The Jew, the Gestapo & Moral Reservation

[rr1213]

In this thread…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=117046&page=2

…we discussed whether lying is ever acceptable, even to save Ann Frank who is hiding from the Gestapo in your attic. I think we have gone as far as we can in that thread. Some say that lying is never right–ever–and that it is always a sin to lie, even to save Frank. Others take the view that the higher value is love and love covers a multitude of sins so, in this very rare case, lying would be appropriate.

I would like to shift the discussion to the concept of “mental reservation”, which we touched on in the previous thread. Let’s not argue whether “lying” is right or wrong in this context but, rather, how might mental reservation be used to avoid lying. I’ll be candid here…I see little difference, if any, between “lying” and “mental reservation” but I’d like to see what others think.

So, here’s the scenario: The Jew, Ann Frank, is hiding in your attic from the Nazis. A Gestapo officer has intelligence indicating that she probably is in your attic. He pushes through your door, submachine at his side. He looks you square in the face and says: “Don’t play with me. If you value your sorry life, you will answer me truthfully. Yes or No? Is Ann Frank in your attic. Answer me ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or I’ll kill you on the spot.”

So, as a faithful Catholic, you will not lie. If you give an answer other than “yes’ or 'no” you will die. You wish to save Ms. Frank. How do you say "no’ to the Gestapo Officer and, through the device of “mental reservation”, avoid sinning by lying? (And, please, none of the “he’s going to kill me anyway” stuff…let’s focus on whether “mental reservation” is an available tool here or not).

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Statistical probability (and no, I don’t understand it, but my brilliant daughter does ). Apparently, any given individual has a 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999 infinity chance of being in a given particular place, but there is an itty bitty chance like 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 or something that the individual is NOT there. Like I said, I do not understand this but my daughter the math whiz does–but she is in AZ and working out right now so I can’t ask her to explain it better.

So I can legitimately say to the officer “no, Anne is not in the attic.” Since there is a tiny but mathematically valid chance that she is NOT in the attic, I cannot really say 'yes she is there" with 100% certainty. Since I am not certain, I have to say, since there is no other criteria but ‘yes’ or ‘no’, that she is not there, since to say an ‘absolute’ yes would be a lie; I am not absolutely sure. Therefore I must say, “no”.

 

[thistle]

In this thread…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=117046&page=2

…we discussed whether lying is ever acceptable, even to save Ann Frank who is hiding from the Gestapo in your attic. I think we have gone as far as we can in that thread. Some say that lying is never right–ever–and that it is always a sin to lie, even to save Frank. Others take the view that the higher value is love and love covers a multitude of sins so, in this very rare case, lying would be appropriate.

I would like to shift the discussion to the concept of “mental reservation”, which we touched on in the previous thread. Let’s not argue whether “lying” is right or wrong in this context but, rather, how might mental reservation be used to avoid lying. I’ll be candid here…I see little difference, if any, between “lying” and “mental reservation” but I’d like to see what others think.

So, here’s the scenario: The Jew, Ann Frank, is hiding in your attic from the Nazis. A Gestapo officer has intelligence indicating that she probably is in your attic. He pushes through your door, submachine at his side. He looks you square in the face and says: “Don’t play with me. If you value your sorry life, you will answer me truthfully. Yes or No? Is Ann Frank in your attic. Answer me ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or I’ll kill you on the spot.”

So, as a faithful Catholic, you will not lie. If you give an answer other than “yes’ or 'no” you will die. You wish to save Ms. Frank. How do you say "no’ to the Gestapo Officer and, through the device of “mental reservation”, avoid sinning by lying? (And, please, none of the “he’s going to kill me anyway” stuff…let’s focus on whether “mental reservation” is an available tool here or not).

You are just playing around with words when you ask about “mental or moral reservation” as opposed to “lying”. You are essentially talking about the same thing.

