Desperation and Culpability

[starlady88]

The other day, my husband and I decided we were going to watch a movie. I chose “The Zookeeper’s Wife” because we had wanted to see it when it was in the theater but didn’t, and I had read the book many years ago and liked it.

[SPOILER - not major plot point, but analysis of character’s choice]

We finished the movie and both liked it, although I think I more than him. There was a moment in the movie where one of the characters goes to a Nazi officer (who had previously been trying to make a move on her) desperately asking for information about where her husband had been taken. He asks what he will get in return, and, knowing what he wants, begins to unbutton her clothing to offer herself. He attacks her, but ultimately does not “take” her when he sees that she is repulsed by him.

My husband was frustrated with the woman, asking why she would go so far as to do something so terrible. I tried to say that in times of desperation, people sometimes feel that they have to do things they normally wouldn’t do, break (moral and civil) laws, even. His point of view was that even in the worst of times, someone with strong faith in God would not do things like that. My husband has been through some very difficult times and did not waver, so I could see where he was coming from. My husband has incredible faith and trust in God. I am naturally rather empathetic, and tend to look at people in difficult situations first with compassion, so my reaction to her actions was not so severe (although certainly I recognize that it was not a morally good course of action to take).

When we were discussing it, my husband launched into a lengthy discourse about Biblical figures like Joshua and the Virgin Mary, who didn’t give up, even in desperate times. When he finished talking, I tried to say that even St. Peter denied the Lord in his desperation. However, my husband did not understand me and thought instead that I was trying to give excuses for the movie character’s behavior. I did not, at any time, say that she made the right decision or say it was ok, although perhaps I was not clear in what I was saying and gave that impression. I can admit that.

I think my husband is right - strong faith in God can get someone through even the hardest of times. But not every person has rock solid faith, for any number of reasons (not to say that it shouldn’t be a goal), and I felt that desperation can mitigate some culpability. For example, if a family in a war-torn place (much like WWII Warsaw) had nothing to eat, perhaps the parents may feel they have no choice but to steal. It’s still a sin, no one is denying that, but I would think some culpability could be lessened due to extreme circumstances.

Does that make sense?

How am I, as a Catholic, supposed to look at a situation like this?

(I still didn’t want my husband’s takeaway from the movie to be that the woman who helped save 300 Jews was a terrible person. It has been a loooong time since I read the book version of The Zookeeper’s Wife, and I later read that in fact the movie version of the relationship between these two particular characters was exaggerated…you know, movie drama. So in real life, those things likely did not actually happen, at least not to such an extent.)

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Whatever your husband has been through in his life, he will never be a woman whose beloved husband has just been hauled off to some unknown prison/fate by Nazis, so he is not really in a position to judge.

It’s likely that the idea of a married woman offering herself to a man not her husband, especially an evil Nazi, was just too much for his sensibilities, and his logic and reasonableness flew out the window in the face of an emotional reaction. There are people who have a very hard time dealing with the idea of any sort of “cheating” or “sleeping with the enemy”, even to save a life, even in the abstract in a movie. The emotional response to it is precisely why scenes like this get put in movies. If he is normally a reasonable and kind man to you, and you two are being faithful spouses to each other, then I wouldn’t worry too much about it.

As you noted, this incident was likely fictionalized and maybe even completely made up out of whole cloth in order to inject some sexual tension into the story, although it’s probable that there were some women somewhere who slept with Nazis or did whatever else they had to do to survive and/or save others. Again, we do not know what we will do unless and until we are placed in the situation. Unless this Zookeepers’ Wife woman is your close relative or friend, I don’t think it’s that important what your husband thinks of her. I’m sure she’s not laying awake nights worrying about his opinion, and you shouldn’t either.

 

[jcrichton]

The other day, my husband and I decided we were going to watch a movie. I chose “The Zookeeper’s Wife” because we had wanted to see it when it was in the theater but didn’t, and I had read the book many years ago and liked it.

[SPOILER - not major plot point, but analysis of character’s choice]

We finished the movie and both liked it, although I think I more than him… He asks what he will get in return, and, knowing what he wants, begins to unbutton her clothing to offer herself. He attacks her, but ultimately does not “take” her when he sees that she is repulsed by him.

My husband was frustrated with the woman, asking why she would go so far as to do something so terrible. I tried to say that in times of desperation, people sometimes feel that they have to do things they normally wouldn’t do, break (moral and civil) laws, even. His point of view was that even in the worst of times, someone with strong faith in God would not do things like that. My husband has been through some very difficult times and did not waver, so I could see where he was coming from. My husband has incredible faith and trust in God. I am naturally rather empathetic, and tend to look at people in difficult situations first with compassion, so my reaction to her actions was not so severe (although certainly I recognize that it was not a morally good course of action to take).

