The Unheralded Lesson of Sophie Scholl
Print Friendly Version| On the Road to Peace by John Dear S.J. | Tuesday, Mar. 13, 2006 |
| Vol. 1, No. 30 |
Probably little surprise, but I'm a fan of movies with a message for justice and peace, films such as "Gandhi," "The Mission," "In the Name of the Father," "Missing," "Born on the Fourth of July," "Babette's Feast," "Dead Man Walking," "Erin Brokovich," "Silkwood," "Cry Freedom," "Philadelphia," "North Country," "Testament," "Veronica Guerin," and "Thirteen Days." Seeing that Oscar season is upon us, it occurred to me to give two thumbs up to one of my favorites, "Sophie Scholl."
Sophie who? It's the name of a German film nominated last year for Best Foreign Picture, a film about one of the heroes, saints and martyrs of the last century, a 21-year-old university student in Munich, who with her brother Hans and their medical-student friends formed a nonviolent resistance group called "the White Rose Society." The group undertook to counter Nazi propaganda. They sprayed anti-Nazi graffiti around Munich and distributed outlawed leaflets on the sly.
On Feb. 18, 1943, Sophie and Hans walked onto the University of Munich with a briefcase full of leaflets and moving fast among the empty halls distributed them where students would find them. On the way out, Sophie pushed a stack of leaflets over a balcony. They fluttered down upon the noon-time crowd, and thus gave the pair away. They were arrested and jailed, interrogated and tried -- and upon sentencing nearly immediately beheaded.
Ten years ago, historians discovered the transcripts of the interrogation and trial. The movie recreates the scene, the insidious interrogation, Sophie's artful dodging, and finally one of the most kangaroo of all kangaroo courts -- the Nazi judge conducting the prosecution, the defense lawyers remaining mute, the verdict and sentence a foregone conclusion. From the start, the judge heaped abuse and thundered against her for demoralizing the troops, abetting the enemy, undermining patriotism.
The film, starring Julia Jentsch, is worth tracking down. Study it and pray over it, for it dwells on the human response to a culture of war. It demonstrates the ideal reaction to a culture, like our own, bent on destruction and death. No large leap, then, to imagine that the film pertains to our own warmaking -- in Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia, Iran and Los Alamos.
The film challenges us to query ourselves: What are we going to do in the face of rapid militarism and blind patriotism? How seriously do we want to follow the nonviolent Jesus? What does courage mean for us? What price are we willing to pay to defend life and uphold God's reign of peace?
The scene in the Nazi courtroom, rooted in sheer evil and blind hatred, chills the blood. Here was a sinister milieu not amenable to putting up a defense. Still, Sophie and Hans stand before their rabid condemners with great dignity. They denounce state violence. They call the stacked courtroom to renounce their allegiance to the warmaking state and to seek God.
They published boldly in one of their leaflets, "We will not be silent. We are your bad conscience. The White Rose will not leave you in peace." Their boldness refused to dim in court. Sophie turns to the ominous judge, like Stephen before the Sanhedrin, "You will soon be standing where I am now." In return, he explodes with rage, and Sophie, Hans and their friend Christoph receive a sentence of death. They were beheaded within the hour.
Moments before, a sympathetic guard arranged for her a meeting with her parents. Tears flowed, but no condemnation. Instead they hold her and tell her how proud they are; they urge to keep her eyes on Jesus. She thanks them for their bravery, and urges them in return.
Today, with 35 wars being waged, 50,000 children dying of starvation every day, and 25,000 nuclear weapons -- and the environment close to catastrophe -- we wonder what we can do. Sophie and Hans didn't do much; they simply wrote and distributed a few anti-Nazi leaflets. On the other hand, they did everything they could, the most anyone could do; they gave their lives resisting the culture of war. They followed the nonviolent Jesus to the very end.
I wonder how we might aspire to the same heights. Sophie and Hans would summon us, I believe, to join a local peace group, hold peace vigils, distribute leaflets, write letters to the editor, speak out publicly against U.S. warmaking, demand the troops come home now, even commit nonviolent civil disobedience and accept the consequences -- in other words, do what needs to be done, even in the face of no apparent result, but trusting in the goodness of our action, the rightness of our cause, the urgency of public response. Sophie would want us to sow seeds of peace for a future that is not ours, a harvest of peace we may not live to see.
