You Shall Not Kill

Ude, Leder

• Publisher: Cascade Books
• Year: 2016
• eBook ISBN: 9781498235884
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

Because the Catholic Church, other Christian churches, and almost every national government permit exceptions to God's commandment that "you shall not kill," Johannes Ude examines Catholic moral law to discern whether this commandment has absolute validity or may be modified so that in certain instances it is permissible to kill another human being. Written clandestinely during the Hitler regime, the book examines the generally accepted Catholic teachings of moral theologians and philosophers and finds that while they almost always reject abortion, suicide, sterilization, and the killing of terminally ill or mentally disabled persons, they justify the death penalty and "just defensive" wars.Ude concludes that because Christ commanded to love one's neighbors, including one's enemies, "You shall not kill" does not permit any exceptions and denies not only the right but especially the duty of self-defense, and, consequently, repudiates all wars. Ude firmly believes that the highest authority of the Catholic Church must forbid its members to fight in wars. He vehemently opposes the taking of interest (usury) and names capitalism a major cause of war, along with the weapons industry, competition for oil, and the complicity of Christian churches.

Part I

Teachings and views of exponents of moral philosophy based on natural law and reason and the Catholic (Christian) teachings of faith and morals regarding the commandment “You shall not kill”

1. The relationship between moral philosophy based on natural law and reason (ethics) and Christian teachings about faith and morals

Ethics based on natural law and reason is the moral philosophy that man perceives with the aid of his reason. This ethic is the result of the certain realization that man has free will, that mankind and the entire universe are God’s creation, and that the personal Creator guides all beings to their final destination. This ethic is as old as humankind itself. It is one and the same in all ages and among all peoples and is unchanging in its demands.

Throughout history, the universal and highest fundamental demands of this moral philosophy have been embodied in the Ten Commandments of God. By means of these commandments the relationship of human beings with their God-Creator and the relationships between human beings are regulated, taking into consideration the nature of everything God has created. Therefore, this philosophy always demands behavior that is in accordance with natural law, so that we can say that whatever agrees with natural law also is ethical. Whatever is not according to natural law is always unethical; and, conversely, whatever is unethical is never in accordance with natural law. Therefore, ethical behavior always agrees with God’s natural order by which the universe and, as far as is possible, man with his free will are united into an integrated, vast, and harmoniously organized whole. Therefore the first rule of ethics is: Do what is good and avoid what is evil!

Ethical behavior is always behavior that observes the order that God has established in its entirety. Unethical behavior, on the contrary, is all behavior that violates the order established by God.

However, God, as history proves, has revealed his will to humans in a special way. A personal God’s revelation, which we faithfully accept as self-evident, that is, we have to believe, started in the old covenant, first having been entrusted to the Jewish people. It was continued and completed in the new covenant by Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Taught by revelation, we know that God did not withdraw his grace from humanity, which had fallen away from him because of sin; but instead, through Christ’s redemption, God enabled mankind to attain its supernatural destiny. This destiny is eternal contemplation and love of God in the life to come. Man is like a butterfly that does not know the light of the sun as long as it lives in its cocoon, but as soon as the cocoon bursts, the butterfly struggles toward the sunlight. For man, life on earth is similar to the cocoon stage. At the moment of death, the cocoon bursts open, and the light of eternity shines into the soul which has been freed from its earthly body.

Man should attain this supernatural destiny—the contemplation of God in the next world—in the Church founded by Christ, which, for this purpose, has been provided with special means of grace. The supernatural life, however, takes the natural life for granted and builds upon it. Consequently, there is no opposition or contradiction but complete agreement between the demands of the natural law and revealed Christian law. Therefore, no one can behave morally in the supernatural sphere if he pays no heed to the requirements of ethics derived from natural law and reason.

Therefore, man draws his knowledge from two sources—from reason and from revelation through faith. God, the author of reason and revelation, would contradict himself if knowledge gained by means of reason, that is, knowledge obtained from natural law, contradicted the realization of faith acquired through revelation. There is only one truth. It does not vary, and it is absolutely unchangeable. Of course, human reason can err; certainly, mankind has erred often, and, precisely for this reason, revelation is necessary. In order not to go astray, human reason can, and should, always use revelation as a means to realign itself because whatever God reveals is infallibly true.

Therefore, in the following analysis we are going to consult reason but will continually compare it with the appropriate precepts of revelation. In doing so, we will benefit especially from the fact that revelation has expressed itself clearly and unequivocally, particularly about the matters to be discussed here. However, where there are doubts about the content or meaning of a revealed precept, the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church will be decisive, as it has been commissioned by Christ to preserve and interpret revelation; and Catholics are bound to observe such decisions. For this saying applies: Roma locuta, causas finita, which means that whenever Rome, the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church,1 has rendered a final decision, the matter is settled for Catholics, and the conflict of views has ended. It is noteworthy that this applies only to decisions about doctrines regarding faith and morals.

In matters where revelation does not express a viewpoint, or does not do so clearly, the infallible teaching authority has not rendered a final decision, and about which, therefore, differing views exist, each Catholic is free to follow the opinion that appears most reasonable to him. In order that no one doubts or even denies this truth, which is important for every scholarly discussion, the teaching authority of the Church has expressed itself unequivocally.

Instructed to do so by Pope Innocent XI, the Holy Office, on March 2, 1679, issued the following ordinance: “The Holy Father, by virtue of holy obedience, orders that all professors and others, in their printed or handwritten works, disputations, and leaflets guard against every condemnation and disparagement of opinions which are still being disputed, until the Holy See has rendered a decision.”