Why are the Nazis always brought up when asking about lies.
Clearly lying should in general be avoided but it is certainly NOT a grave sin to lie to the Nazis to save someone. There is absolutely no damage being done to the reputation of murderers by hiding innocent people from them and there is no injury to the virtues of justice and charity in doing so in the scenario you have given.

CCC 2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

 

[Damascus]

Even if I did not know the book answer to this one, but you have it now, I would look at it this way:
I will use reason and common sense.
I tell the killers nothing that would aid them in their killing spree because I would feel as if I were taking part in their heinous crimes.
If it requires me to be vauge, or give them an answer that is certainly questionable or open for debate, I do that.
Then I go to confession and let my Priest decide if its a grave sin.
Simple.
If I do otherwise, I will need a whole lot more than confession to ever feel okay about turning in a human life to some maggots.
I am so sick of hearing about Nazis on this forum.
Usually they only come up on Islam threads, now they pop up everywhere.

 

[WenckebachCath]

If it’s okay to steal a loaf of bread if you are hungry, then I’m sure it’s okay to lie to save a persons life. Yes, I think it’s fine. We are supposed to use our reason, and not be blindly legalistic in our faith.

 

[Denise_Shae]

Actually, rr poses good question, and under extraordinarily dangerous circumstances.

It’s easy for me, to sit here, under no pressure or fear, and try to reason out an answer.

I am able to consider the consequences, gravity and repercussions of either answer.

Consider what would happen if I were to say, “Yes”.
I will have, not only, indirectly killed Ann Frank and those hidden with her, but my own family as well. (And not just those living within my home) I’ve been reading a lot on WWII these past few weeks. Especially the accounts of Concentration camp survivors.
The Nazis would have found out (or tried to find out) who my relatives were and would have gone after them, as well.

So, considering the number of deaths that would have occurred by my betrayal of innocent people, I believe my culpablitly in the Eyes of God, would be much less if I were to lie in order to save innocent lives.
After all, our Lord Jesus, Himself; the most Innocent of innocents, knows what it’s like to be betrayed.
I would hope that in His Mercy and Love, He would not hold the lie against me.

Does that make any sense?

Although, after reading several survivor and eye-witness accounts of the Nazis, it appears to be a given, that they would have invaded my home, either way, and found them.

However, in my heart, I would have known that at least I tried to save these poeple.

Thanks for letting me put in my :twocents:

God Bless!

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello rr1213,

Who is the Portland Oregon Cardinal who took over Joseph Ratzingers position as Perfect of the faith at the Vatican (Levene or something?)? I remember reading where the US courts would not let the Cardinal leave the country unless he swore on a bible that he would not use “moral reservation” in future clergy sex scandal trials that he would be sopeaned to return and testify at.

I just thought an interesting comparison might be made between your question and the modern clergy sex scandal. The Perfect of the faith, the clergy sex scandal and moral reservation. Is “moral reservation” a credible tool to use in clergy sex scandal trials or not?

I will continue to search for the exact article and thread.

 

[rr1213]

Yes, I’d like to focus on the topic of “moral reservation” which, if I understand it correctly, is a Church approved practice that in times of grave need allows you to actively deceive without (according to the Church’s view) telling a lie. To me, from what I’ve read, the concept is troublesome. I think that the lines it draws between “lying”, which is forbidden, and using “moral reservation”, which is acceptable, are thin indeed and probably non-existent. In the scenario above, I’d lie to the Gestapo officer. I said that in the other thread. What I am really seeking here is to understand the concept of moral reservation and how it differs from lying.

(BTW, for those of you who posted that they are tired of hearing about Nazis, substitute your own villain…how about the Communist Chinese?..or the North Koreans?..or an African tyrant?..or a member of Al Quaida? Believe me, there are plenty of bad guys around…).

