Cooperation in Bank Robbery a Sin?

[Neil_Anthony]

If you work at a bank, and a robber with a gun demands that you give them cash, is it a sin to give them the money? Does it make a difference how easily the robber would have been able to get it without your help (for example, is the money sitting beside you or is it locked in a vault with a combination that you know).

 

[teachccd]

I would think that anytime your life is threatened it would never be a sin to do whatever is necessary to preserve it. You are not an accomplice for following the instructions given to you from someone who potentially is threatening your life. Your cooperation is really a form of self defense and to do otherwise is a sin against the respect that you should have for your life. The robber is making the choices here, not you…teachccd

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I would think that anytime your life is threatened it would never be a sin to do whatever is necessary to preserve it.

Thanks for the very clearcut rule. Are there any exceptions to this rule, for example, if ordered to deny the faith, or to commit genocide?

You are not an accomplice for following the instructions given to you from someone who potentially is threatening your life. Your cooperation is really a form of self defense and to do otherwise is a sin against the respect that you should have for your life. The robber is making the choices here, not you…teachccd

Wow, that’s what I’m worried about, committing a greater sin by not doing what I’m told when threatened. “Deny Jesus” “open the vault” “kill these children” “give me that ciborium containing consecrated hosts” etc. I assume that if refusing to do those things was a serious sin, and we died for refusing to deny Jesus or open a bank vault, at least we might notbe fully culpable? I hope? There would be no time for confession.

 

[First_of_9]

No sin! In fact, most business teach employees to hand over the money in case of a robbery.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

No sin! In fact, most business teach employees to hand over the money in case of a robbery.

Awesome, thanks!

 

[jmcrae]

If you work at a bank, and a robber with a gun demands that you give them cash, is it a sin to give them the money? Does it make a difference how easily the robber would have been able to get it without your help (for example, is the money sitting beside you or is it locked in a vault with a combination that you know).

No, since you are being coerced to do the deed. It’s not a sin unless you did it on purpose, with full intent, and with full knowledge. Obviously someone being forced at gun-point to put money into a bag isn’t doing so with full intent.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

No, since you are being coerced to do the deed. It’s not a sin unless you did it on purpose, with full intent, and with full knowledge. Obviously someone being forced at gun-point to put money into a bag isn’t doing so with full intent.

Thank you. I need further clarification… what do you mean by “full intent”. Doesn’t the person intend to put the money in the bag, in order to save his life? Or are you assuming they will be in a panic and their reasoning faculty will not be functioning, and therefore can’t form intent?

 

[jmcrae]

Thank you. I need further clarification… what do you mean by “full intent”. Doesn’t the person intend to put the money in the bag, in order to save his life? Or are you assuming they will be in a panic and their reasoning faculty will not be functioning, and therefore can’t form intent?

The person hasn’t got the full intent to rob the bank, since unless someone were holding a gun to her head, she would not be putting the money into the robber’s bag.

She may be doing so consciously, but she is not doing so intentionally, meaning, with full voluntary consent of the will. (After all, if she had full voluntary consent of the will, the robber wouldn’t need to hold a gun to her head to make her do it, right?)

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The person hasn’t got the full intent to rob the bank, since unless someone were holding a gun to her head, she would not be putting the money into the robber’s bag.

She may be doing so consciously, but she is not doing so intentionally, meaning, with full voluntary consent of the will. (After all, if she had full voluntary consent of the will, the robber wouldn’t need to hold a gun to her head to make her do it, right?)

Okay… but, does that excuse us from any sin that we wouldn’t intend to do, but someone else “puts us up to”? Does it only apply when they threaten our life? If this excuse only works for when our life is threatened, why is that exception so special?

It seems to me like almost nothing we do is completely free of coercion… there is always some consequence that we fear that compels us to do things that we think are wrong. Where do we draw the line, and if the line is drawn between “death threat” and “threat to do serious bodily harm” then why is it drawn there?

 

[teachccd]

Wow, that’s what I’m worried about, committing a greater sin by not doing what I’m told when threatened. “Deny Jesus”…

One of my eighth grade CCD students asked me if I would die if asked to deny Jesus. Of course the reponse that all would like to hear is yes, of course I would die rather than deny Jesus. But, in reality one would never know unless one were set in that circumstance. While this could be considered martyrdom, it none the less leaves me to wonder about my wife and children and all of the other precious gifts that I would deny my presence by forfeiting my life to prove my faith. Would Jesus want me to die to prove my faith to Him?? Is it necessary that I should?? He definitely understood Peter when he denied knowing Christ out of fear for his life.

