D
davidv
Guest
Why would I be suggesting that? I thought we a addressing a specific scenario.
- Status
M
mpartyka
Guest
Well, all you said was that I was assuming wrongly that the scenario was no-win for the Jew in hiding without some sort of sin on the part of the Catholic hiding him, but you didn’t say what the moral “out” would be in that case, so I supposed you were suggesting that such a moral “out” would exist no matter what.
K
kelner
Guest
You seriously believe that these guys went through all the trouble of setting up a sham trial, just because Jesus argued that a single specific exception should be made in the law concerning Sabbath? That’s a little too much, don’t you think?
Irrelevant. The quote falsifies your notion that you are never responsible for other souls.
There are two problems with your reasoning.
The first one is that people, in general, tend to sin less as they are older, because they are gradually losing both the means and opportunities to sin. Sexual sins are an excellent example of this. Hence, your argument has no connection to reality.
The second one is that even if someone would turn away from God if I let them live… So what? That’s not my problem any more. I let them live, so they can make their own choices. But if they die, they’re robbed of choice. I’d also say that even a theoretical possibility of someone repenting is enough to let them live.
K
kelner
Guest
Personally, I believe that almost everyone is worthy of heaven.
The example was devised to adhere to mpartyka’s theology, which unconditionally sends people to hell for the smallest deviation from CCC. Of couse, since CCC is a very complex document, practically everyone is in violation of some obscure section of CCC.
But, in such setup, mpartyka is complicit for sending all these people to Hell: he’s refusing to save them, because that would endanger his own salvation. I argue that such complicity in sending others to hell would make mpartyka himself unworthy of salvation: God does not like selfish people.
Since murderers can be forgiven…
K
kelner
Guest
Any course of action leading to a preventable death of an innocent is by definition immoral.
I posit that the above should hold true under any sensible ethical system.
I also grant that the above does not hold true in some cases under Catholic morality (e.g. therapeutic abortion).
B
Bookcat
Guest
I would say I have answered --see the above posts by myself and by the Catholic Answers Apologist Staff in the link I provided.
B
Bookcat
Guest
PS:
Remember – Grace is not necessarily given in *before *the moment needed.
And in construing a fictional story – one must remember that it is indeed fiction. There are no real persons here – the event is not taking place – we do not know what graces God would perhaps give such a person to inspire him with the right answer and right way of acting – it is all fiction. I cannot judge what possibilities are open to the person or know what graces God will give them-- in the hic et nunc. We cannot know what such would be in real life.
That being said – to take such into the theatre – I will take to writing the next act of the play and say – God will give that very holy person –just the right words to send the Nazi’s packing and keep his conscience from even the slightest sin – just as he is giving that very holy person the very special grace to avoid every other venial sin…
M
mpartyka
Guest
Which trial are you talking about? He had plenty of charges levied against Him at his final trial, though the only one they made “stick” was blasphemy for saying He was the Son of God.
True, but the responsibility you have is to not sin so that you don’t cause scandal. You can’t cause scandal by not sinning, unless perhaps you indulge in something permissible that wounds the conscience of another (i.e., eating meat around a vegetarian), but refraining from something permissible is not at all the same as choosing to sin.
On the other hand, people generally tend to lose faith as they are older as they acquire more education and money. And considering how many couples stray from their marital vows, or divorce and go on to have sex apart from marriage (not to mention the fact that Catholic couples use artificial birth control at the same rate as the general public), I fail to see how your argument has any connection to reality.
If it’s not your problem whether someone eventually turns away from God someday, it’s also not your problem whether someone is apart from God today. Your job is to avoid sin yourself and trust that if people die on account of your abstaining from sin, that God will judge them justly.
M
mpartyka
Guest
Well, that’s because you’re not a Christian and aren’t playing by the same scoring system God is.
I never said that committing a venial sin in the case of the Nazi and the Jew would send a Catholic to Hell. I said that even venial sin is supposed to be avoided whenever possible, which means that the more righteous and morally & spiritually developed a Catholic is, the more likely the Catholic will choose the path of not sinning, which in that situation would result in the Jew being given up.
