Are Lying and Deception Always Sinful?

[CEM5]

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”.

Hi Daniel49,

When I study and teach Catechism in RCIA, I learn about the background of the Church, which as you pointed out is Jewish. When I explain ancient customs it brings to light the rich meaning behind many of Jesus’ teachings and parables – of which we lose and flies above our heads when we remain in ignorance of those customs.

I am very heartened to know that you are strongly Catholic with that heritage of our Jewish roots. The Church’s roots are Jewish which nourished into full blosom the Christian Faith of the Catholic Church.

I agree entirely with you and your thoughts here.

Peace of Christ to you and all here

 

[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.

CEM -

Yes, I agree. I have a hard time understanding why folks get this concept twisted up with the Eighth commandment, but they do.

Daniel49

 

[Daniel49]

Hi Daniel49,

When I study and teach Catechism in RCIA, I learn about the background of the Church, which as you pointed out is Jewish. When I explain ancient customs it brings to light the rich meaning behind many of Jesus’ teachings and parables – of which we lose and flies above our heads when we remain in ignorance of those customs.

I am very heartened to know that you are strongly Catholic with that heritage of our Jewish roots. The Church’s roots are Jewish which nourished into full blosom the Christian Faith of the Catholic Church.

I agree entirely with you and your thoughts here.

Peace of Christ to you and all here

Amen! And may the peace of the Lord be with all here too.

 

[surritter]

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.

Look – I don’t disagree with you and Daniel on the basic premise that we must try to help protect innocent people. That’s a no-brainer!!!

But your quote above neatly side-steps the BIG problem in this whole debate: that of para. 1753. That paragraph, in fact, rebukes what you have just said: “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.”
I can’t accept that, simply because 1753 says that a good intention does not make lying good or just. It remains a lie as condemned under the 8th Commandment. I’m not necessarily agreeing with it, I’m saying that it’s a stumbling block to your explanation.

CEM5 or Daniel or someone else needs to really answer this dilemma. Is the Catechism flat-out wrong in 1753?

 

[Castello]

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”.

Daniel - you may want to speak with people at this apostolate hebrewcatholic.org/

One thing to understand, we are Christians, we are not Jews. There are profound differences that are far beyond the scope of this free for all forum.

 

[Daniel49]

Look – I don’t disagree with you and Daniel on the basic premise that we must try to help protect innocent people. That’s a no-brainer!!!

But your quote above neatly side-steps the BIG problem in this whole debate: that of para. 1753. That paragraph, in fact, rebukes what you have just said: “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.”
I can’t accept that, simply because 1753 says that a good intention does not make lying good or just. It remains a lie as condemned under the 8th Commandment. I’m not necessarily agreeing with it, I’m saying that it’s a stumbling block to your explanation.

CEM5 or Daniel or someone else needs to really answer this dilemma. Is the Catechism flat-out wrong in 1753?

Surriter,

I think that your confusion comes from out an of context view of the 8th commandment. It comes from the Law as given by Moses to his people. The Oral Torah (Talmud) explains alot about this. It is really inteded as a legal device wherein a crime must be witnessed by at least two other parties to a crime and those parties are required by law to tell the truth about what was witnessed in a Jewish legal situation while under oath. That is the roots of it and you are taking it behond that scope.

Clearly, Jewish and Catholic teachings require us to lie if lives lie in the balance should we not do that. The lie is not an option; it is a rquirement.

Here is another scenario to help drive that point home. You are a soldier captured on the battlefield and being interrogated by the enemy. You are asked where your platoon is located (obviously so that the enemy can go kill them). What do you say to them?

Answer: It’s obvious

Daniel49

ps - and Roman Catholics do not qualify as conscientious objectors, so arguing that we do not belong fighting on the battlefield in war would be bogus, but that is another discussion.

 

[surritter]

Surriter,

I think that your confusion comes from out an of context view of the 8th commandment…

I am simply going verbatim from the Catechism, paragraph 1753. So you are saying that the Catechism is confused. I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Daniel49]

I am simply going verbatim from the Catechism, paragraph 1753. So you are saying that the Catechism is confused. I’ll leave it at that.

