W
Walcot
Guest
Serious about - was the church wrong in the past to burn ‘heretics’?
- Status
W
Walcot
Guest
…and serious about your definition of a ‘holy’ person - one who is so self obsessed that their first reaction to such a situation is their own sanctimonious ‘holiness’…?Seriousssssss…
M
mpartyka
Guest
Well, it seems quite apparent that the Church didn’t think it was wrong at the time. Was the Church in grave moral error for over 1300 years (from the Emperor Arcadius’s decreeing the penalty ca. 400AD to the burning of Maria Barbara Carillo in 1721AD)? What changed between 1721 and today such that it was no longer morally acceptable to burn heretics? (Several Catholic councils affirmed the punishment over those centuries.)
So you’re saying it’s better to sin than, by not sinning, deliver someone up to death? (If you’re using a different definition of “holiness” than “being free from sin,” please tell me what that definition is.)
B
Bookcat
Guest
I invite all to read again that post for more detail than what I note above.
Is it “just” do to evil so good may come? No. The end does not “justify” the means.
But when faced with the “Nazi at the door” even a very just man may falter and not find the good way and say a lie …
Just as a very just man may falter in other small sins…have a few too many cookies. It is not something really to go round and round about. It is what it is. And man is what he is. And God is Who he is (Indeed is He Who Is!)
(as noted above --perhaps one could argue it is not a lie…but that is a larger question to be left to the professional theologians and the Church)
One intends to do good and avoid evil. Not seeking to anticipate grace or stressing about what one may do (resisting thinking too much of “what would I do” for one does not have the grace of that moment!)… Follow Christ faithfully by the grace of God…by the Holy Spirit…knowing that one may not be perfect …not excusing such …and seeking to be better and better…but humbly accepting that one will struggle with daily sins …while still working to avoid them and to follow faithfully and with great joy in the reality of knowing and following the Lord Jesus Christ.
B
Bookcat
Guest
W
Walcot
Guest
Well I suppose you COULD excuse the people in the church at the time as they were ‘people of their time’ and in more barbaric times burning someone might have seemed a normal thing to do. But on the whole, yes, I do think the church was in grave moral error.
What do you think changed between 1721 and today?
I would define holy as really good and being able to weigh up the best thing to do in all sorts of difficult circumstances, and not putting yourself first, which is all you can ask of a human being. I would say that ‘delivering up someone to death’ rather than spoil your record of not uttering White lies is clearly a ‘sin’. A lie in those circumstances is the moral thing to do. Delivering someone up to death when you could save them so easily is just plain wicked.
M
mpartyka
Guest
Granted, anyone can slip. But let’s say for a moment that there is a man who is so just and holy that he will not slip and tell a lie unless he chooses to do so, and there is no “truthful dissimulation” upon which he can rely to spare the Jew. In this case, what would be the “right” thing to do: (1) tell the truth and give up the Jew; (2) say absolutely nothing, which would raise so much suspicion that the Nazis would likely seach the house and find the Jew; or (3) deliberately lie to spare the Jew?
M
mpartyka
Guest
I haven’t investigated the matter, but I am curious to know whether the simplest of guesses – “The Church decided that what it formerly believed was morally right was, in fact, morally wrong” – is an acceptable answer.
Really? Because I’m honestly not so sure. Remember, the whole point of the Christian life is to recognize that (1) this life is not all there is, and (2) we are to behave morally even if it costs not only our own lives but also all the lives of those around us (even if they do not believe as we do).
For example, consider the case of a lifeboat which holds 51 people but can only hold 50 without sinking. If no one is willing to voluntarily leave the lifeboat and drown, you cannot morally force one person out of the lifeboat to save the other 50. The only moral options are (1) someone volunteers to leave the lifeboat and drown, or (2) all 51 people in the lifeboat drown when the lifeboat sinks. And I’m just using 51 as a random number – it could be any number of people. It could be millions. It could be the whole world. Even if an immoral act were to save the whole world from death, we would be forbidden to do it. That’s the Christian path, because the end of the Christian path is not temporal life but eternal life – if you or anyone else or any number of people have to die so that you can keep your soul, so be it.
B
Bookcat
Guest
The “right” and “objectively good” thing is to find the good way.
