Sophie's choice.

[BornInMarch]

Say a mother and her children were kidnapped (either by criminals or by an evil government) and a sadistic prison warden tells her that she can only save one of her children from execution. If she refuses to choose, than they will execute both children.

How should a catholic handle this situation? Is the mother committing a mortal sin by choosing one of her children? Is she committing a sin by refusing to choose and allowing both children to die?

As you can see by the title, this scenario is not one that could never happen.

 

[Annie39]

Say a mother and her children were kidnapped (either by criminals or by an evil government) and a sadistic prison warden tells her that she can only save one of her children from execution. If she refuses to choose, than they will execute both children.

How should a catholic handle this situation? Is the mother committing a mortal sin by choosing one of her children? Is she committing a sin by refusing to choose and allowing both children to die?

As you can see by the title, this scenario is not one that could never happen.

Situational ethics time warp

 

[PolarGuy]

I have to say…is asking weird hypotheticals, ending in, “this can never happen,” productive?

It’s bad enough that sometimes the “moral theology” forum might better be termed “the OCD anonymous” forum, with so many threads along the lines of “is swatting a fly a mortal sin?” or the like. This sort of thread is IMHO very little better.

Please consider that many folks – including professional anti-Catholics; atheists; those struggling with major issues, and the like – come to these boards, sometimes to lurk, or make fun, or even to genuinely learn…so why do we spend time with “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”-type questions?

Sorry…I’m putting the computer off, since God wants the best from me, and dealing with questions like these - masquerading as serious “moral theology” is not the way to give Him that this afternoon.

 

[anixx]

I think the author of the book should read 2Macc 7,1-42, about the mother who watched all her seven son’s being tortured and killed, for they did not want to break the Law. In the end she is killed, too. The mother was does who encouraged them to stand tall for the faith. It does show that evil must be resisted, even in the most cruel and terrible of situations. The mother knew about the reward that she and her sons would receive, and of the punishment that the king and his men would receive, from God.

 

[GEddie]

What is the advantage of spending our mind energy on scenarios such as this?

Most of us will never face such a scenario. And if we ever did, having thought about it beforehand will NOT make it any easier.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Et_Cetera]

I have to say…is asking weird hypotheticals, ending in, “this can never happen,” productive?

It’s bad enough that sometimes the “moral theology” forum might better be termed “the OCD anonymous” forum, with so many threads along the lines of “is swatting a fly a mortal sin?” or the like. This sort of thread is IMHO very little better.

Please consider that many folks – including professional anti-Catholics; atheists; those struggling with major issues, and the like – come to these boards, sometimes to lurk, or make fun, or even to genuinely learn…so why do we spend time with “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”-type questions?

Sorry…I’m putting the computer off, since God wants the best from me, and dealing with questions like these - masquerading as serious “moral theology” is not the way to give Him that this afternoon.

These were my thoughts too. Getting caught in these little depressing thought loops is draining and unhealthy.

 

[SighGuy]

Yeah, truth is for losers, who cares about philosophy, and anyone who enjoys mental puzzles is clearly wasting their time. I bet you like staring up at the stars and wondering about outer space and distant planets. Well, stop it! Stop it right now! You’ll never know, knave! And it’ll never matter! You could be out saving children but you’re stuck here thinking about balls of fiery gas… for what?!

[/reallythicksarcasm]

P.S. to be quite clear, the OP did not ask a hypothetical ending in “this could never happen,” but in fact the exact opposite, that “this could happen,” albeit we must understand it to be quite rare.

What’s really going on here is the OP has run into the very natural question that arises from the idea that we cannot commit evil for good to come of it. Is her choice evil, if she is effectively saying “kill the other”? Is her lack of choice evil as she is effectively saying “kill them both”? Of course I must answer that these are phantoms, that she has not really any free will in the situation and whatever guilt, if any, there is to come from her decision is surely very much mitigated. It’s a phantom because she does neither effectively nor directly communicate that she wants one or the other killed-- this is a misunderstanding. She has provided no consent for such to transpire.

Compare with a man who kills another man to inherit one million dollars, of which he can save many many orphans with the money if he gives ninety five percent away. He saves many lives, but he consented to the murder of one, and so this man is guilty. The mother consented not, and so it is merely us playing “fast and loose” that causes us to suggest she has consented to the murder of her child.

Although I personally would rather not get involved in the discussion, as it is a little taxing.

