Cooperation in Bank Robbery a Sin?

[Neil_Anthony]

Nor am I saying that it is a good. What I am saying is that justice profits when human life is preserved, in this particular case. The morality/immorality of the action belongs to the bank robber. The other people involved did not become involved voluntarily; therefore, their decision-making has to be based on justice; not on morality.

Well… thats like saying “It’s not my fault I use birth control, my husband coerced me into doing it, he said if I didnt get the abortion he’d leave and i’d have to take care of the kids myself. I had no choice, so its not a sin.”.

Is this a moral decision? Or again are we just weighing the consequences… what’s more important, being open to life, or the kids having a father?

If this is different (and I’m sure you’ll say its different), what method does one use to distinguish the two different types of problems?

 

[Spirithound]

Well… thats like saying “It’s not my fault I use birth control, my husband coerced me into doing it, he said if I didnt get the abortion he’d leave and i’d have to take care of the kids myself. I had no choice, so its not a sin.”.

Is this a moral decision? Or again are we just weighing the consequences… what’s more important, being open to life, or the kids having a father?

If this is different (and I’m sure you’ll say its different), what method does one use to distinguish the two different types of problems?

Again, as JMcRae pointed out, for what option does justice profit? Does it not seem clear that preserving the life of the unborn profits justice more than keeping such an unloving man around?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Again, as JMcRae pointed out, for what option does justice profit? Does it not seem clear that preserving the life of the unborn profits justice more than keeping such an unloving man around?

Seems clear to me, but doesn’t answer my question, which is about deontological morality vs. utilitarian or consequentialist morality.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Again, as JMcRae pointed out, for what option does justice profit? Does it not seem clear that preserving the life of the unborn profits justice more than keeping such an unloving man around?

Well, try this one:

“Can I steal money to pay off a ransom so that kidnappers don’t kill my relative?”

“Can I prostitute myself to get money so that my kids can eat?”

I’ve always been taught that Catholics just automatically must refuse to do something wrong, regardless of the cost. You don’t consider what good can come from an evil action… you simply do not ever do an evil action.

But people in this thread as saying that sometimes, if its for a REALLY good cause, or to avoid a REALLY bad cause, then we can sometimes do something objectively wrong to make it happen.

 

[LilyM]

Well, try this one:

“Can I steal money to pay off a ransom so that kidnappers don’t kill my relative?”

“Can I prostitute myself to get money so that my kids can eat?”

I’ve always been taught that Catholics just automatically must refuse to do something wrong, regardless of the cost. You don’t consider what good can come from an evil action… you simply do not ever do an evil action.

But people in this thread as saying that sometimes, if its for a REALLY good cause, or to avoid a REALLY bad cause, then we can sometimes do something objectively wrong to make it happen.

Remember there are degrees of coercion as well - and not every degree will totally remove your culpability for what you do. What’s being threatened in most of these other cases (such as the husband wanting abortion, or the kids being threatened with starvation unless you prostitute yourself), is not immediate death, unlike the bank robbery case.

And knowing that it would take a certain amount of time for your theoretical ‘evil’ to catch up with you in these other cases, there’s time to seek non-sinful means of helping yourself - to find another job, go on welfare for a while, borrow money or get other help from friends, relatives or the state.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Remember there are degrees of coercion as well - and not every degree will totally remove your culpability for what you do. What’s being threatened in most of these other cases (such as the husband wanting abortion, or the kids being threatened with starvation unless you prostitute yourself), is not immediate death, unlike the bank robbery case.

And knowing that it would take a certain amount of time for your theoretical ‘evil’ to catch up with you in these other cases, there’s time to seek non-sinful means of helping yourself - to find another job, go on welfare for a while, borrow money or get other help from friends, relatives or the state.

Thanks… so in the case of the bank being robbed, is there any ‘culpability’ to be removed if you help the bank robber? Or was it a good action in the first place? If we’re talking about duress removing culpability, then the action must be objectively wrong in the first place. (Otherwise there wouldn’t be any question of culpability).

 

[holdencaulfield]

I would say, no it’s not a sin.

 

[BlaineTog]

I am reminded of the words of Jesus:

“The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” Mark 2:27

This seems to be a parallel situation. Money exists to facilitate man’s continued existence in the world, not the other way around. It isn’t worth losing your life over.

 

[holdencaulfield]

OK, here’s one:

What about lying about your faith in order to save your life?

Tinhorn dictatorship country, brute squad comes along and asks you if you’re a Christian; you lie and say no to protect your life and your family’s lives?

Yes that would be a sin. Ever heard of the Early Christian Martyrs?

 

[LilyM]

Thanks… so in the case of the bank being robbed, is there any ‘culpability’ to be removed if you help the bank robber? Or was it a good action in the first place? If we’re talking about duress removing culpability, then the action must be objectively wrong in the first place. (Otherwise there wouldn’t be any question of culpability).

I would probably say there’s no such thing as an objective wrong - wrong is always subjective, it’s wrong as regards the one who does it or the one it’s done to (which includes God - our sins wrong Him and they are wrong inasmuch as they offend Him, which those committed under duress or minus either of the other requirements don’t, it would seem).