Neil_Anthony, sometimes there are no clear cut answers. God knows our weaknesses and our love for Him however we react to the externals in a moment of time. In closing I would say that Jesus knows our hearts and our fears better than we do. We hold stewardship over our lives as a gift from God and should do everything and anything to preserve it. I feel that the person doing the coercion has the bigger sin…God Bless…teachccd

 

[jmcrae]

Okay… but, does that excuse us from any sin that we wouldn’t intend to do, but someone else “puts us up to”? Does it only apply when they threaten our life? If this excuse only works for when our life is threatened, why is that exception so special?

It seems to me like almost nothing we do is completely free of coercion… there is always some consequence that we fear that compels us to do things that we think are wrong. Where do we draw the line, and if the line is drawn between “death threat” and “threat to do serious bodily harm” then why is it drawn there?

It’s when the thing you’re defending is of less value than your life, that you put your life ahead of defending that thing.

Money is of great value, but it is not of greater value (or even of equal value) than human life. So, when it’s a matter of defending money, you give up when it comes to your life or the life of another person, since the money isn’t valuable enough to spend human lives on, to defend it. It would be a sin - a lack of right balance - to spend human life to save something that is not of the same value or greater value than human life.

The Eucharist is a different matter - the Eucharist is of greater value than human life, so you would give your life to defend the Eucharist, if you had to, and you would be right to do so - it would be right justice to do this.

The name of Jesus is also of greater value than human life, so you could also justly and rightly die for the name of Jesus.

It would be right for a human being to die for another human being, since both lives are of equal value.

But it would be wrong for a human being to die for an animal, since animals, though valuable, are not as valuable as human beings.

Does that help?

 

[teachccd]

It’s when the thing you’re defending is of less value than your life, that you put your life ahead of defending that thing.

The name of Jesus is also of greater value than human life, so you could also justly and rightly die for the name of Jesus.

But if some irrational person wanted to take your life unless you denied Jesus would that constitute dying for a greater cause? That all depends on the value that you put on human life. Is it less valuable than a crazy person with a gun who is getting a kick out of watching you die? This is a circumstancial issue and should be discerned as such…teachccd

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It’s when the thing you’re defending is of less value than your life, that you put your life ahead of defending that thing.

Money is of great value, but it is not of greater value (or even of equal value) than human life. So, when it’s a matter of defending money, you give up when it comes to your life or the life of another person, since the money isn’t valuable enough to spend human lives on, to defend it. It would be a sin - a lack of right balance - to spend human life to save something that is not of the same value or greater value than human life.

The Eucharist is a different matter - the Eucharist is of greater value than human life, so you would give your life to defend the Eucharist, if you had to, and you would be right to do so - it would be right justice to do this.

The name of Jesus is also of greater value than human life, so you could also justly and rightly die for the name of Jesus.

It would be right for a human being to die for another human being, since both lives are of equal value.

But it would be wrong for a human being to die for an animal, since animals, though valuable, are not as valuable as human beings.

Does that help?

Thank you, yes that’s very helpful. However it does raise one further question

Normally in Catholic moral theology we must never do an evil even if it results in a greater good. So normally we wouldn’t, for example, justify stealing to save a life (for example, robbing a bank to pay for someone’s operation). However in the case under consideration here, it seems we can justify helping a bank robber to save a life (our own), if we are being threatened.

So comparing two situations:

1. I decide to help a bank robber who threatens to kill me, in order to save my life.
2. I decide to rob a bank in order to get money for an operation I need to save my life.

So if I understand you correctly, situation 1 is moral, and situation 2 immoral. In situation 1, the idea of robbing was originally not mine, but it was the robbers idea, and so I am allowed to weigh the pros and cons between the action and it’s consequences? But in situation 2, I must not consider the outcome when deciding if the action is right or wrong. Is it that simple?

 

[teachccd]

Thank you, yes that’s very helpful. However it does raise one further question

Normally in Catholic moral theology we must never do an evil even if it results in a greater good. So normally we wouldn’t, for example, justify stealing to save a life (for example, robbing a bank to pay for someone’s operation). However in the case under consideration here, it seems we can justify helping a bank robber to save a life (our own), if we are being threatened.

