 |
| Dietrich Bonhoeffer |
THE FIFTH STEP OF SILENCE
Bonhoeffer Speaks Out Against Hitler
—First Run Features, “Bonhoeffer Speaks Out Against Hitler,” YouTube video, 5:20 minutes, May 1, 2007
The fifth step of silence is a contradiction in terms. It is to speak
out against injustice and oppression, according to the fourth beatitude,
“Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice.” It is to imitate Christ
in his public life of prophecy.
“The Ladder of Silence”—see:
For Bonhoeffer, the foundation of ethical behaviour lay in how the
reality of the world and the reality of God were reconciled in the reality of
Christ. Both in his thinking and in his life, ethics were centered on the
demand for action by responsible men and women in the face of evil. He was
sharply critical of ethical theory and of academic concerns with ethical
systems precisely because of their failure to confront evil directly. Evil, he
asserted, was concrete and specific, and it could be combated only by the
specific actions of responsible people in the world. The uncompromising
position Bonhoeffer took in his seminal work Ethics, was directly reflected in
his stance against Nazism. His early opposition turned into active conspiracy
in 1940 to overthrow the regime. It was during this time, until his arrest in
1943, that he worked on Ethics.
...For Bonhoeffer...to share in Christ’s reality is to become a
responsible person, a person who performs actions in accordance with reality
and the fulfilled will of God (Ethics, p. 224). There are two guides for
determining the will of God in any concrete situation: (1) the need of one’s
neighbor, and (2) the model of Jesus of Nazareth. There are no other guides,
since Bonhoeffer denies that we can have knowledge of good and evil (Ethics, p.
231). There is no moral certainty in this world.
...Responsible action, in other words, is a highly risky venture. It
makes no claims to objectivity or certainty. It is a free venture that cannot
be justified in advance (Ethics, p. 249). But, nevertheless, it is how we
participate in the reality of Christ, i.e., it is how we act in accordance with
the will of God. The demand for responsible action in history is a demand no
Christian can ignore. We are, accordingly, faced with the following dilemma:
when assaulted by evil, we must oppose it directly. We have no other option.
The failure to act is simply to condone evil. But it is also clear that we have
no justification for preferring one response to evil over another. We seemingly
could do anything with equal justification. Nevertheless, for Bonhoeffer, the
reality of a demand for action without any (a priori) justification is just the
moral reality we must face, if we want to be responsible people.
—Douglas Huff, “Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906–1945),” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Discussion of Bonhoeffer’s ethics:
—Stepping Up by FamilyLife, “Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Anti-Nazi Resistant and Resolute Hero | Stepping UpTM Video Series,” YouTube video, 4:52 minutes, October 17, 2012
Bonhoeffer’s life and legacy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klkbXKa1Jvk
—Saint Mark’s National Theological Centre, “The Life and Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer,” YouTube video, 8:19 minutes, March 2, 2015
Public domain photo
ReplyDeleteGonzalinho
IS THERE SUCH A THING AS AN OBJECTIVE MORAL LAW?
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Church has consistently and continually rejected subjectivism and relativism in morality. In one of her recent official documents, the Church stated: “Now in fact the Church throughout her history has always considered a certain number of precepts of the natural law as having an absolute and immutable value, and in their transgression she has seen a contradiction of the teaching and spirit of the Gospel” (Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, 4, December 29, 1975). Similar official statements of the Magisterium have been a regular part of Catholic teaching for centuries.
The eternal law of God, as reflected in human nature, is called the “natural moral law”. Certain aspects of it, such as the prohibitions against stealing, lying and murder, are easily recognizable by all who are of sound mind. The Greeks and Romans were highly developed in certain parts of the natural law. There is a remarkable reflection of it in the moral system elaborated by Confucius of China twenty-four hundred years ago -- a system still followed by millions of Chinese.
Their morality, they say, depends on the situation or circumstances. This is a very convenient system for the human ego, for what it means is that the individual at all times decides for himself what is good and what is bad. He recognizes, therefore, no “objective” moral principles.
