Bonhoeffer was wrong
- Sermon on the mountain by Károly Ferenczy
I've seen Bonhoeffer's name a lot in the conservative blogosphere lately as a heroic representation of the ends justifying the means. Bonhoeffer collaborated in plans to assassinate Hitler, and conservatives want to see this as proof of the morality of murdering doctors who do abortions. I think Bonhoeffer was wrong to do what he did - he abandoned the teachings of the sermon on the mount - and I think the creepy way many in blogdom are considering the pros and cons of justifiable murder is repellent and chilling (David Gibson writes of such a post at First Things).
Here's a past article from National Catholic Reporter by Jesuit Raymond A. Schroth, professor of humanities at Saint Peter's College, on why Bonhoeffer was wrong ......
****************************************
Bonhoeffer was wrong
by Raymond A. Schroth SJ
Why Bonhoeffer now? Six years ago, in June 2000, PBS presented the docudrama "Bonhoeffer: Agent of Grace," which, in my opinion (NCR, June 16, 2000), was particularly relevant then because it fit in with our turn-of-the-millennium concentration on World War II as both a historical and moral event.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was the German Lutheran theologian who was author of The Cost of Discipleship, Ethics and Letters and Papers from Prison. He studied briefly at New York's Union Theological Seminary in 1930, and developed a theory of "religionless Christianity." He taught that we should not use the concept of God to "fill in the gaps" in our understanding of the world, helped rescue some Jews and, along with several members of his large family, participated in a plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler, was arrested and hanged in 1945. With the help of liberal Protestant theologians like Harvey Cox, Bonhoeffer's ideas were rediscovered and became influential in the 1960s.
In 2000 I compared Bonhoeffer's story to that of Sergeant York, the World War I hero whose 1941 film biography helped us put aside our natural resistance to even a just war. Both Alvin York and Dietrich Bonhoeffer were peace-loving religious men, "pacifists" who overcame their scruples in order to kill when duty seemed to require it. But why might we turn to him now? For two reasons: First, Feb. 4 is the 100th anniversary of his birth, and anniversaries are always occasions to rethink basic ideas that the man, woman or moment seems to represent. Second, the Bonhoeffer cult is growing. Every day we read the news from Washington and Iraq--both denials of and justifications for torture from the same administration, condemnations of nations that would be nuclear powers while we ourselves develop more deadly weapons, all without a peep from our so-called religious guides. We ask ourselves, who will speak for Christians? Bonhoeffer?
PBS will broadcast a 2003 documentary by Martin Doblmeier, "Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Pacifist, Nazi Resister," on Feb. 6 at 10 p.m. EST. Mr. Doblmeier cites Bonhoeffer's influence on Desmond Tutu, Vaclav Havel and Martin Luther King Jr. as evidence that his life speaks "to anyone who struggles with how to respond to evil and to understand at a deeper level the 'cost' of following God."
I recently came upon an essay by Stanley Hauerwas, "Bonhoeffer on Truth and Politics," in which he enlists Bonhoeffer as a theoretical ally. Like Bonhoeffer, Dr. Hauerwas says, he believes that "the character of a society and state is to be judged by the willingness to have the Gospel preached truthfully and freely." But truth telling, they agree, is a skill that allows us to hide secrets we have a right to keep and a virtue that grants the courage to confront lies, such as those of the Nazis, that threaten Christian civilization. In the Jan. 2-9 America, journalism professor David L. Martinson employs Bonhoeffer's theory of truth to criticize journalists who fail to report "what is really going on" in Iraq.
Mr. Doblemier combines archival footage of Hitler's rise, still photos of Bonhoeffer and his family and interviews with former students and scholars, particularly Bonhoeffer's friend and biographer Eberhard Bethge, to present a portrait of a young man of conscience who loved both Germany and the Sermon on the Mount. He either had to serve one and not the other or find a way to make the two loves coincide.
Because he saw himself as a pacifist, Bonhoeffer avoided military service by joining the Abwehr, Germany's counterintelligence service, where an inner circle was part of the conspiracy against Hitler. He was, says the documentary, a "double agent," posing as a government loyalist while secretly contacting underground movements throughout Europe. Meanwhile, as a sort of pastor to the conspirators, several of whom were devout Christians, he helped them overcome scruples about lying, betraying their country and killing.
