Question I got from a non catholic

[wahlmaster]

Hi all,

I was out to dinner with some friends from a non denominational church group and one of them asked the question:
“if you were out at sea with your spouse, and your infant child and all three of you were drowning and you had to choose to save only one of them who would you choose to save? You have to save yourself too.”
Most people in the group, including myself responded the child.

She said that that was technically the ‘wrong’ answer because she said since the Bible says you and your spouse and one flesh you need to save them. If you don’t save your spouse it is going against the word of God because you aren’t committing to the bond that Jesus states exists between a man and a woman.

I immediately had a problem with this. My thinking was

1. The part where Jesus says a man and a woman are joined as one flesh, he was speaking about divorce.
2. The bible also says “Whatsoever you do for the least of my brothers that you do for me” No one is more ‘least’ on the earth than an infant
3. You can tell your significant other how to save themselves, or help them to save themselves, they aren’t completely reliant on you like the child is
4. This type of thinking is almost like a pro-choice argument in that you’d be choosing to end the life of a helpless infant. You’d be saying that marriage is more important than the welfare of the child, which to me sounds dangerously close to what an abortion activist would say.

Anyways, I’m just curious, what would the Catholic Church’s stance on something like this be???

 

[dhgray]

First of all, you started her response with, “She said …” Could it be that this woman feels threatened by her children and how dare a father save his children before his wife? Reverse the question and ask her, “If you were in the water and you husband gave you a life vest and the choice was to use the vest or give it to your child, what would you do?”

 

[Orionthehunter]

Like all hypothetical questions, there is seldom a right answer. Myself, I would save my child because that is what my wife would want me to do. If she had the choice, I’d want her to save our child instead of me. It has nothing to do w/ loving the child more than the spouse. It has to do with understanding both each other and our call. If I save my child and leave my wife to drown, my wife would be praying to death, be recieved into Heaven as a martyr, and I would have accomplished my primary call to help her get to Heaven.

But more important that my answer, we once again have a non-denom interpreting the Bible for others with absolutely no authority, taking the inviolable description of marriage out of context, and claiming sanctimoniously that we are violating the Word of God.

Good thing I’m going to a fish fry tonight and don’t have to worry about having dinner w/ someone like this. Sheesh.

 

[LilyM]

Not being a mother, but … almost certainly my children! Two main reasons:

1. Spouse, being an intelligent adult (as if I’d let any other kind father children with me ) would be better able to prepare himself for the afterlife than a child.
2. Child has more of life left to live than an adult, thus loses more if they lose that life.

The parent/child bond is deepest of all in nature, and designedly so. Put it this way - if you saw a gunman point and shoot at your spouse surely no-one would dream of throwing their child in between to take the bullet and save their spouse, would they?

 

[Scottgun]

Good thing I’m going to a fish fry tonight and don’t have to worry about having dinner w/ someone like this. Sheesh.

No doubt. These unlikely hypotheticals tend to be in actuality gripes masquerading as sweet reasonableness. (reminds me of a certain thread on the deutercanon ) It’s the problem when people (in particular, fundamentalists and, amazingly, atheists) regard the Bible as The Big Book of Everything.

Of course, always be kind and do your best and don’t be afraid to say you don’t know rather than flounder through a shaky answer.

 

[Veritas41]

Like all hypothetical questions, there is seldom a right answer. Myself, I would save my child because that is what my wife would want me to do. If she had the choice, I’d want her to save our child instead of me. It has nothing to do w/ loving the child more than the spouse. It has to do with understanding both each other and our call. If I save my child and leave my wife to drown, my wife would be praying to death, be recieved into Heaven as a martyr, and I would have accomplished my primary call to help her get to Heaven.

But more important that my answer, we once again have a non-denom interpreting the Bible for others with absolutely no authority, taking the inviolable description of marriage out of context, and claiming sanctimoniously that we are violating the Word of God.

Good thing I’m going to a fish fry tonight and don’t have to worry about having dinner w/ someone like this. Sheesh.

