I’ve just come across Seneca’s opinion that if a person has an overwhelming desire to inflict suffering on others then he would be far better to commit suicide. It was in response to the defence by some that they ‘couldn’t help themselves’ and that they were ‘overwhelmed by desire’ to carry out atrocious acts.
That person could also have a psychiatrist commit him so that he is not a danger to ohers. One of the requirements to “commit” someone is that he or she is a danger to self or others. If that person tells someone in the medical field that he has an overwhelming desire to inflict suffering on others and believes he will act on it, they will hospitalize and monitor him while helping him with counseling and maybe medications.
For example, if a person had been ‘forced’ to take part in the Holocaust and knew that his family would be punished and tortured if he didn’t take part would he have been justified to ‘disappear’ and arrange his own death? Thereby protecting his family as he is not refusing, but has had an ‘accident’.
**That’s not the same senario as having an overwhelming desire to inflict suffering. Here, the person is caught between protecting someone else, and protecing his family. It would be more simple for the person if he had a choice of taking part in an evil action to save himself, but when you have family to consider, it gets more complicated. Because you have a responsibility to protect your family. But you also have a responsiblity to not commit evil. One evil does not cancel out the other.
My first reaction is to ask, what kind of evil? Running the switchboard is different than turning the ovens on. A lot of people were forced to take part in the Holocaust in some way, but some of those same people were arrested for hiding Jews. However, is it a “sin” to sacrifice yourself for those prisoners and your family both? I don’t know. That’s a tough call. Some would see it as a noble sacrifice. In that senario, the person doens’t want to die, the person wants to save other people’s lives. Jews.
I kind of understand what you’re asking and why, but you know, it’s a moot point. Why? Just because the head of the household “died” didn’t mean the family wasn’t punished by the Nazi’s anyway, especially if forensics weren’t absolutely sure of the circumstances of death (or release), or if the Nazi’s suspected it. Using the person’s family to get someone to comply goes WAY BACK in history, it didn’t start with the Nazi’s. Hitler and his followers got away with what they did because they were smart and crafty, not because they were stupid. I’m quite sure that if the Nazi’s even suspected that was going on, they would have arrested the whole family. And I’m quite sure that when the Nazi’s required services of people, they warned them about such avoidances. It’s really an old way to avoid recruitment. In asking this question, you’re assuming that the culture in question is “civilized”. For example, if a person faked his/her death to avoid the enlistment, the US wouldn’t punish the whole family, but some ancient cultures did.
So the real Christian question, is what do you do? Do you commit the evil to save your family, babies included? or do you not commit the evil and watch your family suffer?
**
What would Catholic moral theology tell us?
**I don’t know. I’m glad I’m not there to have to decide. **
