Are Lying and Deception Always Sinful?

  • Thread starter Thread starter scameter18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lying objectively remains a sin.

A good intention does not “justify” a lie.

There is simply no question here. And that is the point.

(look some could then say other intrinsically disordered of a very grave nature such as the abortion of a child so that you could use his cells to save thousands…could be “justified” by the intention etc. Some things like lying are intrinsically disordered.)

Now as I noted above we sin venially often.

Hence one can call certain venial sins “daily sins”.

If one faced with a Nazi at the door ends up sinning venially in such slight way…because they can not find the right way (via a good mental reservation etc) well they have done a small venial sin…God knows our weakness. He forgives us our venial sins all the time…(such is not to mean we ought to take our venial sins seriously…but that is not in question here).
 
Bookcat said:
Lying objectively remains a sin.

A good intention does not “justify” a lie.

There is simply no question here. And that is the point.

(look some could then say other intrinsically disordered of a very grave nature such as the abortion of a child so that you could use his cells to save thousands…could be “justified” by the intention etc. Some things like lying are intrinsically disordered.)

Now as I noted above we sin venially often.

Hence one can call certain venial sins “daily sins”.

If one faced with a Nazi at the door ends up sinning venially in such slight way…because they can not find the right way (via a good mental reservation etc) well they have done a small venial sin…God knows our weakness. He forgives us our venial sins all the time…(such is not to mean we ought to take our venial sins seriously…but that is not in question here).
Click to expand...
You are still NOT addressing the issue of a priest here. Let me repeat what I said before because you do not seem to get it.

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 somebody who only committed a venal sin, that I could use the same justified mental reservation to protect the lives of beings made in the image and likeness of God himself! 😃
 
Speedypizza said:
You are still NOT addressing the issue of a priest here. Let me repeat what I said before because you do not seem to get it.

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 somebody who only committed a venal sin, that I could use the same justified mental reservation to protect the lives of beings made in the image and likeness of God himself! 😃
Click to expand...
I did. I said mental reservation is a way to avoid lying.
 
Bookcat said:
. I think you need to go read more of my posts.

Also note the section notes directly that lying is intrinsically disordered and no good intention such as to help another can make it good. Such is more prior to the example you mention. Such does not mean that one is to tell them where they are…
Click to expand...
But we can justify killing and say taking a life is not intrinsically disordered?
Bookcat said:
As to:
Condemning (and innocent) someone to death is a gravely wrong act. No where do I say we ought to tell the Nazi the truth --“Oh yes they are in the basement”. Such I would say would be gravely wrong…
Click to expand...
But it’s OK to come up with some convoluted form of words which we can say isn’t a ‘lie’ - and yet its intent is to purposely deceive? This is sophistry
Bookcat said:
(oh and to not lie would not be to save ones own soul…we are not talking about that at all…just the nature of the lie as being a lie (see other post)…saving ones soul does not enter in here…)
Click to expand...
Of course it does. What is the first duty of a pope? Like any other man it’s to save his own soul. What is the ultimate reason that we should not sin? It’s not just to that we should do good and not wrong; why did Christ die on the cross if not to redeem our sins! It has Everything to do with saving one’s soul.
 
Daniel49 said:
And, your “mental reservation” could get someone killed.

Daniel49
Click to expand...
This is the “Moral Theology” section of Catholic Answers. Hence we discuss moral Theology. So when we get into the principles etc involved…sometimes it can seem we are getting all involved in details. Cause we are 🙂 Keep that in mind here.

We are discussing the “nature of a lie” here.

But when one asks about a “Nazi at the door” there is much than can be said.

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).
 
Frankk said:
But it’s OK to come up with some convoluted form of words which we can say isn’t a ‘lie’ - and yet its intent is to purposely deceive? This is sophistry

.
Click to expand...
No…it is not.

This is the “Moral Theology” section of Catholic Answers. Hence we discuss moral Theology. So when we get into the principles etc involved…sometimes it can seem we are getting all involved in details. Cause we are. Keep that in mind here.
 