As for moral reservation, take a look at this article from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/cathen/10195b.htm

 

[rr1213]

Hello rr1213,

Who is the Portland Oregon Cardinal who took over Joseph Ratzingers position as Perfect of the faith at the Vatican (Levene or something?)? I remember reading where the US courts would not let the Cardinal leave the country unless he swore on a bible that he would not use “moral reservation” in future clergy sex scandal trials that he would be sopeaned to return and testify at.

I just thought an interesting comparison might be made between your question and the modern clergy sex scandal. The Perfect of the faith, the clergy sex scandal and moral reservation. Is “moral reservation” a credible tool to use in clergy sex scandal trials or not?

I will continue to search for the exact article and thread.

That would be quite interesting if you could find the article.

 

[Steven_Merten]

That would be quite interesting if you could find the article.

Hello rr1213,

The CAF thread was: Should the Pope be held liable for full knowledge negligence in clergy scandal?

The article link is still good.
**NO IMMUNITY FOR LEVADA **

• A federal judge has agreed to let Archbishop William Levada skip an August court date to answer questions under oath about the Church’s handling of sexual abuse allegations against priests in the Portland Archdiocese from 1986 to 1995, when he was its Archbishop. **Levada is the present day Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. **

In return, Archbishop Levada must personally guarantee that he will appear in January to undergo questioning by attorneys for 250 victims in clergy abuse lawsuits against the Archdiocese of Portland. **As part of the agreement, Levada cannot claim diplomatic immunity as a high-ranking official of the **Vatican (National Catholic Reporter, August 12, 2005).

Both the Pope and the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are today subject to questioning in American civil courts… No more independence for the Papacy and the Holy See. It seems a quite unexpected consequence of the last 40 years of liberalization of the Church’s morals and discipline.

Quoted from traditioninaction.org/bev…09-07-2005.htm

 

[rr1213]

I don’t see where the article references moral reservation though.

 

[Steven_Merten]

I don’t see where the article references moral reservation though.

Hello rr1213,

After I posted I went back and noticed this also. I appologize. When I was doing the search, and making the post, I was thinking that the words “moral Reservation” were in the quote.

It seems to me I heard the connection bettween the Pope and Perfect of the Congragation using “Moral Reservation” as a qualifying exuse for using “diplomatic immunity” to avoid telling the truth or to avoid lying.

I will keep looking.

 

[Neo_Canaan]

BTW, for those of you who posted that they are tired of hearing about Nazis, substitute your own villain…how about the Communist Chinese?..or the North Koreans?..or an African tyrant?..or a member of Al Quaida? Believe me, there are plenty of bad guys around…

As for moral reservation, take a look at this article from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/cathen/10195b.htm

But none of those people know english. And ain’t there also bad gals too?

 

[Damascus]

But none of those people know english. And ain’t there also bad gals too?

What does this mean? that none of the alternate bad guys here know english or are you implying I dont?

I was the poster who objected to the villian in question here being over used.

Make your point clearer mr canaan.

 

[Damascus]

Yes, I’d like to focus on the topic of “moral reservation” which, if I understand it correctly, is a Church approved practice that in times of grave need allows you to actively deceive without (according to the Church’s view) telling a lie. To me, from what I’ve read, the concept is troublesome. I think that the lines it draws between “lying”, which is forbidden, and using “moral reservation”, which is acceptable, are thin indeed and probably non-existent. In the scenario above, I’d lie to the Gestapo officer. I said that in the other thread. What I am really seeking here is to understand the concept of moral reservation and how it differs from lying.

(BTW, for those of you who posted that they are tired of hearing about Nazis, substitute your own villain…how about the Communist Chinese?..or the North Koreans?..or an African tyrant?..or a member of Al Quaida? Believe me, there are plenty of bad guys around…).

As for moral reservation, take a look at this article from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

newadvent.org/cathen/10195b.htm

You can address me directly if you like.

My answer still holds no matter what bad guy or bad entitiy or female version (to appease mr. canaan) you fill in the blank.