The Catechism is not cofused, your are. To understand the Catechism, you need to take it in context of the rest of itself in its entirety. Just taking bits and pieces from here and there and then throwing them out there will always get you into trouble.

Daniel49

 

[Daniel49]

Daniel - you may want to speak with people at this apostolate hebrewcatholic.org/

One thing to understand, we are Christians, we are not Jews. There are profound differences that are far beyond the scope of this free for all forum.

The similarities between these two great religions are much greater than the differences. And that reason is obvious - - - the shoulders upon which the Catholic faith sits is the Jewish one.

Daniel49

 

[surritter]

The Catechism is not cofused, your are. To understand the Catechism, you need to take it in context of the rest of itself in its entirety. Just taking bits and pieces from here and there and then throwing them out there will always get you into trouble.

Wrong again. You need to carefully read 1753, along with 1754 and others since you’re interested in context. The Catechism clearly states that lying is not right or just by its very nature. Yet the circumstances can diminish the moral guilt of the person, as I’ve said all along. I presume you’re clear now on the difference between the objective, intrinsic nature of an act and the actual guilt incurred by a person.

Please read this statement before you fire off a reply:
From 1754: “Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.”

And of course those last 3 words – taken in light of the entire Catechism as you rightly state – takes us back to 2483 through 2485, which clearly say that lying is by its very nature an evil act. How do other “contexts” in the Catechism excuse this clear connection?

I understand your position, because our nature is to do what we can to help others, especially in life-threatening situations. But your posts are very broad and don’t address or weave together these statements from the Catechism. I’d like to see an exact breakdown of how these specific teachings of the Church, along with the context that you speak of, are to be interpreted such that they align with your views.

 

[Daniel49]

Wrong again. You need to carefully read 1753, along with 1754 and others since you’re interested in context. The Catechism clearly states that lying is not right or just by its very nature. Yet the circumstances can diminish the moral guilt of the person, as I’ve said all along. I presume you’re clear now on the difference between the objective, intrinsic nature of an act and the actual guilt incurred by a person.

Please read this statement before you fire off a reply:
From 1754: “Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.”

And of course those last 3 words – taken in light of the entire Catechism as you rightly state – takes us back to 2483 through 2485, which clearly say that lying is by its very nature an evil act. How do other “contexts” in the Catechism excuse this clear connection?

I understand your position, because our nature is to do what we can to help others, especially in life-threatening situations. But your posts are very broad and don’t address or weave together these statements from the Catechism. I’d like to see an exact breakdown of how these specific teachings of the Church, along with the context that you speak of, are to be interpreted such that they align with your views.

You harp on those but ignore

2488

&

2489

In the conterxt of your quotes, what do those mean?

You see, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, a point that you are missing.

I will not provide you with more than I have already provided in terms of examples or background. I have provided you with plenty yet you remain unconvinced. Do whatever you want to do. It appears that you would concern yourself with your own sanctimoinious interpretations of moral law rather than concerning yourself with the well being of others.

I am done with this. You win; you are right. I see the errors in my ways.

Daniel49

 

[surritter]

2488 and 2489 are indeed important. They say that you are not obligated to give the truth to someone.

You’ve read those statements and made this mistaken conclusion:

“To not give someone the truth is the same as to lie.”

If I tell you that you can’t travel to Chicago next week, does that imply any other instruction about where you can go? Not at all. Think about it!

Peace, friend. I agree that it’s time to leave this one alone.

 

[Castello]

The similarities between these two great religions are much greater than the differences. And that reason is obvious - - - the shoulders upon which the Catholic faith sits is the Jewish one.

Daniel49

Jesus taught us that the basic laws of the Torah were a starting point.

From Matthew 5 (Jesus examples went on in this chapter, here are a few snippits)

21
“You have heard that it was said to your ancestors,n ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’*
22

• But I say to you, whoever is angry* with his brother will be liable to judgment,o and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.

27

• “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
  28
  But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
  29
• If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away.s It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna.
  30
  And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna.

