Are Lying and Deception Always Sinful?

[surritter]

I think that there is some perverse thinking going on here. I will re-iterate my position.

There are times when it would be a sin not to tell the lie. My example stands. Does anyone here really believe that G-d would not condem the person who revealed the presence of persons knowing that they would be subsequently murdered?

It’s not perverse thinking. It’s your confusion about the principles being discussed.

To lie is objectively speaking an evil act. It is condemned, across the board, by the Catechism.

But that doesn’t mean that God would condemn a person who lies. That is a different issue of personal culpability, and condemnation (without repentence) hinges on three factors: the objective nature of the act, the person’s knowledge of that, and the person has to give full consent.

Now you see that the objective nature of lying, which this thread is focusing on, is only ONE of the three factors for “condemnation.”

 

[Bookcat]

It’s not perverse thinking. It’s your confusion about the principles being discussed.

To lie is objectively speaking an evil act. It is condemned, across the board, by the Catechism.

But that doesn’t mean that God would condemn a person who lies. That is a different issue of personal culpability, and condemnation (without repentence) hinges on three factors: the objective nature of the act, the person’s knowledge of that, and the person has to give full consent.

Now you see that the objective nature of lying, which this thread is focusing on, is only ONE of the three factors for “condemnation.”

An note…condemnation of a person is only the case with MORTAL sin…which is not even remotely in question here!!!

We all in our weakness have various daily venial sins…

 

[Daniel49]

Quoting Surriter:

"It’s not perverse thinking. It’s your confusion about the principles being discussed.

To lie is objectively speaking an evil act. It is condemned, across the board, by the Catechism.

But that doesn’t mean that God would condemn a person who lies. That is a different issue of personal culpability, and condemnation (without repentence) hinges on three factors: the objective nature of the act, the person’s knowledge of that, and the person has to give full consent.

Now you see that the objective nature of lying, which this thread is focusing on, is only ONE of the three factors for “condemnation.” "

---

Wacky, just plain wacky.

Daniel49

 

[Bookcat]

Wacky, just plain wacky.

Daniel49

Nothing is wacky here.

The original person had a question and that was answered.

 

[Daniel49]

Nothing is wacky here.

The original person had a question and that was answered.

I think that everyone would agree that your statement here is a lie.

Daniel49

 

[Bookcat]

I think that everyone would agree that your statement here is a lie.

Daniel49

Such would be a mistake…not a lie.

I suppose if I re-read every comment in the thread there would be some wacky things said.

 

[Bookcat]

Faced with a Nazi at the door…

One can make use of say a mental reservation such as the kind used when someone calls and asks if so and so is home and one says no (with the understandable meaning of “he is not home for you to talk with”. Or other similar thing.

But most of us would likely not even be able to do such…and might fall into a little lie.

---

Lying to a Nazi at the door – is for the person either:

1. A slight venial sin (due to it being a lie) mitigated by the fear etc into a very slight venial sin quickly forgiven. (God knows our weakness…and he sees all the aspects involved here)
2. Objectively a slight venial sin (due to it being a lie) but subjectively due to an error in not recognizing it as a lie but seeing it as good not subjectively a sin even in the least.
3. Objectively a slight venial sin but subjectively not an actual sin due to various reasons.

But it is important to note that objectively it would still be a lie.

---

Or it may not be a lie.

1. Objectively not a sin at all due to it being a “different moral object” than lying. Such I leave to the professional moral theologians and of course to the Magisterium of the Church to determine.

It is important to note that if such could be argued…it would not be the intention or circumstance that “justifies” a lie (such can not happen) but rather such and such was not a lie (the moral object is different). Just like the taking of food in extreme circumstances can be “simply not theft”. It is not that the theft is ok due due to the circumstances…but rather it is “simply not theft” due to the universal destination of goods etc (see CCC).

 

[surritter]

An note…condemnation of a person is only the case with MORTAL sin…which is not even remotely in question here!!!

We all in our weakness have various daily venial sins…

Not sure what your point is. Daniel said that he doesn’t believe that God would condemn an individual for lying. I merely pointed out that this is for the most part true: we are only condemned for mortal sins. And lying to Nazis would NOT be a mortal sin since it most likely fails to meet the 3 conditions for mortal sin.

 

[Daniel49]

Such would be a mistake…not a lie.

I suppose if I re-read every comment in the thread there would be some wacky things said.

I think that calling a lie a mistake is just a rationalization. It remains a lie. Everything stated here on this thread are not the truth and thus there are some lies being told.

Daniel49

 

[Bookcat]

Not sure what your point is. Daniel said that he doesn’t believe that God would condemn an individual for lying. I merely pointed out that this is true: we are only condemned for mortal sins. And lying to Nazis would NOT be a mortal sin, right?

That was my point yes. (not a grave matter here to begin with!..)

 

[Bookcat]

I think that calling a lie a mistake is just a rationalization. It remains a lie. Everything stated here on this thread are not the truth and thus there are some lies being told.

Daniel49

Then you would be incorrect. And such may “lie” at part of the confusion here.

What is a lie?

Catechism: 2482 "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving."281

If my wife asks me did you pay such and such bill and I thinking that I did reply yes though I did not…such is a mistake.

If my wife asks me that and I intentionally say yes and then run and pay it…that is a lie.

---

In the Nazi at the door question – a good form of “mental reservation” is not a lie.