How does this film help us rethink the mess we are in today? We can't help noticing that the Gestapo taps citizens' phone lines, tortures its prisoners and slaps suspects into jail without lawyers or trials for years. Hitler describes himself as a prophet: He is the savior who will rescue his people from an insidious worldwide menace. His "menace" is Bolsheviks and Jews. Germany is at war--a war Germany started--and the Fuhrer has the right to do anything he wants to protect the Fatherland, he says. And to watch first Hitler surrounded by men in uniform goose-stepping and "Heiling" and then to see our own Field Marshall Bush in his military leather jacket propped up against a photo-staged background of cheering GIs is creepy indeed.
Is Bonhoeffer a pastor for our own time? In courage, yes. In moral judgment, no.
In no way does the Sermon on the Mount make wiggle room for political assassination. Look at the record--from Brutus to Pat Robertson suggesting the CIA "take out" Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. Four years ago in the Czech Republic, I stood in the cell where the 19-year-old Bosnian Serb Gavrilo Princip, who shot the archduke of Austria and started World War I, had been chained to the wall, and I knew I was in the presence of madness.
Consider the traumas our nation endured when Lincoln, two Kennedys and Martin Luther King Jr. were blown away. The argument against assassination is the basic Kantian principle that underlies the Geneva Conventions against torture: For us to kill Saddam Hussein or any world leader, particularly because the leader is the embodiment of his society, is a moral invitation to our enemies to do the same to us. Furthermore, assassinations almost always fail to achieve their purpose and they kill the innocent as well. The Israeli-targeted killings of Hamas leaders with rockets fired from helicopters kill everyone else in the car and bystanders as well. Our targeted bombings in Iraq aimed at Saddam and his generals missed Saddam and the generals and killed hundreds of civilians in the neighborhood. The July 10, 1944, plot, a bomb planted in a meeting room, missed Hitler and killed four others. In retaliation, Hitler purged and executed 5,000 opponents of his regime. Some were tortured to death.
Except in civil disobedience, where one protests an unjust law and takes public responsibility, whenever anyone with power--president or priest --starts to go above, outside or around the law and gives himself a license to kill, beware.
***********************
posted by crystal | 1:56 PM
25 Comments:
Crystal, please do not delete your post. I need time to gather my thoughts before I respond to it. Maybe tonight I can respond.
Hi SusieQ,
I'll try not to dlelte :)
Crystal, there is an interesting post by Nancy (Dallavalle nancydallavalle.blogspot.clm) on th impasse that woman face. It matches in well with this subject.
And just how does one post a link in a comment???
I would say that Bonhoeffer was wrong, but it is difficult to claim that the killing of Hitler would have been a bad thing. I can be certain that the failure of the plot was a disaster, a lot of men died because of it.
Yet had it succeeded the results might have been even worse. Perhaps someone else would have taken over that was even worse, or was wise enough to win the war.
And even if it solved the immediate problem it might have set an example that resulted in many good leaders being killed.
I find that at times following my own principles costs me, and I am willing to accept those costs. But I do not believe that I generally have the right to ask others to follow my morality and thus bear those costs.
To me this is the impasse imposed by the current debate on abortion. If I follow my morals, and by law ask others to do the same I impose horrendous burdens on some women, women that do not have the same moral beliefs that I do. If I do not impose those morals, then unborn humans may well have the burden of death imposed on them.
So I find myself in a fairly intolerable state, I am pro-choice, pro-life, and a Catholic. Something which many others say cannot exist. Yet I cannot find it in myself to impose my morality on others particularly when I don't bear the pain of the results.
I think that text book morality is wonderful, it gives us guidance. But when I am in the field, when I have to make a judgment, I am the only one one that knows what pressures are on me, what I see as the consequences, what I see as the benefits, and I have to make the judgment and accept the consequences. I think that Bonhoeffer was wrong, but he might have made the right choice for him.
Peace,
Mike L
I am not going to write anything here about abortion and the recent murder of Dr. Tiller. I am just sorry it happened.
I am not fond of the term "the end justifies the means" because sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. It depends on the circumstances.
