Doing evil so good may come?

[oldcatholicguy]

I’ll try.

Let’s assume the following-
Mathematical definition of “absolute value” = the distance of a number from 0
Economic definition of “absolute value” = the + or - distance of a number from 1

The poster is arguing in a discussion about mathematics that the mathematical equation I1I + I-1I = 2 is false because the economic definition of “absolute value” results in the equation being -2 [0 {the distance of 1 from 1 is 0} + -2 {the +/- distance of -1 from 1 is -2} = -2]. He is trying to disprove mathematics (Catholic morality) and the mathematical equation is false by using an exterior definition (the economic definition; the non-Catholic definition) of “absolute value” (moral/immoral) instead of the interior definition (the mathematical definition; the Catholic definition).

Did that help or did it just make it “clear as mud?”

Perhaps this will work better.

I’m 69 inches tall. Would the statement “I’m 6 feet tall” be false because there are 12 inches per foot (resulting in the answer of 5ft 9in) or because there are 100 centimeters per meter? The poster I responded to is trying to argue that I’m not 6 feet tall and the inch based unit of measurement is false because there are 100 centimeters per meter.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Summed up brilliantly if I may say so!
What concerns me is that the death penalty was mentioned as being a justified killing…self defense yes, but the cold blooded legal taking of a life??? What happened to that sturdy defense of human life we hear in the abortion debate? I find it disturbing…the splitting of hairs over ‘lies’ being ‘sins’ in practically the same breath as the casual mention of the legitimacy of ending a fellow human’s life by execution!

The sturdy defense of human life is still there. The difference between abortion and the death penalty (here assuming a just application of it) is that the aborted child is guilty of no crime or transgression. The unjust application of the death penalty to an innocent prisoner is just as immoral as the abortion of an innocent child.

 

[Walcot]

I’ll try.

Let’s assume the following-
Mathematical definition of “absolute value” = the distance of a number from 0
Economic definition of “absolute value” = the + or - distance of a number from 1

The poster is arguing in a discussion about mathematics that the mathematical equation I1I + I-1I = 2 is false because the economic definition of “absolute value” results in the equation being -2 [0 {the distance of 1 from 1 is 0} + -2 {the +/- distance of -1 from 1 is -2} = -2]. He is trying to disprove mathematics (Catholic morality) and the mathematical equation is false by using an exterior definition (the economic definition; the non-Catholic definition) of “absolute value” (moral/immoral) instead of the interior definition (the mathematical definition; the Catholic definition).

Did that help or did it just make it “clear as mud?”

Haha! Mmmmm…mud it is I’m afraid, but thanks all the same!
Maybe I’ll do better in the cold light of morning…

 

[Walcot]

Perhaps this will work better.

I’m 69 inches tall. Would the statement “I’m 6 feet tall” be false because there are 12 inches per foot (resulting in the answer of 5ft 9in) or because there are 100 centimeters per meter? The poster I responded to is trying to argue that I’m not 6 feet tall and the inch based unit of measurement is false because there are 100 centimeters per meter.

Aaaaah…OK! I think this is a good way to tie ourselves up in philosophical knots…ho hum…

 

[Walcot]

The sturdy defense of human life is still there. The difference between abortion and the death penalty (here assuming a just application of it) is that the aborted child is guilty of no crime or transgression. The unjust application of the death penalty to an innocent prisoner is just as immoral as the abortion of an innocent child.

Ah, now this does not present any philosophical knots…there IS no just application of the death penalty. Why would anyone apply it unjustly? - They wouldn’t, that would be done as a mistake, which is always possible and that alone makes it unjustifiable as a punishment. There are so many other variables - why and how did it all happen? etc etc, that makes it absolutely impossible for one man to judge on another man’s LIFE. The alternatives might be difficult and costly for us to deal with as a society - however, compassion should prevail. Two wrongs don’t make a right. We have no right to play God in a court room.

 

[mpartyka]

…there IS no just application of the death penalty. Why would anyone apply it unjustly? - They wouldn’t, that would be done as a mistake, which is always possible and that alone makes it unjustifiable as a punishment…We have no right to play God in a court room.

How do you reconcile your statements with these facts?

1. The Mosaic Law prescribes the death penalty for several crimes, often on the basis of testimony from a mere two or three witnesses.
2. There is a recorded instance of the death penalty being prescribed unjustly, yet this did not warrant a change to the Law.

