Did the nuns in 'Sound of Music' really sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nobody
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SianTeresa said:
whether someone can know that something is not a sin, but nevertheless judges it to be sinful in their case.

My example is that I understand from the writings of St. Louis de Montfort that not saying the Rosary every day is not even a venial sin. But in my case I consider it a sin if have failed to do so, because it represents spiritual indifference. It might not be so for another person who omits to do so for another reason. Please elucidate me!
Click to expand...
Hi SianTeresa,

I didn’t consider your scenario (which is an interesting one by the way) because the original parameters of the question were whether a person sins who does something they regarded as sinful, irrespective of the actual nature of the act. In your example, on the other hand, you are touching upon the actual moral nature of the act itself.

Why? The determinants of the morality of an act are the moral object, the intent (or motive), and the circumstances (or everything else). Your scenario either involves the motive, or the circumstances – and therefore involves the actual moral nature of the act itself.

If we were to analyze it, we would say that the moral object – omission of saying the rosary everyday – is morally neutral (assuming no affirmative duty to say the rosary, such as a rule in a religious order, etc). If an act is morally neutral it takes its moral nature from the intention and the circumstances.** If**, in your case, the circumstances are such that omission of praying the rosary is tantamount to spiritual indifference or sloth, then perhaps it could take on the character of sinfulness (only venially sinful, I would imagine).

In any event, you can see how it is the circumstances (or intent) that would give the omission of praying a certain prayer its moral character. . . and so it isn’t the case of being formally sinful regardless of it being materially sinful (as my two above examples of mistakes), but rather the case of either being materially sinful or not.

Make sense? What do you think?

Let me be clear, though, that I am not expressing any opinion regarding the actual sinfulness or lack thereof of your scenario.

VC
 
nobody said:
I explained that what they did was okay because they were saving the family’s lives.
Click to expand...
Not touching on the issue of whether or not the actions of the nuns was a sin, this line of thought is incorrect. While it MAY be the case that the nuns didn’t sin, it would not be the case that this is because they were saving someone’s lives.

If an act morally evil then it is always morally evil, regardless of the consequences. If an act is morally neutral or morally good, then it MAY be a sin because of the intent / foreseeable consequences.

An act does not cease to be a sin because it leads to be a moral good - if it was morally evil in the first place, it remains so.

An extreme example would be abortion; this is a moral evil and does not cease to be a sin because lives are saved as a result of it. This would be an example of consequentialism, or “The end justifies the means”.

For the most modern discussion of this moral topic, please watch “The Dark Knight.” 🙂
 
nobody said:
First off, I know this is a classic and it seems silly to say “spoiler alert”, but I’d rather look like a doofus than actually spoil this movie for someone that hasn’t seen it yet.

So…

End of the movie, when the nuns say, “Mother, we have sinned”, showing that they sabbotaged the nazi’s cars: was it a sin? I was watching it with my 8 year old, and she asked, “did they sin?” I explained that what they did was okay because they were saving the family’s lives. My husband said it was a joke, that they were not sinning at all. What do you think? How would you explain it to a child?
Click to expand...
I would explain to the child that it is a movie first and formost and in the movies they may take certain liberties.

That being said, It is never a sin to save someones life from a known corupt govt/entity.

Peace!
 
prodigal-sun said:
That being said, It is never a sin to save someones life from a known corupt govt/entity.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not - but it is never a sin to save a life PERIOD. What IS a sin, however, is the action taken in order to achieve that in certain circumstances.

As I said above, the end does NOT justify the means. Saving a life is not a sin, stealing IN ORDER TO save a life IS.
 
Morningkill,

I appreciate your points, and I concur that a morally bad action can never be reformed either by intent or circumstances, and much less the consequences of an action.

But, in fairness to the original poster(aka nobody), one can interpret his answer consistent with moral principles. He said that “What they did was ok because they were trying to save a life” not that *theft *was ok because they were trying to save a life. You are right that the latter statement is untenable, since theft is a morally evil act, and the intent or circumstances cannot reform it. But the former statement (i.e. “what they did is ok. . .” etc.) can be supported.

This is because ethics considers acts not in the physical order but rather in the moral order. Thus I have to disagree with Sure when he said that
40.png
Sure:
Removing parts from a car is neither a good act or an evil act. . . It requires more information.
Click to expand...
because that would be viewing the act in the physical order, and not the moral. What would otherwise be merely circumstances or “more information” regarding a physical act can actually be determinative of what the act is in the moral order. The first determinant of morality is the *moral object *not the physical act. I don’t want to belabor the point, but some examples of physical/moral order differences would be speaking/lying, killing/murder, taking/theft, punching/assault, etc.

