Sinning to avoid sin--when is it OK?

[grayrainbows]

I was wondering if the Catholic Church had any teaching with regards to which sins are more or less important to avoid than other sins. For example, most Catholics would say that lying is all right if it is done so in order to save a person’s life, though I know that there have been Doctors of the Church who have disagreed. But what about adultery? Or theft? or something else along these lines?

In other words, if there is some deranged person (let’s say the Joker) who sets up a scenario in which you must do action X or he will kill 50 people, are there some actions which it would be impermissible to do? And how do we decide what we can and what we can’t do?

Personally, I think there are a couple of things on that list, including (but not limited to) murder, idolatry, adultery, pedophilia, bestiality, and so forth. I struggle to find a justification for this belief that it is permissible to steal in such a scenario, however, with my only real guide being my conscience.

 

[1ke]

Yes. The church teaches we may never do evil even in pursuit of good. IOW, the ends do not justify the means.

 

[Wampa]

Since no one else has taken a crack at this one, I’ll try.

Here’s a short primer that hits the key points of Catholic teaching: Mortal and venial sins in the Catholic Church.

I think the key part for your question is that deliberate consent is required for mortal sin. In the scenarios you’re talking about, there is no consent. It’s compulsion.

A person put in such a situation certainly has to make a prudential judgment about the least harmful action to take, but I think worrying about sin is off the table. As an example, if someone straps a bomb to you at gunpoint and wants you to walk into a crowd or they’ll kill your family, you’ll have to wrestle with deciding how to do the least harm, but you don’t have to worry about your own personal sin. You’re not sinning, they are.

 

[Warandpeace]

In instances where to other person has no right to the truth, one can lie.

For example, parents can lie to their children about things they aren’t ready for.

 

[1ke]

In instances where to other person has no right to the truth, one can lie.

For example, parents can lie to their children about things they aren’t ready for.

Um. That is not what the Church teaches.

 

[fastenatingguy]

In instances where to other person has no right to the truth, one can lie.

For example, parents can lie to their children about things they aren’t ready for.

Not exactly. From the catechism:

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

 

[angell1]

In instances where to other person has no right to the truth, one can lie.

For example, parents can lie to their children about things they aren’t ready for. ������

they may choose not to share something with their children if they are not ready for it. however, that is not lying. that is simply not having a particular conversation.

it’s still wrong to tell an outright lie to your kids. “we’ll talk about it some other time” would be a more appropriate response

 

[newcalling]

I think the church would say you’re fine to lie to save Anne Frank, as an example. Some might say theft to feed yourself in desperation, or to feed a starving child, would be not a sin, within limits. However, our heart is supposed to despise such actions even when they’re prudent or necessary. So, while there are occasions where you might choose a sin to prevent a greater evil, you should still feel some guilt, confess, and do penance. It is still wrong to lie or steal, even though circumstances may bring one to do so.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

what about adultery? Or theft? or something else along these lines?

Adultery is never ok. As to theft, if you’re taking something because you’re starving, and the loss does no significant harm to the owner, it is arguably not theft.

I think the church would say you’re fine to lie to save Anne Frank, as an example.

As to lying and the “Jews hiding in your basement” scenario, Jesuit theologians say it may be permissible to mislead by saying something with two meanings, knowing that the dangerous person will likely take the wrong meaning. If the real meaning of your words is indiscernable from the words themselves or the circumstances, however, it is lying and not permissible. Of course in such a situation, the culpability for lying would be largely if not completely mitigated.

One thing not mentioned yet in this thread, which we can never do under any circumstances whatever is deny the faith, even to save our own lives.

And how do we decide what we can and what we can’t do?

I think we have to look at who is harmed and whether the harm is serious or not.

 

[Warandpeace]

Don’t let Anne Frank stay with you if you are having scruples. Better be prepared to do what it takes if people have entrusted themselves to you.

Using complex language to “avoid lying” isn’t much better than lying, in my opinion.
It sounds “smart,” but the outcome is the same.