Stealing is wrong. There are laws against stealing. Yet, a simple scenario that is easily understood and accepted is one in which your children are starving and you are forced to break the law and steal food for them from the rich man's pantry. If you had no other choice and they would die otherwise, then you are morally justified in breaking that particular law. I consider it your moral duty to your children as their protector to break that law if needed. The rich man would not suffer as a result of the loss, but your children would benefit immensely from your theft.
I do not know how much exposure (photos and accounts) you have had to the atrocities that were committed under Hitler's rule. I remember seeing the propaganda films that were put out about the "useless eaters." I recall hearing about how these poor people and others were used for experiment purposes. Then, of course, there were the ovens and the gas chambers and all the other terrible things that happened to these people in the concentration camps. Father Schroth's argument opposing assassinations including the one tried with Hitler becomes terribly weak to the point of being frivolous against a backdrop like that.
I believe that a person is morally justified in defending herself and her family (the community too) even to the death against an attacker bent on killing. This is justifiable homicide. Some assassinations amount to justifiable homicide, but certainly not all. The circumstances have to be extreme. The act one of last resort.
When I look at the Jesus of the Bible, I do not see a legalist. I see a Jesus who did break the law and perform miracles on the Sabbath because it was more important to do so.
I know you struggle with this moral question of taking another person's life whether it is ever justified. I hope I have given you something to think about.
Thanks for providing your readers with such thought provoking posts.
Hi mike,
To link a post, you write it like this below, except instead of usinf < and > I have used here ( and ) so it won't get coded and you can see it ....
(a href = "http://www.nancydallavalle.blogspot.com")Nancy's blog(/a)
If you wrote that with the carrots (< and >) instead of the parentheses ( ( and )), it would look like this ....
Nancy's blog
would say that Bonhoeffer was wrong, but it is difficult to claim that the killing of Hitler would have been a bad thing.
Yes, I think a dead Hitler is better than a live one, but it's the murder part I think is bad.
To me this is the impasse imposed by the current debate on abortion. If I follow my morals, and by law ask others to do the same I impose horrendous burdens on some women, women that do not have the same moral beliefs that I do. If I do not impose those morals, then unborn humans may well have the burden of death imposed on them.
I have lots of conflicts too. I think it would be great if all women wanted to and could bear their children to term. But I don't want a law that forces them to do that in every circumstance. So I go back and forth, and instead try to focus on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies so that abortion isn't wanted. That wouldn't solve all the problems, of course, but I don't get why people don't expend more energy on preventing the need for abortion.
SusieQ,
That's a good example - stealing to feed your children.
Another example might be that though lying is wrong, you might lie to save someone's life.
It isn't that I don't think Hitler was evil or that he didn't cause horrible suffering - I do. What bothers me is the idea that what we normally think of as wrong can be tweeked, that what we hate one person to do for the wrong reasons is ok for us to do for the right reasons.
What you seem to be saying is that murder is ok if the person you murder is really bad. But I'm thinking if murder is bad, it's always bed. And if we decide it's only bad when other people do it but not for us, we become them.
I do think self defense of self and others is ok, but you're not talking about fighting someone off, but of cold-bloodedly killing someone who I assume isn't armed. How far from this is deciding to make a pre-emptive strike and make sure the bad person never has a chance to do any damage?
Jesus may have broken laws but he always broke them on the side of compassion. He never hurt a fly. He said to forgive, to turn the other cheek, that those who lived by the sword died by it. He was a subject of an occupied country where death by torture was a matter of fact. If he had believed as you think, he would have been a zealot who tried to kill Pilate and overthrow the Romans, but instead he let himself get killed.
Yeah, I do struggle with this question a lot. I'm very conflicted about it.
I always appreciate your thoughtful comments :)
Mike,
Sorry - when I wrote the code, it didn't all show up, so I'll do it again but I'll split it up, though it should be all one line .....
Nancy's blog
Rats, it still didn't work. I know ... if you look at this page in a "no style" format (in your browser's menu, under "view", should be a "page style" option), you can see the whole string that I posted in my original comment
Sorry I'm coming to this thread kind of late, I just haven't had a chance to post.
Yet, a simple scenario that is easily understood and accepted is one in which your children are starving and you are forced to break the law and steal food for them from the rich man's pantry. If you had no other choice and they would die otherwise, then you are morally justified in breaking that particular law.