 

[Catholic80]

Say a mother and her children were kidnapped (either by criminals or by an evil government) and a sadistic prison warden tells her that she can only save one of her children from execution. If she refuses to choose, than they will execute both children.

How should a catholic handle this situation? Is the mother committing a mortal sin by choosing one of her children? Is she committing a sin by refusing to choose and allowing both children to die?

As you can see by the title, this scenario is not one that could never happen.

From my recollection of the movie, Sophie chooses for her daughter to die, and then is distraught, which eventually leads her to commit suicide.

Putting myself in her shoes, if I chose one over the other, I would always be wondering, did I love that child less? Which leads me to conclude that I would not make the choice. It is NOT my choice that either of them die, it is the Nazi’s (or kidnapper in your scenario’s) choice. Let the evil rest with them. I would place all my trust in God and put my children into the hands of the Blessed Mother and not pick one who dies and one who lives because it is not my choice to make.

 

[BornInMarch]

Which leads me to conclude that I would not make the choice. It is NOT my choice that either of them die, it is the Nazi’s (or kidnapper in your scenario’s) choice. Let the evil rest with them. I would place all my trust in God and put my children into the hands of the Blessed Mother and not pick one who dies and one who lives because it is not my choice to make.

The problem I have with that outlook is that it gives me the same feeling I got when Pontius Pilate washed his hands and tried to pretend that he was not partially responsible for Christ being tortured to death.

I would want to save at least one of my children if the alternative was both of them dying.

 

[LilyM]

The problem I have with that outlook is that it gives me the same feeling I got when Pontius Pilate washed his hands and tried to pretend that he was not partially responsible for Christ being tortured to death.

I would want to save at least one of my children if the alternative was both of them dying.

The woman in such a situation is hardly the Roman governor of Judea, with the whole might of Rome behind him should he choose to make a stand and warned by God in a dream not to do what he did.

Who is to say that the nazis might not kill both children anyway? Or on the contrary that Solomon-style they might not show some respect for the fact that she loves both so much that she cannot choose, and let both live? Her ‘choice’ is way less likely than pilate’s to determine the final outcome.

 

[GEddie]

The woman in such a situation is hardly the Roman governor of Judea, with the whole might of Rome behind him should he choose to make a stand and warned by God in a dream not to do what he did.

Who is to say that the nazis might not kill both children anyway? Or on the contrary that Solomon-style they might not show some respect for the fact that she loves both so much that she cannot choose, and let both live? Her ‘choice’ is way less likely than pilate’s to determine the final outcome.

In all fairness, PP did not have the dream, his wife Claudia did.

Had he himself had the “vision in his head,” who can say what He might have done?

Men not listening to their wives is a millennial stereotype.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[LilyM]

In all fairness, PP did not have the dream, his wife Claudia did.

Had he himself had the “vision in his head,” who can say what He might have done?

Men not listening to their wives is a millennial stereotype.

ICXC NIKA.

He knew Jesus was innocent, whether it was his dream or no, and the ancient Romans were for the most part notoriously superstitious about such things as dreams as well. It is unlikely that he thought nothing of it.

 

[BornInMarch]

When I brought up PP, I meant that it does not feel right to wash your hands of it and say “If he kills both my kids and I could have saved one of them, than I am blameless”.

PP tried saying that allowing Jesus to get tortured to death isn’t a sin on his part; it didn’t work for PP.

 

[LilyM]

When I brought up PP, I meant that it does not feel right to wash your hands of it and say “If he kills both my kids and I could have saved one of them, than I am blameless”.

PP tried saying that allowing Jesus to get tortured to death isn’t a sin on his part; it didn’t work for PP.

There are reasons it didn’t work for PP that don’t apply to your fictional mother. PP was the very top of the food chain as far as decision making - and carrying out - went. Your mother isn’t.

The practical consequences for him of deciding to let Jesus go free were what? A mob of angry jews? He’d crushed numerous mobs of angry Jews in the past and wouldn’t have been especially frightened of this one.

Nor was he especially wanting Jesus to go free - remember the Gospels say he and Herod became friends after Herod also refused to save Jesus. Presumably they bonded over their mutual mistrust of Jesus, who was the opposite of the willing Roman puppet king Herod.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Whatever Sophie’s choice is, she is not the one killing her children.

The sadistic moron making her choose is the killer.