Granted, Jesus did say that there were certain aspects of the Mosaic Law which could be attributed to Moses rather than God – e.g., “For your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives” – but the death penalty goes all the way back to the days of Noah – “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.”

Likewise, there were times when God explicitly ordered and/or approved of the executions of people. And I cannot help but think that Paul knew the extent to which “the sword” was used under the Roman penal system when he wrote, “…rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer,” in Romans 13:4.

And, of course, it’s no secret the Catholic Church condoned the deaths of heretics during the Middle Ages.

What I have heard is that it is only because technology has made it possible to indefinitely incarcerate dangerous persons so they are no longer a threat to society that the death penalty is now judged to be immoral. But if the situation should change (e.g., civilization were to revert to a more primitive level of technology), that would no longer be the case, and the death penalty could be put on the table again.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Aaaaah…OK! I think this is a good way to tie ourselves up in philosophical knots…ho hum…

Not really. In order to disprove my claim of “I’m 6 feet tall” all one has to do is cite my statement of fact (I’m 69 inches) and the definitions of foot and inch found within the inch based measurement system. You disprove my claim by using the definitions found within the system being used. The philosophical knot only arises if you undertake an illogical and unreasoned approach to disprove the claim (in this case by trying to force metric definitions into the inch based discussion; in the case of the poster I was responding to by trying to force a non-Catholic definition of moral and immoral into a discussion on the application of Catholic morality in regards to lying).

 

[Farien]

Jesus is the Logos – and in any case – he is before and at the origin of the golden rule (I am not conceding that the positive formulation was stated prior)

It would be nice to see some evidence (I mean REAL evidence) for this claim.

I was not nor is the Catechism – discussing the “legal definition” but rather – the Theological definitions.

So the normal and the theological definitions are different. Since the examples all come from the real world, only the real definitions are acceptable. You can call “theft” to be not “theft”, or “murder” which is not a “murder”, and all you get is a shrug. Why should I waste time on talking to someone for whom “genocide” equals “love”? Who chooses definitions to suit his needs?

Good bye.

 

[Walcot]

How do you reconcile your statements with these facts?

1. The Mosaic Law prescribes the death penalty for several crimes, often on the basis of testimony from a mere two or three witnesses.
2. There is a recorded instance of the death penalty being prescribed unjustly, yet this did not warrant a change to the Law.

Granted, Jesus did say that there were certain aspects of the Mosaic Law which could be attributed to Moses rather than God – e.g., “For your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives” – but the death penalty goes all the way back to the days of Noah – “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.”

Likewise, there were times when God explicitly ordered and/or approved of the executions of people. And I cannot help but think that Paul knew the extent to which “the sword” was used under the Roman penal system when he wrote, “…rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer,” in Romans 13:4.

And, of course, it’s no secret the Catholic Church condoned the deaths of heretics during the Middle Ages.

What I have heard is that it is only because technology has made it possible to indefinitely incarcerate dangerous persons so they are no longer a threat to society that the death penalty is now judged to be immoral. But if the situation should change (e.g., civilization were to revert to a more primitive level of technology), that would no longer be the case, and the death penalty could be put on the table again.

 

[Bookcat]

It would be nice to see some evidence (I mean REAL evidence) for this claim.

So the normal and the theological definitions are different. Since the examples all come from the real world, only the real definitions are acceptable. You can call “theft” to be not “theft”, or “murder” which is not a “murder”, and all you get is a shrug. Why should I waste time on talking to someone for whom “genocide” equals “love”? Who chooses definitions to suit his needs?

Good bye.

Regarding Jesus being the Logos -the writings of Pope Benedict XVI, various other works, apologetics etc etc can be of assistance.

As to definitions – this is a Catholic Forum of Moral Theology – and yes Murder and theft have precise theological definitions. As does many things in the science.

It is not calling “theft” not to be theft --but stating what “theft” is and what it is not.

Such is not “choosing definitions to suit ones needs” --rather they are definitions that are precise theological definitions. If one goes to discuss some other science – one is to expect that the terms used there are the terms and definitions of that science.

As we bid fair -well – being it is now 2013 --I wish you much wonder and joy in this New Year!

 

[Walcot]

How do you reconcile your statements with these facts?

1. The Mosaic Law prescribes the death penalty for several crimes, often on the basis of testimony from a mere two or three witnesses.
2. There is a recorded instance of the death penalty being prescribed unjustly, yet this did not warrant a change to the Law.