 

[AndyCothran]

Such does not mean that what they did was good. Period.

“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

The passages noted do NOT make lying ok or good…does not make immoral things into moral just because at that point in history God was working patiently and progressively with a “blunt instrument”.

Jesus later clearly in the fullness of revelation notes that it is the Devil who is the Father of Lies…

And His Church (the authentic interpreter of Sacred Scripture) teaches that lying in its very nature is to be condemned.

Now again…can it happen that one in hiding someone from the Nazi’s that one is not able in that moment find the right way and ends up telling a lie (venial sin greatly mitigated)? Yes such could happen. And would God know our weakness and quickly forgive us. Sure. But such does not make telling a lie into a good act. The intention can not make it so nor the circumstance. I should have found the right way…(and I intended to!) but in my weakness I did not at that moment and I slipped into a lie…similar to my other venial sins that day that in my weakness I slipped into…

Is it better to lie to protect someone or be an accomplice to torture and murder ?
That is the choice to be made …What kind of cruel God would condemn the action of those who make the choice to save a life and therefore lie or give less than honest information.?

 

[Daniel49]

If your wife asks you this after getting a ghastly looking new hair-doo:

“Honey, what do you think about my new hair-doo?”

And you know that it looks ghastly, do you tell her the truth?

Please, spare me.

 

[rhiannonh]

Lie-ing is definately a sin,

However whilst it is a sin
God forgives our sin

He doesn’t judge us how we judge ourselves. He loves us and sees the situations we are in. It don’t make it any more right or wrong. And sometimes we do wrong for wanting the best for each other. Though is the best right?

The importance is that God forgives sins as he loves us.

 

[surritter]

Is it better to lie to protect someone or be an accomplice to torture and murder ?
That is the choice to be made …What kind of cruel God would condemn the action of those who make the choice to save a life and therefore lie or give less than honest information.?

And the merry-go-round continues…

 

[Bookcat]

Is it better to lie to protect someone or be an accomplice to torture and murder ?
That is the choice to be made …What kind of cruel God would condemn the action of those who make the choice to save a life and therefore lie or give less than honest information.?

Please read my posts above.

 

[Castello]

These threads always got to the absurd.

We do not have any Nazis at the door.

We do not have a 1940’s cartoon child stealing a slice of cake from the rectory.

We do have a society that thinks murder, smoking and capitalism are the only mortal sins.

In real life, we likely tell 10 lies each day and think nothing of it.

 

[surritter]

Lie-ing is definately a sin,

However whilst it is a sin
God forgives our sin

He doesn’t judge us how we judge ourselves. He loves us and sees the situations we are in. It don’t make it any more right or wrong. And sometimes we do wrong for wanting the best for each other. Though is the best right?

The importance is that God forgives sins as he loves us.

:yeah_me:

 

[Bookcat]

If your wife asks you this after getting a ghastly looking new hair-doo:

“Honey, what do you think about my new hair-doo?”

And you know that it looks ghastly, do you tell her the truth?

Please, spare me.

Actually yes.

But I need not offer all aspects …for she may not ask directly. I need not volunteer anything.

 

[rhiannonh]

Okay absolute moralists, put this in your pipe and smoke it.

A lunch lady makes a special cake for the staff. She leaves the lunchroom for a smoke.

An hour later a little girl, we will call her Lena, comes to the priest and asks for confession. The priest hears her sins and absolves them, including the theft and eating of the cake.

Another lunch lady is walking by and sees Lena going into the priests office.

About 20 minutes later, Lena is back in class and the priest is walking through the cafeteria making sure all the tables are set up for lunch.

All of a sudden one of the lunch ladies sees that a piece of cake has been stolen! She runs out and asks the priest if he knows who took the cake!

Another lunch lady runs out and says that she saw Lena going into the priests office, and asks the father if that has anything to do with the missing slice of cake?

Now you tell me how the priest should react in this case?

1. He says “I cannot tell a lie, it was Lena!” This has to be ruled out because the priest is bound by the seal of the confessional!
2. The priest says “I do know who did it, but I cannot say because it is a matter of confession” This is also out because it still indirectly points the finger at Lena, more so in this case where somebody SAW Lena going to the priest.
3. The priest says “I do not know who took the cake” According to you, he CANNOT lie, so the priest is in an impossible situation.

In the Early Modern period, some casuists (Thomas Sanchez, etc.) justified mental reservation, a form of deception which does not involve outright lying, in specific circumstances including when such an action is necessary to protect confidentiality under the seal of the confessional. Other casuists considered “grey areas” in which it was unclear whether or not the seal was being violated. A priest who says “I do not know” is thus to be understood “I do not know with knowledge outside the Seal of the Confessional”; St. Thomas Aquinas goes even farther and says that the priest knows the confession “not as man, but as God knows it”.

I feel that if a justified mental reservation is allowed to protect Lena who only took a piece of cake, that I could use the same justified mental reservation to protect the lives of beings made in the image and likeness of God himself!

FONT=“Arial Black”]der
thats easy because the priest cannot say what another has said in confession and every Catholic knows that so he be quite at liberty to simply say he not allowed to say because it a confession. That isn’t lie-ing. that is telling the truth about confession and every Catholic would therefore need to go to confession themselves the next minute if they are judging Lena to be the thief!! Especially as Lena has just been forgiven.