A few months ago, my friend Howard Zinn, the great historian and author of A People's History of the United States, visited Santa Fe, and a luncheon was put on in his honor. He had been studying social change for more than 35 years, he said, and he had come to a conclusion. Every U.S. movement for social change -- the abolitionists, suffragists, labor, civil rights, and anti-war movements -- from their beginning, throughout their years, and right up to the very end was ... hopeless. I found this oddly consoling.
He said the key was that ordinary people kept doing ordinary acts of nonviolent resistance every day even when there was absolutely no evidence of any positive outcome. What's more, the one thing those in power feared the most was a movement of ordinary Americans that would not go away.
Great breakthroughs of hope derived from this, he said. Change evolved because ordinary people kept at it. They refused to give up. They did what they could, no matter how small the act. Everyone involved made a difference.
This is the lesson of Sophie Scholl. Her life and witness, along with all the heroes of the White Rose, bore good fruit after all. Their memory urges us to stand up and do what we can to stop the evil U.S. war on Iraq, the unjust occupation of the Palestinians, the criminal bombing of Afghanistan, the lethal funding of Colombian death squads, the demonic maintenance of our nuclear arsenal, and the refusal to feed and serve the starving masses of Africa, Latin America, India and elsewhere.
Every one of us can do something; the nonviolent Jesus calls every one of us to do something for suffering humanity. Sophie Scholl still shines a bright light in a dark world. She inspires courage and urges us to stand with her. I hope and pray that during these dark times, we too can look raw power in the face and insist on truth and peace.
| Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
John Dear is currently on a national speaking tour of Australia. His latest book, Transfiguration, with a foreword by Archbishop Tutu, just published by Doubleday, is available from www.amazon.com or your local bookstore. To order a DVD of the film, "Sophie Scholl," contact Ignatius Press at 1-800-651-1531. For further info, see: www.fatherjohndear.org
skring Regarding right or
skring
Regarding right or wrong about how we would intervene or not in WWII: At a time with no computers, cell phones, etc. with instant communication, it would be so difficult to make judgment calls on how people acted or chose to act under Nazi rule. How could any of us know what that felt like and what was in the minds of Sophie and Hans who made the choices they did?
God moves each of us to do what we can and I believe that Sophie and Hans listened and did what they could. Who knows how many people were moved by their actions to do other amazing actions.
Just as John Dear says, one person at a time can bring about change: one event, one person, one world.
Very interesting story about
Very interesting story about Sophie.
As a Roman Catholic pacifist (peacemaker) I have discovered a group that I highly recommend. It is a source of progressive talk that is run by Ben Burch. It is www.whiterosesociety.org. Ben is one of the best sources of progressive talk radio talk shows and needs the help of truth seekers.
Peace!
I fail to see how nonviolent
I fail to see how nonviolent opposition to the Nazis did anything to stop them. Do not be fooled into thinking that because of their meekness on the way to their execution, Sophie and her brother are to be admired or emulated. We are all required to “choose life”, not only for the unborn, but for all human beings, including ourselves. Therefore, if Sophie rained leaflets onto her fellow students with the awareness that if discovered she and her brother likely would be executed, she committed a grave sin for which her subsequent meekness could not atone. Not to mention that by this action she cut short what effectiveness she might have had against the Nazis.
The point of any activity intended to correct injustice is to be effective, not just to be morally right or to make oneself into a martyr. People who read Fr. John Dear’s column may be swept away with his retelling of a non-violent protest that ends in the supposedly noble death of the protestors, but they will be inspired to protest against human imperfection only, without direction and effect. One must examine issues and determine appropriate and useful responses to each one.