 

[Reepicheep]

The mother in this situation has no power.
The sadistic captor could kill the child she tried to save, and then taunt the survivor that his mother chose for him to die.
He could spare both, and taunt them that their mother was willing to choose one to die.
He could kill both and taunt the mother with her helplessness.
He could spare both and then come back the next day and make her choose again.
He could use her choice to taunt the children, then kill the mother.
He could tell the child she chose to die that he will be spared if he agrees to kill the other child.

It’s a cruel game, and the mother has no power to help herself or her children.
She does have power to do one thing. She has power to refuse to play the evil game.

 

[Catholic80]

The problem I have with that outlook is that it gives me the same feeling I got when Pontius Pilate washed his hands and tried to pretend that he was not partially responsible for Christ being tortured to death.

I would want to save at least one of my children if the alternative was both of them dying.

That’s an interesting take on it, but it’s not a perfect comparison. Pontius Pilate had the power to set Christ free, but he was afraid of the crowd. Sofie doesn’t have that power. She, too, is the innocent victim. The Nazi’s are giving her the “choice” because they know there is no good outcome for her. Regardless of whatever she “chooses,” she will be forced to live with the horrifying consequences.

In my human nature, I would desperately want to save at least one child, and at the same time, I know it would torture me to choose one over another. I could not make that choice. As horrifying as it would be to lose both, I have more peace with that then choosing one over the other.

Take this situation outside of the horror of the Nazi concentration camps. Say Sofie was a mother of conjoined twins. However, there was one heart being shared equally. Both have an equal chance of survival if they are separated, but only one can live. To leave them together means they will eventually die. Sofie has to choose who gets the heart… she has to chose which twin lives and which one dies. Whom do you chose?

 

[BornInMarch]

That’s an interesting take on it, but it’s not a perfect comparison. Pontius Pilate had the power to set Christ free, but he was afraid of the crowd. Sofie doesn’t have that power. She, too, is the innocent victim. The Nazi’s are giving her the “choice” because they know there is no good outcome for her. Regardless of whatever she “chooses,” she will be forced to live with the horrifying consequences.

In my human nature, I would desperately want to save at least one child, and at the same time, I know it would torture me to choose one over another. I could not make that choice. As horrifying as it would be to lose both, I have more peace with that then choosing one over the other.

Take this situation outside of the horror of the Nazi concentration camps. Say Sofie was a mother of conjoined twins. However, there was one heart being shared equally. Both have an equal chance of survival if they are separated, but only one can live. To leave them together means they will eventually die. Sofie has to choose who gets the heart… she has to chose which twin lives and which one dies. Whom do you chose?

The point I was trying to make when I mentioned Pontius Pilate is that it isn’t about Sophie (or whoever is in the situation), it is about the children who could have been saved. Protecting human life is the most important thing.

The problem with the heart situation is that you say eventually. That implies that there is enough time to at least look for a heart doner.

 

[GEddie]

The point I was trying to make when I mentioned Pontius Pilate is that it isn’t about Sophie (or whoever is in the situation), it is about the children who could have been saved. Protecting human life is the most important thing.

The problem with the heart situation is that you say eventually. That implies that there is enough time to at least look for a heart doner.

I’m not sure that heart donation is even an option in the Siamese-twin instance. There are two incomplete bodies, sharing vital parts, including the heart; the length of life while joined would be very short; sticking someone else’s heart onto a baby’s already incomplete body would almost certainly not work and would not get on the transplant list.

Then again, I’m not sure that this is a tragic choice situation. The baby who would be allowed to live would be determined by medical criteria, ie, which infant had the more complete body, or seemed otherwise healthier. It would not be a matter for Mum to choose tragically.

And in an instance of Siamese twins alive for a few hours, where neither has yet begun to develop a mind or a personality; there would be nothing to choose between them.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Tomdstone]

Say a mother and her children were kidnapped (either by criminals or by an evil government) and a sadistic prison warden tells her that she can only save one of her children from execution. If she refuses to choose, than they will execute both children.

How should a catholic handle this situation? Is the mother committing a mortal sin by choosing one of her children? Is she committing a sin by refusing to choose and allowing both children to die?

In the case presented, the mother is asked to choose which child she wants to live, and the Nazi says he will kill the other. If she does not choose, then both will be killed. Most people think it is not a sin to choose which child she wants to live.
However, consider a different scenario where the mother is asked to choose which child she wants to be killed, and the Nazi will let the other one live. If she does not choose which one she wants to be killed, then both will be killed. Wouldn’t it be wrong for the mother to choose which child she wants to be killed? Operationally, are the two scenarios equivalent, only stated differently, or are they essentially different?