When we were discussing it, my husband launched into a lengthy discourse about Biblical figures like Joshua and the Virgin Mary, who didn’t give up, even in desperate times. When he finished talking, I tried to say that even St. Peter denied the Lord in his desperation. However, my husband did not understand me and thought instead that I was trying to give excuses for the movie character’s behavior. I did not, at any time, say that she made the right decision or say it was ok, although perhaps I was not clear in what I was saying and gave that impression. I can admit that.

I think my husband is right - strong faith in God can get someone through even the hardest of times. But not every person has rock solid faith, for any number of reasons (not to say that it shouldn’t be a goal), and I felt that desperation can mitigate some culpability. For example, if a family in a war-torn place (much like WWII Warsaw) had nothing to eat, perhaps the parents may feel they have no choice but to steal. It’s still a sin, no one is denying that, but I would think some culpability could be lessened due to extreme circumstances.

Does that make sense?

How am I, as a Catholic, supposed to look at a situation like this?

(I still didn’t want my husband’s takeaway from the movie to be that the woman who helped save 300 Jews was a terrible person. It has been a loooong time since I read the book version of The Zookeeper’s Wife, and I later read that in fact the movie version of the relationship between these two particular characters was exaggerated…you know, movie drama. So in real life, those things likely did not actually happen, at least not to such an extent.)

Hi, Sarah!

Sadly, too many times Catholics are reaching for “justice” and “charity” while they are actually espousing the means justifies the ends.

Hollowood’s sexualizing and dramatizing means almost the same–just look at the commercials. Yet, extreme circumstances require extreme measure… which in Christ’s lingo means to Stand.

Here why the movie lies; the woman’s offering of her body could be an excellent capital exchange if the man would have been honorable; this means that he would give her the correct exchange (tit for tat). But wait. If the man is truly honorable how could he take advantage of the woman?

Here’s how wrong that naïve self-offering could have gone: man takes advantage of the woman; gives her nothing in return; determines that he can continue to do so whenever he wants; the woman is forced to cohabitation or suffer the consequences of denying the man; then there’s the causality of life, since she opened the door, what if he mouths off to his comrades and some of them decided to cut themselves in on the “action?”… some might bring her stuff in exchange and whether she would accept or not they will take “theirs.” Finally, the woman could receive help and by the time she gets to her husband or vice versa, she is long overdue–husband calculates time and determines not being the father of her pregnancy (do you think that the man would love his wife the more for her efforts in getting to him though she would have given herself to his oppressor? …and the child, would he love the Nazi’s child?).

…this brings us back to Jesus. It is when we are in the most difficult situations that our Faith is tested.

As for your husband; an error in judgment or a moment of weakness does not make a person evil or bad; Jesus forge sin; He Commanded that we ‘go and sin no more.’

So the character in the movie failed when she offered herself (yes, even out of desperation), but she did not continue in the erroneous path nor did she market herself for profit or commodity; the fact that she put her life in peril by rescuing others seems to demonstrate that she understood where her allegiance should remain.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Whatever your husband has been through in his life, he will never be a woman whose beloved husband has just been hauled off to some unknown prison/fate by Nazis, so he is not really in a position to judge.

It’s likely that the idea of a married woman offering herself to a man not her husband, especially an evil Nazi, was just too much for his sensibilities, and his logic and reasonableness flew out the window in the face of an emotional reaction. There are people who have a very hard time dealing with the idea of any sort of “cheating” or “sleeping with the enemy”, even to save a life, even in the abstract in a movie. The emotional response to it is precisely why scenes like this get put in movies. If he is normally a reasonable and kind man to you, and you two are being faithful spouses to each other, then I wouldn’t worry too much about it.

As you noted, this incident was likely fictionalized and maybe even completely made up out of whole cloth in order to inject some sexual tension into the story, although it’s probable that there were some women somewhere who slept with Nazis or did whatever else they had to do to survive and/or save others. Again, we do not know what we will do unless and until we are placed in the situation. Unless this Zookeepers’ Wife woman is your close relative or friend, I don’t think it’s that important what your husband thinks of her. I’m sure she’s not laying awake nights worrying about his opinion, and you shouldn’t either.

Hi!

I think it goes to a greater situation… the flexibility that “Christians” continue to display and embrace is not lost; what people do or do not in critical times is only a reflection of who they are.

Some time last year a young Christian woman (possibly early teen) was burned to death by Muslims who stormed her home; her mom pleaded with them to allow her daughter to get dressed, as she was taking a shower when they broke into their home; they refused and burned down the place with the child inside.