Not every situation is a situation of oppression to be effectively addressed in the manner of Martin Luther King, Jr. or Ghandi. For example, nothing was more effective than the military victory over Hitler followed by the implementation of the Marshall Plan. It was this post-war conduct of the Allies that should be examined and emulated when addressing international conflicts. The Marshall Plan was decidedly Jesus-like and attained a far superior result than the punishment of Germany after World War I that set the stage for Hitler’s rise to power.
This does not mean that military action is appropriate in every circumstance or that nonviolent protest has no place except against oppression, but merely that one should always choose the course of action that does the most good while doing the least damage. In personal relationships, when one is offended, one should offer it up to God instead of retaliating, but one should also consider discussion. In matters pertaining to our government, there are legal courses of action that often prove effective and should be tried before engaging in dramatic displays. Most importantly, unlike Sophie, if one wants to share in the experience of Jesus going to his death, one should attend Mass.
You certainly come up with
You certainly come up with some interesting Catholic "requirements" (and "sacraments") that I've never heard of before.
Indeed, the entire history of Catholicism is rife with thousands of saints and martyrs who followed their Savior and went ever so willingly to their deaths in order to celebrate the triumph of the spirit over evil in this world. The Church didn't think they were committing a grave mortal sin... if it did, they wouldn't have been canonized... It's hard to believe a Catholic person wouldn't know that. If you're not Catholic, fine, you are of course allowed to post here as well, but don't put yourself across as Catholic or tell any of us to go to Mass.
Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1
Actually, I am married to a
Actually, I am married to a Catholic and send my children, all baptized Catholics, to Catholic school. Over the last fourteen years, I have been the one most involved with their obtaining their Catholic religious education. I have inquired and studied the teachings of the Catholic Church in comparison to what I was taught in Lutheran parochial school. I go to Mass with them once a week, at least.
It is a bit of a mystery to me as to why you believe that I am making up sacraments and requirements, but it is even more of a mystery as to why Fr. Dear and his admirers are so sure that the principles of justice are so foreign to the existing institutions of government and commerce that the only way to effect a positive change is to engage in protest. I would question what problems you feel have been corrected as a consequence of "peaceful" confrontation, and of those, which have involved you personally.
It seems to me that while desperate times may call for desperate measures, you choose to create desperate times by taking desperate measures. This is not the way of the saints and martyrs. People are not named saints because of how they died, and those that died as martyrs died for the specifics of what they believed, not simply because they held strongly to their beliefs
Marie,I am a Catholic and I
Marie,I am a Catholic and I don't believe in indulgences either,even with the advent of computers I find it difficult to believe that God is keeping books. That is not to say that it is useless to perform some of the works or say some of the prayers that are indulgences related. [Maybe it's like frequent flyer miles or like an IRA account]
Where do these people come up with this nonsense.
It is good to do good deeds
It is good to do good deeds for their own sake. It would even be good for a pope to remind people of the goodness of particular deeds. This is why I had not considered the presence of indulgences in the Catechism a problem at first. I had also read somewhere that the indulgence was established as a way to get the community to agree to another chance for a repentent sinner whose sincerity was doubted, which seems very useful and legitimate.
Indulgences, though, are not only nonsense to Lutherans. The word itself elicits a visceral reaction. People feel that Luther was unjustly excommunicated for expressing his concern for the well-being of the Church and that Lutherans would still be part of Catholicism but for the tradition of indulgence granting.
Furthermore, just when Lutheran and Catholic theologians had come to sufficient agreement to issue "The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" (by faith, not works), Pope John Paul II issued a papal encyclical announcing a Jubilee Indulgence for the year 2000. Coincidence? A number of Lutherans, including me, do not think so. It was like a slap in the face. I personally tried to turn the other cheek, but they keep slapping.
Marie, I would love to hear
Marie, I would love to hear your objections on indulgences. (Thank you for your intellectual honesty, btw.) If you do not wish to post them here, feel free to e-mail me.
Here Today, thank you for
Here Today, thank you for asking. This topic may not properly fit right here, but I prefer to post rather than email because I appreciate all the various responses that come forth in this venue.
I believe that there is no greater authority on the subject of Christ than the Catholic Church and that much of the Church's teaching is simply common sense. However, Indulgences are another matter.
