Is it ever OK to lie?

[LittleSoldier]

I can’t say that I dislike Catholicism. My mother, father, grandmother, and grandfather are all (or were in the case of my grandparents) GREAT Catholics and I have (or had) tremendous respect for them. My mother is a great person and goes to church every day trying to be the best Catholic that she can be. My Grandfather is probably the person I want to emulate in my life, and to me he was the quintessential Catholic. When he retired, he picked up so many volunteer jobs that he basically was still working full time but for free (many of these jobs being for Catholic institutions or Catholic churches). In my opinion, the Catholic Church shaped these people’s lives so much that I could never truly dislike the church. But, to be honest, some of the people on these forums upset me and don’t mesh with my opinions of what morality should be…BUT they quote things from the Catechism proving their point. I don’t really know what to think…I have never met a priest that I did not admire and respect though and I feel that some Catholics on here are so rigid with how they follow the Church teachings that most Catholics don’t agree with them.

I just don’t know what to think anymore. I think I might have to stop going on these forums because certain people make me believe that I don’t like Catholicism.

I’ve noticed the same thing about myself. It seems that an awful lot of people on these forums believe they can pick and choose what they like about Catholicism and they are right and everyone else is wrong. I’ve started reading some books written by people like Chesterton and some of the apologists here. That’s helped me a lot. If I believed 1 percent of what I’ve been told here, I would leave the Church.

Sometimes I wish I could have an all-day session with an apologist and a theologian, just so I could ask about all these things that bother me. That isn’t going to happen (obviously) but I think reading books written by them will help clarify what is Church teaching and what isn’t. Because it can really be confusing at times.

God bless you!

Sancta Maria! Mater dei, ora pro nobis.

 

[Rence]

That was uncalled for. Not cool at all. Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean you should say something like this.

Please Rascalking, with all due respect to you, that’s not fair to say to hellopeople either. If you’re going to reprimand someone for being uncool, perhaps, someone else should be reprimanded too? Some of us are antagonized on this forum by others and it gets quite old. Some of us are just better at ignoring and disregarding people as ‘nobody’ better than others. Respect is a two-way street. It’s not just that hellopeople “disagrees with someone”. To just disagree with someone is one thing, we do it all the time, don’t we? But hellopeople (as well as others) is constantly being told in various threads all over the forum that he is " in separation with the Church", “separated himself from the Church”, “chooses to be separated from the Church”, “should not go to communion”, “is not entitled to go to Communion” and other nonsense quite frankly, by someone who has no business saying so. No one here on this forum has any Church authority to say things like that to other people. It’s arrogant, and it’s rude. Eventually someone will be rude back. And you know, hellopeople tried not to be rude. If Hellopeople, or others, doesn’t have a good support system outside this board, it can really do some damage to a young and growing Christian. It pushes people away from the Church, and I think it’s done intentionally. He needs to learn how to use the ignore function.

Being a “cafeterial catholic” comes from both sides of the spectrum. People who tell others they’re not catholic, can’t go to communion, take the teachings of the Church beyond the teachings of the Church, or being “more holy than the Pope” are cafeteria catholics too, because they’re not living by true teachings either. They are just on the opposite end of the spectrum is all.

It’s really nice of you to come to the aid of another member, and I see that you’re intentions are honorable. But why is it that Hellopeople is getting the reprimand and no one else? Hellopeople has been contradicted, antagonized, been beat down, and has been pummeled in various threads - what does one expect to happen? I think he’s had enough. Charity, kindness, compassion and understanding would be nice if it from all sides. And it would make it a lot easier to have meaningful discussions as well.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I find I am drawn to the same conclusion as you mentioned. We had this same discussion about lying when I attended a parochial high school, and the conclusion of the instructors confused me just as it does now. Lying is a sin, regardless, although if you were clever enough to rationalize or phrase your response you could technically avoid guilt. I did not understand it then, and I do not understand it now. It is not a sin to lie to save a life or to lie to care for the sick (Alzheimer’s example). But as several have mentioned there is an aggressive conservative bent to Catholicism (or maybe just this forum) and I find it repulsive.