But in human weakness and such a stressful event – such may be not happen
The person cannot “tell the truth” and give up the hidden Jews.
As to deliberately lie – it could be “subjectively good” via an erroneous conscience (him honestly believing it is good) (etc). Or as a said – it could be a slight venial sin -or even not a sin at all due to a reduction of culpability in such an event.
And it really there is no need to belabor this question. We struggle with daily venial sins – even the great Saints may not find the good way and may falter and tell a lie (if it IS a lie)…as one of them even said --who is it that is completely temperant in matters of food and drink?
M
mpartyka
Guest
“Good” defined how?
Okay, so that would mean the only truly “good” option would be to remain silent, which would have the same end-effect as telling the truth – the Jew is handed over – correct?
So the Jew’s only hope is that the Catholic has a malformed conscience? What if the Catholic’s conscience is perfectly formed (or at least formed to the point that he/she knows that lying is a sin in all cases)?
W
Walcot
Guest
If an immoral act could save the world (oh if only it could be so easy!!)then you should do it, Christian or whatever.
Saving a life for the sake of words…there’s no contest!!!, Keep your fingers crossed if you’re so worried. I don’t see why you’d be worried anyway - you’d be doing a good thing - saving a life. Words are nothing in comparison…I’m staggered at your attitude…
M
mpartyka
Guest
Ah, but you see, you’re agnostic, not Christian. You probably still believe that protecting human life is the highest possible goal there is. But the life of the body comes second to the life of the soul, which will either live eternally or die eternally (along with the body, which will be raised) according to the judgment of God for what the soul has done in the body. So if saving a life – your life and/or any number of other people’s lives – must come at the forfeit of your soul, better to let yourself and/or everyone else die. Life is transient, but the afterlife is forever.
B
Bookcat
Guest
No his hope is that the person will find a way to keep the Nazi’s from finding him. Period.
And I can know that eating too many cookies is a sin but I may still end up doing so from time to time in my weakness and not have a “malformed conscience”-- it will tell me that yes I ate a bit too much there. A person with a well formed conscience may seek to find a very good way keep the person safe --but they may in their weakness falter and lie -and their conscience is going to tell them – I wish I had found the right way --and they will sorry Lord I could not find the way. And know that if there was any sin at all in so doing – it was very very slight and that God lovingly forgives it quite readily…more readily than his having too many cookies earlier or his arguing with his wife earlier…
When faced with such horrible prospects --such is not the time to repeat over and over “I must not lie” “I must not lie”–and a Saint is not likely to be doing that–that is not the focus (it may be in some speculative forum but not in life) – but rather thinking “I must save this person” and then try to find a good way …
(And it may simply not be a lie.)
(late readers can read the longer post here forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10197891&postcount=54)
M
mpartyka
Guest
You’re not really answering the question, are you? See, I’ve been in a situation like this where I’ve had to think in advance about what I was going to say so that I wouldn’t be lying but at the same time I would be protecting the interests of another person. And while in that particular case I was able to come up with a somewhat nontruth/nonlie answer that would hopefully satisfy all parties before the point at which I was to be called upon – thankfully, they were merciful and didn’t put me on the spot after all – I can easily see such a case arising where there is no good half-truth available: it’s either tell the truth or remain silent, and in either case, the person you’d like to protect loses. And what I’m trying to get from you is a clear-cut answer: if the only way I can get out of betraying the person I seek to protect is to deliberately commit the sin of lying, is that the proper course of action? Or should I do what is 100% right and leave the consequences of my righteous action in God’s hands?
K
kelner
Guest
Ah, the Pharisees of today, moral theologians with their books of law…
Mark 12 (NIV):
*28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”*
If you worry on what you will be judged…
Matthew 25:40 (NIV) “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
What will you do to the Nazi by lying? Nothing. Worst case, he’ll lose his bonus or get fired for incompetence.
What will you do to the Jew by telling the truth? You’ll send him to death.
If it was about hiding a cheating husband from his wife, then I grant it would be a grey area. But the Jew-and-Nazi scenario is extremely clear cut.
B
Bookcat
Guest
I have answered.