In the Catechism it states that the Church's granting of indulgences flows from the "power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus". I follow the logic that concludes with the Church being able to declare that a sin is forgiven or not, but it does not seem to follow that the Church has been given authority to determine a means or formula for applying God's infinite mercy. This practice is said to have ancient roots and so it is held to be part of the Tradition of the Church, but I feel that without a better scriptural reference than a verse in Revelation, it is likely to have arisen because it was found to be an expedient way to determine that someone was truly penitent.
I take biggest issue with the concept of the Treasury of Grace that is tied to this practice of granting Indulgences. Based on the authority of the pope, ordinarily sinful people without reference to a specific sin add to this Treasury by performing a specified action for a predetermined period of time. If God's mercy is infinite, as the Church and the Bible declare, then there is no need for such a Treasury. The judgment of what this action and time period are to be seems to have no basis beyond the whim of the pope. He does not even claim in Pat Robertson fashion that God has called for this. His authority is supposedly so absolute that this is not even necessary. I, along with Luther, think this is overreaching.
Absolution is not dependent upon the penitent's performing an assigned penance, so without the concept of the Treasury an Indulgence has no value. Until Pope John Paul II decided to revive this practice of announcing Indulgences, I was looking very favorably on Catholicism, but now I am wary because there is nothing to prevent the pre-Reformation excesses from reoccuring. At best, it appears to be a superstitious and formulaic way of living focused on reward rather than love of Christ. At its worst, it is a means by which a corrupt Church or Pope can control the faithful.
I'm glad that you are
I'm glad that you are willing to having this conversation.
This is a big topic with a very storied history, so please pardon the slow response. I do think that this is one conversation actually hindered by the Catechism, and I think the development of the doctrine may not be finished (it did get put on hold for a while because of the excesses of Luther's time). Much of what I am presenting is my own understanding, based on the history of indulgences and the current theology of the Sacrament of Penance, Sin, and Purgatory. (for once I am not speaking for the Church, but from my perspective).
To start from history, the practice of indulgences was originally applied to the public penances given for public sins. These were often strict and lengthy (ie sitting in sackcloth and ashes outside the church for a year of Sundays), and indulgences were granted to prevent them from really getting out of hand (not that they weren't anyway, but that is another matter). This is where you get "amounts" on some older partial penances. As the theology of the Sacrament of Penance developed (as well as that of penance and indulgences) the penances for Confession became more practical, but the notion of a temporal debt for sin remained. This, combined with the doctrine of Purgatory, gave rise to a more modern concept of indulgences: That indulgences were works "guaranteed" to help repay the temporal debt left even after our sins our forgiven in Confession. (I think this came about after Luther, in reaction to his valid criticisms on common practices in his day).
I also think that while certain actions may be bound to forgive some of this debt, they are by no means the only ones that do. This includes both partial and plenary indulgences, as God is free in His Infinite Mercy. I am not sure, but I believe the only indulgences announced recently have been plenary indulgences. In this case it is the Church loosing, on earth and in heaven, all punishment due for sins, an easier thing to understand (from my point of view) than a partial indulgence (I mean, if your going to loose some punishment, why not loose it all?).
I am not too sure how much I like the Treasury of Grace explanation, it seems to be an awkward way of describing the intercession of the saints joined to the merits of the Cross. I would prefer to tie it firstly to the Cross (for that is where all redemptive merit comes from), perhaps through the intercession of the Saints and the those on earth (for those in purgatory).
One slight thing with your post: Absolution does depend on the penance, also referred to as satisfaction. It is due to the fact that we must make restitution for our sins (which primarily offend God, and what shall we offer to Him?).
Perhaps you are aware that
Perhaps you are aware that Round XI of the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue is addressing indulgences and purgatory, among other things. I think it was Round IX that resulted in the Joint Declaration of Justification. The Missouri Synod Lutheran Church did not sign this declaration because they felt that the terms had not been well enough defined to be certain that there was actual agreement. The subsequent issuance of the plenary indulgence for the Jubilee Year of 2000 was taken as further evidence that there was no actual agreement. One thing that should have come of it, though, is that absolution for a specific sin does not depend on the penance, but only on the remorse of the sinner.