Pope Benedict XIV said in De synodo diocesana VII, 4, 9, “In case of academic questions, the bishop does not have the authority to force upon members of his flock this or that opinion, even if it is only theoretical; causae maiores and the difficult questions regarding faith and church discipline belong before the Holy See, as long has been the custom.”

Pope Benedict XV expressed himself thus in his letter Ad beatissi, on November 1, 1914: “Everyone is free to say and defend what seems right to him . . . everyone may defend his opinion freely, and no one may consider himself authorized to suspect his opponent of not being true to his faith and to church discipline because he considers the opposing view to be right.”

Pope Pius XI declared in his encyclical Studiorum ducem of June 29, 1933, “No one may require of others more than the Church, the teacher and mother of all, requires; and in matters that are disputed in schools and by the most respected authors, and this or that opinion is held, no one may be prevented from accepting that opinion which appears to him to be more plausible.”

If we stay within the boundaries of the above-mentioned rules of conduct of the teaching authority of the Church, and that is our wish, we may hope that our discussion about the great commandment “You shall not kill” will turn out to be quite stimulating and that explanations which are based on reason and revelation will at least gain some attention. For example, it may be noted here that Bishop Scheiwiler of St. Gallen in Switzerland made the following remarks in our Sociology, regarding our examination of the death penalty and the justice of war: “The author develops educational issues that today do not meet with general approval. Thus, the state is denied the right to institute the death penalty. Dr. Ude defends this viewpoint with keen arguments. Furthermore, he maintains that under today’s conditions, a just war no longer exists; and, therefore, one has the right, indeed the duty, of conscientious objection. His position, strengthened by forceful arguments, will surprise some people but cannot be easily dismissed because of the newest military developments like air and gas war.”2

Thus commented the bishop of St. Gallen, who with his point of view touches upon another significant principle that, in the free competition of opinions, is of extraordinary importance: Whoever cites an authority to support the truth of a disputed opinion should always remember that the opinion of an author (writer, professor) is worth only as much as are the reasons he offers for his opinion. For regardless of how much an influential person is considered an authority, this does not make him infallible.

2. Teachings about the Ten Commandments of God

As related in chapters 19 and 20 of the book of Exodus, God gave the people of Israel the Ten Commandments on the mountain of Sinai. On God’s order, Moses delivered these commandments to his people. They were carved into two stone tablets. In chapter 5 of the book of Deuteronomy, the people are again reminded of these commandments, which are not something new in the history of mankind. Rather, this revelation on Sinai is a clear formulation and reinforcement of the moral requirements based on reason, well known since the beginning of man but with special consideration given to the uniqueness of the people of Israel.

By means of the naturally proper use of his reason, man, while observing his environment, easily recognizes the existence of God as the all-wise, all-gracious, almighty, and all-just Creator of heaven and earth. From this firm realization necessarily follows, first of all, the duty of religion, which can be summarized briefly in the sentence: You shall acknowledge and honor God. The first three of the Ten Commandments, engraved on the first tablet, regulate the relationship between man and God, while the other seven commandments of the second tablet guide the life of people with each other (Exod 20:1–17).

Through insight into human nature and the nature of our environment, the inquiring reason arrives at the knowledge of man’s rights and duties by which the personal and social life of human beings should be regulated. If peace and good order are to reign among mankind, if each person is to have a dignified existence, and if everyone’s human rights are to be guaranteed, a proper structure has to be provided in the life of the family and of the state.

The authority of parents and of the state has to be acknowledged. A reasoning unprejudiced person realizes without difficulty that since justice forms the basis of all human life, each human being has to be guaranteed his right to life and his right to property by his fellow human beings because every person wants to live a life of dignity and happiness. This insight is expressed in the two commandments “You shall not kill” and “You shall not steal.” That sexual relations also have to be regulated has been expressed, one way or another, by all peoples, since the beginning of time, in the commandment “You shall not commit adultery.” Furthermore, that the unreserved affirmation of truth is necessary for the existence of human order is expressed by “You shall not give false evidence against your neighbor.” Completing the above commandments are these two: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. You shall not desire your neighbor’s house or field, nor his male or female slave, nor his ox or ass, nor anything that belongs to him” (Deut 5:17–21 NAB).

However, the history of mankind tells us that, over the course of the millennia, the understanding derived from reason about the demands of the Ten Commandments has at times suffered a loss of clarity, has been combined with erroneous views, and, occasionally, has even been forgotten.

Even in times of most grievous error, however, a kernel of truth has remained alive; and in all ages men appeared and continued to speak out who, in the light of the commandments, urged moral conversion, so that we have to conclude: every nation has always accepted the Ten Commandments as guiding principles for how to live, even if often only in a very general and distorted form, and sometimes even mixed with grievous errors.

Nevertheless, the National Socialist reformer Alfred Rosenberg declared without reservation, “The laws given on Mount Sinai . . . may interest historians or tellers of legends but are not in the least relevant to religion. . . . They may be of interest to psychologists of peoples and races but do not have the least religious meaning for us. In this connection it is not blasphemous that I explain the insignificance of these matters; rather it is blasphemous that today one still dares to present these unimportant Jewish tales as religious documents.”3

Wulf Sörensen, who may have been one of Alfred Rosenberg’s students, writes,

“Man should be noble, helpful and good.” Does this not s...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Foreword to the English Edition
• Foreword
• Preface: “The Eyes of the Eternal Brother”
• Introduction
• Part I
• Part II
• Part III
• Conclusion
• Bibliography