You do realize we’re talking about the same God who said, “What does it profit a man if he should gain the whole world” (including the lives of his fellow man, and their gratitude) “but lose his own soul?”
Besides, aren’t you making the assumption that God doesn’t want those 500K people to die? He allowed 200K people to die in a senseless tsunami that no one could prevent. Perhaps He would similarly want those 500K people to die in that situation that cannot be prevented without your choosing to sin.
Then I may as well go and murder someone if I feel like it, knowing that I can be forgiven!
As I said, that’s because your ethical system puts the preservation of lives above the preservation of souls.
M
mpartyka
Guest
And suppose God does not?
B
Bookcat
Guest
The act of the fictional play is* already* written and God did give the grace and the person in question is now doing his lectio divina and will soon be making a little supper to bring to his friend in hiding and then will retire for the evening after more prayer (during which he will thank God again for the grace of knowing what to say)
K
kelner
Guest
Your interpolation of the source text is unfounded. Here is your quote in the context:
34And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.35“For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it.36“For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?37“For what will a man give in exchange for his soul?
You incorrectly assume that I’d perform a sinful act (i.e. lie to save the Jew, or kill the terrorist to save the city dwellers) because I value their lifes or their gratitude. This is not so. Their lives are not valuable for me. Their lives are valuable in themselves, and that’s why they shouldn’t be destroyed. The action on my part is thus completely altruistic. Further, the action is also completely selfless: I would perform the act knowing that I will pay for it, while those saved will reap the rewards.
If you actually read the Gospels you’d notice that there is a consitent pattern – Jesus condemns deeds done for selfish purposes and praises things done purely for the benefit of others.
Your assertion that a spiritually developed Catholic should refuse to lie to save a Jew is completely ridiculous. Your spiritually developed individual is not acting selflessly for the benefit of the Jew, he’s acting for the benefit of himself (after death). Your spiritually developed individual is therefore selfish. Selfishness is the opposite of spiritual development; it could be argued, that the whole point of spiritual development is to get rid of selfishness.
Kohlberg’s theory lists six stages of moral development… Your spiritually developed Catholic has regressed from stage 5 (Jew’s right to life overrides Nazi’s right to truth) to stage 1 (fear of eternal punishment for lying). Progress and development, indeed!
God’s omnipotent, right? If he wants to kill them, he can cause a tsunami. Or earthquake. Or asteroid impact. Why use intermediares? Further, if God indeed wanted the terrorist to succeed, then why would he let me find the terrorist in the first place? Delaying me until it’s too late would be effective and not much trouble…
Reading CCC to discover God’s scoring system makes as much sense as reading the California criminal code to discover the Bill of Rights.
In fact, the whole notion of God having a scoring system is wrong
See, that’s your problem in a nutshell.
If you read the Bill of Rights, you’d know that killing people is wrong, because they have a right to life.
But since you are still reading the California criminal code, you believe the only reason not to kill people is the death penalty.
Lives are tangible, souls are theoretical.
M
mpartyka
Guest
Fine, dodge away. But it saddens me that you cannot bring yourself to contemplate a case in which in order for one person to avoid sinning, another person has to die. We already know such cases exist. Why do you refuse to deal with the possibility that this fictional scenario could be another such case?
B
Bookcat
Guest
I HAVE. Tis not a dodge --I have discussed them at length.
S
St_Redemption
Guest
First, that statistic is insanely innaccurate; at least the reversal part which suggests that 90 percent of casualties are civilian. I can assure you that that is nowhere near to being accurate. One example, it is estimated that 50,000 Iraqi soldiers died in the first Gulf war. If that were 10 percent of the casualty count, then the civilian death rate would have been 450,000!!! 450,000?? Not quite. The number is closer to 1,400
Second, you are not willfuly sinning by engaging in a just war to protect other people. You are simply doing what one ought to do. If others die during the war it is the vault of the aggressor, the one whom started the war, not the fault of the man who is performing a just action in defending people against these actions.
