Are Lying and Deception Always Sinful?

[surritter]

Yay surritter! :clapping: I am glad that you pointed that out and “get it”! It is what I have been trying to relay. Thanks!

Thanks, but my problem is that I’ve jumped into the debate on both sides! I am swayed by your view, but you must admit that Bookcat’s reference to paragraph 1753 kinda rebukes it.

What to do?

 

[Daniel49]

Surritter,

Maybe just try to do the right thing. In the case being disucced, not only must you lie to the Nazis about the Jews in your attic, you better lie real good or they will be toast. And then, you will have that to deal with when you meet your maker.

Daniel49

 

[surritter]

Surritter,

Maybe just try to do the right thing. In the case being disucced, not only must you lie to the Nazis about the Jews in your attic, you better lie real good or they will be toast. And then, you will have that to deal with when you meet your maker.

Daniel49

Oh please.

We are talking about a theoretical point in the field of moral theology. You need not concern yourself with what I would do in an actual setting.

So you hereby say that the Catechism is flat-out wrong?

 

[Daniel49]

Hi,

I think that the scenario that I posed may be too abstract and detached for some folks here to seriously consider.

Please think about the following situation and tell us what you would do, not what you think that the Catechism mandates.

You are living in WW2 Nazi Germany. You and your wife were both born to Jewish parents on both sides (all four sides) of the family. You and your wife converted to Roman Catholicism before you married in the church. You now have 4 children who are being raised Catholic. But, you do know that the Nazi definintion of a Jew is that a Jew is not defined by religion, but by heritage. Any child born to the Mother of a Jewish woman (by heritage) is defined as a Jew.

So, the authorities (SS) show up at your door and ask:

“Are there any Jews living at this address”. Again, you are fully cogniscent of the fact that you, your wife and your children are all defined as “Jews” by the regime.

Now, pray tell us - - - do you tell the authorities that you and your entire family is Jewish by Nazi definition? Or, do you lie to protect your family?

Please - - - no theories about the interpretation of various teachings. Just tell us what you would do. Would you admit the truth or lie?

Daniel49

btw - that scenario would not be too far away from my own theoretical situation, but my wife was always Roman Catholic (non - Jewish lineage), just not myself.

 

[surritter]

Daniel, I would lie to them. I suppose you’re going to jump down my throat and point to my own words where I’ve said that lying is intrinsically evil.

But don’t get so worked up! As I’ve tried to gently point out, we are discussing why the Catechism would make such clear statements that seem contrary to what you and I would do. It’s an academic discussion, in many ways; an exercise in trying to reconcile two seemingly opposing views.

You might get some ammunition from Janet Smith’s article that I referenced in one of the very first posts. She rather agrees with you, but in such a way that it doesn’t reject the Catechism’s statements. Her big point is that yes, lying goes against God’s plan, but because of the fall of Adam, some things of the “prelapsarian” world have been necessarily modified, including the idea that lying is 100% always wrong. I’ll quote a few things here (emphasis added):​

The mistake that Aquinas makes (and those words do stick in my throat!) is that he analyzes the question of lying with a prelapsarian understanding of the purpose of signification—an understanding that presumes the innocence of man before the Fall. He does not make this same mistake in respect to the protection of life and property: He realizes that behavior in reference to human life and property is necessarily different in the postlapsarian world. Before the Fall, man has no need to use force against another, nor need he destroy another’s property (or even possess property). But after the Fall, innocent life is often threatened, and property owners are often absent or unreasonable. Thus new forms of behavior are permissible given new realities, behavior directed towards defending human life and protecting other important goods.

Perhaps, then, the same holds for our words and other communicative actions. Before the Fall, there would have been no reason to engage in false signification. Before the Fall, all communication, all interaction was between innocent and trustworthy human beings. After the Fall, however, all communication is between human beings damaged by sin. Now, language must serve many other purposes besides the conveyance of the concepts on our minds. We need to correct, console, encourage, and deter one another. These actions need not involve falsehoods, but they are a use of language that differs from the fundamental purpose of communicating truth. Indeed, in the postlapsarian world honest communication is a true challenge even among those who trust each other. We find ourselves dissimulating with trustworthy human beings to avoid offending, confusing, or harming them or allowing them to harm themselves or others.

