Did I sin?

[Rbaker]

This is the main flaw with this site. People come here asking about sins, and there are many times we don’t have the answers. All this does is lead to debate because for one we don’t really know each other that well, so full respect is not going to happen, and two sometimes we are wrong. Just ask a priest.

 

[dreamer29]

That doesn’t really answer anything, does it?

It does. The OP asked, “So was it a sin?” and my response answered that. However, I did not say if it was a mortal sin or not.

 

[Tim_D]

It does. The OP asked, “So was it a sin?” and my response answered that. However, I did not say if it was a mortal sin or not.

Actually, your post simply presents a very general, run of the mill answer to the initial question (something that the Baltimore Catechism is very good/bad at).

To truly answer the question “was it a sin,” we must delve into the topic of what exactly constitutes a “lie” and whether one is ever free to speak something that may be at odds with the intellect.

According to your post, was the future Pope John XXIII in violation of the 8th commandment when during WWII he was in Istanbul forging baptismal certificates to keep Jews from being deported to concentration camps? Wouldn’t he be guilty of professing something that was not true?

 

[dshix]

Tim_D,

You’ve spent a great deal of time on this thread negating other people’s posts, mostly by stating repeatedly that “we must delve into the topic of what exactly constitutes a ‘lie’” and by bringing up examples from various parts of the topic.

So far you haven’t actually made a solid argument, though, against the positions (based on the Catechism and other Church teachings) which I and others on this thread have displayed.

It’s your turn. The burden of proof is on you. Go ahead, make the philosophical and theological arguments necessary to prove that “one is free to speak something that may be at odds with the intellect”.

Examples are certainly useful, but they are nothing but hot air when not substantiated by arguments and evidence.

Please, make your case.

 

[Tim_D]

Tim_D,

You’ve spent a great deal of time on this thread negating other people’s posts, mostly by stating repeatedly that “we must delve into the topic of what exactly constitutes a ‘lie’” and by bringing up examples from various parts of the topic.

So far you haven’t actually made a solid argument, though, against the positions (based on the Catechism and other Church teachings) which I and others on this thread have displayed.

It’s your turn. The burden of proof is on you. Go ahead, make the philosophical and theological arguments necessary to prove that “one is free to speak something that may be at odds with the intellect”.

Examples are certainly useful, but they are nothing but hot air when not substantiated by arguments and evidence.

Please, make your case.

I only need refer you to the article “lie” in the Catholic Encyclopedia to make my case. In it the point is made that there are differing schools of thought that disagree as to the extent that one must go in order to preserve themselves from offense.

Unlike some here, I do not blindly accept the statements in the catechism for a couple of reasons. 1. The second edition severely altered what was originally presented in the first edition. Has the Church suddenly changed her mind on something that has been taught for centuries? 2. There are other areas of the catechism that do not correspond with what has traditional been taught by the Church. Cardinal Ratzinger even had to say that one was free to disagree with certain positions and still be considered in good standing with the Church.

It is all really very simple. Using the example that scholars have used for centuries, are you willing to say that one is guilty of sin if they lie in order to save an innocent life from a group intent on murder?

 

[Kay_Cee]

It would be such a trivial sin, it wouldn’t matter much.

Do you honestly believe some sins are trivial and don’t matter much?

St. Faustina wrote in her diary “Oh my Jesus, I would rather be in agony until the end of the world, amidst the greatest sufferings, than offend You by the least sin.” (Diary 741)

That’s a lesson we could all learn.

 

[dshix]

I only need refer you to the article “lie” in the Catholic Encyclopedia to make my case. In it the point is made that there are differing schools of thought that disagree as to the extent that one must go in order to preserve themselves from offense.

Unlike some here, I do not blindly accept the statements in the catechism for a couple of reasons. 1. The second edition severely altered what was originally presented in the first edition. Has the Church suddenly changed her mind on something that has been taught for centuries? 2. There are other areas of the catechism that do not correspond with what has traditional been taught by the Church. Cardinal Ratzinger even had to say that one was free to disagree with certain positions and still be considered in good standing with the Church.

It is all really very simple. Using the example that scholars have used for centuries, are you willing to say that one is guilty of sin if they lie in order to save an innocent life from a group intent on murder?

Please cite (link) the documents to which you refer and quote the parts relevant to this discussion, for use in the discussion.

Contrary to your supposition, “some here” do not “blindly accept” the catechism. I accept the catechism’s teaching in quite a “seeing” way, and with understanding of the surrounding context. Though the wording and content of the catechism and other similar documents may change, the underlying doctrine of the Church has never changed and never will.

If you want to make an argument and show evidence for your point of view, make it. If not, by all means continue making claims about the actions of popes, the content of Catholic documents, and the opinion of “scholars” without making any attempt to substantiate your statements by actually linking to or quoting specific things.