Doing evil so good may come?

[Bookcat]

Catholic Answers regarding the “Nazi at the door” event: (which actually mirrors my answer):

catholic.com/quickquestions/is-lying-a-sin-if-done-to-protect-someone-from-death

 

[Walcot]

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.

Just about sums it up…

 

[devoutchristian]

Just about sums it up

Wrongly

 

[mpartyka]

Please note:

1. In all the quotes from the Catechism that are given, it is never anywhere stated that it is ever the right course of action to deliberately lie to someone, even if they are Nazis out to kill Jews.
2. Aside from lying to Nazis, there are several other scenarios – believe me, I can come up with some doozies – where deliberately committing a mortal or venial would be the cost of saving one or more lives, but likewise, nowhere is it ever suggested in Catholic teaching that we ought to commit a mortal or venial sin, no matter what the cost in human lives would be.
3. As for the cost of human lives vs. the cost of human souls – no difference there, either. You are responsible for the disposition of your own soul only, and you have no ability to predict whose souls will be damned or saved besides yours. So in the nuclear scenario, the certainty of losing your own soul to committing a mortal sin does not compare with the unknowns of (a) how many people, given more time, would repent of their sins and find faith, and (b) how many people, given more time, would lose their faith and fall into sin. You would at most have certainty of saving lives, but not saving souls.

Somebody answer me true or false here: “Even if a million lives should be the price of your sinlessness, do not deliberately sin.”

 

[devoutchristian]

Somebody answer me true or false here: “Even if a million lives should be the price of your sinlessness, do not deliberately sin.”

 

[kelner]

1. In all the quotes from the Catechism that are given, it is never anywhere stated that it is ever the right course of action to deliberately lie to someone, …]

I suggest you read the Gospels, in particular the parts containing Jesus’ discussion with the Pharisees. You are essentially arguing the Phariseic position: strict adherence to the law is what guarantees salvation, your brothers be damned. The only difference is that you are quoting CCC, while Pharisees would quote Talmud. Jesus’ position, on the other hand, was that one should follow compassion and common sense, without obsessing on the wording of each of the 613 Talmudic laws (or 2865 CCC laws).

Recall one of the main contention points between Jesus and Pharisees (Lk 14:1-7): is it licit to heal a man on Sabbath? After all, nowhere in the Jewish law it is stated that it is ever the right course of action to deliberately perform work on Sabbath.

1. As for the cost of human lives vs. the cost of human souls – no difference there, either. You are responsible for the disposition of your own soul only,

That’s a very convenient attitude, but one which has no grounding whatsoever. Even the CCC admits that you can cause damage to someone else’s soul:

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

and you have no ability to predict whose souls will be damned or saved besides yours. So in the nuclear scenario, the certainty of losing your own soul to committing a mortal sin does not compare with the unknowns of (a) how many people, given more time, would repent of their sins and find faith, and (b) how many people, given more time, would lose their faith and fall into sin.

And you are wrong. While indeed you cannot predict with certaininity which way each individual will turn, at the population level human behavior will follow statistics.

If we stick to my made-up statistics that 50% of sinners will repent, the law of large numbers dictates that out of 500K sinner population, 250K will repent. Now, you cannot tell which ones will repent and which ones will not, but it does not matter: the statistical laws gurantee that these people must exist, even if you cannot point your finger at them. Hence, I posit, it would be extremely unethical (and unfair) to let the nuke explode and rob them of eternal life.

You would at most have certainty of saving lives, but not saving souls.

Saving life of a sinner is a precondition to saving his soul. How can he repent when he is dead?

Which is what the desert father in OP might have been referring to. If we let the criminal live, he may yet repent and come to God, but if we let him be executed, then his soul is for sure lost.

Somebody answer me true or false here: “Even if a million lives should be the price of your sinlessness, do not deliberately sin.”

Selfishness taken to the extreme.

A song which drives the point home.

 

[Boy_Wonder]

You think too much.

 

[mpartyka]

You are essentially arguing the Phariseic position: strict adherence to the law is what guarantees salvation, your brothers be damned. The only difference is that you are quoting CCC, while Pharisees would quote Talmud…Recall one of the main contention points between Jesus and Pharisees (Lk 14:1-7): is it licit to heal a man on Sabbath? After all, nowhere in the Jewish law it is stated that it is ever the right course of action to deliberately perform work on Sabbath.

Jesus’ contention was that the Pharisees were interpreting “work” too broadly – working for a living is hardly the same thing as working to rescue someone (whether an ox from a pit or a person from disease).

Even the CCC admits that you can cause damage to someone else’s soul.

But where is the scandal in not sinning?