My reasoning does not change over ethnic backrounds or other nonsensical denominators.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

In this thread…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=117046&page=2

…we discussed whether lying is ever acceptable, even to save Ann Frank who is hiding from the Gestapo in your attic. I think we have gone as far as we can in that thread. Some say that lying is never right–ever–and that it is always a sin to lie, even to save Frank. Others take the view that the higher value is love and love covers a multitude of sins so, in this very rare case, lying would be appropriate.

I would like to shift the discussion to the concept of “mental reservation”, which we touched on in the previous thread. Let’s not argue whether “lying” is right or wrong in this context but, rather, how might mental reservation be used to avoid lying. I’ll be candid here…I see little difference, if any, between “lying” and “mental reservation” but I’d like to see what others think.

So, here’s the scenario: The Jew, Ann Frank, is hiding in your attic from the Nazis. A Gestapo officer has intelligence indicating that she probably is in your attic. He pushes through your door, submachine at his side. He looks you square in the face and says: “Don’t play with me. If you value your sorry life, you will answer me truthfully. Yes or No? Is Ann Frank in your attic. Answer me ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or I’ll kill you on the spot.”

So, as a faithful Catholic, you will not lie. If you give an answer other than “yes’ or 'no” you will die. You wish to save Ms. Frank. How do you say "no’ to the Gestapo Officer and, through the device of “mental reservation”, avoid sinning by lying? (And, please, none of the “he’s going to kill me anyway” stuff…let’s focus on whether “mental reservation” is an available tool here or not).

Oh jeesh, and I’m the one who came up with this “classic example”

My response, THAT situation?–Do my best to kill (not murder–this is defense of an innocent life) the Gestapo officer and scream out the bugout-warning. Yeah, I’m dead, but maybey Anne gets away

 

[Damascus]

Oh jeesh, and I’m the one who came up with this “classic example”

My response, THAT situation?–Do my best to kill (not murder–this is defense of an innocent life) the Gestapo officer and scream out the bugout-warning. Yeah, I’m dead, but maybey Anne gets away

You are forgetting that you are the one providing Ann with food and water.

You die, she dies.

 

[Scottgun]

By the way, it’s mental reservation (as the op correctly said), not moral reservation. There are two kinds: strict and wide mental reservation. Here: newadvent.org/cathen/10195b.htm Strict mental reservation seems to be when one supplies unspoken mental qualifications to his utterances. Wide is when you would answer the question, “Are there Jews hiding here?” and you answer, “There is no one here that should not be.” As best I can tell strict reservation is a no-no, but wide is acceptable.

To answer the wildly implausible scenario here (because if the Gestapo has a lead on a hidden Jew they are not going to bother with questioning but simply kick the door in) when the Gestapo forces a yes or no question on you like this, it seems like there is no room for wide reservation. So anything other than the truth would be wrong. Keep in mind with the gun leveled at your head, most will probably lie (for what little good it will do) and the extreme duress would mitigate virtually all culpability regarding being guilty of a sin.

 

[Neo_Canaan]

What does this mean? that none of the alternate bad guys here know english or are you implying I dont?

I was the poster who objected to the villian in question here being over used.

Make your point clearer mr canaan.

No, what i mean is that those people listed mostly talk in their own native tongue.

 

[rr1213]

You can address me directly if you like.

My answer still holds no matter what bad guy or bad entitiy or female version (to appease mr. canaan) you fill in the blank.

My reasoning does not change over ethnic backrounds or other nonsensical denominators.

I didn’t figure that your response would change based on the identity of the tyrant, although you did say you were tired of hearing about Nazis…thus my suggestion of alternative bad guys.

Still, your response does not address whether “mental reservation” is a viable concept. Bear in mind, that I am not the one suggesting that this concept is available (I’d just lie and ask for forgiveness later under the circumstances). Still, it is the ***Catholic Church ***that makes a distinction between “lying” and using “mental reservation”. That distinction is what I would like to discuss. Please take a look at my link above to the Catholic Encyclopedia.