But AFAIK, the Catholic definition of “evil” goes far beyond “causing someone else to be a victim”. If that was the definition, then consensual sex acts, drug abuse, etc., wouldn’t even be an issue, since they do not cause “someone else to be a victim”. (And St. Maria Goretti would be an idiot, not a saint.)
I didn’t state that that was the definition of evil. I was trying to differentiate between choosing to harm/kill someone else to avoid anything bad happening to you vs. choosing between 2 levels of harm that directed at you either way. In the rape scenario you are being harmed no matter what. Any evil act performed still harms yourself and is only done to limit further harm to yourself.
In the OP scenario you are choosing to perform a morally evil act to avoid harm to yourself. You are acting in a self interested way rather than a selfless way and are willing to perform an evil act for your self interest to ensure no harm comes to you, even at the expense of another.
My mentioning this before was not to place one wrong higher or lower than another, but rather to show that the dynamics and choices of the analogies were rather different.
Also, consensual sex acts do cause harm to one another spiritually, as well as to spouses (current or future), can cause relationship/trust issues, etc… Drug abuse hurts the families, society, etc… so they are not “victimless” crimes.
I also noticed that you did not address the case of the rapist who got his victim to cooperate, not by threatening her with physical harm, but by threatening her child with harm. That I think is the most appropriate analogy to the OP’s scenario.
This scenario is a somewhat more appropriate analogy, though instead of being asked to harm someone else, your choice is between harm coming upon your child, or harm coming upon your self. Enduring the rape would possibly be an act of self sacrifice; a giving over of one’s own well being to save the well being of the child.
I agree, but if this was the case all prostitutes would be guilty of mortal sin, and the only exception would be those who are literally kidnapped into sexual slavery. But AFAIK the Church does NOT reach that.
You are again trying to judge the level/state of sin of a particular person. We cannot do this, but can only judge the morality of acts. We can say that someone has performed a morally evil act, but we cannot judge their culpability. Circumstance (duress, threats, social pressure, addictions, culture, etc) all contribute to the individual responsibility for actions. Two prostitutes could perform the exact same actions and one may be more culpable than another because of circumstances.
Again, what about the scenario of a rapist threatening to harm his victim’s child? If the victim hadn’t capitulated, but, say, had fought back, only to be overpowered, or had run away and called the police, and the rapist had followed through on his threat. Would she be at all responsible for his sick actions?
No, you are not responsible for the evil conducted by someone else. As a parent, you do have a responsibility to protect your children as best you can, but in a scenario like this, you are not choosing anything morally evil. Sacrificing your self for others is one of the the greatest forms of love, but you are also not culpable for the morally evil acts of others if there is no possible morally good way to stop them.
I agree that there is only the illusion of choice in this scenario. But I would also say that is the case for the OP’s scenario.
I still see a more definitive choice present in the OP’s scenario.