In her death bed this young Christian told her mom that she had forgiven them (those who committed that heinous and treacherous act–my explicative) and she asked her mom to forgive them also.

Could running naked out of the shower have saved her life? Could these “men” have used that as an excuse to sexually assault her (‘she knew we were there and she came running naked towards us’–a likely excuse for those who predicate on their word being “truth” and Christians’ word being false)?

Did the child equate self-respect with human dignity and human dignity with Respect for God? Exposing herself to these “men” could have been equated to sin and she preferred to Stand for Christ rather than to live for man or she may have feared that being exposed would to these “men” would be taken as a sign of accepting their treatment, regardless of how offensive they would be?

This is the choice we have to face. Do we Stand for Christ or make excuses for our choices?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[e_c]

The other day, my husband and I decided we were going to watch a movie. I chose “The Zookeeper’s Wife” because we had wanted to see it when it was in the theater but didn’t, and I had read the book many years ago and liked it.

[SPOILER - not major plot point, but analysis of character’s choice]

We finished the movie and both liked it, although I think I more than him. There was a moment in the movie where one of the characters goes to a Nazi officer (who had previously been trying to make a move on her) desperately asking for information about where her husband had been taken. He asks what he will get in return, and, knowing what he wants, begins to unbutton her clothing to offer herself. He attacks her, but ultimately does not “take” her when he sees that she is repulsed by him.

My husband was frustrated with the woman, asking why she would go so far as to do something so terrible. I tried to say that in times of desperation, people sometimes feel that they have to do things they normally wouldn’t do, break (moral and civil) laws, even. His point of view was that even in the worst of times, someone with strong faith in God would not do things like that. My husband has been through some very difficult times and did not waver, so I could see where he was coming from. My husband has incredible faith and trust in God. I am naturally rather empathetic, and tend to look at people in difficult situations first with compassion, so my reaction to her actions was not so severe (although certainly I recognize that it was not a morally good course of action to take).

When we were discussing it, my husband launched into a lengthy discourse about Biblical figures like Joshua and the Virgin Mary, who didn’t give up, even in desperate times. When he finished talking, I tried to say that even St. Peter denied the Lord in his desperation. However, my husband did not understand me and thought instead that I was trying to give excuses for the movie character’s behavior. I did not, at any time, say that she made the right decision or say it was ok, although perhaps I was not clear in what I was saying and gave that impression. I can admit that.

I think my husband is right - strong faith in God can get someone through even the hardest of times. But not every person has rock solid faith, for any number of reasons (not to say that it shouldn’t be a goal), and I felt that desperation can mitigate some culpability. For example, if a family in a war-torn place (much like WWII Warsaw) had nothing to eat, perhaps the parents may feel they have no choice but to steal. It’s still a sin, no one is denying that, but I would think some culpability could be lessened due to extreme circumstances.

Does that make sense?

How am I, as a Catholic, supposed to look at a situation like this?

(I still didn’t want my husband’s takeaway from the movie to be that the woman who helped save 300 Jews was a terrible person. It has been a loooong time since I read the book version of The Zookeeper’s Wife, and I later read that in fact the movie version of the relationship between these two particular characters was exaggerated…you know, movie drama. So in real life, those things likely did not actually happen, at least not to such an extent.)

I am reminded of that scene in Forrest Gump, where something similar is done. “Your mama sure does care about your education…”

Fear or distress or pain can certainly mitigate culpability, and sometimes, if one is truly unable even to think, render the act altogether reflexive and “non-moral,” so to speak. But no, good ends do not justify “any means,” even if the good is very great and the means are only mildly sinful. A hard teaching, but a true one.

Desperation for property that is, according to civil law, another’s, actually renders that item one’s own. You might do some reading on the principle of the “universal destination of goods.” Private ownership only extends so far… If I need a ladder to save a person from a burning building, couldn’t I smash the hardware store window and take a ladder if that is the quickest (or only) way to achieve this? Yes.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

This is the choice we have to face. Do we Stand for Christ or make excuses for our choices?

It is a wonderful, heroic thing when someone takes a stand for Christ, perhaps even becoming a martyr for Christ. I am not knocking it in the least. It is behavior to which we all should aspire.

However, it is also well established in Church teaching that the mental stress of an extreme situation affects people’s choices in the moment, and God understands that as being a mitigating factor that may lessen the sin or even, in some cases, remove the incident entirely from being a sin. That doesn’t mean we rationally choose to do something saying God would just let it go anyway because of pressure - it means that when we are being subjected to some extreme physical or emotional stress, we may be past the point of making a rational decision at all.