King David pretended to be crazy to escape capture. Was it morally acceptable, maybe?
Wasn’t the worst thing he ever did, and he was “a man after God’s own .”

 

[grayrainbows]

Adultery is never ok. As to theft, if you’re taking something because you’re starving, and the loss does no significant harm to the owner, it is arguably not theft.

…

I think we have to look at who is harmed and whether the harm is serious or not.

So if it’s the case that significant harm is the criterion for the permissibility of acts in these kinds of situations, why is adultery never OK, even if your spouse consented to it in order to save your life?

 

[1ke]

So if it’s the case that significant harm is the criterion for the permissibility of acts in these kinds of situations, why is adultery never OK, even if your spouse consented to it in order to save your life?

I don’t think you are following.

It is NEVER ok to sin, ever. There aren’t any circumstances that make a sin OK.

We may never do evil, even in the pursuit of good.

 

[grayrainbows]

I don’t think you are following.

It is NEVER ok to sin, ever. There aren’t any circumstances that make a sin OK.

We may never do evil, even in the pursuit of good.

I’m getting different answers from different people, so excuse me if I’m not following.

OK, so you can’t “sin”, but there are actions that you can perform that would otherwise be sinful. I’m just trying to figure out what those actions are.

For example, you can kill in self-defense. What would otherwise be murder is now acceptable. You can also skip Mass if your job requires it, or it would be detrimental to your health to go. And so forth. But what are the actions that we may never perform under any circumstances whatsoever, assuming we are in complete control of our mental faculties?

 

[Rau]

…For example, you can kill in self-defense. What would otherwise be murder is now acceptable…But what are the actions that we may never perform under any circumstances whatsoever, assuming we are in complete control of our mental faculties?

Theology does not define acts solely in terms of outcomes, nor solely in terms you might see depicted in a silent movie without explanation of what is happening. So an act of self defence that causes death is inherently a different act to murder.

We may never perform under any circumstances those acts forbidden by the commandments. But the commandments need to be properly understood, or one could erroneously think that “Thou shalt not kill” (as it is often translated) forbids all killing eg. Killing in self defence.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Actions we can never perform, under any circumstances, are actions whose wrongness is INTRINSIC. Killing would be such an action, except that sometimes the Principle of Double Effect comes into play. This principle allows you to do something that has an unintended bad effect, under certain conditions. If we want to talk about it strictly, though, it’s never permissible to kill a person if your intent is simply “to make that person dead”.

Double effect might come into play in killings that involve self-defense against a guilty aggressor, warfare, or (much more dubiously) capital punishment. The person who does these things is only *incidentally *killing a person; they are fundamentally (respectively) saving their life, saving the lives of others, or restoring justice.

This whole area of ethics is very, very complicated, so what I say here won’t clear it up all that much.

Some actions will never have “double effect” justifications. It will never be the case that you have to rape someone in order to save a life. If someone says, “Rape this person, or I’ll blow up New York”, you are NOT permitted to do the rape. Why? Because the person making the threat has free will. They are not forced to blow up New York, whether or not you commit the rape.

Other actions like that aren’t easy to come by, unless we include their intentions. I can’t imagine a permissible instance of sodomy or blasphemy, but I can imagine permissible thefts. I cannot imagine a permissible theft whose intention was to enrich oneself, however. Nor can I imagine permissible lies whose only intention are to make me look good. But most actions are permissible in SOME contexts, even if they are impermissible in others.

You’re right that “it is never OK to do evil so that good may result” is a tough slogan to understand, when you get into the mud and the details. But it’s a good rule of thumb in our ordinary lives, where we often know very well that what we’re doing is wrong, whatever good results it might have.

 

[AHapka]

If someone is forcing you to do something or hundreds will die, you no longer have free will and the criteria for sin no longer exists. There is certainly a sin there, but it is not on you.

In any event, even if some sin remains, it is for sure not mortal if you have no free will.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

Um. That is not what the Church teaches.