But it’s a moot point and I dislike wallowing in the ephemera of whys and wherefores on such questions as long as I know the sharp end of the stick from the blunt end.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I found something relevant by Fr. Hardon, about when coercion can remove free will when consenting to marriage:

“Matrimonial consent may be vitiated by violence or fear. Thus if a woman were physically coerced to go through a ceremony with a man she absolutely did not want to marry, the contract would be void. More common is the element of fear, which may also invalidate a marriage, but only under specified conditions. It must be a grave fear, unjustly caused by someone outside the person fearing, and so irresistible that the only way to escape the thing feared is to go through the marriage ritual.”

therealpresence.org/archives/Moral_Theology/Moral_Theology_006.htm

So in the case of marriage, you don’t have free will if the fear is

1. grave
2. caused unjustly
3. caused by someone outside the person,
4. irresistible (no escape)

I wonder if that’s the general rule for any situation to determine if you have free will or not? It seems a bit arbitrary, but at least it’s specific. Does anyone know if this is based on the writings of a particular saint, or a encyclical?

 

[Al_Masetti]

I guess it comes down to perceptions.

For some folks, resisting a bank robber with a gun is exceedingly dangerous and so resisting might be sinful.

Other folks might be exceptionally smooth with words and actually talk the bank robber into leaving empty handed or even surrendering. And so for that person, complying with the bank robber’s demands might be sinful.

Complying with the instructions of a person holding a gun might be prudent. Unless you believe the person with the gun will shoot anyway; in that case, maximum resistance with maximum force might be the most appropriate response.

Going into a burning building might be sinful or not. It might be foolhardy or it might be courageous. It might or might not depend on the degree of training, experience, preparation, and Divine Inspiration. It might or might not be sinful.

A woman, pregnant with her second child, found one day that her husband who worked at the World Trade Center did not come home. A few days later someone she did not know called her to say that the caller had seen her husband’s picture in the paper and that her husband had rescued the caller. The pregnant woman was exceptionally angry with her deceased husband for having put the life of total strangers ahead of his own life and the welfare of his family. A few months later her mother passed away and she had to clean out her mother’s apartment. While doing that, the apartment building caught fire and the pregnant woman found herself going from door to door banging on the doors rousting everyone and she rescued dozens of elderly people … total strangers … from certain death. And it suddenly all became very clear.

Some people think flying airplanes is dangerous and therefore sinful. Other people think cave diving is dangerous and therefore sinful.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Would this method be acceptable for Catholic decision-making:

1. When faced with a moral decision, performing a sinful act or cooperating with a sinful act is always wrong and we shouldn’t do it no matter what the consequences.
2. However, if there is coercion that meets the following conditions, then free will is not present, and the decision is not a moral decision:
   a. fear of grave consequences
   b. the consequences are unjust
   c. the consequences are caused by someone else
   d. there is no other alternative to avoid the consequences
3. When the decision isn’t a moral decision, we should use prudence to weigh the good and bad consequences of the difference choices we have. We should select the option which results in the most good or least evil. Honor to God generally is valued over human life, and human life is usually valued over material things.

I hope this is a summary of what the people have told me in this thread. I’m repeating it in a form that makes sense to me not to take credit for it, but to ask if I got it right.

Thanks!
Neil

 

[vern_humphrey]

I would probably say there’s no such thing as an objective wrong - wrong is always subjective, it’s wrong as regards the one who does it or the one it’s done to (which includes God - our sins wrong Him and they are wrong inasmuch as they offend Him, which those committed under duress or minus either of the other requirements don’t, it would seem).

That is at odds with the Catholic Church, which teaches that there are objective wrongs. Not everything is subject to prudential judgement – abortion and euthanasia are examples.

 

[jmcrae]

Well… thats like saying “It’s not my fault I use birth control, my husband coerced me into doing it, he said if I didnt get the abortion he’d leave and i’d have to take care of the kids myself. I had no choice, so its not a sin.”.

Actually, if that is, in fact, the case, then it’s not a sin.

Is this a moral decision? Or again are we just weighing the consequences… what’s more important, being open to life, or the kids having a father?

The Church says the sanctity of the marriage bond is above just about everything else - the only thing that comes ahead of marriage is the individual’s personal safety, if they are being abused by their spouse - only in that case may a civil divorce non-sinfully take place, for the purpose of protecting the person’s individual safety.

I was even told, at the time of my conversion, that if my becoming Catholic could harm my marriage in any way, I was not allowed to become a Catholic. Marriage even comes ahead of being visibly a member of the Church - if my husband had threatened to divorce me for becoming Catholic, I’d have had to be “Catholic by desire” but not visibly a member of the Church.

 

[LilyM]

That is at odds with the Catholic Church, which teaches that there are objective wrongs. Not everything is subject to prudential judgement – abortion and euthanasia are examples.

Well, in the sense they don’t depend on OUR (human) prudential judgement or understanding of them, yes, you are correct …

… on the other hand, in that God is a person and HIS pov (and being a person He does have a pov, albeit that His pov is always the truth because it cannot be otherwise) determines what is sinful, then they can possibly be said to be subjective … although some of us might not be comfortable using such terminology about the Deity