I am reminded of those who have expressed concerns with Maria Goretti being held up as an example to rape victims because Maria was killed, and that makes those victims who, fearing for their lives under pressure, gave in and somehow survived feel guilty and bad about making a “wrong” choice in a situation where they were basically powerless. In your example of the girl in the shower, who’s to say whether the girl hid to uphold the will of God that men not see her naked and rape her, vs. maybe just being absolutely too scared to move from the spot? And does it matter to God in that situation? I doubt it very much.

Sure, it’s better when we can 100% do the upright, God-fearing thing. But then, why did Jesus make Peter, who under pressure denied the Lord three times, the head of His church? Why did he not choose John, who followed along even to the foot of the Cross? I recently heard a very good program discussing this on WAOB (We Are One Body) radio, and the bishop or whoever was doing the discussion said that John truly loved Jesus and was a great theologian, but the average person is not a theologian and is not going to react on that level. Jesus chose Peter as the rock on which He built His church, because Peter was the most like an ordinary person. A bit of a bumbler. Peter and humanity could relate to each other.

Anyway, good discussion I guess, though like most of these moral reasoning cases involving Nazis or jihadists at the door, I don’t think there’s any one right answer. Two people could react in totally different ways and still be greeting each other in heaven.

 

[PluniaZ]

Talk to your priest. Anonymous people in the internet shouldn’t be giving out pastoral advice.

 

[joeybaggz]

Does that make sense?

How am I, as a Catholic, supposed to look at a situation like this?

Question like yours are raised all the time. The church’s position is that one cannot do wrong or commit evil for a good purpose.

Nice philosophy spouted from a warm office or living room with a glass of brandy or a cup of coffee in hand and no wolf at the door.

Ask yourself some questions. Did the people who lied to the Nazis when they hid Jewish neighbors commit evil to do good. Is killing in self defense an evil done to realize a good?
An old question - If you could go back in time and kill Hitler as a child, would that be a great evil, even though it realized a great good. Same goes for Stalin and his ilk?
the bottom line is your actions are between yourself and your God. You will answer for your actions. I think Jesus is merciful to those in terrible and desperate situations. But then again, that is only my opinion.

The suggestion to talk to a priest is a good one here. Your question goes on and on in ethics and morality debates and instructional venues all the time.

Shalom

 

[starlady88]

Whatever your husband has been through in his life, he will never be a woman whose beloved husband has just been hauled off to some unknown prison/fate by Nazis, so he is not really in a position to judge.

It’s likely that the idea of a married woman offering herself to a man not her husband, especially an evil Nazi, was just too much for his sensibilities, and his logic and reasonableness flew out the window in the face of an emotional reaction. There are people who have a very hard time dealing with the idea of any sort of “cheating” or “sleeping with the enemy”, even to save a life, even in the abstract in a movie. The emotional response to it is precisely why scenes like this get put in movies. **If he is normally a reasonable and kind man to you, and you two are being faithful spouses to each other, then I wouldn’t worry too much about it. **

As you noted, this incident was likely fictionalized and maybe even completely made up out of whole cloth in order to inject some sexual tension into the story, although it’s probable that there were some women somewhere who slept with Nazis or did whatever else they had to do to survive and/or save others. Again, we do not know what we will do unless and until we are placed in the situation. Unless this Zookeepers’ Wife woman is your close relative or friend, I don’t think it’s that important what your husband thinks of her. I’m sure she’s not laying awake nights worrying about his opinion, and you shouldn’t either.

He is. I appreciate your response.

I am reminded of that scene in Forrest Gump, where something similar is done. “Your mama sure does care about your education…”

Fear or distress or pain can certainly mitigate culpability, and sometimes, if one is truly unable even to think, render the act altogether reflexive and “non-moral,” so to speak. But no, good ends do not justify “any means,” even if the good is very great and the means are only mildly sinful. A hard teaching, but a true one.

Desperation for property that is, according to civil law, another’s, actually renders that item one’s own. You might do some reading on the principle of the “universal destination of goods.” Private ownership only extends so far… If I need a ladder to save a person from a burning building, couldn’t I smash the hardware store window and take a ladder if that is the quickest (or only) way to achieve this? Yes.

Thank you! I know the ends do not justify the means, but I had thought some culpability could be lessened due to certain extenuating circumstances.

Talk to your priest. Anonymous people in the internet shouldn’t be giving out pastoral advice.

Thanks. I wasn’t really looking for pastoral advice. It was more like a moral issue that arose out of discussion with my husband, and I wanted to know what the Church said.

Thank you to all who have responded so far!