I think the problem with SuzieQ's analysis is the last sentence:
you are morally justified in breaking that particular law
I would say ... no. You are not morally justified in breaking that law. It's wrong to steal, period. The tragedy in this situation, though, is that it's also wrong to allow your children to starve.
So we're faced with a true ethical dilemma. There is no way to get out of the situation without getting some dirt on you. So what can you do? I think you have to pick your poison, and accept guilt for doing whatever it is you choose. Because the really morally destructive thing is when people who find themselves in an ethical dilemma try to escape without blame, setting themselves up as martyrs or holy warriors.
Therefore, while I guess I would agree that Bonhoeffer was "wrong" in the sense that attempting to murder any other human being is wrong, and while I think it is dangerous to lionize him, I have to admire his courage and sympathize with the dilemma in which he found himself.
Crystal, it worked fine, I can even access her blog from the link you left.
Well, I was called to breakfast before I finished this reply, and so most of what I was going to say has been erased and I have new ideas.
SusieQ, I understand your thoughts in you simple scenario, but I would suggest it is not as simple as it sounds. Why doesn't the father have the money to buy food? Is he refusing to work? is he unwilling to hunt? Does his alcohol addiction keep him from holding a job? Would he be justified in stealing more to send his kids to school?
I think that he is still a thief. The law may take mercy on him, and in the end only God can make a final decision, but he is still a thief.
I remember the old joke about the guy offering the woman a million dollars to go to bed with him. She thinks it over, sees a college education for her kids and all the other good things the money would bring and says "yes." He then asks would she do it for ten dollars, and she reacts in horror saying "what kind of woman do you think I am?" His reply is "that's established, now we are dickering over the price!" So whether it is stealing for food, or assassination we know what the person is, what is left is what price he has to pay. And possibly what price society has to pay as well.
I do not think that there is ever a single, non-moral solution to any problem. And I do not believe that the end ever justifies the means, simply because we never know the full outcome of such an action.
I had my car stolen once, no big thing because it was a second car and I had insurance. Still, I was left with a paranoid like fear, life felt unsafe and I looked at everyone with a bit of suspicion for months. I wondered if my car would be there when I came out of the store of from the night classes I was taking. Perhaps I was not as generous during that time as I could have been. Don't you have to take those effects into account when you justify a minor theft. And yes, one night I came out of class and the car was indeed gone. My wife had to find a sitter and come pick me up. Extended my bitter period for quite some time.
I do not believe that I have ever truly been sorry for refusing to allow the ends to justify the means.
Hugs and peace,
Mike L
Crystal, Mike, friends, Roman Catholics...lend. Oops wrong speech!!.
Should Randall Terry, Archbishop Chaput et al read this exchange, they would be delighted. You have bought into the anti-abortion theme 100 percent. As Terry, Chaput say 'First we must convince people that one cell or a group of cells are "persons" just like a human being with the traits that are accepted by almost all as necessary to being a person. We know such doctrine has never een recognized legally, scientifically, philosophically, or in common sense---but by a concentrated effort we may be able to put it over. Use the argument that since we do not know when the cells become a person, we must assume that one cell is just like your grandson, a full person. Sort of like, since we do not know with certainty when the universe began we must assume it is infinite.Bad reasoning, but we can sell it.'
'Hey, after we win this one we can argue that contraception is murder (we have already started on this one, and some are buying it---just throw in something about sex and natural law---we may have a winner here.)'
'Other possibilities: Sex is only for procreation and unity. Then go to God's chosen (that's me says Chaput)never even think of sex, and we're home. The poor simps will then see that we are right and we will get our place back in the "public square", politics and the White House'
Jack
Friends, again.
Many times I have referenced the More's "The Demon of the Absolute" and its theme that just because we cannot find ABSOLUTE standards just not mean that we have NO Standards. This idea of having to have ABSOLUTE standards or no sandards was the basis of the doctrine of infallibility of the pope. It is still being used by the Church when Popes rail(sp?) about "relativism." Many buy the church argument. Jack
A couple of typos above. Not intentional, but it does give the the typophiles something to do. Jack
Matthew,
the really morally destructive thing is when people who find themselves in an ethical dilemma try to escape without blame, setting themselves up as martyrs or holy warriors.