I have been posting in the health care debate. With the gospel’s obsession about caring for the sick, I would have thought I would have received some support for my position in favor of reform (and I do not want to reargue the issue here) but regardless of my strict adherence to the exact words and specific philosophies of the gospels (I very much believe in the philosophy of the gospels) concerning care for the sick and poor, and the condemnation of the accumulation of wealth, I was almost unanimously attacked and condemned for wanting to care for the sick. The conservative bent of this forum could come directly out of the mouth of Limbaugh or Beck rather than the gospels.

It is not an enticing attitude for those of us who believe in the philosophy of the gospels, and wonder what Catholics are thinking.

I was in the health care threads for awhile. Unless it’s changed, all the threads have the same posters (which is fine) and all deteriorate rapidly into ad hominem fights about conservatism and liberalism (which isn’t fine). I saw no love in those threads. A few times I brought up our obligation to help those who are poor and sick, and I was for the most part ignored. Once I was told that I am “liberal” (as something a young and naive person would be) but that I should depend on those who “have more experience.” I don’t think Christianity was present at all in those threads. It was all “I want mine” and “you can’t have my money.”

I couldn’t even figure out who I agreed with. I finally left.

Sancta Maria! Mater dei, ora pro nobis.

 

[Rence]

Rence - I had a very similar (identical actually) experience. People on Catholic fora said certain things which almost led me to leave the RCIA, and when I went to the priest he reassured me (and yes, he is very orthodox theologically). He told me to stop going on those fora in fact.

I don’t think they realize how bad they make the Church look, if they did, they wouldn’t carry on like they do and create so much drama on Catholic fora. They don’t realize that some people regard other members like they’re reflecting the Church in their responses. But they don’t speak for the Church. And they don’t reflect “real” Catholics that you meet in real life. I’ve not once met someone in real life like the more scrupulous members here. And really, I don’t think a lot of people have. It’s just that these few are making the most noise. And I’m not sure if it’s my age, but I learned early on to ignore people who constantly say things that don’t fit my understanding of faith, values and morals. If it doesn’t sound right, it usually isn’t. If something someone claims is Truth doesn’t sound right, it probably isn’t. If someone says something that makes your stomach turn, you should look elsewhere for the answer.

There has to be something wrong when people claim that every priest you talk to is a fallen priest, and that only they have the true facts and understanding.

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat, thanks for responding. I always appreciate people’s thoughts and opinions - especially when they’re not inappropriately damning me to Hell for my own thoughts and opinions It’s a nice way to get another perspective and to think things out.

I see what you’re saying, and I can see where you’re coming from. But I don’t agree with this interpretation, and I don’t see the difference between “lying” and “making use of discrete language”. Maybe a different word should be used for “lying” when “lying” is appropriate. If it would eliminate the difference of opinion and understanding, and reduce all the needless drama, I can change every “lie” in this and other threads to “use of discrete language”. So really, I think some are getting hung up on a word, and not looking at the meaning behind it. Furthermore there is no honor, or merit, in “being silent” when it results in getting yourself and/or others killed, especially your family or the people you are protecting. No merit or value whatsoever. One still has the responsibility to protect others. You can’t be “silent”, you will eventually have to say something.

And I don’t think it’s a sin at all, in any way, to (for example) lie (or use discreet language) to the Nazi’s regarding the whereabouts of a family of Jews. Does anyone (except the most scrupulous think that the man who hid Anne Frank and Co. for all that time in his upstairs attic was “sinning” by hiding his charges? Honestly, I don’t believe he even has the need to confess such “lies” or “use of discrete language” at all. In fact, if he would have chosen to “remain silent”, he would have been arrested, his family would have been arrested, his business would have been raided sooner, and those he was protecting would have been arrested. He would have been guilty, and would have had to answer for, all those people’s outcomes because he would have misinterpreted the message in the CCC, or rather his stubborness in his misinterpretation. But instead, he did a wonderful and good thing and tried to save as many lives as he could putting himself at risk. I see, looking at the whole picture, that he did not sin in his effort to help others and put himself at risk. He knew what was at stake and helped people anyway. He probably would have gotten away with it if his “friend” would not have turned him in. I would not reward his courage, kindness and goodness by accusing him of “lying”. But of course, we’re all entitled to our opininions. We are encouraged to use our conscience when reading the CCC, and we each have to do that for ourselves We certainly can’t expect to always agree with each other, or to be changed, or change others.