Frankk said:
Of course it does. What is the first duty of a pope? Like any other man it’s to save his own soul. What is the ultimate reason that we should not sin? It’s not just to that we should do good and not wrong; why did Christ die on the cross if not to redeem our sins! It has Everything to do with saving one’s soul.
Click to expand...
Venial sin has nothing to do with saving ones soul…except when it leads to mortal sin.

Compendium:
  1. When does one commit a mortal sin?
1855-1861
1874

One commits a mortal sin when there are simultaneously present: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. This sin destroys charity in us, deprives us of sanctifying grace, and, if unrepented, leads us to the eternal death of hell. It can be forgiven in the ordinary way by means of the sacraments of Baptism and of Penance or Reconciliation.
  1. When does one commit a venial sin?
1862-1864
1875

One commits a venial sin, which is essentially different from a mortal sin, when the matter involved is less serious or, even if it is grave, when full knowledge or complete consent are absent. Venial sin does not break the covenant with God but it weakens charity and manifests a disordered affection for created goods. It impedes the progress of a soul in the exercise of the virtues and in the practice of moral good. It merits temporal punishment which purifies.
 
Bookcat said:
Yes.
Click to expand...
Bookcat,

I would like to suggest that you study the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of our theology. It is clear to me that you have not. You are merely expressing your own personal thinking here (which is quite perverse, IMHO). It leaves you blind to the truth and morality of situations discussed.

Daniel49

ps - Are there any priests or students of theology here on this thread? Please make comment if so.
 
Daniel49 said:
Most of Catholic Cannon law comes directly from Jewish Talmudic law. And, in Talmudic law, the preservation of life comes before all else.

Here is an example. A pious Jew observes the Sabbath. Assume he or she is an MD. The person sees another person in distress (hit by a car or something like that). The pious Jew is required to drop adherance to Sabath law to give aid to the person in distress. Preservation of life is tantamount.

Daniel49

While I am expert in neither, I have been schooled in both Jewish and Catholic law
Click to expand...
Frankly, it comes down to this – what are we to make of the oh-so-clear statement in the Catechism:
2485. “By its very nature, lying is to be condemned.”
where lying is
2483. “to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.”

You must either say that the Catechism is wrong, or you must prove that the definition given in 2483 inherently excludes cases where a greater good can result from the mistruth. Be warned that either path is fraught with issues that to me are more sticky than this bit about lying.
 
Daniel49 said:
ps - Are there any priests or students of theology here on this thread? Please make comment if so.
Click to expand...
I have a degree in Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville…(with honors if that helps…)
 
OK folks, - - - you win the argument. I have learned. G-d forbid I ever need to harbor Jews (or anyone else being persecuted by a government). What I have learned to do here (and it will be consistent with my Catholic teachings) is this -

When asked if there are Jews in my attic (as a metaphor) I will preserve my soul and lead the cadre of troops directly up to the Jews.

Thanks for the enlightenment. I do not want any damage to happen to me or my soul.

Daniel49
 
Daniel49 said:
OK Folks, you win the argument. I have learned. G-d forbid I ever need to harbor Jews (or anyone else being sought after by a government). What I have learned to do here and it will be consistent with my Catholic teachings is this -

When asked if there are Jews in my attic (as a metaphor) I will preserve my soul and lead the cadre of troops directly up to the Jews.

Thanks for the enlightenment. I do not want any damage to happen to me or my soul.

Daniel49
Click to expand...
You have not learned that from me!

Such would be gravely wrong to do!
 
Daniel49 said:
OK folks, - - - you win the argument. I have learned. G-d forbid I ever need to harbor Jews (or anyone else being persecuted by a government). What I have learned to do here (and it will be consistent with my Catholic teachings) is this -

When asked if there are Jews in my attic (as a metaphor) I will preserve my soul and lead the cadre of troops directly up to the Jews.

Thanks for the enlightenment. I do not want any damage to happen to me or my soul.

Daniel49
Click to expand...
Cause those are the ONLY two choices available (insert banging head against a wall)…
 
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).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top