31

• “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.
  32
  But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

38

• “You have heard that it was said,x ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
  39
  y But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.

 

[CEM5]

Look – I don’t disagree with you and Daniel on the basic premise that we must try to help protect innocent people. That’s a no-brainer!!!

But your quote above neatly side-steps the BIG problem in this whole debate: that of para. 1753. That paragraph, in fact, rebukes what you have just said: “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.”
I can’t accept that, simply because 1753 says that a good intention does not make lying good or just. It remains a lie as condemned under the 8th Commandment. I’m not necessarily agreeing with it, I’m saying that it’s a stumbling block to your explanation.

CEM5 or Daniel or someone else needs to really answer this dilemma. Is the Catechism flat-out wrong in 1753?

Hi surritter,

I answered in #194, but I’ll paste it here:

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 behavior that 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.

I would like to add and make clear that this chapter of the Catechism focuses on teaching that a person cannot justifiy committing moral evils in order to bring about what they consider “good”, and it specifies that even committing or contributing to the murder of another innocent in order to save a nation is never “right”. For example: Let’s say I was in WWII hiding several Jewish people in various locations. Along comes the SS asking me if I am hiding any Jewish people, and they are going to look through my attic where I am hiding several Jewish people. In order to save several people, I instead give up the location of where I know only one Jewish person is hiding. So they take away one instead of several and only murder one innocent person. THAT is morally wrong, and what the Church teaches we cannot do. “The end does not justify the means” as CCC 1759 teaches.

Furthermore, 1753 is about false statements and lying about another person that entails slander, or as calumny means:* a false and malicious statement designed to injure the reputation of someone or something: defamation*.

Again, it is important to read all of what this particular chapter in the Catchism teaches so you get the whole picture. Not just a snippet.

blessings!

 

[Daniel49]

This was just in the News, but I realize that they got the headline wrong, now that I have learned my lessons here on the imorality of lying.

The headline went something like “9 year old kidnapped girl saves herself by calling 911”. The details about it involved how she lied so that she could use the phone to call her uncle, but once she got the phone, she called 911. That saved her life, but the headline should have read:

**“9 year old girl lies and damages her soul”. **Guess she did not have a good Catholic upbringing.

Daniel49

 

[chosen_people]

Although Christians often speak of “Judeo-Christian” ethics and morality, although many Christians seriously believe that Christianity is merely “Judaism with Jesus”, the example of lying to the Nazi in order to not reveal where the Jews are hidden, is an excellent example to show just how conceptually different Judaism is from Catholicism.

God commands us in the Torah to not stand by while another’s blood is shed (Vayikra [Leviticus] 19:16). In the same chapter we see that not only should we give charity but that a land owner is commanded to leave part of his field for the poor. The basic central essence of Judaism is the fundamental responsibility that each and everyone of us has toward all others. Each and everyone of us has his part to play in the scheme of the world. Therefore the loss of one life is as the loss of a whole world. Sanctity of life is an over riding principle that with the exceptions of idolatry, incest or murder takes precedence over any and all commandments.

These principles are the antithesis to Hellenistic Christianity. Accordingly, the ultimate goal of life here is to get eternal life in the world to come. It is the responsibility and the concern of the individual to live his/her life in a way that will allow this to happen. If the Christian lies to the Nazi about where the Jews are hiding than he/she has sinned. The sin endangers or may prevent the goal of the individual eternal life. The Christian is not responsible for the actions of the Nazi who will take the Jews out and kill them. He/she has no wish for that to happen. Therefore the Christian must tell the truth and reveal their hiding place. At the very least he/she must repent their “sin” if he/she deceives the Nazi.

However, in Judaism, the sin, the most immoral thing possible, would be to not lie to the Nazi and not to protect the lives of those in hiding. The person not lying and revealing the hiding place, knowing full well what the Nazi will do, bears responsibility for their deaths. That is the person who almost certainly endangers any chance of the world to come.

 

[Daniel49]

Although Christians often speak of “Judeo-Christian” ethics and morality, although many Christians seriously believe that Christianity is merely “Judaism with Jesus”, the example of lying to the Nazi in order to not reveal where the Jews are hidden, is an excellent example to show just how conceptually different Judaism is from Catholicism.