But again, thank you! It’s interesting to see the other side of things. And it’s even nicer to be able to discuss them without spitting venom, which I appreciate.

I would need to note that it would not be an opinion here. It is what the Church teaches. What the Catechism says. A lie is a sin. But one may use ‘discreet language’ without lying in order to protect others etc. (so as you say …this is what one would want to say)

It is important to always distinguish so things are clear.

As to the ‘silence’ I was only establishing the general principle and saying what the CCC says …it is not I think the course to take with Nazis holding German Lugers…

 

[Rence]

I would need to note that it would not be an opinion here. It is what the Church teaches. What the Catechism says. A lie is a sin. But one may use ‘discreet language’ without lying in order to protect others etc.

It is important to always distinguish so things are clear.

As to the ‘silence’ I was only establishing the general principle and saying what the CCC says …it is not I think the course to take with Nazis hold German Lugers…

ok

 

[Joe_5859]

I think that one of the things we need to spend more time considering is whether or not every act of speaking a false statement is “lying”. As has been pointed out already, not every act of killing is “murder” and not every act of taking is “stealing.”

Lying, stealing, and murder are always wrong, regardless of circumstance (though, individual culpability can vary), but moral theology already makes distinctions between murder and self-defense and between stealing and taking a loaf of bread to feed your starving family. Thus, it does not seem that unreasonable to think that there might be some similar distinction between lying and telling the Nazis that you haven’t seen any Jews.

Since probably none of us here are moral theologians by training, we should recognize that we may not find the answer on this thread.

 

[Bookcat]

I think that one of the things we need to spend more time considering is whether or not every act of speaking a false statement is “lying”. As has been pointed out already, not every act of killing is “murder” and not every act of taking is “stealing.”

Lying, stealing, and murder are always wrong, regardless of circumstance (though, individual culpability can vary), but moral theology already makes distinctions between murder and self-defense and between stealing and taking a loaf of bread to feed your starving family. Thus, it does not seem that unreasonable to think that there might be some similar distinction between lying and telling the Nazis that you haven’t seen any Jews.

Since probably none of us here are moral theologians by training, we should recognize that we may not find the answer on this thread.

Yes I noted this possibility. That the *moral object *may be different in what one is talking about in regards to Nazi’s at the door looking for Jews. Like apples and nuts. Two different things. Such perhaps can be argued.

As well as the use of mental reservation of a moral kind (which is a kind of discreet language) can of be of course used.

 

[Rascalking]

Please Rascalking, with all due respect to you, that’s not fair to say to hellopeople either. If you’re going to reprimand someone for being uncool, perhaps, someone else should be reprimanded too? Some of us are antagonized on this forum by others and it gets quite old. Some of us are just better at ignoring and disregarding people as ‘nobody’ better than others. Respect is a two-way street. It’s not just that hellopeople “disagrees with someone”. To just disagree with someone is one thing, we do it all the time, don’t we? But hellopeople (as well as others) is constantly being told in various threads all over the forum that he is " in separation with the Church", “separated himself from the Church”, “chooses to be separated from the Church”, “should not go to communion”, “is not entitled to go to Communion” and other nonsense quite frankly, by someone who has no business saying so. No one here on this forum has any Church authority to say things like that to other people. It’s arrogant, and it’s rude. Eventually someone will be rude back. And you know, hellopeople tried not to be rude. If Hellopeople, or others, doesn’t have a good support system outside this board, it can really do some damage to a young and growing Christian. It pushes people away from the Church, and I think it’s done intentionally. He needs to learn how to use the ignore function.

Being a “cafeterial catholic” comes from both sides of the spectrum. People who tell others they’re not catholic, can’t go to communion, take the teachings of the Church beyond the teachings of the Church, or being “more holy than the Pope” are cafeteria catholics too, because they’re not living by true teachings either. They are just on the opposite end of the spectrum is all.

It’s really nice of you to come to the aid of another member, and I see that you’re intentions are honorable. But why is it that Hellopeople is getting the reprimand and no one else? Hellopeople has been contradicted, antagonized, been beat down, and has been pummeled in various threads - what does one expect to happen? I think he’s had enough. Charity, kindness, compassion and understanding would be nice if it from all sides. And it would make it a lot easier to have meaningful discussions as well.