However, most men and women do not have the mental acumen of an Aristotle, a Cicero, or a Confucius. Frankly, they need help. Now God in his goodness has seen fit to reveal to man, through the prophets of the Old Testament and especially through his Son, Jesus Christ, in the New Testament, the basic requirements of the natural law in addition to the special law of the Gospel. According to Vatican Council I, God did this so that “those religious truths which are by their nature accessible to human reason can easily be known to all men with solid certitude and without trace of error” (DS 3005).
Throughout both Jewish and Christian history the best compendium of God’s law for man, of what God expects of man in his daily intercourse with others, has been thought to be the Ten Commandments, or the “ten words of Yahweh” as it is often expressed in the Jewish Bible. The first three commandments deal with man’s proper relationship with his Creator and God; the other seven concern man’s relationship with his fellow man.
Over the centuries Catholic theologians have developed lengthy and detailed treatises on morality based on the Ten Commandments. Up to the seventeenth century the moral teaching of the Church was treated as a part of general or doctrinal theology. In the 1600s there was a rapid development in the science of “moral theology”. Accordingly, it gradually split off from dogmatic theology and tended to become a more or less independent science, with its roots, of course, in the doctrine of the Church.
Link: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0919.htm
To be continued
Gonzalinho
https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/true-morality-is-based-on-objective-principles.html
Delete—Kenneth Baker, S.J., “True Morality is Based on Objective Principles,” Catholic Education Resource Center
Original Publication
Kenneth Baker, S.J. “True Morality is Based on Objective Principles.” In Fundamentals of Catholicism Vol. 1 Part II, Chapter 6 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1983), 135-138.
IS THERE SUCH A THING AS AN OBJECTIVE MORAL LAW? (continued)
ReplyDeleteHOWEVER:
...the notion of “intrinsic evil.” Long a staple of Catholic discussions of morality, the notion is somewhat hard to define. The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not use the phrase, but it does say: “There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil.”
In other words, Fullam said, an intrinsic evil is one in which “there is never any justification” for an action that aims at an evil “as a sole intended end.”
Thus, she said, any judgment of sin must include consideration of a person’s intention. Most moralists, she said, would agree that in order to describe something as an intrinsic evil, you would first have to know something about the intention and circumstances of the person who has undertaken that act.
...Ultimately, Fullam said, each and every act requires discernment along the lines of some basic questions proposed by St. Thomas Aquinas: “What is the point of what you’re doing and what are the circumstances?”
Link: http://ncronline.org/news/politics/theologians-see-need-broader-discussion-conscience
The moral law is objective but its application to a particular situation must take into account human intention, which is subjective, and the circumstances that affect it.
Gonzalinho
http://ncronline.org/news/politics/theologians-see-need-broader-discussion-conscience
Delete—Joshua J. McElwee, “Theologians see need for broader discussion on conscience,” National Catholic Reporter (February 10, 2012)
Bonhoeffer’s is a challenging case of a moral dilemma.
DeleteGonzalinho
POLITICAL MORALITY
ReplyDeleteThe moral dimension of politics is poorly addressed in our education system, yet political actions have the capacity to inflict grave and far-reaching moral evil affecting millions and millions. Morality that is taught in our private Roman Catholic schools in particular focuses on the moral actions of the individual and generally neglects to take up the morality of political actions that affect many millions. Politics has far-reaching, dramatic, life-altering effects on masses of people so that political morality demonstrates a structural character. Politics is the enabler and perpetrator of social sin. It is according to this aspect that politics strikes at the very core of our moral life, competing directly with individual allegiance to God's law.
Link:
https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2019/06/placeholder-2-of-4.html
Gonzalinho
THE FIFTH STEP OF SILENCE
ReplyDeleteThe fifth step of silence is a contradiction in terms. It is to speak out against injustice and oppression, according to the fourth beatitude, “Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice.” It is to imitate Christ in his public life of prophecy.
To speak out—a type of action—against injustice and oppression springs from our deep interior silence, our union with God in prayer. We are stricken by a moral imperative, the compulsion of Jeremiah the prophet. In our prayer, outrage and confusion is met with understanding, clarity, affirmation, wisdom, anointing, and courage, according to the providence of God. We are touched and called, as it were, like the prophets of old.
Gonzalinho
“Whoever speaks on his own seeks his own glory, but whoever seeks the glory of the one who sent him is truthful, and there is no wrong in him.”—John 7:18
ReplyDeleteGonzalinho
Did Bonhoeffer participate in the plot to assassinate Hitler?
