Does the End Justify the Means?

[winginitx]

I having a hard time reconciling this cliche with regards to Catholic doctrine, and I am a devout Catholic, - and I will give this example: Irena Updike, an ardent Catholic young women who slept with her Nazi employer to save the dozen or so Jews that were hiding in the cellar of the Nazi's home where she served. He knew the were there, but in exchange for Irene's charms, he did not commit them to a gruesome death.

She felt guilty for her sins until she died recently (now the subject of a Broadway play, "Irena's Vow").

Yes, she committed the sins of fornication and adultery...and by doing so, saved a dozen human beings from going to a tortuous death at the nearby death camp.

St. Aquinas stated that you can never achieve good by doing evil....but I think there are generations os grateful Jews born from the saved twelve that may disagree with that sentiment. That said, I also think it is dangerous to apply 'situational morality' to instances.

So I am conflicted. Any thoughts to help me come to some understanding?

 

[Winter]

She sacrificed herself in some way. And she did it out of love. The intent was to save others - and I think in the end, God looks at our hearts, our intentions, our reasons. Its not as if she liked what she was doing (I don't think she did - I don't know; this is the first time I've heard about it) - it probably disturbed her deeply. But she did not do it to serve herself - and serving self can lead folks to doing evil things. She did it for others - and was motivated by self-less-ness and love.

St. Aquinas is right. But the question is - did she do something evil? Was it to serve self? No, to both. She was motivated by love for others. Think about it: how many people have the courage to sacrifice themselves in that way for other people?

That's just how I see it.

 

[FullyMT]

We are not complete Kantians in our philosophy. Lying is also a sin, but sometimes one must lye in order to save lives (ie, telling nazis you do not have Jews hiding in your house). Kant would say you must categorically always tell the truth. I would think that any of these sins (including Irene's) which were done truly for the sake of helping save lives would be "venial" and that God would be merciful and kind to them for being selfless.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

A lie is evil when false information is given to decieve for one's own benefit.

In the case of the Nazi and the woman, he was taking from the woman, what she had no choice on. He was using the threat of murder, to get from her what he wanted. She wasn't giving herself freely, so she is not cupable.

Had the circumstances been different, she would not have given herself to the Nazi.

The evil was on his part, not hers.

Jim

 

[winginitx]

I don't disagree with you necesarily, but can you cite some biblical or CCC supporting that position? That would help me immensely.

Well, she actually did have a choice: He wasn't physically forcing her to have sex with him. That was kind of the whole point: she had to choose - the life of the dozen humans or her virtue.

His evil is obvious and not in question, but would the Church condemn her actions, abet it or find some other consideration based on the circumstances?

A lie is evil when false information is given to decieve for one's own benefit.

In the case of the Nazi and the woman, he was taking from the woman, what she had no choice on. He was using the threat of murder, to get from her what he wanted. She wasn't giving herself freely, so she is not cupable.


Had the circumstances been different, she would not have given herself to the Nazi.

The evil was on his part, not hers.

His evil is obvious and not in question, but would the Church condemn her actions, abet it or find some other consideration based on the circumstances?

Jim

 

[KeenanParkerII]

I believe evil is in the intent, or the purpose, not the act. Otherwise, why would Christian authors write about the evils of the smallest wrongdoings (ie. a lie), and the forgiveness available for the grandest errs.

If one man murders another based on what a lier told him. Who is the real sinner? Especially if the lier had intent of inflicting harm.

Irena's intent was to save those people.

I don't know if that's compatible with Catholic doctrine, but it makes sense to me..

 

[JimR-OCDS]

winginitx;

I don't disagree with you necesarily, but can you cite some biblical or CCC supporting that position? That would help me immensely.

CCC
1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience.

The woman could not refuse the man in right conscience, because it would've resulted in the death of innocent people.

For the woman to have commited sin, she would've had to act with full consent.

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."

Well, she actually did have a choice: He wasn't physically forcing her to have sex with him. That was kind of the whole point: she had to choose - the life of the dozen humans or her virtue.

He was forcing her through the threat of murding innocent people, if she didn't give in to his demands. She was not acting freely.
In fact, this would actually be rape, no different than pervert who comes up to a mother walking her baby in a park, who threatens to harm the baby, if she doesn't cooperate with his wishes.

His evil is obvious and not in question, but would the Church condemn her actions, abet it or find some other consideration based on the circumstances?

His evil actions explains the question. The Church condemns no one, and certainly not this woman.

Jim

 

[Fantine]

You must listen to Msgr. Jim Lisante's "Personally Speaking, " too, because he just interviewed Updike's daughter last week.

I love him, knew him slightly when I lived in NY and feel like his NY accent brings me a touch of home now that I don't. And he talks fast (compared to the south.) That's like a touch of home, too.

Of course, it's not only how he says things (unless you're a New Yorker stranded in the south) but what he says, and that's good, too.

He is very pro-life, but he has the rare gift of being able to present pro-life in a positive and uplifting way.

 

[PassthePeace1]

I agree with others, in that I don't see where she was truely giving her consent to sin. I see it tied to the use of deadly force to protect oneself or others, and not having it considered committing the sin of murder.

Pam

 

[Davidnic]

The issue is did she have the freedom to be culpable. In the day and age and her position she did not have the freedom to make a full choice, so she made the best of the situation by saving people in the situation she was placed in.

Although some acts are intrinsically evil, such as fornication...any culpability for the act depends on your ability to have (as with any sin) full consent of the will in your situation.

I would think, from what I have seen...she did not have full consent given her position and the events. Her actions do not, I would think as far as moral theology goes, constitute the "gravely disordered" inclination to fornicate.

 

[Davidnic]

Also there is the issue of unjust alternative choice. Such choices must be eliminated as soon as possible but if faced with one you do not agree with, do not advance, do not support or encourage they can be mitigating factors in such situations. Moral theology has volumes on such things and each case is different and they do not fit cookie cutters.

 

[winginitx]

thanks everyone....what you all say makes sence, and I really appreciate the CCC references.

You guys/gals are the best!