M
mpartyka
Guest
But what you are arguing here is that sometimes sin (whether mortal or venial, I actually don’t know if you’re making a distinction) is justified. But that’s not the Catholic position, if I’m understanding the Catholic position correctly. The Catholic position is that you should never, ever sin if you can help it. And what I’m arguing is that the more you can help it, the more likely it is that in a situation where the choice is between your sin and someone else’s death, the likelihood of the other person’s death increases, and there’s no guarantee that God is going to step in and miraculously provide either you or the other person with a way out.
Remember what Jesus said the greatest commandment is? “You shall love the Lord your God with all your mind, heart, soul, and strength. This is the first and greatest commandment.” The command to “love your neighbor as yourself” comes after that. Which means if you are given a choice between offending God (e.g., by deliberately sinning) or offending your neighbor (e.g., by unavoidably causing his/her death via your abstaining from sin), you are to offend your neighbor rather than God.
Like I said before, God always, according to the Bible, provides a way in every situation to avoid sinning. No one is ever required by God to sin. But that’s not to say that the reward of avoiding sin with be the saving of your life, or the lives of others. The “reward” may actually involved the forfeiture of your life, or the lives of others. But though you may lose your life, you will gain your soul. (And if those who are to lose their lives on your account should repent of their sins and be saved, well and good, but if they should persist in their sins and be damned, God is just.)
I’m sorry, but who is Kohlberg and why should I even begin to care what he thinks?
That’s kind of like saying, “God’s omnipotent, right? If he wants to heal people, he can just heal them. Why use doctors?” God works through human beings, usings both their obedience and their sins ultimately to His glory. Our sole responsibility as human beings is to be obedient, even if that obedience results in things we would naturally seek to avoid (e.g., the death of ourselves and others). Because God has promised resurrection from the dead, death is just a stepping stone into eternal bliss for Christians. So if God calls us to die, we should not sin to avoid death, because that’s contrary to the whole end of our existence, which is to be united with God after death. And if our refusal to sin costs others their lives, even the lives of those who will be damned to eternity after their deaths, we have to accept that God is just, and therefore these people’s damnation is just.
But if you read the Bible, you’d know that sometimes killing people is necessary to protect the souls of others who would otherwise follow those people into Hell. Saving souls is far more important, from a theocratic perspective, than saving lives. (A theocracy puts eternal life before life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, thereby justifying the use of capital punishment to protect the souls of its citizens.)
If souls do not exist, then there is no life after death about which to be concerned. Therefore, the only reason not to murder someone is the threat of negative consequences (e.g., execution, imprisonment, guilt feelings) for doing so. But if you can get away with it, and you can live with yourself having done it, there’s no real reason not to murder or likewise commit any other sin of any kind that benefits you in some way – no one’s going to judge you for it, as you have no soul to be judged.
M
mpartyka
Guest
I do not recall your addressing the scenario in which the Catholic realizes that he cannot lie to the Nazi and therefore either tells the truth or remains silent, thus giving up the Jew. I think I would remember your telling me whether or not that was the right thing to do.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Christians realize the cannot do all sorts of things that are venially sinful – and in their weakness they still do them.
Realizing does not mean that “ergo” (therefore) they will tell the truth (something they cannot do for even greater reasons!) etc
That being said:
Remember – Grace is not necessarily given before the moment needed.
And in construing a fictional story – one must remember that it is indeed fiction. There are no real persons here – the event is not taking place – we do not know what graces God would perhaps give such a person to inspire him with the right answer and right way of acting – it is all fiction.
I cannot judge what possibilities are open to the person or know what graces God will give them-- in the hic et nunc (here and now). We cannot know what such would be in real life.
Not being in the event ourselves --we simply cannot know what is available --what means --of what stuff the person is made --of his wisdom --what grace God may give…we are not in the hic et nunc --we are not him.
That being said – to take such into the theatre – I will take to writing the next act of the play and say – God will give that very holy person --just the right words to send the Nazi’s packing and keep his conscience from even the slightest sin – just as he is giving that very holy person the very special grace to avoid every other venial sin…
One who has been given the “special grace” not to commit any venial sins by God (not the normal Christian) -well they have that “special grace not to commit any venial sins” so they will know how to avoid sin here.