That’s my thought as well – I would want my husband to save my child --I think that would probably be what most parents would want. And I agree about people who set themselves up as their own little Magisteriums and take things from the Bible out of context…

 

[hasikelee]

As a former lifeguard and passionate scuba diver, I would say the child all the way.

I am very small in stature and a lightweight. In the case of being at sea after a crash, I would drown attempting to support my husband. Whereas, I know from experience that I can carry a small child in water for quite some time.

If someone had attempted to ask me such a ridiculous question, I would have chastized them for being ignorant of safety procedures. You never, never try to carry someone who weighs more than you. (Unless you think you are a hero and had ten red bulls.) My goodness, she will be dead if she ever crashes in the sea!

Furthermore, biologically speaking, the husband has the greater chance of surviving liquid in his lungs due to the larger ratio between lung size and liquid amount. Just a tiny amount of liquid in a child’s lungs can kill them.

 

[dixieagle]

As a former lifeguard and passionate scuba diver, I would say the child all the way.

I am very small in stature and a lightweight. In the case of being at sea after a crash, I would drown attempting to support my husband. Whereas, I know from experience that I can carry a small child in water for quite some time.

If someone had attempted to ask me such a ridiculous question, I would have chastized them for being ignorant of safety procedures. You never, never try to carry someone who weighs more than you. (Unless you think you are a hero and had ten red bulls.) My goodness, she will be dead if she ever crashes in the sea!

Furthermore, biologically speaking, the husband has the greater chance of surviving liquid in his lungs due to the larger ratio between lung size and liquid amount. Just a tiny amount of liquid in a child’s lungs can kill them.

A voice of sweet reason! (But I don’t think the woman mentioned by the OP is interested in that…)

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I have neither a wife nor a child. I pray that no one should be put in the position to to have to make the decision for one or the other. I would look at it this way the that it can not be answered as we do not
have but a very vague situation. There are so many different things that come into play in making this decision.

1. Can you locate both the spouse and the child.
2. In what condition are they in.
3. If one can not be located do you leave the one to look for the other and risk the loose of both.

The lose of either would be terrible, and hypothetical question like that serve no purpose.

 

[Yerusalyim]

A Military Chaplain friend of mine who happens to be a Southern Baptist used this as an illustration of the bond of marriage. The wife is the one he has a vow before the Lord to.

There is no “right or wrong” answer to the question.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The first answer is that I would try to save both, and whomever I succeeded in saving would be saved.

The second, based on reason, is that as a man I am more likely to suffer hypothermia and die in most places in the sea – than would my wife. Eg:
she is likely to last longer anyway. Third, body heat is cummulative – the more the longer the chance of survival. Fourth, in survival class we were taught to make life vests out of our clothes by wetting them and filling them with air.

Fifth, no greater love has a man than to lay down his life for a friend.
If my wife is my own flesh, than saving myself isn’t as loving as saving someone else – scripturally.

Not only is the vow in marriage to love and honor the wife, but to give life to children and educate them. At the time of Jesus and before, wives were often lost in childbirth itself – which did not excuse a woman from trying to have a child, or in procuring abortion as the ECF’s generally attest. So, the vow of marriage has no more merit with respect to whom is to be saved, than the life of the mother.

Good luck answering these kinds of question on the spur of the moment, though…

 

[Yerusalyim]

You’re over analyzing this. It’s not about, “are there any options besides saving only one” the whole point of this illustration by my Southern Baptist friend, and any others I’ve seen use this illustration, is to remember that we made a vow before God to our spouses and we must treasure them. There isn’t a “right or wrong” answer.

 

[mschrank]

Technically you are called to love your spouse more than your children. This is correct.

However, what burbs said is right.

 

[Lhhs]

if you were out at sea with your spouse, and your infant child and all three of you were drowning and you had to choose to save only one of them who would you choose to save? You have to save yourself too."
:

I don’t even entertain such questions. I find no good purpose in entertaining and answer or the ensuing discussion