While indeed you cannot predict with certaininity which way each individual will turn, at the population level human behavior will follow statistics. If we stick to my made-up statistics that 50% of sinners will repent, the law of large numbers dictates that out of 500K sinner population, 250K will repent. Now, you cannot tell which ones will repent and which ones will not, but it does not matter: the statistical laws gurantee that these people must exist, even if you cannot point your finger at them. Hence, I posit, it would be extremely unethical (and unfair) to let the nuke explode and rob them of eternal life.

First of all, that is indeed a made-up statistic. Second of all, I could just as easily make up a statistic that says 50% of the faithful will lose their faith. So out of a population of 500K sinners and 500K faithful, 250K sinners will repent and 250K faithful will fall, so there’s no net improvement whether they die now or later.

If we let the criminal live, he may yet repent and come to God, but if we let him be executed, then his soul is for sure lost.

Really? The thief on the cross was saved in a moment of confession and baptized in his own blood. Who’s to say that the criminal’s impending death won’t be the mechanism of his salvation?

Selfishness taken to the extreme.

Not at all once you realize that God cares about souls, not lives. It’s just proper prioritization then.

 

[Bookcat]

Please note:

1. In all the quotes from the Catechism that are given, it is never anywhere stated that it is ever the right course of action to deliberately lie to someone, even if they are Nazis out to kill Jews.

Yes of course. I have said as much. NOr is it ever right for us to eat to many cookies…but sometimes in weakness even the most temperent man may do so

1. Aside from lying to Nazis, there are several other scenarios – believe me, I can come up with some doozies – where deliberately committing a mortal or venial would be the cost of saving one or more lives, but likewise, nowhere is it ever suggested in Catholic teaching that we ought to commit a mortal or venial sin, no matter what the cost in human lives would be.
   Correct. One is not to never commit a mortal sin and even venial sin is to be avoided. But there is note too it is NOT put that way in terms of venial sins --it is never set against “no matter what the cost in human lives would be”. Yes it is simply the case that one venial sin is not a “good” it is not something to be done. But it is put like that. Rather one is to find the good way. And it is a known reality that one does not always do so.
2. As for the cost of human lives vs. the cost of human souls – no difference there, either. You are responsible for the disposition of your own soul only, and you have no ability to predict whose souls will be damned or saved besides yours. So in the nuclear scenario, the certainty of losing your own soul to committing a mortal sin does not compare with the unknowns of (a) how many people, given more time, would repent of their sins and find faith, and (b) how many people, given more time, would lose their faith and fall into sin. You would at most have certainty of saving lives, but not saving souls.

Somebody answer me true or false here: “Even if a million lives should be the price of your sinlessness, do not deliberately sin.”

Again in terms of venial sin – one does not find it put like that. Why? because we have “daily sins” – we commit venial sins daily – we eat too many cookies perhaps, we might argue with our spouse, we do not work as well as we should – daily sins and struggles. Are they essentially different from mortal sins? Absolutely. Should we sin? No. Should we struggle against them Yes.

One does not really though go about drawing a line in the sand practically speaking – in a way that one plays off a venial sin against savings some ones life.

This is not to say “one may do evil so good may come” …

– no it remains evil --but it is to note that in the throws of life --we commit venial sins and we might likely falter more easily when it comes to a great good of saving some ones life…

We should never sin. But we do – at least venially.

In the world we live in (after the fall) one has to contend with conflicting virtues…or rather seemingly conflicting virtues…and we commit venial sins daily --even in trying to live other virtues! As Scripture puts it “the *just man *sins seven times daily” (or to that effect).

What is one to do? Follow Christ --walk by the Spirit-- live the virtues (especially charity)-- do good and avoid evil.

And when confronted with serious events - like saving a persons life --we seek to do the good and avoid the evil and to find the good way in prudence…

But know that we may falter on this point or on that one and need daily to pray “forgive us our trespasses” and seek to do better…

 

[Bookcat]

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

 

[Walcot]

Let’s look at the original post title…doing evil so good may come. A lie is bad when it is done with bad intent - to deceive at some ‘innocent’ person’s expense. To lie to stop someone killing someone has good intent, therefore is not actually an ‘evil’.
I quote:

“Not at all once you realize that God cares about souls, not lives. It’s just proper prioritization then.”

I use the saying hesitantly here ( as I am not using it literally) but 'the devil is in the detail…It depends upon the beliefs of the ‘prioritiser’.

