Is it okay to deny christ in word to save your life if you have a family depending on you?

[BornInMarch]

In Catholicism it is often said that intent is everything. Parents are charged with protecting their children. If someone puts you in the unlikely position of renouncing Christ to save your Child, I believe your duty would be to consider your child’s welfare before your own. Selflessness and sacrifice is rewarded in Christianity, there are numerous examples of this. On the other hand, if ISIS tells you that you have to renounce Christ on film for the whole world to see or they would chop your head off, I would tell them no deal. I can’t possibly predict how I would hold up under torture, but if God wanted me to resist, I imagine he would give me the graces to somehow do so. Others have resisted, why couldn’t I? Our Lord has been very good to me, in the unlikely scenario that he wanted me to die a Martyr’s death, I think it would be clear that was what was being asked of me, and I would do my very best to earn that crown.

I like what you had to say on this, especially the bolded part. I appreciate how you acknowledge the importance of placing the well-being of one’s children before that of oneself, and how you have the humility to admit to not knowing how you’d hold up - too many people arrogantly think they’d withstand trials they never encountered before.

Now I never said that denying God was a good thing, simply that the same rules that apply to other sins apply to this one as well.

 

[BornInMarch]

Saint Peter had not received the Holy Spirit at that point. He had not been redeemed by Christ’s blood which had not yet been shed. He was not holy at that point.
So yes, hopefully those of us who have been baptised are holier than Peter was at the time that he betrayed Jesus.
I believe one of the defining characteristics of St. Peter’s life was that he would have done anything to not have betrayed God. That is contrition. Which warrants forgiveness by God’s merciful plan. I wonder if it would have turned out the same if he had said, “If they ask me, I will deny him, because I know he will forgive me later.” This is a form of presumption. Which is blasphemy. Which is the only unforgivable sin.
You argue that the right thing to do would be to save your life by denying Christ. How do you think your argument measures up to that of Jesus Christ?
John 15:13 Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

To start with, that’s not how baptism works. It welcomes you into God’s family, but it’s not a substitute for behavior nor an assurance of salvation. In any case, it’s pretty arrogant to consider yourself holier than a saint. Especially a saint who became the First Pope.

Secondly, blasphomy is not an “unforgivable sin”. Blasphomy against the holy spirit - which the church defines as refusing to repent - is the only unforgivable sin. Every other sin can be repented from and every sin, including the sin of denying God - is subject to the three requirment rule (only mortal if grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent). Denying God without full knowledge is not a mortal sin, niether is denying God without deliberate consent.

Finally, do not put words in my mouth. I never said that one should deny God to save his own life. My exact words were “If it was just my own life then I’d like to think I wouldn’t deny Christ, but if my family was being threatened then I’d do and say whatever is needed to save them while all the while knowing in my heart that God exists. Decision doesn’t enter into it; by that point instincts just kick in.”

What one should do is not the same as what one will most likely do. Everyone thinks that if they lived in 1930s Germany they’d be anti-nazi resistance fighters, but most would probably end up being collaborators. People are almost never as heroic in real life as they are in their heads.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Mark wrote his Gospel in around AD 60. His image of Jesus is of suffering servant. His audience is persecuted Christians and Jews. Their choice was to renounce God or get thrown to the lions in the Colleseum.

Reading Mark’s Gospel in that light , its immediate audience , and future generations was, and is, your choice is a choice Jesus made before you.

Pray for perseverance to the end.
Would I ? Who knows unless placed in that position. But those early persecuted Christians made the choice for their entire families too.

 

[Teek]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

To start with, that’s not how baptism works. It welcomes you into God’s family, but it’s not a substitute for behavior nor an assurance of salvation. In any case, it’s pretty arrogant to consider yourself holier than a saint. Especially a saint who became the First Pope.

When I said we should be holier by virtue of our baptism than Peter was at the time during which he was betraying Christ, it is because we have received grace, God’s life in us. Are you holier after baptism than before? Can you even be holy if the stain of original sin has not been removed, as it had not for St. Peter at the time of his betrayal, for Christ had not yet died to redeem us? Our actions show whether we embrace or reject that grace and are crucial. Our actions alone without grace cannot be holy. I did not in any way mean that we compare to the holiness of a Saint, one who has run the race to completion and proven victorious. It is not arrogant to say that a human person redeemed by grace should be more holy than a human person who has not received grace. It is the whole point of Salvation History. Without God, there is no holiness. He frees us from sin through baptism.

Another way to envision what I am trying to communicate is to consider the way we think of the Church as holy. It is holy not by the virtues of those in the Church, but by virtue of He who is the foundation and the guarantee of the Church. It is also not arrogant to say the Church is holy.

