PART 2 of 3
There’s a book by Sally M. Rogow, “They Must Not Be Forgotten,” detailing the efforts of bishops, priests and nuns in Nazi occupied countries across Europe in WWII with respect to their heroic efforts at saving somewhere between 700,000 and 850,000 Jewish lives. Catholic clergy hid Jews in homes, monastaries and convents and arranged secret escape plans.
Many, many, false baptismal certificates were provided as well as false identities in case they were stopped. I don’t have the book in front of me but I believe that certain nuns denied they were hiding Jews to SS who came to the convents looking for them. Now it seems to me that, as per Section 2483 of the CCC, that this amounts to lying. Also, providing false identity documents should be a violation of the principle of double effect of Catholic Classical Theology. In that principle, the intended good to be acheived must outweigh the unintended evil effects. Well, it sure does. After all, lying to Satanic einsatzcommandos intent on genocide hardly compares to saving the lives of a race of people.
Nevertheless, the principle also requires the intended good must proceed directly from the action itself and not from any evil effect (which deliberate deception apparently is). Otherwise, we are doing evil so that good may result from it. So, in other words, one can’t tell a white lie to save the entire human race. That’s a pretty hard saying, but it’s been what everyone from Augustine to Aquinas to John Paul II in Veritatis Splendour has been asserting. Many modern Thomist based moral theologans, such as Boyle, Finnis, May and Grisez have been reaffirming this. Grisez, (l’lI have to check the quotation but I think it’s in Volume 3 of “The Way of the Lord Jesus; Difficult Moral Cases” ) says that if the Gestapo comes to the door looking for Jews, one has a duty to inform them. And then one could tell the Gestapo, “shoot me too after you get them.” Admittedly, the 2nd piece of advice would probably be redundant. (Yes, I know, about the suggestions of using broad as opposed to strict mental reservations, as well as the option of remaining silent; however, only someone who spent their whole life in an insulated university classroom engaging in armchair debates would be absurd enough to think that was feasible.) The teaching is basically that: never does their arise a justifiable choice of picking the lesser of 2 evils. No evil of any kind may be chosen.
However, one might conversely conclude that informing the SS you’ve got Jews hidden behind the false wall is proximate mediate cooperation in moral evil; something which is somethimes justified and tolerated for sufficiently weighty reasons. But it’s hard to see how that would apply here. Sure, you don’t want the Jews to be found but, if you don’t find a way of deceiving the Nazis, you’ll be providing direct information leading to their murder. No, you don’t want that result, but even if you keep silent, or start talking in strange evasive language, No, Obengruppenfuhrer, I haven’t seen any Jews today] the SS will figure it out fast!
Similarly, one would suppose if a Jew is stopped by the SS, he would have to identify himself as such if asked what his nationality was. And he wouldn’t be able to morally use his false identity papers either. That would be lying. After all, if it’s forbidden to “fudge” your resume to get a minimum wage job at MacDonald’s, would it not also be wrong to present false documents, even if it’s to save your life? Clearly it’s a serious sin for a Catholic to deny their Faith. But is it not also a serious sin to attest to your belief in Christ, when you have none? That’s what a false baptismal certificate does. And if so, would it not be formal cooperation in moral evil for the Church to knowingly issue a false one because the purpose (formal object) of such a document could only be to deceive.
If one extends the casuistry, then all sorts of occupations and duties are impossible for a Catholic. You couldn’t be a war spy, much less a double agent because that would be deceptive. And if you were, you’d have to own up to it right away. You couldn’t be an undercover cop, chasing drug cartel mobsters because that would be deceiving them. After all, they have a right to the truth just as much as anyone else, or al least the right not to be deceived. Detectives using false identities on computer chat rooms to track down pedophiles would be deceiving them. Ostensiby, serial pedophiles have the same right not to be deceived as anyone else. Huge battles in war have been won through one side intercepting and decrypting enemy codes, as did the Allies with the German enigma machines of WWII. The Allies broadcasted false information on upcoming bogus attacks, whereas the real ones took place where the Germans were unprepared. But this is a form of deliberate deception. Even if it’s against a heinous Satanically ruled enemy, does a state of war, even the most just one, allow lying? Should we be obliged to sacrifice extra soldiers, submarines and other warships in order to avoid deceiving the enemy?
PM me though, and I’ll give you my professional license information to verify my credentials as a veterinarian. Still, you wouldn’t really be able to verify that I’m who I say I am…see my point?)