Are Lying and Deception Always Sinful?

[Bookcat]

I disagree.

Catechism: “2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned.”

 

[Bookcat]

For those who say it is a sin to tell an untruth (lie) no matter what, are not really understanding the teachings. In that case, even if the person refused to reveal the whereabouts of those hiding from the Nazi’s, then in your rigid thinking, they are also guilty of lying by committing the “sin of omission”.
.

–The understanding here of the teachings is not correct nor is the understanding of what a sin of omission is (not what is here).

So, with the explanations of what is “evil”, how can anyone equate not giving up the hiding place of innocents from murderous people as being evil? The person who “lied” by not revealing such, is not sinning and it is not evil. No harm was done to anyone, either physical or spiritual.

.

The lie remains an evil. The persons culpability for that venial sin may be greatly lessened (see my long post above). But it remains an evil.

See here:forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8841830&postcount=21 (the other possibility could be that somehow the “object” changed …but I leave that to the professionals)

 

[Bookcat]

P.S. Addendum:

There are several examples in Scripture where people lied and were even rewarded by God:

Jacob lied to his father claiming to be Esau so as to receive the “firstborn” blessing.

Judith prayed asking God to make her a good liar, and thus lied to Holoferness and was commended - not punished. (Judith 9:10, 13; 15:10-11)

In Ex. 1:21, the midwives lied in order to save the newborn baby boys destined for death at the hands of Pharoah, but instead were rewarded by God.

One would have to look at the exegesis of each passage to treat in detail. But such is not needed here. Keep in mind that God worked with man at that time (prior to the fullness of revelation in Christ) in a progressive way. One can read various articles I imagine on Catholic Answers and Pope Benedict XVI on this such as:

“God’s plan is manifested* progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages *and despite human resistance. God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them. Revelation is suited to the cultural and moral level of distant times and thus describes facts and customs, such as cheating and trickery, and acts of violence and massacre, without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things. This can be explained by the historical context…”

-Pope Benedict XVI Verbum Domini

 

[Bookcat]

Think about what Jesus would have done: would He look at you and call you a Pharisee for being so stringent and unyielding and rigid?

Something to ponder…

How did he see lies? …and note well…this actually in relation to the Pharisees!!!

Jesus noted that they were of their “Father the devil”

for he is “a liar and the father of lies”. Jn 8:44

 

[Bookcat]

how can anyone equate not giving up the hiding place of innocents from murderous people as being evil?

Speaking in terms of myself (and I imagine most) I certainly do not. It is a very good act.

I am not talking about hiding or not giving up the hiding places of people. There are many good virtuous ways to do so. Such is not lying per se. Such is hiding and not giving up.

If one in ones weakness can not hic et nunc (here and now) find the right way and one slips into a lie…such a lie is still not a “good” per se…well see my long post above…

(and again perhaps one could argue that there is a different “object” involved (hence not be a lie)…but again I leave that to the professional theologians to argue out and to the Magisterium to decide)

 

[surritter]

Well said, Bookcat. Protecting innocent people is most praiseworthy. But the actions employed to do so can be intrinsically wrong, and it’s fair to discuss the objective morality of those actions. Of course, this is still a separate matter from personal culpability.

 

[Frankk]

I must say that I find it difficult to believe God would punish all those millions of Catholics who convince their children [or go along with the idea] that there’s someone called Father Christmas who delivers presents by sleigh pulled by flying reindeer (quite a complex and involved lie); in Spain, of course, there is no such thing as Father Christmas - children’s presents are brought on Epiphany by the three Wise Kings; or that it’s a Tooth Fairy who leaves money under the pillow; or the Easter Bunny brings Easter Eggs or…

 

[CEM5]

One would have to look at the exegesis of each passage to treat in detail. But such is not needed here. Keep in mind that God worked with man at that time (prior to the fullness of revelation in Christ) in a progressive way. One can read various articles I imagine on Catholic Answers and Pope Benedict XVI on this such as:

“God’s plan is manifested* progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages *and despite human resistance. God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them. Revelation is suited to the cultural and moral level of distant times and thus describes facts and customs, such as cheating and trickery, and acts of violence and massacre, without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things. This can be explained by the historical context…”

-Pope Benedict XVI Verbum Domini

EXACTLY!! My point exactly!

Therefore when those who “lied” by not revealing the whereabouts of innocents (just as shown in Scripture!) were doing God’s will. They were fighting against evil.

 

[CEM5]

How did he see lies? …and note well…this actually in relation to the Pharisees!!!

Jesus noted that they were of their “Father the devil”

for he is “a liar and the father of lies”. Jn 8:44

Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their unyeilding ridigness to sticking to the “letter of the law” and therefore impeding many from coming to the Lord!

 

[Bookcat]

EXACTLY!! My point exactly!

Therefore when those who “lied” by not revealing the whereabouts of innocents (just as shown in Scripture!) were doing God’s will. They were fighting against evil.

I think you missed the point of the Pope (and me).

 

[Bookcat]

Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their unyeilding ridigness to sticking to the “letter of the law” and therefore impeding many from coming to the Lord!

Your still missing the point.

 

[Bookcat]

against evil.

Lying is an evil (no matter how small)…it is not a “good”.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2482 "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving."281** The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil**: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."282

2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

2485** By its very nature, lying is to be condemned**…

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.283

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a8.htm#III

One can use certain licit “mental reservations”…“discreet language”.