This reminds me of a scene from “The Hiding Place”, in which Corrie ten Boom’s sister is visited by the Gestapo while she is having lunch with one of the Jews she is harboring. Since the girl looks Aryan, the Gestapo asks Corrie’s sister point-blank if she is a Jew. The scrupulously religious woman answers in the affirmative, and the girl is taken away. She and several other Jews eventually manage to escape the area where they are being held, but this girl could have easily been taken out back and shot, or ended up dying in a concentration camp. I was still in grade school when I read this book, and very scrupulous in my own right. However, it always horrified me that this woman thought her petty scruples over committing what is at most a venial sin were worth more than an innocent girl’s life.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Actions we can never perform, under any circumstances, are actions whose wrongness is INTRINSIC. Killing would be such an action, except that sometimes the Principle of Double Effect comes into play. This principle allows you to do something that has an unintended bad effect, under certain conditions. If we want to talk about it strictly, though, it’s never permissible to kill a person if your intent is simply “to make that person dead”.

Double effect might come into play in killings that involve self-defense against a guilty aggressor, warfare, or (much more dubiously) capital punishment. The person who does these things is only *incidentally *killing a person; they are fundamentally (respectively) saving their life, saving the lives of others, or restoring justice.

This whole area of ethics is very, very complicated, so what I say here won’t clear it up all that much.

Some actions will never have “double effect” justifications. It will never be the case that you have to rape someone in order to save a life. If someone says, “Rape this person, or I’ll blow up New York”, you are NOT permitted to do the rape. Why? Because the person making the threat has free will. They are not forced to blow up New York, whether or not you commit the rape.

Other actions like that aren’t easy to come by, unless we include their intentions. I can’t imagine a permissible instance of sodomy or blasphemy, but I can imagine permissible thefts. I cannot imagine a permissible theft whose intention was to enrich oneself, however. Nor can I imagine permissible lies whose only intention are to make me look good. But most actions are permissible in SOME contexts, even if they are impermissible in others.

You’re right that “it is never OK to do evil so that good may result” is a tough slogan to understand, when you get into the mud and the details. But it’s a good rule of thumb in our ordinary lives, where we often know very well that what we’re doing is wrong, whatever good results it might have.

A good try but you seem to have gone off the rails after a while.

In fact the Church does NOT teach that direct “killing” is always wrong despite the appearance of the 5thC. The State may apparently directly kill under certain conditions.
That teaching may be changing to a PODE basis instead though.

Likewise “theft” and “lying” is always wrong.
There is no permissible “theft”.
However there are certain conditions when it is permissible to take the property of another against their will (eg food during a famine). This deed is not called “theft.”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

We may never do evil, even in the pursuit of good.

If ever there was an unhelpful “aphorism” that increases confusion its this one.

Of course it really means “we may never choose to commit moral evil to do good.”

Clearly there are plenty of evils from killing to taking/damaging another’s property where there are circumstances when it may be perfectly acceptable.

The “aphorism” does nothing to help us distinguish between doing these two types of evil .

 

[Prodigal_Son]

A good try but you seem to have gone off the rails after a while.

In fact the Church does NOT teach that direct “killing” is always wrong despite the appearance of the 5thC. The State may apparently directly kill under certain conditions.
That teaching may be changing to a PODE basis instead though.

That was my point: if it is justified by Double Effect, it is never a direct killing. Why? Because the intention is never to end a life. That is always just a side effect.

Some of this may be semantics, though. I think my description is accurate to Catholic teaching, but it doesn’t use the same terms that every other Catholic theologian would use.

Likewise “theft” and “lying” is always wrong.
There is no permissible “theft”.
However there are certain conditions when it is permissible to take the property of another against their will (eg food during a famine). This deed is not called “theft.”

The Church does not dogmatically teach that lying is always wrong. I’m quite certain of that. There was a controversy during the creation of the recent Catechism about this.

As for your point on theft, that seems to be a point in semantics. Most people would call theft “taking something that isn’t yours without getting permission”. Taking food during a famine is, thus, clearly theft, in the ordinary use of language.