As to the rest of Christians --they to by ordinary grace and prudence find the right way find the good way.
2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.
It can be said that one can use certain licit “mental reservations” catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=32244…or “discreet language”.
Now lets say one is in the very serious event of the Nazi at the door… and one can not find those discreet words…and others lives are at stake …and one thus ends up lying. What then? Well of course one should have found the other way. But in our weakness we sin …indeed we commit venial sins daily …hence they are called at times “daily sins” for which we pray daily “forgive us our trespasses”…and certainly ones culpability will likely be even further reduced by the event of the Nazi’s with the guns at your door…so ones venial sin will be reduced to an even smaller venial sin (if there is culpability at all)…which God in his knowing mercy can wipe away as one glances at the Crucifix with prayer after the Nazi’s leave…
God knows that in our seeking to live the varied virtues in our lives we will have venial sins in the process…that we being “saints” …being a new creation in Christ in the state of grace…in charity …living in Christ will still have “daily sins” to pray for. He loves us and continues to purify us with his love. (Not that such is an excuse to not seek to overcome our sins more and more in our lives …nor ought we seek or plan to lie in this case …but rather seek to find the right way)
Now all this does not make it “good” to lie. Or not a sin to lie (be it ever so slight). Nor does the ends in this circumstance “justify” the means of the lie (circumstances cannot justify -see CCC).
But so too does the intemperance that one exhibited that morning at breakfast with too many eggs or the little anger one expressed at ones spouse that afternoon. If one falls here too…it will be another venial sin. Another weakness. Even the great Saints had sins of weakness.
Christians realize the cannot do all sorts of things that are venially sinful – and in their weakness they still do them.
Something that ought not have happened. One ought to have found a good way.
But it is somewhat understandable that it may happen in such events of Nazi’s at the door… even to Christians. To saints.
And there is really no point in trying to argue too much about such…
catholic.com/quickquestions/is-lying-a-sin-if-done-to-protect-someone-from-death
M
mpartyka
Guest
You are still making the assumption that there is an “other way” – or, rather, that there will always be an “other way.”
The question being asked here is not, “What will the Christian actually do in this case?” but “What should the Christian actually do in this case?” The answer you are repeatedly giving, if I’m not mistaken, is that God will somehow, in some way, give the Christian something to say that will both preserve the Jew’s life and the Christian’s integrity. What I’m saying is that this is an altogether false expectation. God’s only guarantee to the Christian is, “No matter what the situation, no matter what the tempation, I will guarantee you that there is a way to handle that situation and/or temptation in such a way that you do not sin.”
So here we have a hypothetical situation in which we have three possible actions and two possible outcomes:
Tell the truth - Jew is given over to the Nazis.
Remain silent - Jew is given over to the Nazis.
Lie - Jew remains safely hidden.
Obviously, the third option is a sin, so that’s off the table. You might argue that telling the truth is a sin because of the cooperation with the Nazi involved – fair enough, we’ll take that off the table, too. So remaining silent is the only option left – it’s the only way the Christian can remain without sin, although the end result, though there is no conscious cooperation with the Nazi, is still that the Nazi’s purpose is fulfilled.
Now, God can do all sorts of miraculous things to protect the Jew in spite of the Christian’s having given up the Jew by remaining silent – for example, the arresting Nazis might all have brain hemorrages while escorting the Jew to the camps, and the Jew will go free, run away to another country, and live a long and happy life, which wouldn’t have happened had the Christian sinned, lied, and kept the Jew hidden.
But there’s also the possibility that God will do nothing to save the Jew, and the Jew will be taken and summarily executed. How should this possibility affect the Christian’s choice of actions? Answer: Not at all.
So what I am arguing, and please tell me if you disagree, is this: A Christian in this or any other situation should strive to the utmost not to sin, not matter how negative the potential outcomes of not sinning would be. Even if your venial sin were to save thousands or even millions of lives, the better way would be for you to not sin at all, despite the fact that your refraining from sin will in all probability result in the loss of all those lives.
- Status