I believe that after the Fall, as is the case with words of consolation and encouragement, certain falsehoods uttered in certain circumstances can be fitting and morally licit uses of language. …[J]ust as destruction of life and property is now sometimes necessary and thus moral for the protection of what is good, false signification is sometimes necessary for the protection of life, property, and even truth itself. Uttering a falsehood to deceive a Nazi in order to save a Jew seems to be just such a case.

 

[Daniel49]

So - - - in summary - - - it is doubtful that one would have hurt their soul to have told a lie that would have saved lives, especially the lives on ones own family.

One could extend that to the work (lies) of Schindler which saved hundreds of lives. His lies were very explicit and put in writing. I believe that we must extoll the virtuessnes of his behaviour as it regards the Jews in his charge rather than to discuss theories about its sinfulness. He did the only right thing to do; anything else would have been sinful, IMHO.

Daniel49

 

[surritter]

So - - - in summary - - - it is doubtful that one would have hurt their soul to have told a lie that would have saved lives, especially the lives on ones own family.

Certainly, in my view. Even if we were to establish that all lies are objectively evil, recall that pages ago it was pointed out that virtually none of the lies we are discussing would have harmed one’s soul (well, maybe a venial sin if you’re in the letter-of-the-law camp, but not a mortal sin, which is what it takes to sever the relationship with God).

One could extend that to the work (lies) of Schindler which saved hundreds of lives. His lies were very explicit and put in writing. I believe that we must extoll the virtuessnes of his behaviour as it regards the Jews in his charge rather than to discuss theories about its sinfulness. He did the only right thing to do; anything else would have been sinful, IMHO.

I agree – there is a place for honoring those like Schindler. But I think your last sentence still doesn’t fly. If one chooses to not to lie, then no sin is committed. I realize that leaves a murky middle ground, and innocents might suffer. Bottom line: lying to protect the innocent might not be a sin, but failing to lie is not a sin. Confusing enough?

 

[Daniel49]

I think that that knowingly not protecting the lives of others (in your charge) by not lying is sinful. I am confident that Jesus would agree with that. That concept comes from Jewish (Talmudic) teachings and Jesus was a knowledgable and observant Jew.

Daniel49

 

[Bookcat]

And there is a BIG difference between “helping” a neighbor and “saving” the life of a neighbor.

That was a general example.

The Teaching of the Catholic Church is:

A good intention does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means…

 

[Bookcat]

It is very deceptive, and misleading, that’s why.

Read all my posts together.

I focused in at that moment on some of the key passages. None of the others I had linked etc earlier contradicted the ones I focused in on then.

 

[Bookcat]

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. What is forbidden by the eighth commandment?

2475-2487
2507-2509

The eighth commandment forbids:

* false witness, perjury, and **lying**, the gravity of which is measured by the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims...

etc

 

[Bookcat]

And there is a BIG difference between “helping” a neighbor and “saving” the life of a neighbor.

That was a general example.

The Teaching of the Catholic Church is:

1753 A good intention (various examples could be here -bookcat) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means…

Again the question is if lying is “justified” and it is not. It is always lying. It intrinsically disordered.

This is an important theologically real point. To allow something intrinsically disordered to become a “good” due to intention etc…to thus allow the “ends to justify the means”…is not a good way one can go. (though many try to use such an idea to justify all sorts of grave evils).

Does this make it some grave thing to lie to the Nazi? No of course not. Ought one use another way? Yes. But if one slips into a venially sinful lie here (which will be very small if any…)…that is what it is. We are weak and God readily understands such.

Though as I noted it perhaps some professional theologians and the Magisterium will find that the “moral object” here is not a lie anyhow. But I leave that to them.

 

[Bookcat]

I think that that knowingly not protecting the lives of others (in your charge) by not lying is sinful. I am confident that Jesus would agree with that. That concept comes from Jewish (Talmudic) teachings and Jesus was a knowledgable and observant Jew.

Daniel49

He said the devil is the Father of lies.

Not that Jesus was not understanding and quickly forgiving of the little weakness of means of those who could not find the good way of protecting the Jews from the Nazis…(as I note above). I imagine I would have had great trouble myself finding such in such desperate times. As did I would imagine many of the Christians who worked to save the Jews of the time.