ReplyDeleteThe evidence indicates that he was indirectly involved in the assassination plot and apparently assented in principle to it. He was not directly involved.
“There were other Christians who endorsed the Barmen Declaration and resisted the Nazification of their churches. Some of them were aware of the assassination plots but refused to participate. The Kreisau Circle, centered around Helmuth James Count von Moltke, is an illuminating example. Several times during 1942 Von Moltke and Bonhoeffer met to coordinate elements of the resistance and, among other things, discussed reasons for and against assassination attempts. Von Moltke remained opposed, not only for Christian reasons, but also because he feared that Hitler’s death would be regarded as another ‘stab in the back’ by the German people, and thus would perpetuate the cultural pathologies that had enabled the Nazi movement. Bonhoeffer, on the other hand, remained convinced that killing Hitler to end the Nazi regime was the only responsible thing to do, even for a disciple of Christ” [F. Schlingensiepen, Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) Martyr, Thinker, Man of Resistance (2010), Kindle Location 5706-5774].
https://mrijournal.riccimac.org/index.php/en/issues/issue-6/132-dietrich-bonhoeffer-and-the-problem-of-dirty-hands-what-counts-as-christian-martyrdom
—Dennis P. McCann, “Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Problem of Christian Martyrdom: What Counts as Christian Martyrdom?” The Journal of the Macau Ricci Institute, Issue 6: Contemplation, Mission and Martyrdom, September 22, 2020
Note: “The 1934 Barmen Declaration was a call to resistance against the theological claims of the Nazi state. Almost immediately after the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, Protestant Christians faced pressure to ‘aryanize’ the Church, expel Jewish Christians from the ordained ministry and adopt the Nazi ‘Führer Principle’ as the organizing principle of church government. In general, the churches succumbed to these pressures, and many Christians embraced them willingly. The pro-Nazi ‘German Christian’ movement became a force in the church. They glorified Adolf Hitler as a ‘German prophet’ and preached that racial consciousness was a source of revelation alongside the Bible. But some Christians in Germany—including Lutheran and Reformed, liberal and neo-orthodox—opposed the encroachment of Nazi ideology on the Church’s proclamation. At Barmen, this emerging ‘Confessing Church’ adopted a declaration drafted by Reformed theologian Karl Barth and Lutheran theologian Hans Asmussen, which expressly repudiated the claim that other powers apart from Christ could be sources of God’s revelation.”
https://groups.csail.mit.edu/medg/people/doyle/personal/enters/hermann/declaration.html
—“The Barmen Declaration,” The Barmen Declaration, adapted from Robert McAfee Brown, Kairos: Three Prophetic Challenges to the Church (1990)
Gonzalinho
Not every taking of property is a theft. Not every killing is a murder. A “murder” is an “unjustified killing.” An innocent person, set upon unjustly, could not be unjustified if lethal force offered the only means of rescuing himself from that unwarranted assault. Plainly, we could not put on the same plane the killing done by a Hitler and the killing done by those who would resist being killed unjustly by a Hitler.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/02/2631/
—Hadley Arkes, “When Speaking Falsely Is Right,” Public Discourse: The Journal of the Witherspoon Institute, February 19, 2011
Gonzalinho
The Church’s Magisterium admits the recourse to armed struggle as a last resort to put an end to an obvious and prolonged tyranny which is gravely damaging to the fundamental rights of individuals and the common good.—Libertatis Conscientia 79
ReplyDeleteGonzalinho
WHEN WORDS AREN’T CHEAP
ReplyDeleteWords are cheap, the saying goes, and the reason why Bonhoeffer’s words resonate in history is because his words are not cheap. He paid the price for his principled resistance to Hitler when he was executed by a demonically oppressive regime. Nazi Germany acted as if possessed on a corporate scale. We wonder if the story would have panned out differently had Bonhoeffer escaped Hitler’s wire noose. Today Bonhoeffer’s words are not cheap because he paid the price for his Christian witness. On the contrary, his expression “cheap grace”—like that of “dark night of the soul” or “Sister Death”—is now lastingly honored in the hallowed annals of Christian heritage.
Gonzalinho