he merely came up with a particular Kantian ethical theory.

The church does not follow Kant’s model, but rather a very similar model known as “Divine Command Theory”, which differs from the Kantian model in that Kant presupposed an objective moral law under which even God was subservient, while the church holds that God is the author of goodness itself.

As to utilitarianism, that only comes into play in rare considerations, and only after the deontological aspect of the moral question has already been addressed (such as addressing proportionality in a case of double effect). Utilitarianism has VERY little to do with catholic moral decision making, however… though it has much to do with Catholic social teaching.

 

[promethius]

Have you never heard of the principle of choosing the lesser evil?

The church does not espouse this theory. The church does, however, teach the principle of double effect, which is similar, although critically different in that one may not engage in objectively grave matter to accomplish a good.