Exceptions to "ends don't justify the means"

[Rascalking]

You may disagree all you like, yet it has always been the traditional teaching of the Church that one may not commit an intrinsically evil act so that good may come from it. If the civil authority, in following the law of the land, decides to kill someone as a punishment for a crime, then that is one thing. However, to kill someone without just cause is called “murder,” and we are not permitted to do such a thing.

Ok, totally evil-I get it. So those millions of lives that could have been saved are…worthless?

And killing a Hitler or Pol Pot or monster like that isn’t the same as killing your neighboor because he stole your bike.

 

[Timothysis]

Ok, totally evil-I get it. So those millions of lives that could have been saved are…worthless?

And killing a Hitler or Pol Pot or monster like that isn’t the same as killing your neighboor because he stole your bike.

I don’t think you quite comprehend the issue. An intrinsically evil act is one which is immoral by its very nature. Murder, rape, adultery - basically, all mortal sins - are intrinsically evil by their nature. One is never, never permitted to do evil so that good may come from it. Whether a person murders one or one million, it is only a difference in degree, not kind. This has always been the teaching of the Church. If you have a problem with it, then your disagreement is not with me but Christ’s Church itself.

You do realize that your example “So those millions of lives that could have been saved are…worthless?” can easily be used to defend abortion, don’t you? This kind of reasoning is called relativism and has been used to justify many horrendous acts.

 

[Timothysis]

I think it’s clear to most people that there are definetly times when you have to do something evil in order to save lives. IE-Killing a Hilter before he can rise to power

Tell me, are you saying that it would be ok to murder Hitler “*before he can rise to power” *even though he may not have harmed anyone in anyway? Do you not find it ironic that your method for stopping someone from committing the horrible crime of murder is to commit the same offense???

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Now that this conversation has taken such interesting turns, I wonder what some of you may think of what the Catholic Priest did in the movie Sleepers. De Niro played the Priest. Lied to help some guys escape prison because he felt the guy they killed deserved it because he was a pedophile and murderer who did the guys wrong.

Does the end justifies the means in THAT situation?
Apparenly it DID happen in real life.

This is for people who have seen the movie.

Personally, I disagree with it. It puts the burden of deciding who lives and who dies on oneself. Of “Playing God.”
That is NOT very “Pro-Life.” I personally do not want have the burden of Playing God as to Human Life thrust upon me.

If we cannot as a matter of common sense and our Catholic Faith allow Abortion and The Death Penalty as a deciding factor as to who lives or dies, how are we to decide that certain individuals deserve to be killed Vigilante-Style because that person did something evil? And let their killers escape justice?

In the movie, the two guys kill the guy right after seeing him in a restaurant. To some, that may be a “mitigating factor,” in the sense of “heat of the moment,” but does it REALLY totally mitigate the deed? Personally, I think not.

A lot of people who say they are “Pro-Life” say that only in the sense that they believe in not taking INNOCENT life (unborn)----Not Evil, Guilty life.

That’s actually in some ways a better gauge of whether one is “Pro-Life” or not----whether one is for the life of someone who (hypothetically speaking) “deserves to die.”

Even I struggle with that. But I always try my darndest to truly live by the Pro-Life Label.

Saddam Huseein is a good example of that. Did I cry when he was hung? Heck no. Do I think he deserved the Death Penalty? Almost certainly not. But people will do what they want to do. I could be wrong in that circumstance, though, I admit. But I prefer to think not

I would, though, appreciate the thoughts of folks on the Sleepers movie and whether that applies to the idea of “the end justifies the means.”

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Tell me, are you saying that it would be ok to murder Hitler “*before he can rise to power” *even though he may not have harmed anyone in anyway? Do you not find it ironic that your method for stopping someone from committing the horrible crime of murder is to commit the same offense???

Correct. Believe it or not, not everybody agrees with the whole “Yes, I would kill Hitler” hypothesis.

I personally would not. I would have tried to stop him other ways. Through reason and argument.
Actually, I don’t know if I would have tried to stop him. I don’t know if I would not have allowed evrrything to happen as I would think it was “inevitable” and “God’s Will.”
This is, of course, if I went back in time and knew in advance what would happen.

A lot of people will hate my guts for saying that, bu that is my opinion. Some things are inevitable and for a reason.