Granted, Jesus did say that there were certain aspects of the Mosaic Law which could be attributed to Moses rather than God – e.g., “For your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives” – but the death penalty goes all the way back to the days of Noah – “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.”

Likewise, there were times when God explicitly ordered and/or approved of the executions of people. And I cannot help but think that Paul knew the extent to which “the sword” was used under the Roman penal system when he wrote, “…rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer,” in Romans 13:4.

And, of course, it’s no secret the Catholic Church condoned the deaths of heretics during the Middle Ages.

What I have heard is that it is only because technology has made it possible to indefinitely incarcerate dangerous persons so they are no longer a threat to society that the death penalty is now judged to be immoral. But if the situation should change (e.g., civilization were to revert to a more primitive level of technology), that would no longer be the case, and the death penalty could be put on the table again.

Not only does it demand the death penalty in certain parts of the Old Testament, it’s also specific as to the method - stoning to death is the preferred punishment for preaching the wrong religion, for example.
I quote from A N Wilson as he sums up how I see it…
" The Old Testament is a record of an evolving religious consciousness …Yahweh, from being one tribal God among many, from being a savage tutelary deity whose only interest appears to be in securing the victory of one Semitic tribe in its battles with other Semitic tribes, emerges as an inspirational force of ethical and spiritual power."
I always thought that Jesus taught people to ‘develop’ away from the harsh vindictive and horribly human ‘god’ as he was seen thru’ some of the Old Testament, towards the more loving god of the New Testament ( the Golden rule idea, shared by other religions). But that was just my impression as I grew up, I was never taught all the details of all the beliefs of the Catholic church. (Which is why I’m interested in this forum now).
So I don’t see the writings of these ancient tribes as any moral compass for modern society. They were ‘of their time’. I think it’s wrong to kill a prisoner in cold blood by hanging them, injecting them, or electrocuting them. If you look at their lives you often see physical and mental chaos…there but for fortune etc etc.
Yes the Catholic church did approve, once upon a time, of burning heretics but those people too, were ‘of their time’…No-one thinks that was right now, do they?!!

 

[Catholic80]

I was reading a book called “The Sayings of the Desert Fathers” which collects famous quotes and anecdotes concerning 4th- and 5th-century Christian monks, and I came across this:

This saying struck me as rather odd, since it implied that lying to save a murderer from the judgment of the rightful authorities was commendable, which would be in opposition, I would think, to Paul’s saying in Romans 3:8 that those who say, “Let us do evil that good may result,” deserve condemnation rather than commendation.

But it also occurred to me to wonder, “What if, instead of a murderer, the person seeking refuge in the monk’s cell were a Jew hiding from the Nazis, and it were a Nazi magistrate asking the monk, ‘Have you seen the Jew?’” Here we have another case where, in order to do good – a much clearer good than protecting a murderer from just punishment – the monk must lie or else hand over the refugee to death.

In either case, what would Catholic teaching say that the monk should do? What concerns me mainly is the idea of whether it is okay to sin, to whatever degree, in order to prevent someone’s death (since it appears to be the death of the murderer about which the monk is most concerned, just as it would be the death of the Jew about which the monk would be concerned under the Nazi scenario). Is it okay to sin (lie, cheat, steal, etc.) in order to prevent another person’s death – the lesser evil being performed for the sake of the greater good?

Similar debates have been on this board before.

It is not evil to lie to a Nazi or the like. The Nazi has already refused the Truth and therefore is not entitled to the truth that a Jew is hiding.

 

[Bookcat]

It is not evil to lie to a Nazi or the like. The Nazi has already refused the Truth and therefore is not entitled to the truth that a Jew is hiding.

Lying does not “become a good” even in such events.

See my longer post up above.

 

[mpartyka]

Yes the Catholic church did approve, once upon a time, of burning heretics but those people too, were ‘of their time’…No-one thinks that was right now, do they?!!

But the question is, “What changed?” God hasn’t introduced any new general revelations since the New Testament, nor have there been any infallible decrees since the Assumption of Mary, so what makes it wrong now to execute heretics whereas it was acceptable in the Middle Ages? The answer I have received so far has been, “Today’s technology makes it possible to lock these heretics (or criminals of other sorts – e.g., murderers, rapists, etc.) away from the rest of the world,” yet given the invention of the internet and heretics’ access to it while incarcerated (if not directly, then through proxies) that really doesn’t seem to be the case, does it? (And, of course, heretics aren’t even locked up anymore on account of heresy in most democracies, even Catholic ones.) So the real question is, “Was the Church wrong to burn heretics all that time, or is the Church wrong to not call for their executions now?”