That's a good point. I usually try very hard to do this myself. I remember in one past post about The Dead Zone movie, you said this about Bonhoeffer - that what he did was wrong but that as he acceptd the responsibility for it, that made it morally acceptable (I think?).
I do think stealing and lying are wrong, although there are times when they are the best option. What makes them still seem wrong to me is the thought of how life would be if people routinely told lies and stole - the death of transparency and trust.
Jack,
I'm not sure I'm saying there are absolute standards exactly. But imagine having a friend who felt that telling lies was morally nuetral. I grew up with a mother like that who thought the only bad thing about lying was getting caught. That doesn't mean there are not times when it is best to lie .... like when the Nazis come to your door and say "Are there any Jews in your attic?" .... but just that I think most of us hope that we can count on people to usually tell us the truth.
As far as how this applies to the abortion debate, I guess I am not in the "absolute" camp since I'm pro-choice.
Hm, now that you mention it, I did say all that, although I don't think I used the words "morally acceptable".
Dead Zone Comments
And really, I don't know what to do with the phrase "morally acceptable". It seems like there's a level on which you can evaluate the dilemma and say all those choices are wrong, period, but once you've said that, it seems like there's room for the question: "But might he have chosen the better of those bad choices?" And then maybe you're right back where you started.
Yes, I didn't remember correctly what you wrote in those past comments :)
I've been thinking more about what you just wrote here though. Moral dilemmas come up all the time for me because I guess I do mostly believe there are fairly absolute rights and wrongs, but I don't in action often do what's "right". Then I think I'm a bad person, and try so hard to rewrite either the events or the rules so that I don't turn out to be bad after all. But maybe that's what all the "loved sinner" stuff is about - the recognition that people who make less than perfect choices can still be in some way un-bad?
Oh, Crystal, I see you have another fascinating post going about morality and animals. I can't keep up with you, girl. :-)
You said, "What you seem to be saying is that murder is ok if the person you murder is really bad. But I'm thinking if murder is bad, it's always bed. And if we decide it's only bad when other people do it but not for us, we become them."
No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that there is such a thing as justifiable homicide which is NOT murder.
In the case of Hitler it was about stopping this particular criminal from continuing to murder scores of human beings. It was about defending the lives of others. Hitler was a murderer on a very large scale. Stauffenberg, who was the one responsible for placing the bomb that was supposed to kill Hitler, told a co-conspirator that he knew he was breaking German law and committing high treason. He said, "I am committing high treason with all my might and means...." Stauffenberg used natural law to justify his action. He said that natural law gave him the right to defend millions of people's lives from the criminal aggressions of Hitler.
As I understand the thinking of our founding fathers, human rights come from natural law (or from God), not from the state. Natural law is understood to be universal, that is applicable to all societies, because we all seem to practice it in our actions with each other.
It is natural to defend ourselves against an attacker. We have a natural right to defend ourselves. That is why it is usually considered justifiable homicide when a person kills an attacker in self-defense or in the defense of her family. This works on a larger scale too. This is why I think Stauffenberg was justified in his assassination attempt with Hitler.
If we accept that some assassinations are justified, you are afraid this would cause us to slide down that slippery slope and start taking out political leaders just because they look like they could be dangerous. This is a concern. But I do not think we are destined to go to hell in a hand basket if we allow for exceptions in special circumstances.
You said, "Jesus may have broken laws but he always broke them on the side of compassion. He never hurt a fly. He said to forgive, to turn the other cheek, that those who lived by the sword died by it. He was a subject of an occupied country where death by torture was a matter of fact. If he had believed as you think, he would have been a zealot who tried to kill Pilate and overthrow the Romans, but instead he let himself get killed."
Jesus always did the compassionate thing even when it meant he had to break a law to do the more important, compassionate thing. He was a law breaker and did not always keep the Sabbath holy according to Jewish tradition. Yet we say he was without sin. As to his never hurting a fly, according to the Biblical account he drove the money changers out of the temple with a big whip.
The role of zealot was not the role Jesus was meant to play. His role was to die on the cross so that he could be resurrected and ascend into heaven and thereby draw all hearts to him.