 

[Rau]

…I know the ends do not justify the means, but I had thought some culpability could be lessened due to certain extenuating circumstances.

Yes, I believe it can. You see the difficulty though when a person applies that idea to judging the wisdom (/morality) of a course of action!

 

[jcrichton]

It is a wonderful, heroic thing when someone takes a stand for Christ, perhaps even becoming a martyr for Christ. I am not knocking it in the least. It is behavior to which we all should aspire.

However, it is also well established in Church teaching that the mental stress of an extreme situation affects people’s choices in the moment, and God understands that as being a mitigating factor that may lessen the sin or even, in some cases, remove the incident entirely from being a sin. That doesn’t mean we rationally choose to do something saying God would just let it go anyway because of pressure - it means that when we are being subjected to some extreme physical or emotional stress, we may be past the point of making a rational decision at all.

I am reminded of those who have expressed concerns with Maria Goretti being held up as an example to rape victims because Maria was killed, and that makes those victims who, fearing for their lives under pressure, gave in and somehow survived feel guilty and bad about making a “wrong” choice in a situation where they were basically powerless. In your example of the girl in the shower, who’s to say whether the girl hid to uphold the will of God that men not see her naked and rape her, vs. maybe just being absolutely too scared to move from the spot? And does it matter to God in that situation? I doubt it very much.

Sure, it’s better when we can 100% do the upright, God-fearing thing. But then, why did Jesus make Peter, who under pressure denied the Lord three times, the head of His church? Why did he not choose John, who followed along even to the foot of the Cross? I recently heard a very good program discussing this on WAOB (We Are One Body) radio, and the bishop or whoever was doing the discussion said that John truly loved Jesus and was a great theologian, but the average person is not a theologian and is not going to react on that level. Jesus chose Peter as the rock on which He built His church, because Peter was the most like an ordinary person. A bit of a bumbler. Peter and humanity could relate to each other.

Anyway, good discussion I guess, though like most of these moral reasoning cases involving Nazis or jihadists at the door, I don’t think there’s any one right answer. Two people could react in totally different ways and still be greeting each other in heaven.

Hi!

I concur with you that each individual Believer will act according to his/her conscience during any particular situation… and while there’s truth and benevolence in the Church’s attention to the issue of diminished capacity… what I am arguing is the fact that both Believers and non-Believers continue to embrace the easy path as their first and only “choice.”

There were some old public announcements about how to act during a fire; people were trained to take the safety steps which would be conductive to a greater possibility of surviving a fire… we would hear in the news about families that got out alive through concentrated efforts… time passed and we hear in the news how children and the elderly are usually left to fend for themselves (the excuse almost always being that ‘thought they got out’); the culture turned from the family to the “me.”

This young Christian that I spoke about gave her response to Standing for Christ: she Confessed with her mouth that she had forgiven her attackers and she pleaded with her mom to do the same.

This is the difference between being consumed by desperation or any other stimuli; I do not know what I would do in such a situation… but I can assure you that the more we practice holding to “self” the less we will be able to Stand for Christ.

Jesus mentioned something to the Twelve (and those within earshot): ‘for those for whom it has been reserved.’ God has made Choices… our weakness does not cancel God’s Plan.

As for St. John, he was not so heroic as people want him to seem… when we read Scriptures he tells us that he was familiar to the high priest; it is doubtful that a person that has gain some level of trust from a household (agency, government) would be held as suspect in many situations… that is why those who sell out a nation or a loved one are able to do so–it is not expected that the familiar would turn; John was privileged so he was able to come and go as he pleased without raising an eyebrow; Cephas, on the other hand, stood out as a sore thumb! …and while his culpability is mitigated by the fear of imprisonment, torture and death… his first act was not to keep running… he mustered up enough courage to follow His Lord.

The lady in the movie was not facing death… she simply thought of a way to avail herself of information… which, given the situation, would most than likely open up a deluge of further compromises to which she would have to acquiesce.

We are buffeted by hollowood’s spirituality and sense of honor and morality: a girl sharing an apartment with a bunch of guys or showering with a bunch of guys or traveling with a bunch of guys… and all the time the guys being the most respectful and caring of men… that same faux-reality gets us to believe that people can date (have sex) without consequences and that multiple partners are the key to finding the “soul mate,” and that sharing (sex) its ok… reality bites… and there are no crew members to keep abusers from taking advantage of situations… and some actually kill or hurt the ones they “love” when the ones they “love” want to be with someone else.

What I am suggesting is that we should not start from ‘mea culpa; the flesh is weak, and I’m the weakest of all.’

That mentality would only bring us to “excuses” and compensations–'God understands."

Maran atha!

Angel