For my part, if I and my family were in the population of this hypothetical city it wouldn’t matter a great deal whether the ‘prioritiser’ was Muslim or Catholic if the effect on us was going to be the same…to us, they’d both be evil, and I’d just hope that a ‘true’ Christian (or Muslim) was in the room to shoot the ‘prioritiser’ in time…

Intransigence like that seen on this thread is worrying because when such certainty comes up against another such certainty, what is inevitable is conflict.

 

[Bookcat]

Let’s look at the original post title…doing evil so good may come. A lie is bad when it is done with bad intent - to deceive at some ‘innocent’ person’s expense. To lie to stop someone killing someone has good intent, therefore is not actually an ‘evil’.
.

I understand your an agnostic --(but this is an Catholic Forum of Moral Theology so…)

I would need to note that such would be contrary to Catholic Church Teaching and Moral Theology

The “good intent” is important but it is only one part and a good intention does not make intrinsically bad means or actions into a good.

See Catechism scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm for a whole treatment.

I will highlight these sections:

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

 

[Walcot]

I understand your an agnostic --(but this is an Catholic Forum of Moral Theology so…)

I would need to note that such would be contrary to Catholic Church Teaching and Moral Theology

The “good intent” is important but it is only one part and a good intention does not make intrinsically bad means or actions into a good.

See Catechism scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm for a whole treatment.

I will highlight these sections:

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

As we all have to rub along in this world, it’s a good idea to have some understanding of each other isn’t it? I’m interested to hear how different religions - indeed, just different Christian denominations think - I don’t share your very detailed supernatural beliefs but moral philosophy is common to believers and non-believers and agnostics, whatever some people might say. So thank you for debating with me!
I still stick to my definition of a lie having or not having good intent, but underline the fact that this lie in question has NO bad consequence.
This might be different: The question of ‘extraordinary rendition’ has been in the news on and off…now, this is where I would say it WOULDN’T, but many others might say, the end WOULD justify the means.( ie torturing someone to find out…where the bomb is/what the terrorist attack will be etc etc) Of course each situation is different and, I do so agree, individuals have to make use of ‘prudence’ to make decisions all the time…it’s all part of being human. Life is not black and white which is, I think why Jesus said Love your fellow men. He could have said “just follow the rules…black and white”. Look at all the parables…aren’t they designed to make us THINK and not simply judge?
To take a more trivial example of a ‘lie’…what do you say when someone asks you if their dress/shoes/tie/hair is OK as they are nervously about to go out on stage or something - when there is no time for you to help them to change it when you think it’s horrible (not inappropriate, that’s different - just horrible!) Do you tell them the truth and destroy their confidence? With friend like that, who’d need enemies!!!

 

[Bookcat]

I think why Jesus said Love your fellow men. He could have said “just follow the rules…black and white”. Look at all the parables…aren’t they designed to make us THINK and not simply judge?

We are followers of Jesus …and he founded a Church that he sent to make disciples and to teach all the nations…

so the Church has a particular mission to Teach which includes on these sorts of moral questions.

His parables are certainly a wonderful part of his teaching and yes they make one think and seek the good…but they are not meant to be exhaustive…

The Teachings of the Church on these areas have a long history of thought behind them and are something one could spend a good deal of time exploring --something I do not have the time here for…but I recommend reading the Catechism and perhaps some good works of Moral Theology etc for further exploration…

(regarding the little lies one fears one needs to tell to avoid say destroying someone’s confidence --such can be done without such lies (which are wrong) – in careful word choice – noting the positive etc…)

I wish you a splendid day!

 

[Walcot]

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

Now this is interesting!
To the recipient of the good deeds/charity or whatever, whether the doer of the deed does it for glory or for true sympathy makes not a jot of difference. They reap the benefit…which is sometimes the difference between life and death.
So, are you saying that the person who does the deed for vainglory is better or worse or just the same as the person who doesn’t even think to do the deed, or even the one who considers it but chooses not to do the deed?
Having posed that question, I am very well aware that people’s motives are often complicated and difficult to assess - even to themselves. At each extreme it’s easy to make a judgement on motives but it’s often a grey area.
People are often in the caring professions because they enjoy helping others. I see that as part of our social evolution but obviously I am not taking that argument any further.
I work voluntarily for Oxfam and I admit I do get a kick out of ‘doing good’ when I see results. Is that wrong?
We have local businesses who give help to various local charities. Some of their directors are undoubtably good people who are philanthropic. Others who join in the good work are doing it more for the advertising and good name of the business. Maybe in time, they will get to enjoy the warm fuzzy feeling of good works, who knows? The recipients see no difference, they are just grateful.
And I guess I’m also asking…what’s the difference between the person who helps someone because they want to please God (and can even this be seen as selfish?), the person who does it because they are afraid of God (ie how it will affect their ‘sin record’) …and the person who does it without any expectation of afterlife reward or punishment?
I can see the difference

 

[Walcot]

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.