 

[Teek]

Secondly, blasphomy is not an “unforgivable sin”. Blasphomy against the holy spirit - which the church defines as refusing to repent - is the only unforgivable sin. Every other sin can be repented from and every sin, including the sin of denying God - is subject to the three requirment rule (only mortal if grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent). Denying God without full knowledge is not a mortal sin, niether is denying God without deliberate consent.

Denying God for any reason puts that reason over your love for God and violates the first Commandment. No one here has said that it does not need forgiveness, even if it was done in circumstances that appear to remove a person’s ability to give consent. If it needs repentance, what is it if not a mortal sin?

If we are talking about someone who was put in this position and reacted out of instinct to save him or herself and the ones he or she loves, that is different. Here, however, we are discussing premeditated apostasy on the presumption that God will forgive us. This is a different matter. We are “deliberating” about the consequences of committing an objectively mortal sin, denying God (which is the essence and effect of every mortal sin) and what the consequences would be. If you are deliberating, then the resulting decision is DELIBERATE. Yes, the culpability for that sin is mitigated by circumstances: it is NOT removed.

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is ultimately unrepentance as defined by the Church. One path to this is presumption. Presuming that you do not need forgiveness, presuming that you cannot be forgiven, and presuming that you will be forgiven and deliberately commit mortal sin because of that presumption.

 

[Teek]

Finally, do not put words in my mouth. I never said that one should deny God to save his own life.

I was not putting words into your mouth. I thought we were discussing the OP’s proposed situation. You are free, of course, to disagree. Nevertheless, we were talking, here, (or I was talking, here,) about denying Christ to save your own life: to save it so that your children can have a mother or father to provide for them and your spouse not be widowed. That is the proposed scenario to which this entire dialog refers. We are not talking about a situation where your family is threatened by violence. We are saying they are being threatened by losing you and what that might entail for their lives. And you must save your life so that they not lose your providence by denying God. That is the frame of reference for this conversation. This is not seeing your children in harms way and fighting to save them. That is a different conversation.

 

[PJM]

Well doen THANKS

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[Cruciferi]

Only under penalty of death could I really see a grayish area develope here. I suppose it’s like the Christians refusing to offer incense to Roman Gods. I’m sure some did. Perhaps they repented. After all Peter denied Jesus three times and became Pope. Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil! I’ll admit it. I would have been a bad first century Christian. No arena for me! I firmly believe that you can resist and fight the whole way. It would also be prudent to skip town when a persecution is imminent.

 

[pnewton]

It would be mortal sin. Consent would be there because you would have been given plenty of time to think it out.

What is needed is not consent, but deliberate and complete consent. I question there is time to deliberate, or if one would have the mind set to do so.

What I have no doubt of, though, is that whether the conditions of actual mortal sin are met are not is not something we can judge or should attempt to judge.

 

[ChunkMonk]

At least for me, I don’t consider a difference between consent and “full and complete consent”. If I sin gravely, no matter what the consequences of not sinning gravely are, I consider it to be mortal sin. The only way I see consent being affected is with habitual sins where the sin is commited with no forethought at all, or where true intellectual disability has affected judgement to the degree where the sinfulness could not be known.

 

[pnewton]

At least for me…

Your approach seems quite prudent.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Have any of the responders here read the novel “Silence” by Shusaku Endo? It was made into a film by Scorsese. This work brings us to a place and time where martyrdom was more than an intellectual exercise, it was real. The work is difficult to read and even more difficult to watch, it is not for kids or young teens.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’ll admit it. I would have been a bad first century Christian. No arena for me!

Death in those days was a regular happening anyway. You could just as soon be killed over some petty misunderstanding or by some barbarian or just starve to death in the street if you lost your livelihood or they had a famine, and nobody really cared unless you were wealthy and powerful. Giving meaning to death by dying for Christ, and just escaping a world where life for most was nasty, brutal and short, may have looked pretty good.

We also have to look at cultural expectations. I was reading about the Japan persecutions that were described in the book Silence and the two movies made of it, and apparently many Japanese were very anxious to become martyrs. It was considered very honorable. Mothers would be lining up with their kids to die for the Faith.

 

[Cruciferi]

It doesn’t mean you have to take it lying down! I don’t believe in pacifism. I would likely still die but it would be fighting.

 

[BornInMarch]

That’s right. Not every situation calls for turning the other cheek; some of them call for flipping over market tables and whipping the patrons with cords.

 

[Raxus]

Yes, I get it.

But you are essentially agreeing with what I said.

Not quite, I think. Now granted, it’s hard to get tone across on the internet, but your initial response sounded somewhat…flippant, I guess. The subtext I got from it was “See, Catholics, your own logic makes you look kinda silly.”

Someone can indeed “deny christ” like in the OP’s example…and then they can be forgiven and go to heaven. And even maybe become a martyr, as in the case of Peter (who didn’t even have a good reason like in the OP’s example to deny him! Peter denied him just because he was afraid, right?)

Is that correct or not?