I agree with virtually all of what you said, but I thought, and still think, that it was a low blow towards Kage. We can have a disagreement, we can argue, but we shouldn’t be mean or nasty,

I have nothing against Hellopeople or anyone else-I took issue with their post-which I am sure was not written out of any sense of meanness.

I see your point completely though.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Bookcat, thanks for responding. I always appreciate people’s thoughts and opinions - especially when they’re not inappropriately damning me to Hell for my own thoughts and opinions It’s a nice way to get another perspective and to think things out.

I see what you’re saying, and I can see where you’re coming from. But I don’t agree with this interpretation, and I don’t see the difference between “lying” and “making use of discrete language”. Maybe a different word should be used for “lying” when “lying” is appropriate. If it would eliminate the difference of opinion and understanding, and reduce all the needless drama, I can change every “lie” in this and other threads to “use of discrete language”. So really, I think some are getting hung up on a word, and not looking at the meaning behind it. Furthermore there is no honor, or merit, in “being silent” when it results in getting yourself and/or others killed, especially your family or the people you are protecting. No merit or value whatsoever. One still has the responsibility to protect others. You can’t be “silent”, you will eventually have to say something.

And I don’t think it’s a sin at all, in any way, to (for example) lie (or use discreet language) to the Nazi’s regarding the whereabouts of a family of Jews. Does anyone (except the most scrupulous think that the man who hid Anne Frank and Co. for all that time in his upstairs attic was “sinning” by hiding his charges? Honestly, I don’t believe he even has the need to confess such “lies” or “use of discrete language” at all. In fact, if he would have chosen to “remain silent”, he would have been arrested, his family would have been arrested, his business would have been raided sooner, and those he was protecting would have been arrested. He would have been guilty, and would have had to answer for, all those people’s outcomes because he would have misinterpreted the message in the CCC, or rather his stubborness in his misinterpretation. But instead, he did a wonderful and good thing and tried to save as many lives as he could putting himself at risk. I see, looking at the whole picture, that he did not sin in his effort to help others and put himself at risk. He knew what was at stake and helped people anyway. He probably would have gotten away with it if his “friend” would not have turned him in. I would not reward his courage, kindness and goodness by accusing him of “lying”. But of course, we’re all entitled to our opininions. We are encouraged to use our conscience when reading the CCC, and we each have to do that for ourselves We certainly can’t expect to always agree with each other, or to be changed, or change others.

But again, thank you! It’s interesting to see the other side of things. And it’s even nicer to be able to discuss them without spitting venom, which I appreciate.

Couldn’t the word “untruth” be used instead of the word “lie?” I think everyone here knows that if a group of Nazis show up at one’s door and demand to know whether one is hiding a Jewish family, that if they are told the truth, the Jewish family will be killed and so will the person protecting them. We all know this can’t be the way God intends us to be. He wants us to be loving, as He is. He wants us to protect the Jewish family and ourselves. And you’re right - eventually the person hiding the Jewish family will have to talk. If he/she doesn’t provide an answer, he/she is going to be shot. And then the Jewish family will be found, anyway. And we have a bunch of dead people. This can’t be right.

So I think the solution is obvious and somehow we are all getting tangled up in semantics. But if the word “lie” by definition means “an untruth told to those who have the right to know the truth,” then it wouldn’t be a lie to tell the Nazi soldiers that one doesn’t have a Jewish family hidden in the house. The Nazis don’t have the right to know the truth.

I think we all know the moral, ethical action to take.

“Untruth” is the only word I can think of right now. But then maybe it’s not a good word at all to use. I don’t know. I’m just throwing it out here for what it’s worth.

Ave Maria! Sancta Maria! Mater dei, ora pro nobis.

 

[Bookcat]

General note:

In all these sorts of questions…well with every question…

We must “think with the Church” …*Sentire cum Ecclesia *(as Pope Benedict XVI has mentioned)

Neither “picking and choosing” what we wish to believe (we profess the Catholic Faith not just parts of it)

Nor being rigorist and thus requiring things that the Church does not require.

And of course Profess what the Church professes and reject what She rejects!

We must follow Jesus Christ as his disciples…being faithful to his Church …particularly to Peter that is to Pope Benedict XVI his successor.

And do so with Charity and Joy!

