Horrible dilemma - what should you do?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cradle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
At first, I rush to say that renouncing the Church and saving the villagers is the morally correct action. After all, to assume that God would not provide - in some manner, earthly or heavenly - for oneself and the villagers seems to imply that God isn’t in control, but that the person of whom apostasy is demanded feels in control.

Still, is feigned apostasy truly sinful? Hard to say, but it seems to me that even pretending to deny God by saying the words and deceiving others into believing the lie seems sinful. 🤷

Of course, it’s the lives of others that bring the problems here. If it were simply one’s own life at stake, apostasy is out of the question. Whether it’s that “simple” in reality is an entirely different issue, but the point is that it is most definitely not the same problem as when others’ lives are in jeopardy.
Rahab lied about the two men that Joshua sent to spy on Jericho and she made it into the “Hall of Faith” in Hebrews 11. Every NT mention of her praises her for telling that lie.

I’ve always felt bad for the poor dear, having to go down in history as “Rahab the harlot” even though she quit harlot-ing and joined the Israelites and is one of the women in Christ’s lineage.
 
This kind of reminds me of the story of Masada. The jewish warriors who, when their fortress was about to fall, killed the women and children they were defending, rather than let the attackers do worse. (Apologies if I have the facts wrong, but I think that’s about the size of it)

Horrible situation… but was it a sin?
Wasn’t it that the women and children sacrificed themselves?? Or maybe I’m confusing it with the more recent incident at Monimbo in Central America…
 
On a somewhat unrelated note, and also a bit - I can’t think of the word - but does anyone know what “torture of the trench” is ?
 

Of course, it’s the lives of others that bring the problems here. If it were simply one’s own life at stake, apostasy is out of the question. Whether it’s that “simple” in reality is an entirely different issue, but the point is that it is most definitely not the same problem as when others’ lives are in jeopardy.
But if we commited apostasy in that situation, we would be destroying any chance to testify to the faith. Didn’t God send His only Son to be crucified for the sake of the entire world? Who’s to say His plan is to ask us to save the villagers… in a very temporal way? Consider the torturers. Perhaps God’s plan is to save them. And by committing apostasy, you’re telling those men - and the villagers - that the God you preached isn’t worth relying on in your darkest hour. Committing apostasty is quite likely the worst choice - the betrayal of your God will not only breed arrogance and triumph among your captors, but also doubt among your flock.

I think the greatest act of faith would be defending your faith. God may very well provide for the safety of the villagers, as long as you do the best thing you are capable of doing.
 
But if we commited apostasy in that situation, we would be destroying any chance to testify to the faith. Didn’t God send His only Son to be crucified for the sake of the entire world? Who’s to say His plan is to ask us to save the villagers… in a very temporal way? Consider the torturers. Perhaps God’s plan is to save them. And by committing apostasy, you’re telling those men - and the villagers - that the God you preached isn’t worth relying on in your darkest hour. Committing apostasty is quite likely the worst choice - the betrayal of your God will not only breed arrogance and triumph among your captors, but also doubt among your flock.
My thoughts exactly.
 
Please can you tell me what the word ‘Apostasy’ means?I never heard it before.
 
Please can you tell me what the word ‘Apostasy’ means?I never heard it before.
Sorry, can’t PM you so I need to go OT - I see you are in Dublin! Would you mind contacting me? Either Private Message or e-mail. I am in a discussion on another forum with someone in Dublin who is saying some very uncharitable things about the RCC in Ireland - that Irish Catholics worship Mary, don’t really know Jesus, etc…would you be willing to help? Thanks.

Back to your regularly scheduled postings…
 
Sorry, can’t PM you so I need to go OT - I see you are in Dublin! Would you mind contacting me? Either Private Message or e-mail. I am in a discussion on another forum with someone in Dublin who is saying some very uncharitable things about the RCC in Ireland - that Irish Catholics worship Mary, don’t really know Jesus, etc…would you be willing to help? Thanks…
I dont have much email access but I’ll email you ASAP- it’ll probably be tomorrow or Tueday.
 
It seems to me that one’s flock is the issue here. To a theist, if your god is indeed omniscient and merciful, then I would hope such trivial actions as stomping a symbol or empty words would be as nothing, compared to the suffering and death of a priest’s innocent flock. It’s one thing to be tortured and die for what one believes, but when that is visited upon those entrusted to you?

As a nontheist, I would not hesitate to publicly renounce my lack of belief, and even genuinely try to BE of whatever faith forced upon me if I had to, to prevent such horror, even though I do not think myself able to hold any religious faith whatsoever. Whether or not it were only lip service, evil and human misery would be averted. And if a God is worthy of the title, would that not suffice?
Your argument assumes that words are indeed empty and that actions taken against symbols are indeed trivial; and further assumes that suffering and death are the ultimate evils.

This is understandable from the athiestic point of view, of course, but not from the Catholic perspective. Believers in Yahweh are commanded to refrain from “taking the name of the Lord in vain”. Christians are told by Jesus that whoever calls his brother a derogatory epithet is risking eternal condemnation. Jesus suffered torture and death when he might have avoided it by saying, “It’s all a mistake - I’m not claiming to be equal to God! I’m just a traveling preacher!”

Words, to us, reflect powerful realities and are not empty. Many, many Christians have faced torture and death - and watched their loved ones face the same - rather than toss some incense on a brazier before the Emperor’s statue or renounce the faith.