B
Bookcat
Guest
A Nazi senerio is an extreme one…hopefully in lesser ones one will more readily find the way…(as always prudence here is important and praying to the Holy Spirit see below)
1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; "the prudent man looks where he is going."65 "Keep sane and sober for your prayers."66 Prudence is “right reason in action,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle.67 It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.
Some more from the Catechism (read carefully):
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
2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.
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. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.
2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.
And
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
2491 Professional secrets - for example, those of political office holders, soldiers, physicians, and lawyers - or confidential information given under the seal of secrecy must be kept, save in exceptional cases where keeping the secret is bound to cause very grave harm to the one who confided it, to the one who received it or to a third party, and where the very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Even if not confided under the seal of secrecy, private information prejudicial to another is not to be divulged without a grave and proportionate reason.
2492 Everyone should observe an appropriate reserve concerning persons’ private lives. Those in charge of communications should maintain a fair balance between the requirements of the common good and respect for individual rights. Interference by the media in the private lives of persons engaged in political or public activity is to be condemned to the extent that it infringes upon their privacy and freedom.
The full CCC is here scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a8.htm#II
and here are the definitions concerning “mental reservation” which is one way: catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=34846
catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=32244
catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=36659
and on Conscience: scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a6.htm
Morality of human acts: scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm
Sin: scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm
Virtue: scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a7.htm (see especially the section on Prudence and then on the Holy Spirit and the moral life)
K
kelner
Guest
The underlined part is where your problem is. If you want someone else to make the sacrifice, yet are unwilling to make the sacrifice yourself, what makes you worthy of Heaven?
That you obey the Law? So what? Pharisees also obeyed the Law, religiously (pun intended) following every letter of the Law even to absurd extend. And? the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. (Mt 21:31)
Do people other than yourself have souls?
Consider a city with 1 million population. In the center of the city, a terrorist has placed a remotely-controlled nuclear bomb. Once detonated, the bomb will kill everyone in the city instantly.
You are safely outside the city, together with the terrorist which planted the bomb. The terrorist is holding his finger on the button, and you are holding a gun to his head. Two outcomes are possible: either you kill the terrorist, or he presses the button and kills everyone in the city.
Now, you’re telling me that the needed action of killing the terrorist is an undefensible, intrinsic evil, hence, to save your own soul, you are forced to choose inaction. The terrorist will push the button, and a mushroom cloud will rise above the city.
But, if I remember Catholic theology correctly, a person who dies in the state of mortal sin goes to Hell. How much of the population lives in mortal sin? Homosexuals, adulterers, women obtaining abortion, contraceptive users, masturbating teenagers, people who missed Sunday’s Mass, criminals… Say, 50% of the population. Some of them will repent before they die of old age. Say, half of the sinners (i.e. 25% of the population) will repent, if they live through that fateful day.
Which means, that your inaction will condemn these 250 thousand otherwise saved souls to Hell. Their bodies will be annihilated before they have time to ask God for mercy. No ifs, no buts, directly to Hell. You may try to save them by praying, but it will not do any good. Your prayer will be several milliseconds late: those close to the bomb will be vaporized before you can even see the initial flash.
In contrast, if you kill the terrorist, then there is only one soul which is potentially forfeit – yours. I say potentially, because you will survive, and will have time to repent. (Okay, sorry: two souls. The terrorist will end up in Hell also.)
If I were God, I would have a huge problem what to do with a soul which condemned 250 thousand others to save itself.
R
rfournier103
Guest
Honestly, in my humble opinion, I would have a hard time believing that the Nazi-and-Jew lie would be seen as an act of EVIL. I think an evil act would be to hand the Jew over to a certain death.
Is it wrong to lie? Yes. Is it even more wrong to hand over a man to an authority who has no right to take him? Yes.
Has the OP thought about asking a priest or some other religious authority this hypothetical question?
Is it wrong to lie? Yes. Is it even more wrong to hand over a man to an authority who has no right to take him? Yes.
Has the OP thought about asking a priest or some other religious authority this hypothetical question?
B
Bookcat
Guest
See the Catechism above.
But yes of course one is talking about a very grave evil (the handing over of your fellow man to murder) – which is not to be done.
- Status