Now lets say one is in the very serious event of the Nazi at the door… and one can not find those discreet words…and others lives are at stake …and one thus ends up lying. What then? Well of course one should have found the other way. But in our weakness we sin …indeed we commit venial sins daily …hence they are called at times “daily sins” for which we pray daily “forgive us our trespasses”…and certainly ones culpability will likely be even further reduced by the event of the Nazi’s with the guns at your door…so ones venial sin will be reduced to an even smaller venial sin…which God in his knowing mercy can wipe away as one glances at the Crucifix with prayer after the Nazi’s leave…

God knows that in our seeking to live the varied virtues in our lives we will have venial sins in the process…that we being “saints” …being a new creation in Christ in the state of grace…in charity …living in Christ will still have “daily sins” to pray for. He loves us and continues to purify us with his love. (Not that such is an excuse to not seek to overcome our sins more and more in our lives …nor ought we seek or plan to lie in this case …but rather seek to find the right way)

Now all this does not make it “good” to lie. Or not a sin to lie. Nor does the ends in this circumstance “justify” the means of the lie. It remains a lie. A sin. But so too does the intemperance that one exhibited that morning at breakfast with too many eggs or the little anger one expressed at ones spouse that afternoon. If one falls here too…it will be another venial sin. Another weakness. Something that ought not have happened. One ought to have found a good way.

But it is somewhat understandable that it may happen in such events of Nazi’s at the door… even to Christians. To saints.

And there is really no point in trying to argue too much about such…

---

(and again perhaps one could argue that there is a different “object” involved (hence not be a lie)…but again I leave that to the professional theologians to argue out and to the Magisterium to decide)

 

[AndyCothran]

My view is that lying is always sinful but that there are times in which we are forced to do it …These are rare and extraordinary cases , I believe that God understands and takes into account why we DID IT under those circumstances , I know many will disagree with me but that is my view …

 

[Castello]

P.S. Addendum:

There are several examples in Scripture where people lied and were even rewarded by God:

Jacob lied to his father claiming to be Esau so as to receive the “firstborn” blessing.

Judith prayed asking God to make her a good liar, and thus lied to Holoferness and was commended - not punished. (Judith 9:10, 13; 15:10-11)

In Ex. 1:21, the midwives lied in order to save the newborn baby boys destined for death at the hands of Pharoah, but instead were rewarded by God.

So, Scripture tells us that David was a man after God’s own heart, David was richly rewarded. David was also an adulterer and a murderer. Guess that means adultery and murder are not sinful if done for good intentions either?

Human beings sin. God forgives those who repent and blesses them (or I would be in a heap of trouble). That does not mean that we should repeat the sins of others.

 

[surritter]

My view is that lying is always sinful but that there are times in which we are forced to do it …These are rare and extraordinary cases , I believe that God understands and takes into account why we DID IT under those circumstances , I know many will disagree with me but that is my view …

An interesting case from the New Testament:
St. Peter denied Jesus 3 times in the courtyard. He did so because he feared for his life. Was it wrong to do as Peter did?

Yes. He wasn’t “forced” to do it. Ideally, he would have embraced martyrdom. However, the degree of sinfulness upon him was certainly lessened because of the fear factor.

The continual theme is that lying itself is always wrong, but the culpability of the person has a huge range of possibilities.

 

[Castello]

An interesting case from the New Testament:
St. Peter denied Jesus 3 times in the courtyard. He did so because he feared for his life. Was it wrong to do as Peter did?

Yes. He wasn’t “forced” to do it. Ideally, he would have embraced martyrdom. However, the degree of sinfulness upon him was certainly lessened because of the fear factor.

The continual theme is that lying itself is always wrong, but the culpability of the person has a huge range of possibilities.

Later, Jesus asked Peter three times “Do you love me”? Peter’s penance was those three responses.

 

[AndyCothran]

An interesting case from the New Testament:
St. Peter denied Jesus 3 times in the courtyard. He did so because he feared for his life. Was it wrong to do as Peter did?

Yes. He wasn’t “forced” to do it. Ideally, he would have embraced martyrdom. However, the degree of sinfulness upon him was certainly lessened because of the fear factor.

The continual theme is that lying itself is always wrong, but the culpability of the person has a huge range of possibilities.

…there are times when human beings must make choices that are contrary to what they know is right and sometimes a lie is needed ,may be still sin but the alternative is much worse ,and in the cases i am speaking of they are forced to make the choice

 

[surritter]

…there are times when human beings must make choices that are contrary to what they know is right and sometimes a lie is needed ,may be still sin but the alternative is much worse ,and in the cases i am speaking of they are forced to make the choice

“Sometimes a lie is needed”?
We must sometimes choose that which is “contrary to what [we] know is right”?

I see your point, but no … sin is the worst alternative of all. Read about St. Thomas More, a family man who refused to sin, and paid for it with his life. Would a “better good” have come about had he submitted to King Henry?

 

[He_Man]

It is neither a waffle nor a pancake.

*I am not there here and now. *

My intent is to always do the good. To find the right words.

But I am not confronted with such “hic et nunc” so no answer can be given except that above line.

And I imagine various ways of licit “mental reservations” …“discreet language” were used historically.

This is where I take issue with the notion. I have known many purists in my life who condemned the notiong of ever lying (noble, and certainly acceptable), while using thinly veiled deceit as a way around direct lies.

The issue should be focused on the accepability of deceit frankly, and not simply lying to a person’s face. So hiding Jews from the Nazis was fine (deceit), but if questioned about it and denying they were there, the behavior was sinful (lying).

I would take issue with both frankly, if I took issue with either.

 

[He_Man]

“Sometimes a lie is needed”?
We must sometimes choose that which is “contrary to what [we] know is right”?

I see your point, but no … sin is the worst alternative of all. Read about St. Thomas More, a family man who refused to sin, and paid for it with his life. Would a “better good” have come about had he submitted to King Henry?

Choices where you have to lie and turn your back on God are no brainers. Answering truthfully if your wife asks you if she should perhaps lose a few pounds is a whole different ballgame. Let’s see St. Thomas More handle that doozy.