And always remember the ‘renewal of our minds’ vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090628_chius-anno-paolino_en.html

 

[Joe_5859]

Neither “picking and choosing” what we wish to believe (we profess the Catholic Faith not just parts of it)

Nor being rigorist and thus requiring things that the Church does not require.

I think your entire post was a good reminder, but I wanted to highlight these two statements in particular. It seems to me that a great majority of conflicts here at CAF could be avoided if we were all a bit more conscientious about navigating between these two pitfalls.

 

[Rence]

Couldn’t the word “untruth” be used instead of the word “lie?” I think everyone here knows that if a group of Nazis show up at one’s door and demand to know whether one is hiding a Jewish family, that if they are told the truth, the Jewish family will be killed and so will the person protecting them. We all know this can’t be the way God intends us to be. He wants us to be loving, as He is. He wants us to protect the Jewish family and ourselves. And you’re right - eventually the person hiding the Jewish family will have to talk. If he/she doesn’t provide an answer, he/she is going to be shot. And then the Jewish family will be found, anyway. And we have a bunch of dead people. This can’t be right.

**Yeah, I see what you’re saying, and it’s not **right. I would hope that people are getting hung up on a word, but I doubt it because of the fact that other replies on this thread said the “moral” thing to do was to be “silent”, which isn’t realistic. I mean, really, you’re going to talk - you can do it the easy way or the hard way, but you’ll talk. Therefore, you have to make a choice as to what to say. And IIRC, there was another that said it was better to tell the truth and deal with the consequences. So while some people are getting hung up on semantics, others apparently think it’s moral to not lie/tell an untruth, whatever the case and consequences may be. So I don’t think changing the word is going to help some people.

So I think the solution is obvious and somehow we are all getting tangled up in semantics. But if the word “lie” by definition means “an untruth told to those who have the right to know the truth,” then it wouldn’t be a lie to tell the Nazi soldiers that one doesn’t have a Jewish family hidden in the house. The Nazis don’t have the right to know the truth.

**Yeah, I agree. The parts of the CCC that acknowedge that one not provide the truth to someone who doesn’t have the right to know the truth supports this. If you’re not providing the truth…aren’t you lying? Call it what you will, but there are a few different ways to claim someone is lying. For example, is it not considered lying by omitting information? That’s how I was taught by the nun and priests all my life. But who knows, many those old BVMs and Jesuits were renagades too **

I think we all know the moral, ethical action to take.

One would think

“Untruth” is the only word I can think of right now. But then maybe it’s not a good word at all to use. I don’t know. I’m just throwing it out here for what it’s worth.

**Well maybe someone would accept that word to explain what we’re trying to say. I don’t really care about the word, if someone wants to use something else, that’d be fine with me IMOHO, actions are sometimes more important than words. You can say something, but nothing you say matters when you actually do another. So you can say, “Oh, I love people” but then when you do something to get someone else killed, you speak volumes about how you really feel about people. **

Ave Maria! Sancta Maria! Mater dei, ora pro nobis.

 

[LittleSoldier]

If anyone has posted this before, I missed it and apologize. I went to the New Advent website and found more on “lying” than anywhere else. I recommend that site - it’s very good and goes into a lot of detail:

newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm

I didn’t pick out anything to quote because there’s so much there.

Sancta Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[LilyM]

You really think that you could just not answer nazi’s? You think they would just let you not answer? Are you serious…I can only imagine you would get smashed with the butt of a rifle in your face and then get asked again.

And you seriously imagine you could say to them ‘nope, no Jews here, Mr Nazi Officer sir,’ and they’d just take your word for it and walk away? If so you’re dreaming.

 

[Rascalking]

And you seriously imagine you could say to them ‘nope, no Jews here, Mr Nazi Officer sir,’ and they’d just take your word for it and walk away? If so you’re dreaming.

Well, I will dream without blood on my hands.

Can someone here please admit that in this case, the life of jewish victims in the holocaust isn’t worth telling a lie? That’s the message that I’m getting here! If I’m wrong, and dear God, I hope I am-please tell me!

I think I’ve asked this question before—

 

[hellopeople]

And you seriously imagine you could say to them ‘nope, no Jews here, Mr Nazi Officer sir,’ and they’d just take your word for it and walk away? If so you’re dreaming.