God commands us in the Torah to not stand by while another’s blood is shed (Vayikra [Leviticus] 19:16). In the same chapter we see that not only should we give charity but that a land owner is commanded to leave part of his field for the poor. The basic central essence of Judaism is the fundamental responsibility that each and everyone of us has toward all others. Each and everyone of us has his part to play in the scheme of the world. Therefore the loss of one life is as the loss of a whole world. Sanctity of life is an over riding principle that with the exceptions of idolatry, incest or murder takes precedence over any and all commandments.

These principles are the antithesis to Hellenistic Christianity. Accordingly, the ultimate goal of life here is to get eternal life in the world to come. It is the responsibility and the concern of the individual to live his/her life in a way that will allow this to happen. If the Christian lies to the Nazi about where the Jews are hiding than he/she has sinned. The sin endangers or may prevent the goal of the individual eternal life. The Christian is not responsible for the actions of the Nazi who will take the Jews out and kill them. He/she has no wish for that to happen. Therefore the Christian must tell the truth and reveal their hiding place. At the very least he/she must repent their “sin” if he/she deceives the Nazi.

However, in Judaism, the sin, the most immoral thing possible, would be to not lie to the Nazi and not to protect the lives of those in hiding. The person not lying and revealing the hiding place, knowing full well what the Nazi will do, bears responsibility for their deaths. That is the person who almost certainly endangers any chance of the world to come.

Hi Chosen People,

Please understand that many people who have posted here on this thread do not know what they are talking about regarding the Catholic beliefs on this topic. I come from both sides of the isle (born Jewish and studied Judaism and then converted to Roman Catholicism). I would not have made that conversion had I thought that the basic precepts concerning the sanctity of life were not in place here in the Cathoic religion. There are a bunch of very mis-guided persons posting here who are not understanding of the big picture taught in Canon Law which is largely derived from Torah and Talmudic law. I will also say that the fundamental study of religion in Judaism (Hebrew school, etc) is much more comprehensive in Judaism than the study of religion is in Roman Catholicism. It is too bad, but that is my observation. You and I were taught alot about moral philosphy as kids, but I do not think that occurrs anywhere near that amount with CCD as taught in the Catholic schools.

The Cathoic teachings do not preclude a person from lying or defending life by killing when necessary. If, for example, the RC religion did preclude killing (as in defense of ones country) then the conscientious objector status would be available as an option to military service.

Catholics do not have that option because of the nature of the religion (similar to Judaism). Sometimes, it is well understood that killing is not only necessary, but required as you and I learned.

So please understand that there are many folks here who are just neophyte theologians and that they really do not understand the roots of their own religion.

I hope that you understand.

Daniel49

 

[CEM5]

This was just in the News, but I realize that they got the headline wrong, now that I have learned my lessons here on the imorality of lying.

The headline went something like “9 year old kidnapped girl saves herself by calling 911”. The details about it involved how she lied so that she could use the phone to call her uncle, but once she got the phone, she called 911. That saved her life, but the headline should have read:

**“9 year old girl lies and damages her soul”. **Guess she did not have a good Catholic upbringing.

Daniel49

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

“discreet languange” and 283 is from

Proverbs 25: 9-10
9 If you take your neighbor to court,
do not betray another’s confidence,
10 or the one who hears it may shame you
and the charge against you will stand.

Sirach 27:16
If you repeat secrets that have been told to you, you are destroying the confidence others have in you, and you will never have a close friend.

discreet - thesaurus entry
View dictionary entry for discreet

adjective
1careful not to say anything that is secret or that could upset someone
Synonyms or related words for this sense of discreet
Careful and cautious: careful, cautious, thorough, painstaking, systematic, organized, meticulous, methodical, exact, risk-averse… more

So, I believe all this misinterpretation that lying to save someone’s life from a murderer has to do with not fully understanding the meaning of some words or looking up the Scripture that the CCC refers to as in the above.

Hopefully it becomes clearer now about the type of “lying” the CCC condemns and views as sinful.