This is correct, but it is important to note context. There is a difference between choosing to do something and being coerced to do something.
And, Peter was afraid for his life. While that doesn’t make what he did alright, it is definitely a factor in just how culpable he might or might not be. It is also an excellent example of how God forgives a truly contrite heart. Forgiveness of sins isn’t accomplished with mere lip service; it’s not like mindlessly washing your hands with soap and water.

There is a prayer that Catholics often pray or are asked to pray by the priest giving the Sacrament, called the Act of Contrition:

“My God, I am sorry for my sins with all my heart. In choosing to do wrong and failing to do good, I have sinned against you whom I should love above all things. I firmly intend, with your help, to do penance, to sin no more, and to avoid whatever leads me to sin. Our Savior Jesus Christ suffered and died for us. In his name, my God, have mercy.”

Any Catholic confessing their sins in the Sacrament of Reconciliation has to take that to heart, and really try their best. It’s not just a mindless, meaningless ritual.

You dig?

 

[stpurl]

You’re actually not addressing the OP’s original question.

The question was, "Is it OK to deny Christ in word to save your life if you have a family depending on you, i.e. financially’ etc.

The answer to that, or to any other situational ethical supposition, is NO. It is NOT OK to deny Christ ever. Such an action is gravely wrong.

IF one were, God forbid, to do that and to repent, God would forgive.

But that is not the question and not the issue.

Otherwise you wind up with that bugbear of the modern word, the ‘relative’ answer in which, according to the ‘situation’, an action that is in and of itself morally grave i.e. mortally sinful is rendered anything from ‘less sinful’ to ‘not sinful at all’ based not on the action itself but on the subjective ‘feelings’ regarding the action or ‘circumstances’ which affect it.

Seriously, does any action take place 'in a vacuum?

Suppose that the person ‘merely’ has one of those doubting moments where a voice (in his head, the devil, take your pick) says, “Deny Christ. The whole thing doesn’t make sense”.

There is no ‘fear’ of death, no worries for the family.
BUT what is there otherwise? Years of ‘societal conditioning’. Perhaps a marriage that has become unhappy due to ‘boredom’. A sense of entitlement and not having that ‘met’ to one’s satisfaction. Years of letting the faith slide, of doing the routines, ‘by rote’.

So the man decides to reject Christ. Happens every day, doesn’t it? A faith-filled person suddenly decides it’s all bunk, he needs to follow his intellect and his feelings and his CONSCIENCE.

Is his denial still something gravely wrong? Or will the blasé, indifferentist, habituated, CINO greet this with the same willingness to excuse?

 

[RosaryCrusader]

You shouldn’t be quoting from canon law since you’re not qualified to do so and make a basic error of not recognizing the distinctions between the crime (which canon law addresses, with canonical penalties) and the sin (which canon law does not address but is one for moral theology and God’s justice).

One can never do evil that good may come from it - there is the age old saying ‘the ends never justifies the means’ and this holds true in the case the OP brings up.

By way of analogy a crazy person could likewise tell you to kill your toddler or they’re going to kill your whole family. Sure you could repent later on, given the chance, but one can never commit evil for a greater good.

 

[De_Maria]

You shouldn’t be quoting from canon law since you’re not qualified to do so

Are you? I doubt it, because you’ve misunderstood the entire post.

and make a basic error of not recognizing the distinctions between the crime (which canon law addresses, with canonical penalties) and the sin (which canon law does not address but is one for moral theology and God’s justice).

Canon law is not separate from God’s moral law and justice. Who told you that? It is an expression of it. And therefore, the same principles apply.

One can never do evil that good may come from it - there is the age old saying ‘the ends never justifies the means’ and this holds true in the case the OP brings up.

Show me where I said that one could do evil that good might come of it?

By way of analogy a crazy person could likewise tell you to kill your toddler or they’re going to kill your whole family. Sure you could repent later on, given the chance, but one can never commit evil for a greater good.

I don’t think anyone would kill their own child to save their family. That’s a bit illogical. Even in this situation. Most people would, I believe, sacrifice their own lives before they would kill their children. I hope, anyway.

However, uttering empty words to save our families’ lives, is another matter. Especially when we know that God knows our hearts.

And, get it right, I never said it was good to do so. In essence, it is lying to the perpetrator. A lie is not as grave as murder. A lie that prevents murder is certainly not as grave as a regular lie which is done with evil intent. The one holding the gun and making the threat is the one truly committing heinous crime. Not the one who denies God, against his will, at gunpoint.

 

[Catholicos]

Carrying the cross sometimes means you have to die for it. There are Christians in the Middle East that don’t know if the Mass they are attending will be their last. At any time they could get shot, or get blown up, many have been crucified because they refused to deny their faith and submit to Islam

It is never ok to deny Christ, ever. If you lose your life because of your love for God, you can almost be certain you will dwell in His presence.