Well it is certainly a better answer than not answering at all. If you don’t answer at all you are basically saying “yes I have jews here” and if you say no, obviously you are saying no. They are likely to check your house either way but I wouldn’t be surprised if they checked it a bit harder if you didn’t respond.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Well, I will dream without blood on my hands.

Can someone here please admit that in this case, the life of jewish victims in the holocaust isn’t worth telling a lie? That’s the message that I’m getting here! If I’m wrong, and dear God, I hope I am-please tell me!

I think I’ve asked this question before—

Every life is created in love by a loving God and it is never OK to hand it over to someone who will harm it. NEVER.

I would rather lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie than to let harm come to people I am protecting. If I can’t do that, I’m not protecting them and I should be ashamed.

And if it comes down to it, I will give my life for those people I am protecting. Because that is what Jesus would do and I love Him and want to be like Him.

Holy Mother, please pray for
the safety of the unborn and for
those who fight for their right to life.**

 

[LilyM]

Well, I will dream without blood on my hands.

Can someone here please admit that in this case, the life of jewish victims in the holocaust isn’t worth telling a lie? That’s the message that I’m getting here! If I’m wrong, and dear God, I hope I am-please tell me!

I think I’ve asked this question before—

But you would have blood on your hands - your naivety would cost you your life as well as theirs (because you’d be killed for trying to lie to the Nazis as well), rather than sparing a single thing.

In the Nazis-at-the-door case, I would say you weigh up the (certainly venial, probably extremely venial, but nonetheless to be avoided if at all possible as all sin, even the most venial, is to be avoided) sinful nature of the lie against the undoubtedly also sinful, but incomparably more serious, sin against charity and life of simply blurting out that the Jews are there knowing what will happen to them.

But not until and unless you’ve exhausted all other possibilities than telling a falsehood.

What you’re really doing here, among other things, is not acknowledging the independent agency of those who would kill the Jews. Is the fact that they are murderous thugs, to the extent that they would hound Jews out of people’s houses, in some way your fault? Maybe you can stop them by lying, which is a huge maybe at best - but are we required to make dubiously effective attempts to save life at absolutely any cost, including the cost of our immortal souls?

Isn’t your immortal soul worth more than anything else - including your own life? Are the lives of others truly worth sinning for? I’m sure the innocent families of the early Christian martyrs were persecuted for their family members’ refusals to renounce their Christian faith, did this fact prevent those martyrs from choosing truth over the lives of their families?

Personally, I’m one of those people who ALWAYS, but always, gets caught out if I try to lie, and in my 36 years on this planet have far more often than not found out that truthfulness doesn’t lead to the awful consequences we’d imagine. So perhaps that has influenced my opinion.

Think outsid the box, people - try bribing the Nazis, or physically fighting them

 

[Rascalking]

But you would have blood on your hands - your naivety would cost you your life as well as theirs (because you’d be killed for trying to lie to the Nazis as well), rather than sparing a single thing.

In the Nazis-at-the-door case, I would say you weigh up the (certainly venial, probably extremely venial, but nonetheless to be avoided if at all possible as all sin, even the most venial, is to be avoided) sinful nature of the lie against the undoubtedly also sinful, but incomparably more serious, sin against charity and life of simply blurting out that the Jews are there knowing what will happen to them.

But not until and unless you’ve exhausted all other possibilities than telling a falsehood.

What you’re really doing here, among other things, is not acknowledging the independent agency of those who would kill the Jews. Is the fact that they are murderous thugs, to the extent that they would hound Jews out of people’s houses, in some way your fault? Maybe you can stop them by lying, which is a huge maybe at best - but are we required to make dubiously effective attempts to save life at absolutely any cost, including the cost of our immortal souls?

Isn’t your immortal soul worth more than anything else - including your own life? Are the lives of others truly worth sinning for? I’m sure the innocent families of the early Christian martyrs were persecuted for their family members’ refusals to renounce their Christian faith, did this fact prevent those martyrs from choosing truth over the lives of their families?

Personally, I’m one of those people who ALWAYS, but always, gets caught out if I try to lie, and in my 36 years on this planet have far more often than not found out that truthfulness doesn’t lead to the awful consequences we’d imagine. So perhaps that has influenced my opinion.

Think outsid the box, people - try bribing the Nazis, or physically fighting them

You’ve explained this very well. Thank you. I still disagree with you, but you’ve done a wonderful job of explaining it.

Thank you.