 

[Rascalking]

I don’t think you quite comprehend the issue. An intrinsically evil act is one which is immoral by its very nature. Murder, rape, adultery - basically, all mortal sins - are intrinsically evil by their nature. One is never, never permitted to do evil so that good may come from it. Whether a person murders one or one million, it is only a difference in degree, not kind. This has always been the teaching of the Church. If you have a problem with it, then your disagreement is not with me but Christ’s Church itself.

You do realize that your example “So those millions of lives that could have been saved are…worthless?” can easily be used to defend abortion, don’t you? This kind of reasoning is called relativism and has been used to justify many horrendous acts.

I get all that, thank you. It’s clear we should agree to disagree.

If I had the chance to “murder/kill/destroy” Hitler before he rose to power and didn’t do it, I’d be terrified about my eternal destination. I’d rather not be wrapped up in pseudo-philosophical jargon and worry about relativism over innocent lives.

 

[Timothysis]

If I had the chance to “murder/kill/destroy” Hitler before he rose to power and didn’t do it, I’d be terrified about my eternal destination.

Do you think that your eternal destination would be in jeopardy if you DIDN’T murder someone?!?!?

 

[Rascalking]

Do you think that your eternal destination would be in jeopardy if you DIDN’T murder someone?!?!?

Well, I said we should just agree to disagree. However, if you have the chance to stop the slaugther of millions of people and don’t do it-how could you sleep at night?

 

[phoage]

I find this whole discussion interesting, and very confusing. I understand the concept of “ends don’t justify the means”. The problem I have is that in many cases, you do not have a choice between god and evil, you have a choice of bad options and not enough information to decide which is least bad. It becomes a judgement call but all possible responses have obvious side effects that have elements of sin or evil.

Part of this discussion has been on lying but the Commandments say “Thou shall not bear false witness” which as has already been pointed out, is a legal phrase with specific overtones that do not exclude all lies. another part has been on Murder but the Commandment is "Thou shall not KILL’ not murder in any of the bible translations I have available (KJII, NAB, RSVCE, NIV). Murder is another legal term that does not exclude all killing.

By strict interpretation of scripture, it would seem that killing in self defense or during a war were sinful and Jesus did say “turn the other cheek” but then again, when asked by roman soldiers what they needed to do to be saved, he did not say quit the army.

I believe that killing (not just murder) is sinful. Yet I server\d in the military for 15 yrs and as an infantryman (foot soldier; close with and destroy the enemy with hand weapons) for over 10 yrs because I believed that not to do so would increase the likely hood of a war which would kill millions, including people I love and reduce freedom in the world.

Now I am troubled. Was I wrong? Did I sin? According to the Church, no. How can this be justified?

Patrick

 

[RB2]

I find this whole discussion interesting, and very confusing. I understand the concept of “ends don’t justify the means”. The problem I have is that in many cases, you do not have a choice between god and evil, you have a choice of bad options and not enough information to decide which is least bad. It becomes a judgement call but all possible responses have obvious side effects that have elements of sin or evil.

Part of this discussion has been on lying but the Commandments say “Thou shall not bear false witness” which as has already been pointed out, is a legal phrase with specific overtones that do not exclude all lies. another part has been on Murder but the Commandment is "Thou shall not KILL’ not murder in any of the bible translations I have available (KJII, NAB, RSVCE, NIV). Murder is another legal term that does not exclude all killing.

By strict interpretation of scripture, it would seem that killing in self defense or during a war were sinful and Jesus did say “turn the other cheek” but then again, when asked by roman soldiers what they needed to do to be saved, he did not say quit the army.

I believe that killing (not just murder) is sinful. Yet I server\d in the military for 15 yrs and as an infantryman (foot soldier; close with and destroy the enemy with hand weapons) for over 10 yrs because I believed that not to do so would increase the likely hood of a war which would kill millions, including people I love and reduce freedom in the world.

Now I am troubled. Was I wrong? Did I sin? According to the Church, no. How can this be justified?

Patrick

Look for Catholic teaching outside the bible. I dont want to write a whole treatise on this for you as you are holding to a poorly catechized position not taught by the Catholic Church. I suggest fulfilling your curiosity and search for knowledge about this subject by reading further on your faith.
Getting yourself properly educated/catechized. The catechism deals with this …there are some 800 pages to the catechism, depending on print format , and it deals with this issue in some form.
amazon.com/Catechism-Catholic-Church-Second-U-S/dp/0385508190/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1287856643&sr=8-2
However, I advise you read beyond the Catechism on this.