Notice that the physical act of taking something isn’t the (im)moral act of theft. Theft requires certain elements, traditionally four:

  1. *]The taking
    *]of another’s property
    *]from an unwilling owner
    ]whose unwillingness is reasonable.
    If we omit any of these the moral object isn’t theft. For instance if I take property with permission although I have 1)taken 2)another’s property, he was willing to let me have it so I haven’t committed theft, I’ve borrowed. Another example, closer to the spirit of this thread: If the state 1)takes 2)another’s property from 3)an unwilling owner but 4)the unwillingness is not reasonable    , ***the state hasn’t committed theft, but has exercised its eminent domain to build a highway (although the taking requires just compensation).

    In my opinion, the moral analysis of the nun’s (hypothetical) actions turns upon the fourth element of theft – whether or not the car owners’ unwillingness to part with their distributor caps was reasonable.

    To see if this is so we would look to natural law, and examine the right to own property. The right to own property is a secondary precept of the natural law which takes its force from the right to life, a primary precept. The (condensed) argument would run something like this:

    1. *] A primary precept of the natural law is the right to life, and not just any life but a life fitting a human being (which takes into account man’s end and his natural abilities by which he can obtain his end).
      *] The (exclusive) use of material goods is necessary to maintain man’s right to life and to develop a fitting life.
      *] Therefore the natural law gives the right to own property.
      **This **right to own property, we can see from the above argument, is a *connatural *right (i.e. from birth). But one may also have an acquired right to material goods – acquired through work, or through purchase, or through transfer of title.

      Whenever there is a conflict of rights the stronger right extinguishes the weaker right, thus the connnatural right to property (used to maintain life) extinguishes the acquired right to property, when one’s life (and by extension another’s life) is in jeopardy.

      Of course, this would only hold when there is need, and other options are not practicable. But, for instance, I may trespass on another’s land to avoid being hit by a car. Or I may drink from another’s well to stave of dying of thirst. You get the idea. The argument is valid when the need is less extreme, i.e not directly involving one’s right to life but rather other rights such as freedom, as long as the taking is proportionate. Thus if I am falsely imprisoned I may may deprive my captor of his keys, and then his car, to escape.

      In all of the above cases, the moral object isn’t theft because the owner’s (presumed or actual) unwillingness to part with his property is unreasonable.

      In the nun’s case, I would argue that since the Nazi soldiers were attempting to unjustly forcibly conscript Herr Von Trapp into an (arguably from the movie’s standpoint) enemy army, the nuns could, in defense of his freedom and the wellbeing of his family, temporarily take the car parts – and the soldiers would be unreasonable in insisting on their acquired right to the property. :nun1::nun2::nun2::nun2:

      So, although I disagreed with part of Sure’s post, I substantially agree with his main point:
      40.png
      Sure:
      it is not stealing
      Click to expand...
      .
      Thoughts? Was I long-winded enough for you? 😊
      VC
 
I hope the topic has come around to the von Trapp family in general, enough to where I can post a link to:

ewtn.com/library/FAMILY/TRAPP.TXT

Which is a book, written by Maria von Trapp, detailing the Catholic traditions practiced by her family after they moved to America. It’s free on EWTN, and a veritable treasure trove of Catholic traditions.

It’s so little known that I have to plug it with the flimsiest of excuses! 😃
 
pnewton said:
The best answer was the first. It was only a joke. Heck, one is even allowed to take a life to protect an innocent from an unjust aggresor, so obviously taking a distibutor cap was a less lethal alternative. I think the good nuns had a handle on moral theology and a sense of humor. You noticed their Mother Superior did not order its return.

BTW - This is one of my favorite movies.
Click to expand...
To use my favorite Catholic theological term…BINGO! 😃
 
Read Joshua chapter 2.

“By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace (Heb. 11:31).”

Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? (James 2:25).
 
I’m a bit late to the party on this (by a few years), but I’d like to add what the nuns did in that scene would actually have been very consistent for the times.

The distributor cap, rotor and spark plug wires on vintage cars are in plain sight, easily accessible and easily removed with only a screwdriver needed to unbolt the distributor.

Once removed, the starter could engage with current from the coil, but the engine cannot turn over without the spark plug wires.

Motoring was still and adventure in the late 30’s-early 40’s, and many people had basic common knowledge of how a car’s engine worked in case of breakdowns. These nuns at the real Nonnberg convent probably had their own car for the abbey, and one, if not several, knew how to fix it.

On the question of the actual removal of the components as a sin, it probably wasn’t. The keeping of the components inside and away from the SS drivers could technically have been considered “sinful”…
 
Not sure if this has already been said, but church doctrine permits one to defend oneself, therefore the actions of the nuns were not sinful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top