Does anyone think they didn’t say to themselves, “It’s only a statue… its only words… it doesn’t really mean anything; I can go on believing whatever I wish in my heart” ? What could be more natural than to think that- people in 200 AD weren’t stupid; we’d be silly to think it never occurred to them that God would forgive them.And yet they chose to die. And yet their surviving brethren were able to watch them go to their torture and death, know that they themselves might be the same fate, and yet insist that those who caved in and renounced the faith were guilty of a very serious evil.

Yes, it would be far worse to watch your loved one tortured than to face it yourself. I have no doubt that God would be merciful to people who simply could not bear it. But that does not make apostasizing the correct moral choice. If the believer’s proposition that “No amount of pain in this world justifies renouncing God or outweighs the happiness that awaits me with Him” is true, then it is equally true not only for oneself, but for one’s loved ones as well. If it is not true, then it is silly to accept any pain oneself for an illusion; why draw the line at watching another suffer? Why not draw the line at a slap?

Your argument seems to boil down to an assumption that it is - or ought to be - God’s business to prevent human misery. We do not share that assumption!
 
Better death than sin–even the death of others. By praying for their souls, the priests could do more good than if they renounced God and then were left with only helping them tempolarly.
 
So for me an interesting question here …

Should the priest decide the correct course of action is to remain true to the faith, and the tortured villagers were actually killed …

Would this not constitute Martyrdom? Would these villagers not receive a “Baptism of Blood”, and thus go directly to heaven?

In my mind, it is analogous to the slaughter of the Holy Innocents. I believe the Church teaches that the Holy Innocents received a baptism of blood, and thus were taken directly to heaven (presumably moments after the Resurrection).

So even if the villagers were not baptized, even if they were not fully evangelized, even, in fact, if they did not know or believe in Jesus (as surely the Holy Innocents did not) they would receive this grace.

In that context, the greatest good the priest could do for the villagers is to proclaim the truth of our faith - a few hours/days of torture for a guaranteed eternity in heaven.

right?
 
But if we commited apostasy in that situation, we would be destroying any chance to testify to the faith. Didn’t God send His only Son to be crucified for the sake of the entire world?
Your ideas depend on several appallingly questionable assumptions.

First of all, condemning the villagers to torture would have far more potential to destroy their openness to the faith than saving them, because in their agony, they would inevitably perceive the stubborn believer as horrifyingly cruel and apathetic for letting them suffer willingly. This, not feigned apostasy, would ruin any chance that they would listen to the believer for the rest of their lives.
Who’s to say His plan is to ask us to save the villagers… in a very temporal way? Consider the torturers. Perhaps God’s plan is to save them. And by committing apostasy, you’re telling those men - and the villagers - that the God you preached isn’t worth relying on in your darkest hour.
Your second mistake - this situation would not be “your” darkest our - it would be the villagers’.

We have the authority to embrace our own suffering and give up our lives for Christ. If you were told, “Renounce Christ or you
will suffer and die,” then the right choice would be martyrdom; hopefully we would all have the grace to choose it.

In the example given, however, the villagers have no choice. They may or may not want to be martyrs. And if they die against their will - if they personally would want you to commit apostasy so that they could live, if they preferred earthly life to martyrdom for Christ, then how could they possibly be martyrs? If they’re not in a state of grace before this event occurs and if they have no conversion experience during their torture, you may very well be condeming them to hell by your stubborn insolence.
Committing apostasty is quite likely the worst choice - the betrayal of your God will not only breed arrogance and triumph among your captors, but also doubt among your flock.
If you stop for a moment and simply take the time to realize what torture is, and then imagine wretched howls of agony and despair coming from innocent men, women, and children, then I think you’ll realize that your captors are, in a sense, forcing you to betray God either way.

And that brings up another point - it’s so easy for some of you to casually type from the comfort of your homes, in front of your familiar computer screens, that you would condemn the villagers to torture and death.

If you were actually in that situation and saw the torture and experienced the horror of it all, you would suddenly realize that it isn’t nearly as black-and-white as you presume.
I think the greatest act of faith would be defending your faith. God may very well provide for the safety of the villagers, as long as you do the best thing you are capable of doing.
How can the “best thing” possibly consist of being reckless with the lives and souls of unbelievers? Again, this isn’t their choice; the assumption on the part of some of you that this is the villagers’ opportunity to be martyrs reveals that you’re not thinking about what it means to be a martyr (I mean, the villagers aren’t even believers yet! They’re going to die for a cause they don’t care about yet) and worse, you’re rewriting the situation to make it simpler than it really is.

Not good at all.
40.png
mistfall:
Your argument assumes that words are indeed empty and that actions taken against symbols are indeed trivial; and further assumes that suffering and death are the ultimate evils.
His argument does not assume that words are necessarily always empty and that actions taken against symbols are inherently trivial.

He simply assumes that it’s possible for some actions in some circumstances to be meaningless - surely you don’t deny that?

And a situation like this one undoubtedly qualifies as part of the category in which you’re being manipulated so horrifically that your actions are stripped of any real, willful meaning.

I ask all of you to imagine for a moment that you’re a villager who has just heard about Christ and doesn’t know or care about Him yet.

Which will make you more likely to turn away from Christ?

His messenger paying no heed to your innocent children’s howls of agony? Or his messenger renouncing Him with obvious insincerity in order to save you and your family?
 
Jesus warned us not to deny Him, didn’t He? And He said the apostles mustn’t worry about what they would say under duress. If we trust God to fulfill His promises, we can know He will make everything finally work out for the best as long as we do our best to obey Him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top