So comparing two situations:

1. I decide to help a bank robber who threatens to kill me, in order to save my life.
2. I decide to rob a bank in order to get money for an operation I need to save my life.

So if I understand you correctly, situation 1 is moral, and situation 2 immoral. In situation 1, the idea of robbing was originally not mine, but it was the robbers idea, and so I am allowed to weigh the pros and cons between the action and it’s consequences? But in situation 2, I must not consider the outcome when deciding if the action is right or wrong. Is it that simple?

Simple?? No. There are so many considerations when deciding whether or not an action is moral. Of course there are intrinsic evils of which nothing good can come. But in your illustration your situation #2 is way too vague. Were all other options exhausted? Were other lives threatened? Were the police and other lives placed in jeopardy while they raced to the robbery in progress??

Neil_Anthony, I see where you are trying to take this (I think) but we are not God and there is no definitive answer to your boxed situations. It is good for discussion but ultimately every detail must be considered before anyone on this board can issue a blanket statement. Mortal sin is not taken lightly by God nor should it be by us… No, it most definitely is not simple…teachccd

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Neil_Anthony, I see where you are trying to take this (I think) but we are not God and there is no definitive answer to your boxed situations.

I’m very impressed with Catholic moral theology and I believe it does have answers. Thank you for offering your opinions but I’m not ready to give up on finding answers about how to form moral judgements. I don’t believe that it’s all purely subjective. Some things are simple, such as:

[SIGN]we must never commit evil so that good may result.[/SIGN]

That’s very simple, and very true.

 

[Newbie2]

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?

 

[teachccd]

I’m very impressed with Catholic moral theology and I believe it does have answers. Thank you for offering your opinions but I’m not ready to give up on finding answers about how to form moral judgements. I don’t believe that it’s all purely subjective. Some things are simple, such as:

we can never commit evil so that good may result.

That’s very simple, and very true.

It very well does have answers but not to simplistic examples. Moral judgments are acquired by a well informed conscience. Yes, we can never commit evil so that good may result but I don’t find it that simple. You are also mixing up what is grave matter and what constitutes mortal sin. Discerning what is mortal sin is not always black and white…Gots to go teach my eighth graders …running late but will return later…God Bless…teachccd

 

[vern_humphrey]

If you work at a bank, and a robber with a gun demands that you give them cash, is it a sin to give them the money? Does it make a difference how easily the robber would have been able to get it without your help (for example, is the money sitting beside you or is it locked in a vault with a combination that you know).

You are not required to defend the cash with your life.

That said, bank employees have specific instructions on how to deal with robberies – which generally include complying with the robber’s orders, sounding a silent alarm, and slipping a “bait” packet of money into the cash turned over to the robber.

There is no sin in following those instructions.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

You are not required to defend the cash with your life.

That said, bank employees have specific instructions on how to deal with robberies – which generally include complying with the robber’s orders, sounding a silent alarm, and slipping a “bait” packet of money into the cash turned over to the robber.

There is no sin in following those instructions.

Thank you. I was hoping that this was the ‘explanation’… that by prior agreement between the teller and the employer, the teller’s job is to do what robbers say. Since the money belongs to the bank, the bank has the authority to allow the teller to co-operate with robbers.

This solution avoids opening the Pandora’s box that gets open once you say that a person being coerced doesn’t have free will.

On the other hand, you could probably dream up a hypothetical situation where such an agreement didn’t exist (either explicitly or implied). For example… lets say you don’t work for the bank, you’re just a customer there, and the robber orders you to help him carry the cash out to his car.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It very well does have answers but not to simplistic examples. Moral judgments are acquired by a well informed conscience. Yes, we can never commit evil so that good may result but I don’t find it that simple.

When we study ethics we look for very simple hypothetical examples to help illustrate principles. Instead some people don’t get it and they keep trying to make the hypothetical examples more complicated. Why??? The point is to use simple examples to illustrate the principles.

Of course in real life we have to make judgement calls. But before you can make a judgement call, you need to understand the principles, which tell you when you are allowed to make a relative judgement, and when you are facing an absolute moral rule.

Of course real life decisions are harder. But I’m just trying to learn the simple basic principles, such as “never do a wrong to achieve a right”, and how that applies to simple problems like an idealized bank robbery or an idealized theft to provide for a life-saving operation.