Christians were soldiers of Rome after Constantine. Christians and Christian nations provided for Armies. There is ‘Just War’ theory/doctrine and Saints and Doctors of the Church have addresses this.

To not serve your country as a soldier is more or less a Protestant Fundamentalist position. Fundamentalists take the bible literally and would concentrate on some of the selected bible sayings you just mentioned about ‘turning the other cheek’ and what not. Further a Fundamentalist Protestant would rely solely on the Bible and their own personal understanding to arrive at pacifism. Sgt. York…WWI was a pacifist initially,famous story. Jehovahs Witnesses’s either teach Pacifism and not being involved with Govt. in any way. The Catholic Church does not teach pacifism, wants us to be involved in government and voting, etc. Do some homework.

 

[phoage]

I kind of expected this type answer. (that statement is not any kind of criticism). I am, and have been looking into Just War Theory for a while and it is almost a separate topic from The end justifying the means but it was an example I can relate to.

Leaving that aside, Please comment on the Commandment Thous shall not kill (as opposed to murder).

Also on the concept of choosing the lessor of evils. Or do you think that in every case there is always a just option that has no evil side effects?

Patrick

 

[RB2]

Leaving that aside, Please comment on the Commandment Thous shall not kill (as opposed to murder).

Also on the concept of choosing the lessor of evils. Or do you think that in every case there is always a just option that has no evil side effects?

Patrick

There are faithuful catholic internet and book resources that are full of proper teaching on this subject. I suggest you do the work/heavy reading or maybe take your concerns and/or heavy conscious to a priest.

However, I do support our US military.
I do so through the Archdiocese for the Military Services
www.milarch.org
I am a veteran.

edit: forgot to add , that I also support our US military,girls and boys, through prayer.
We always need more soldiers of Christ in this form also.

 

[Bookcat]

Leaving that aside, Please comment on the Commandment Thous shall not kill (as opposed to murder).

Also on the concept of choosing the lessor of evils. Or do you think that in every case there is always a just option that has no evil side effects?

Patrick

(Neither the Scriptures nor the Church teach that all killing is wrong…)

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33215

(…one chooses a good…sometimes there is an evil side effect…unwanted side effect…see the above for details)

(Also of course see a Priest in confession on any conscience issues or questions…)

 

[RB2]

I believe that killing (not just murder) is sinful. Yet I server\d in the military for 15 yrs and as an infantryman (foot soldier; close with and** destroy the enemy with hand weapons) for over 10 yrs because I believed that not to do so would increase the likely hood of a war which would kill millions, including people I love and reduce freedom in the world.**

Patrick

According to Just War Theory from what little I remember from commentary and opinion pieces, the leader/leadership of Govt. has the responsibility of judging the need for war/self defense and making the necessary prudential judgements for the provision of war. Some of these prudential judgements are based on privileged or secret information.

The realm for this prudential decision making or judgement does not rest within the field soldiers responsibility, nor with the general populace at large. Once a decision has been made, the responsibilities and moral repercussions are those of the leader/leadership . These decisions are not the realm of the soldier as frequently you do not have all the privvy information. . I cant’ think of aU.S. war since WWI that a soldier would be justified in not participating based on naked evidence that the US was involved in a war of conquest and subjugation.

I dont really understand your Catholic teaching dilemma but I do understand that what you have been through can weigh on the conscious. Further, reconnoitering the bible outside of the Churchs understanding of it is not recommended.Acts 8:30-31

 

[RB2]

Fact: The Catholic Church clergy and laypeople saved some 800,000 Jews from Hitlers genocide during WWII by issuing fake documents, baptismal certificates and more i.e. lying.
All of these activities, it should be noted were with the expressed approval and support of Pope Pius XII.

examiner.com/catholic-in-wilmington/hitler-the-war-and-the-pope-review

Obviously there are situations, to include life and death & war ,where simple rote principles about lying and venial sins do not suffice to inform to the situation.

The Story of the Other Wise Man-- VanDyke
Preface:
“Is a lie ever justifiable? Perhaps not. But may it sometimes be inevitable?
And if it were a sin, might not a man confess it, and be pardoned for it more easily than for the greater sin of spiritual selfishness, or indifference, or the betrayal of innocent blood?
…It was not perfect. But there are some kinds of failure that are better than success”.