 

[mpartyka]

The Nazi has already refused the Truth and therefore is not entitled to the truth that a Jew is hiding.

Wow. That’s a slippery-slope statement if I ever heard one. Wouldn’t that mean it’s okay for Christians to lie to unbelievers about anything? Since when are Christians allowed to determine who is “entitled” to the truth?

 

[Bookcat]

Faced with the Nazi at the door --yes it may happen that someone may via an erroneous conscience believe that lying in such a case is good is the “act of love” one is to do. But such would be an understandable but incorrect conclusion.

Lying is an evil (no matter how small)

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2482 "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving."281 The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."282

2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

2485** By its very nature, lying is to be condemned**…

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

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.283

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a8.htm#III

It can be said that one can use certain licit “mental reservations”…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). It remains a lie. A sin. . 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. 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…

(PS: perhaps one could argue that there is a different “object” involved-- (hence not be a lie–similar to where taking say food by a starving person may be not “theft” by reason of the object…the definition of theft being something different and the universal destination of goods being in effect etc --see CCC 2408–such is a change in the object --it is a different thing than theft)…but again I leave that to the professional theologians to argue out and to the Magisterium to decide scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm#I and scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a7.htm#II)

 

[mpartyka]

Faced with the Nazi at the door…to the Magisterium to decide…

Thanks for the repeat, but all you’re saying basically boils down to, “Yes, it’s wrong, but you were under pressure because of the temporal consequences of telling the truth, so don’t sweat it.” But the Christian life is supposed to be avoiding wrong altogether, regardless of the temporal consequences, am I right? The fact that we have forgiveness in Christ for our sins, whether mortal or venial, does not give us free reign to commit those sins even to spare ourselves or others hardship (or even death).

So if you are faced with the Nazi at the door asking about the Jew you are hiding, you morally only have three options: (1) tell him the truth, (2) remain completely silent, or (3) give an answer that is technically true but doesn’t really answer the question. You cannot morally lie to save the Jew – or else we are arguing that it is better to sin than suffer (or cause others to suffer) hardship.

It just seems ironic that in this case, the holier a person is – i.e., the more able that person is to resist even venial sin – the more that person is likely to give up the Jew to death at the hands of the Nazis.

 

[Walcot]

But the question is, “What changed?” God hasn’t introduced any new general revelations since the New Testament, nor have there been any infallible decrees since the Assumption of Mary, so what makes it wrong now to execute heretics whereas it was acceptable in the Middle Ages? The answer I have received so far has been, “Today’s technology makes it possible to lock these heretics (or criminals of other sorts – e.g., murderers, rapists, etc.) away from the rest of the world,” yet given the invention of the internet and heretics’ access to it while incarcerated (if not directly, then through proxies) that really doesn’t seem to be the case, does it? (And, of course, heretics aren’t even locked up anymore on account of heresy in most democracies, even Catholic ones.) So the real question is, “Was the Church wrong to burn heretics all that time, or is the Church wrong to not call for their executions now?”

I take it these are just rhetorical questions…for the ‘cut and thrust’ intellectual skills of debate…
I can’t quite decide whether or not you’re being serious?!

 

[Walcot]

Thanks for the repeat, but all you’re saying basically boils down to, “Yes, it’s wrong, but you were under pressure because of the temporal consequences of telling the truth, so don’t sweat it.” But the Christian life is supposed to be avoiding wrong altogether, regardless of the temporal consequences, am I right? The fact that we have forgiveness in Christ for our sins, whether mortal or venial, does not give us free reign to commit those sins even to spare ourselves or others hardship (or even death).

So if you are faced with the Nazi at the door asking about the Jew you are hiding, you morally only have three options: (1) tell him the truth, (2) remain completely silent, or (3) give an answer that is technically true but doesn’t really answer the question. You cannot morally lie to save the Jew – or else we are arguing that it is better to sin than suffer (or cause others to suffer) hardship.

It just seems ironic that in this case, the holier a person is – i.e., the more able that person is to resist even venial sin – the more that person is likely to give up the Jew to death at the hands of the Nazis.

I’m a bit worried…Tell me you’re NOT being really serious?!!

 

[mpartyka]

Seriousssssss…