Of course, we are to forgive one another and pursue peace with each other by being slow to take offense (turn the other cheek). It is true, too, that violence often invites violence...but also war is often fought in order to secure peace. Not all of us in the world are on the same page of peace and good will. This is a problem.
Matthew: Some of what you say is true. When it comes to moral decisions, we can find ourselves between a rock and a hard place. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't. But the thing about rules and laws which as human beings we all know to be true is that every rule or law has its exceptions.
SusieQ,
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the justifiable murder idea. I know you are thinking of preventing the murder of millions, and that is very compelling. I know I'm not expressing myself well, but ...
I'm not a fan of natural law, but interestingly, that is what the Church bases its moral rules on. An example might be that life is sacred and therefore murder is wrong. The Church is against capital punishment. But the Church isn't against self-defense. The difference is that, I think, self-defense takes place at a moment of imminent danger. But assassination (or the execution of an imprisoned murderer) does not - it's cold-blodded and calculated.
But it's not that I can't see your point of view - I guess who wouldn't kill Hitler if they had the chance - it's just that I do think it would be a scary thing to make murder a matter of subjectivity.
Mike: In my hypothetical scenario, I should have provided context. So, here goes.
My scenario involves a mother, a tenant farmer, who is living in Ireland with her four young children during the potato famine. The father has passed away recently. It is during the 1840's.
The famine killed a million Irish peasants. Many more emigrated to the U.S. to escape the famine. I won't delve into the history of Ireland and the role the Brits played in this famine.
It is sufficient to say that the potato crops which the Irish relied on to feed their families were destroyed by a blight. They had no food of their own and the Brits would not permit these peasants to use any of the food they grew there in Ireland for the Brits. For the most part, the Irish were allowed to starve.
In my scenario this mother goes to a landlord's larder in the dark of night and she steals a small amount of grain for her children who are pale and weak from hunger. She does this repeatedly. Her children survive and later she is somehow able to secure passage to the U.S. for all of them.
Are you prepared to condemn this mother for stealing? When you think of her do you think of her as a thief or as a mother who loves her children and risked her life to provide for them?
I know this is fiction, but it could have happened and probably did happen. I can't condemn this fictional mother. I can't think of her as a thief.
To quote Thomas Aquinas :) ....
[...] when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy, then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another's property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery.
SusieQ, what is to prevent me from thinking of her as both? After all, she is both, but I find no need to condemn her or label her as an evil person. I do believe that at some point in some way she needs to make restitution for what she takes. Perhaps that takes the form of giving food to some other needy mother when she has a surplus, or maybe watching the children of a sea sick mother while crossing the Atlantic.
I disagree theoretically with Jack in that I think some moral rules are absolute, but in practice I think that textbook morality can never determine all the facts and pressures to absolutely determine an act's morality.
Hugs,
Mike L
We talk about making thoughtful moral decisions as if we actually did this. Do we? I don't think I do. It seems more organic than that. I think we act or react out of who we are or who we've become through our life experience at any given moment. Are you capable of ignoring your starving child when you have access to food? If you can, can you even consider yourself a nominally compassionate human being? What do you have to believe and feel about another person before you can do bodily harm? I think these are rarely deliberate moral choices, more often they are emotion fueled acts of anger or fear. More deliberate and immoral was the effort to dehumanize Dr. Tiller by people who should have known better. An interesting post at the NY Times re Dr. Tiller’s work can be found here: http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/george-tiller/?8ty&emc=ty
Richard,
Thanks - that's a good article.
I've read that late term abortions are a very small percentage of all abortions - maybe one and a half percent? - and they are referred to the few doctors who will do them by other doctors, ususally because something is very wrong with the pregnancy. Andrew Sullivan has been posting some of the stories of the women who had Dr. Tiller as their physician. As someone elsewhere pointed out, if pro-life people believe a fetus is a person from the moment of conception, why is it that late-term abortions, which are so small in number comparitively, are their focus?
I think you're ight about how we make decisions - emotionally. Maybe philosophical/religious thought is how we try to understand and justify them after the fact. There are some decisions I've really agonized over - like whther and when I should euthanize Kermit. But in the end it was an emotional decision.
Post a Comment
<< Home