This leads me to wonder what ever happened to Luther. The Church has not forgiven him, even though it is now engaging in the discussion which he tried to initiate--somewhat combatively--and has, in recent years, made many of the changes he and others envisioned.
I think a large part of the
I think a large part of the question of indulgences arises from it not being made clear (by the Church) that indulgences have no effect on justification. Indulgences only apply to remaining effects of sin after they have been forgiven in confession (temporal punishment).
I was only vaguely aware that the dialogue was on-going, (and that it seems to be one of the more fruitful dialogues) I will be very interested to read any joint declarations on these topics.
The Catholic teaching remains unchanged, as far as I am aware, that the penance is part of the sacramental act. How, theologically, this follows (directly from the nature of the act or through the remorse and desire to make satisfaction) seems open to discussion.
IIRC the Joint Declaration did note that complete agreement has not been reached, but it is a step towards unity.
Just to give you an idea of
Just to give you an idea of how far from unity they still are: The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, along with the still more conservative Wisconsin Lutheran Synod, holds to Luther's designation of the office of the papacy as the anti-Christ described in Revelation. It does qualify that to say that individuals holding the office are not the anti-Christ.
I have taken issue with them over this, because I question the value of Revelation when it is interpreted in this way and because the pope during Luther's time, more than the office, seems to me to have been the problem. My inquiries about the LCMS's participation in the dialogues was answered positively except for the reservation expressed regarding the authority of the pope and the weight that is given to Tradition in Catholicism.
My perspective on the two religions is that their teaching about Christ-related things are the same--Lutherans do not teach anything that the Catholic Church does not also teach--but there are things in my personal experience that are unexplained or denied in Lutheran teaching which the Catholic Church seems to validate.
St Martin Luther has a nice
St Martin Luther has a nice ring to it. We need another 99 articles posted on the doors of the church and I only have about 55.
Marie R. you said: "because
Marie R. you said: "because there is nothing to prevent the pre-Reformation excesses from reoccuring."
What about the good sense of the people? Haven't most folks moved past hoop jumping into heaven?
I think it is typical to
I think it is typical to look back into history and assume that people were somehow less intelligent/insightful/enlightened than we are. My early schoolyears were the very visionary Kennedy years, so I likely suffered more from this than most people.
It continues to amaze me that we have taken so many giant steps backward since then. I don't think it would be safe to rely on good sense triumphing over ambition, particularly since our culture is not the only show in town so far as the Catholicism is concerned.
Marie, I think there have
Marie,
I think there have even been discussions about how Jesus' own extremism contributed to his horrendous death.
It is a valid question. ANd probably at some point people either shut up and put up and get in line OR they decide to be more radical. They may, to a point, pick a hill to die on.
Ghandi, Jesus, Martin Luther King, the peace activists in Washington DC, those that demonstrate at SOA--why do they pick those causes? Why does Fr. John Dear pick his causes? Do you have to be a little crazy? Are you called to it?
Governments have gotten more savvy about not making martyrs. Obviously, that point was missed with the hanging of Saddam Hussein. But sometimes, those events can create a momentum all their own. They become a stop and think point for all of us. I think there have been many worthwhile movements that would have never overcome a certain inertia without those activists.
But increasingly as we watch so much of our American society change, ominously, not for the better--wire tapping, secret renditions, writ of habeus corpus suspended, the press manipulated for the good of the power structure we may all have to ask, "What is it we are called to do?" Stand quietly by in a safe place? Keep us and our own safe?
This whole thread evokes the poem attributed to Martin Niemoller, who ended up in Dachau according to Wikepedia:
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Marie, when I am talking
Marie, when I am talking with teens about suicide, I frame it as a permanent solution to a temporary problem. And I would never make light of the despair your great uncle betrayed at being swept into a war *again*.
And even though some people who get caught up in movements seem to have a fatalistic attraction to their issue, being killed by a government determined to justify their actions is not the same as suicide by your own hand.