 

[edwest2]

Who is VanDyke?

Is this thread really about Hitler and the nazis? It’s one thing to bring up a hypothetical but life is very rarely like that. We should plan. In school, I was taught about being prepared and deciding, in advance, what I’d do.

I have a father who is aged. Do I leave him alone? Do I check on him regularly? Sure, if I’m driving him somewhere and he has a heart attack, I race for the nearest hospital. The cops could be right behind me part of the way there, but when I stop at the entrance to the ER, I run to get help and/or yell: “My dad’s having a heart atack!”

Hitler? Nobody knew what he was capable of in 1939. The Concentration Camps included other ethnic groups and political enemies. In the recent conflict between Bosnia-Herczegovina, I saw photos of Bosnian soldiers behind barbed wire in an exact rerun of World War II.

I never even think about exceptions. I learn. I understand. And I make plans.

God bless,
Ed

 

[phoage]

According to Just War Theory from what little I remember from commentary and opinion pieces, the leader/leadership of Govt. has the responsibility of judging the need for war/self defense and making the necessary prudential judgements for the provision of war. Some of these prudential judgements are based on privileged or secret information.

The realm for this prudential decision making or judgement does not rest within the field soldiers responsibility, nor with the general populace at large. Once a decision has been made, the responsibilities and moral repercussions are those of the leader/leadership . These decisions are not the realm of the soldier as frequently you do not have all the privvy information.

The problem I have with this is, during WWII Germany had many Christians (yes and Catholics) in uniform who believed God was on their side. Many of the Nurnberg defendants used “just following orders” as a defense. The general judgement was that this was not a defense. Lt. Calley used the same defense in this country after Me Lei, just as successfully.

I agree that the common soldier or citizen does not begin to have the information to make a completely informed decision on a given war but the general judgement of most societies in modern times is that this is still an individual responsability and ignorance is no excuse.

I cant’ think of a U.S. war since WWI that a soldier would be justified in not participating based on naked evidence that the US was involved in a war of conquest and subjugation.

Just War theory not only requires that the beginning of the war be under proper circumstances, but that all the actions during the war meet the Theory. There are a number of decisions made by the Allies and indeed by America alone, during our wars of the last century that do not bear close scrutiny under Just War Theory; decisions made at the highest levels.

I dont really understand your Catholic teaching dilemma but I do understand that what you have been through can weigh on the conscious. Further, reconnoitering the bible outside of the Churchs understanding of it is not recommended.Acts 8:30-31

Last I heard, the Pope wants Catholics to read and understand the Bible. Now I admit that I am not the sharpest pencil in the box and am willing to say when I do not understand a given teaching. I understand that the Church cannot teach erroroniously and that none of the teachings contradict Sacred Scripture. I see an implied contradiction and am seeking understanding. I am willing to read to further my understanding but telling me that I am wrong, poorly catichized and Protestant in my beliefs is not very helpful. I already know that my understanding is wrong. I already know that in the instance of these questions ( the lessor of evils and kill vs. murder) I am ignorant. This is my (feeble) attempt to correct that. I was under the impression that this is part of the purpose of this forum.

Patrick

 

[phoage]

(Neither the Scriptures nor the Church teach that all killing is wrong…)

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33215

(…one chooses a good…sometimes there is an evil side effect…unwanted side effect…see the above for details)

(Also of course see a Priest in confession on any conscience issues or questions…)

Thank you for the articles. I particularly liked the one on double effect.
The Catechism says:
2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, “You shall not kill,” and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies. He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.

This is immidiately before the section on Legitimate Self-defense. Yet here is states that Christ did not defend himself and did not allow his Chief disciple to defend him. Turn the other cheek, if a man takes your coat, give him your cloak also.

It would seem that if an enemy invades a Christian nation, they should not resist, indeed, should open their doors to the invader.

If it is a rule for the individual, should it not apply to the collection of individuals, to society?

Patrick

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Fact: The Catholic Church clergy and laypeople saved some 800,000 Jews from Hitlers genocide during WWII by issuing fake documents, baptismal certificates and more i.e. lying…

why do you consider that lying? do you believe the nazis were entitled to the truth in this example?

 

[phoage]

why do you consider that lying? do you believe the nazis were entitled to the truth in this example?

Just because someone is not entitled to the truth does not mean lying is not lying.