(And as I recall the Talmud came to be more than 100 years after Jesus walked the paths of the HolyLand…it did not exist for Jews of his time. But you may have meant something else there…not the Talmud per se…not my area of expertise.)

 

[Daniel49]

Ya know, (referring to Bookcat and some other here with their fallacious reasoning - sophistry) if I really thought that you knew what you were talking about, and accurately representing Catholic teaching, I would leave the Church. Who would want to be a member of such an organization?

If the Church really taught these things (lying is a sin not unlike commiting murder and perhaps on a par with it), then it would be a very perverted religion.

Fortunately, I do not believe that some of these folks here know of what they speak and are mis-interpreting the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I strongly recommend that the study the backbone of the Catholic religion - - - ie - the Jewish religion of which Jesus was an adherent.

In general, it’s really quite sad to witness such ignorance that I see some folks espousing here.

Daniel49

ps - the Talmud was just a written codification of the “Oral Torah” which existed long before the time of Jesus. Yes, it was codified by two separate groups of intellects after Jesus died on the cross, but that codification was based on many generations of oral tradition passed on from generation to generation. Jesus would have been completely familiar with the “Oral Torah”.

 

[Bookcat]

If the Church really taught these things (lying is a sin not unlike commiting murder and perhaps on a par with it), then it would be a very perverted religion.

Such is NOT what the Church Teaches (nor would I ever say it was).

Lying can be a grave sin --sure–like when one swares to God in court and then commits perjury.

But there is a **chasm **…a grand canyon…between the any venial sin – and any mortal sin (such as murder).

Mortal and venial sin…in their very essence – are very different!!!

I would suggest not discussing this anymore here.

Have a great Lords day tomorrow.

 

[Daniel49]

And, it is my contention that the basic precepts of Judaism and Catholicism place such a high value on preserving human life that not lying in the circumstances that I have outlined would be considered to be a violation of G-ds laws - - - tantamount to complicity to murder.

In other words, you are not permitted to not lie given the dire circumstances described by myself in this thread.

Daniel49

 

[Bookcat]

Daniel49

Have a very good Lords Day!

Pax Tecum - Shalom!

 

[Daniel49]

Shabbat Shalom!

 

[CEM5]

Thanks, but my problem is that I’ve jumped into the debate on both sides! I am swayed by your view, but you must admit that Bookcat’s reference to paragraph 1753 kinda rebukes it.

What to do?

Well, as I responded to that quote: (And I will quote as well all of 1753, not just a snipet)

CCC 1753
A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behaior tha is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).

*I responded that there is a big difference between helping one’s neighbor and saving the life of one’s neighbor. *

Additonally, the quoted CCC 1753, entails one’s INTENTIONS behind their words/actions.

That chapter in the Catechism is about The Morality of Human Acts. It summarizes as such:

IN BRIEF

1757 The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three “sources” of the morality of human acts.

1758 The object chosen morally specifies the act of willing accordingly as reason recognizes and judges it good or evil.

1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

1760 A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

Therefore, when not telling the true whereabouts of those innocents who are in hiding from any evil, murderous people, has no bearing on the statement in CCC 1753. **It would be a moral evil to reveal and become part of the murder of innocents. ** Especially pay attention to CCC 1760 that says: A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together. Therefore, it is “good” to not reveal the whereabouts of innocents, since the “goodness of its object” is to protect the innocent from those evil murderers, and “of its end and of its circumstances” entails saving their lives. .

In brief: Helping and Saving are big differences.

 

[CEM5]

I think that that knowingly not protecting the lives of others (in your charge) by not lying is sinful. I am confident that Jesus would agree with that. That concept comes from Jewish (Talmudic) teachings and Jesus was a knowledgable and observant Jew.

Daniel49

Very true.

And it appears that some people keep forgetting that the gist of the teachings of those chapters under The Eighth Commandment, have to do with bearing false witness, lying that will cause: a moral evil, or a physical evil or spiritually lead astray another person from the truth of God and God’s teachings and who Jesus is, as I explained earlier.

That is also why Jesus condemned the Pharisees.