This reading from the Sayings of the Desert Fathers raises an
interesting question:
One
day Abba Agathon questioned Abba Alonius saying, “How can I control my tongue
so as to tell no more lies?”
And
Abba Alonius said to him, “If you do not lie, you prepare many sins for
yourself.”
“How
is that?” said he.
The
old man said to him, “Suppose two men have committed a murder before your eyes
and one of them fled to your cell. The magistrate, seeking him, asks you, ‘Have
you seen the murderer?’ If you do not
lie, you will deliver that man to death. It is better for you to abandon him
unconditionally to God, for he knows all things.”
It is so very difficult to
trust God in situations where we really think we know what to do, isn’t it?
The Desert Fathers excerpt reminded me of something I had seen on canon
lawyer Dr. Ed Peters Face Book page. He quoted the following, with the preliminary comment, “Who
thinks things through at these levels today?” (emphases added)
Par. 269. It is asked, first, whether it is permissible
to kill a drunken or insane aggressor? Answer. Yes, more than probably [probabilius],
unless it is clear to you that [the
aggressor] is in a state of mortal sin. The reasoning is that,
although a drunk or insane person is not a formally unjust aggressor, he is
nevertheless a materially unjust one, and your right to life is not lost because
of his drunkenness or insanity. But if you
know certainly (which would be extremely rare) that he is in a state of deadly sin, from which he
would be able to recover after his disturbance or inebriation [passes], and at
the same time you believe with moral [certitude] yourself to be in the state of
grace, charity requires that you believe with moral [certitude] yourself to be
in the state of grace, charity requires
that you prefer his eternal salvation to your temporal life. Nevertheless
nothing forbids, even in this hypothetical, that you strike or wound him so
that, though his life is safe, he is rendered unable to harm. Aloysio Sabetti
(Italian Jesuit, 1839-1898), COMPENDIUM THEOLOGIAE MORALIS, 30th ed., 4th ed.
post Cod. as rev. by Barret (Pustet, 1924) at 274.
Yes,
that is certainly something to think about, isn’t it? When I read it, I
realized that it is the underlying thought that makes me believe I could not
kill someone even in self-defense. Who am I to take another’s life?! Their very
soul could be in danger of hell!
Of course, I have not been in
the situation, so I don’t know whether my resolve would hold, or whether I
would be swept up in the passion of the moment. After all, we do have a
survival instinct, and we are supposed to desire life over death, all things
being equal.
Both of the examples, though,
are pointing toward a definition of true charity. Are we really concerned for
the other person’s soul? If so, that will sometimes, perhaps, require that we
act in a way that seems to make no sense at all. When it’s a matter of verbally
offering correction to a sinner, many of us probably can see the value of
risking “offending” the other person. But when it’s a matter of life or death?
Well…that complicates the issue a bit, doesn’t it?
Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me.
No comments:
Post a Comment