Your uncle's story may be a better testimony to how a country consumed by war loses sight of the needs of its' individual citizens.
Is this not a bit like
Is this not a bit like "suicide by cop"?
I believe the Kent State shootings horrified this country into wrapping things up in Southeast Asia. Had those four students been goading the National Guard, I do not think it would have had the same effect.
Suicide by cop is indeed a
Suicide by cop is indeed a subset of suicide but since you are probably dealing with a desperate person, it depends on the "adults" in the situation, the cops, to find a way to de-escalate the situation and get the desperate person the help they need. And it is by no means a commonality.
I am not a sociologist or a social psych person but I would NOT classify the Kent State killings as suicide by cop. More like a social crisis brought on by an attempt to suppress free speech.
I am trying to make a
I am trying to make a distinction between the Kent State shootings and Sophie Scholl. It was because the protestors and the uninvolved students were shot when no one expected it that it had the positive effect. Had the victims been daring the National Guard to shoot, then people would have been saying they got what they wanted or what they deserved instead of this needs to be changed. It might also have mattered, no matter how little people think of Nixon, that Nixon was a Quaker.
"Therefore, if Sophie rained
"Therefore, if Sophie rained leaflets onto her fellow students with the awareness that if discovered she and her brother likely would be executed, she committed a grave sin for which her subsequent meekness could not atone."
Oh wow, my all time hero Thomas More must be burning in hell, and not a saint in heaven. By this definition he wasn't pro life enough and caused great harm to his family.
By the way John, "A Man For All Seasons" is also a great movie about a man who made a non violent silent statement, and paid dearly for it.
She would not be redeemed by
She would not be redeemed by her meekness, but that does not mean she would burn in hell.
The way Fr. Dear has chosen to present the situation, which may or may not be an accurate to the film, which in turn may or may not be accurate to the actual incident, Sophie chose death for herself and her brother in order to make a statement against war.
If they had been discovered despite their best effort to remain undiscovered and continue their work, and if they had been ordered to work with the Nazis or be killed and they chose to be killed, then their situation might be comparable to that of Thomas More.
The problem I have with what
The problem I have with what you are saying is that if Jesus Christ took your advice there would be no Mass.
The problem I am having is
The problem I am having is that people seem to feel that by dying for a cause they are doing what God expects them to do. I do not see how this mentality is any different from that of the terrorists who flew their planes into the World Trade Center or suicide bombers. The idea is to get other people to stop what they are doing, not to be their victims.
I understand your point
I understand your point Marie, and it's well taken. Any religion which promotes martydom for it's view of God's will is a dangerous force in the world. Catholicism is certainly not immune from this mentality. At least we got over the Crusader mentality--well at least the kill your way to heaven part of it.
Colkoch, think about the
Colkoch, think about the language of martyrdom used in regards to this war--even by some top level generals and at the level of the presidency. What about that?
Good point Molly. It struck
Good point Molly. It struck me quite a while ago that the rhetoric of the whitehouse was getting very close to the rhetoric of Jihadi terrorists. Doesn't seem to promote a great atmosphere for meaningul dialogue.
I hope you don't mind my
I hope you don't mind my saying that the language of martyrdom is one of the major problems with deployment of the military also. Perhaps if we are not to judge the language of the pacifist, we should not judge the language of the military. However, I tend to think both need to be corrected. Firefighters and police officers risk their lives in the same way that those who serve in the military do--perhaps even more--but they do not put themselves forth as martyrs for the cause of public safety.
Fr. Andrew Greeley teaches a
Fr. Andrew Greeley teaches a University class entitled, ' God in the Movies ' , in which he addresses exactly this issue. For the average citizen to get a good idea of the world around him , the indifference to the experiences of History has to be overcome. Well told stories are the key to communicating human realities. The more appealing the telling , the more obvious become the options and enthusiasms for participation.
Of course many important priorities arise and need immediate attention, but how long can we neglect the essential mission of the Gospel and expect not to lose our way ?
Humans Grow In Virtue Not By Being Forced To Repeat Virtuous Actions But By Freely Choosing Such Actions