Looking Brave or Being Brave

One

The Story of Irene Gut Opdyke

During World War II, a woman named Irene Gut Opdyke managed to smuggle a significant number of Jewish persons to safety. Unfortunately, a Nazi officer found out what she was doing and he made her this proposal: If she would become his mistress, he wouldn’t blow the whistle on her activities.

So she took his deal. Needless to say, she had no desire to be intimate with such a monster, but she thought it was worth it to save the lives of innocent people. She thought the important consequences of her work justified the repulsive bargain.

This seems, at first glance, to be a very courageous decision. But, on the other hand, courage is a virtue, and virtue can only prompt us to do what is morally good.

And fornication isn’t morally good. So how do we deal with decisions that look brave but are actually immoral? 

Two

We all try to maximize good consequences – and we’re all willing to put up with some unpleasant consequences

The first thing to notice is that everyone acts with an eye to consequences. We all try to make choices, or we should, that make the world overall a better place. It’s also true that most decisions involve pros and cons. There are always tradeoffs. Usually, we have to be willing to put up with some unpleasant side-effects from our decisions for the sake of the more important good we’re trying to do. You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, as the saying goes.

So does that mean that as long as our intentions are good, and we really think our actions are going to bring about the best consequences overall and we really are not motivated by the morally repugnant aspect of the thing, in that case can we just go ahead?

No. Absolutely not.  

Three

Difference between principle of double effect and consequentialism

It’s very important to be clear on the difference between the principle of double effect, which is a legitimate principle in moral theology, and consequentialism, which goes directly against the Church’s moral teaching. 

The principle of double effect says you can do something that will probably have some undesirable consequences if

1. The immediate action – or the means – itself isn’t sinful 

2. The undesirable consequences are not willed as a means or an end, 

3. The good consequences seem (as far as one can tell) to outweigh the bad consequences, 

4. There doesn’t seem to be a better, morally permissible alternative. 

So Irene Opdyke’s decision to fornicate with the Nazi officer clearly fails that first condition. Her means for getting him to look the other way was intrinsically evil. Consequentialism says you can do anything, including directly attacking human goodness, if you think it’ll bring about greater consequences overall.

So here’s the basic difference between the principle of double effect and consequentialism: the principle of double effect says, “Do something good with the hope that in the long run there will be more good consequences than bad consequences.” The principle of double effect starts out with a concrete good and then hopes for the possible future good. It’s like taking a hundred dollars and putting it in the bank with the hope that it will generate interest and make you even more money.

Consequentialism, on the contrary, says, “Do something evil with the hope that in the long run, there will be more good consequences than bad consequences.” Consequentialism starts out with destroying a concrete good and then hopes for the possible future good. It is like taking a hundred dollars and ripping it to pieces with the hope that it will make you even more money. Obviously, that doesn’t make much sense, which is why consequentialism has consistently been rejected by Catholic teaching.

Four

Bringing about the best consequences within a morally acceptable range of choices

We all want good consequences. We all want to find ways to make the world a better place. The great challenge of the moral life is to do that within a morally acceptable range of options.

We all want to help ease the pain of suffering people. But we have to look for ways to do that apart from Euthanasia. We all want family members to know we love them and support them, but we have to look for ways to do that apart from endorsing or celebrating their dysfunctional lifestyle decisions. We all want to reform the Church but we have to look for ways to do that apart from attacking the Pope and undermining the authority Christ has given to the successor of Peter and the Apostles.

Because even pursuing a noble, good end, doesn’t justify directly attacking what is good.

Five

True Courage: Trust in God 

True courage, virtuous courage, means pursuing a noble goal through righteous means. That takes courage, because there are times when there don’t seem to be any righteous means available for achieving our noble goal.

Irene Opdyke didn’t see any way to save lives without the gravely sinful means of yielding to the Nazi’s lust. But this is why trust in God is the greatest source of courage. It assures us that even if we can’t see any clear, moral path leading to the greater good, God is in control.

So when it feels like we’ve run out of viable options, we leave it to Him. Knowing that He will do greater good for the world with our fidelity and purity than we could ever do by compromising what we know to be right.