I think you sum the arguement up here pretty well but are all those people going to hell???
I’d say it’d be more than 50% of the population if you think all these things are worthy of hell. I’m not being trivial here…if using contraception sends you to hell I don’t know many people that you judge worthy of heaven (even Catholics) .Other Christians have debated this too and come to a different conclusion. While Some Catholics disagree with contraception, maybe, just maybe they are not in a position to assume condemnation of others of different opinion. We are NOT talking abortion here.

 

[Bookcat]

God made “feeling good about it” as often part of doing good. The point in the example is of someone say giving in charity (as Jesus points out in the Gospels) --but to make oneself look good.

One can do good and feel good about doing so in a reasonable and good way.

A person is hopefully not doing good only to “feel good” of course…they hopefully want the good of the other.

 

[mpartyka]

Correct. One is not to never commit a mortal sin and even venial sin is to be avoided. But there is note too it is NOT put that way in terms of venial sins --it is never set against “no matter what the cost in human lives would be”. Yes it is simply the case that one venial sin is not a “good” it is not something to be done. But it is put like that. Rather one is to find the good way. And it is a known reality that one does not always do so…

Again in terms of venial sin – one does not find it put like that. Why? because we have “daily sins” – we commit venial sins daily – we eat too many cookies perhaps, we might argue with our spouse, we do not work as well as we should – daily sins and struggles. Are they essentially different from mortal sins? Absolutely. Should we sin? No. Should we struggle against them Yes.

One does not really though go about drawing a line in the sand practically speaking – in a way that one plays off a venial sin against savings some ones life.

This is not to say “one may do evil so good may come” …

– no it remains evil --but it is to note that in the throws of life --we commit venial sins and we might likely falter more easily when it comes to a great good of saving some ones life…

We should never sin. But we do – at least venially.

In the world we live in (after the fall) one has to contend with conflicting virtues…or rather seemingly conflicting virtues…and we commit venial sins daily --even in trying to live other virtues! As Scripture puts it “the *just man *sins seven times daily” (or to that effect).

What is one to do? Follow Christ --walk by the Spirit-- live the virtues (especially charity)-- do good and avoid evil.

And when confronted with serious events - like saving a persons life --we seek to do the good and avoid the evil and to find the good way in prudence…

But know that we may falter on this point or on that one and need daily to pray “forgive us our trespasses” and seek to do better…

Wow, you are going through SO much trouble just to get around directly answering the question. What if the Catholic at the door being asked by the Nazi, “Is the Jew here?” has attained such moral and spiritual development that he/she knows better than to venially sin, even in this extreme case? What then? The only other options, if venial sin is taken off the table by the Catholic’s advanced moral and spiritual development, are to tell the truth or remain silent, in either of which cases the Jew is given up.

See, here’s the rub: In the case of the Nazi seeking the Jew, you are assuming there is a morally licit way to address the situation that doesn’t end up with the Jew being turned over to the Nazi. What if you’re wrong? What if there are no moral courses of action that don’t end up with the Jew in Nazi hands? What is the Catholic supposed to do then? Remember your own words: “We should never sin.” Does “never” mean never or not? Because this is a case where “never” means a trip to the gas chamber for the Jew.

 

[davidv]

Wow, you are going through SO much trouble just to get around directly answering the question. What if the Catholic at the door being asked by the Nazi, “Is the Jew here?” has attained such moral and spiritual development that he/she knows better than to venially sin, even in this extreme case? What then? The only other options, if venial sin is taken off the table by the Catholic’s advanced moral and spiritual development, are to tell the truth or remain silent, in either of which cases the Jew is given up.

See, here’s the rub: In the case of the Nazi seeking the Jew, you are assuming there is a morally licit way to address the situation that doesn’t end up with the Jew being turned over to the Nazi. What if you’re wrong? What if there are no moral courses of action that don’t end up with the Jew in Nazi hands? What is the Catholic supposed to do then? Remember your own words: “We should never sin.” Does “never” mean never or not? Because this is a case where “never” means a trip to the gas chamber for the Jew.

Only if you wrongly assume that the only moral answer reveals their hiding place.

 

[mpartyka]

Only if you wrongly assume that the only moral answer reveals their hiding place.

Okay, seriously, are you suggesting that there is no such situation in which the only moral courses of action all lead to an undesirable result, such as the death of an innocent? 1 Cor 10:13 does say, “God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it,” but in no way does that negate the possibility that your escape may involve either your death or the deaths of innocents.