A discussion about "goodness" (for lack of a better term)

I've generally limited my participation on this forum, yet I have been addicted to following multiple threads on here to read the discussions. Some of the back and forth makes me sit back and ponder and examine my own philosophies/beliefs. That is a good side-effect of healthy discussion.

Now some of the discussions back and forth reminded me of a novella I read some time ago by a Spanish author named Miguel de Unamuno. He is regarded as one the great writer's in Spain's history, especially at the turn of the 20th century. The story he wrote is called, in spanish, "San Manuel Bueno, Martir." Roughly translated, I guess it's, "St. Manuel Good, the Martyr." In any event, the gist of the story is this:

There is a priest (San Manuel) in a rural town in Spain who is beloved by the people. He leads a devout life, is the picture of virtue, dutifully carries out all of his obligations as a priest, spiritually counsels those in town to lead them to a "proper" Catholic life, and is otherwise the ideal picture of what a Catholic priest should be. But there is one catch. He confesses to a brother and sister his biggest secret: he does not believe in God nor in any of the tenets of the Catholic faith that he publicly espouses. But he obviously keeps that from his parishoners. His reasoning is that while he, personally, may not believe in God or in Catholic dogma, he DOES believe in helping people to lead as good a life as possible, and to comfort them when they need it. And in his mind, since the parishoners believe so strongly in God and their Catholic dogma, the best way to accomplish his "goal" is to do so under the guise of being their ideal town priest.

So the question (the answer of which is left up to the reader) remains: Is San Manuel a "good" person? Or is he a bad person because he is a liar? I'd be interested in hearing other people's views on this hypothetical situation.

 

I LOVE this post and this question Wino. I'm going to go away and have a think about it but before I do I think I have a similar example. Placebo. Don't freak out people, this is an ethical discussion of placebo, not the placebo effect. This question is: if a doctor KNOWS that a placebo is very effective for a particular condition should they prescribe it (and yes, prescription placebos work better than OTC placebos)?

 

Hmmm, gotta think about that one.

My gut reaction is that he is a good person. He is still selling what the Catholic Church wants him to and the parishioners are buying it.

Were his parishioners aware that he did not believe in God or the Catholic Faith or did he lie by omission?

 

They never found out. It's been awhile since I read the story, but if my memory serves me correctly what winds up happening is that the brother (of the siblings he "confessed" to), who was also an atheist, winds up going into the seminary and succeeding San Manuel as the town priest for the same reasons. The sister had encouraged hom NOT to lie to the people. But at the end, he was sainted and the townsfolk were none the wiser.

 

My gut reaction also is that he has very good intentions but that in doing so he has created a heavy burden for himself to carry. His good intention, and effect is to provide comfort and leadership to the townspeople. As long as they don't know he doesn't believe they come to no emotional harm. If they were to find out he doesn't believe they may have all sorts of reactions - they may feel cheated and deceived but they may also feel gratitude and compassion for the priest that despite his own lack of belief he continued to minister to them in the sincere conviction that it was helpful for them.

 

He is a good person no doubt, but all of his rewards will be given here on earth and once he dies he is not going to join something that he does not believe in in my opinion. Because the Bible speaks about "believing & trusting" in God as thee most important keys to eternal salvation about a bazillion times throughout.

 

Every time I think the answer is clear, it seems like it isn't:

On the one hand, he is lying. Not only lying, but consciously living a lie. Lie are no good, whether you are religious (and see this as sin) or not (and see this as hypocrisy).

On the other hand, he seems to be sacrificing himself for the good of others. Certainly a noble thing. But do the ends justify the means?

I think it's very easy to sympathize with the main character, because we understand what he's trying to do. But does that make him right? Does it make him good?

 

I just thought he was good because anyone who helps others get through life a little easier without hurting anyone else in the process, is ok in my book.

 

Let's think about the well intentioned lie in a different setting. Have you ever been in a relationship where, some time down the track you discover that the other person is not in love with you (any more) but doesn't want to hurt your feelings/let you down? Or have you yourself ever been that person? How do you feel when you find out that you are not/no longer loved? Do you feel deceived, humiliated, stupid (for not realising) or do you feel gratitude, understanding and compassion? Or a mixture of all of the above?

 

Fascinating story. I think this man is surely a very good person. In order to help his people in the best possible way he thought, he took on this lie that he was a believer. Pretending to do so when he believed it was nonsense must have been a massive pain in the ass going through the daily rituals and listening to all of the religious talk. But he put that aside to achieve his goal.

He's the sort of guy I'd want to meet and have in my town.

 

Wow, this is really thought provoking stuff.

I have to now wonder did he start out not believing or is this something that he realized when he was already in the priesthood and serving his community?

 

I think it's actually ethics, spirituality, morals, etc all rolled up into one. The story was brilliantly crafted, IMO. Very typical of Unamuno's other work.

 

Somewhat similar, tough I think more multi-faceted.

 

Good story and again he should be commended for helping those people and his rewards and treasures will be given to him here on earth, and for some that is all that they crave or ever need.

 

he has another short story that I loved, the title of which escapes me. It's about a guy who is very meek. He has never done anything "bad" in his life, but at the same time he has never affirmatively done anything good. When he dies and his spirit goes to heaven, he is standing in line waiting his turn at the pearly gates. But what happens is people keep cutting in front of him in line while giving him paltry excuses. And he is so meek that he never objects. The problem is that he never gets close enough to St. Peter to be judged because he never advances in line It's a great read.

 

The consequences for whom? The townsfolk benefitted but did the priest? Part of him may have felt good about lying for a "good cause" but I expect another part of him hated living a lie.

Consequentialism has its limits. Think Dirty Harry and noble cause corruption.

 

I think he was good,and his honesty was good.That is very revealing.

I just finished a book by a Christian fiction mystery author from the library. I am Jewish.The library had put those book in with the other fiction books. I did not look. I must say that the author's thinking was provincial. I am not trying to insult anyone here. But I think that we must realize that we are all one. We are here for a purpose in life. we must learn.

I got through the about half book, when the part about religion came. I found the story very good but I did not know I had taken a Christian book out until I started to read it. About a family divided because one did not believe in God because of an accident and death of the parents of a little girl. But one thing was that it made me think and I got angry. Maybe the author sparked something in me.

When they got to the part of God and love and belief in Jesus, I disagreed, and I think no matter what, God loves us all. Whether we worship God, Jesus, Buddah or whatever. We must love all of each other. But dividing people because they do not believe in God or Jesus is wrong. We need to be connected. I truly think that we are warlike and we must stop this.

Birdmom3

 

This is why it is better not to judge other people. It's not so simple and we have our own faults we would be better off concentrating on.

As the priest would have probably told his flock

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

 

I agree with Imnoscientist. His congregation has benefitted greatly but there is surely inner turmoil. The key for me is that he felt compelled to confess to someone. If he was not struggling with the lie, he would not feel the need to unburden himself to someone else. IMO this is classic "Does the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one." And yes....I stole that from Wrath of Khan.

 

Have you ever seen the movie "Defending Your Life"? Albert Brooks/Meryl Streep. This story reminds me of that movie.