Embryo Adoption?

[Rence]

Then you’re misunderstanding natural law. Breaking natural law is a sin, full stop. Venial or mortal depends on circumstance, but it is a sin.

You’re having trouble detaching yourself emotionally, but sometimes it’s necessary. This may be one of those cases.

The fact is if it can be proven to be wrong by applying natural law theory then it is wrong. Period.

It’s a very hard thing to accept because we know these embryos aren’t embryos-they’re children. But this is not dissimilar to saying that we can’t lie even to save a person’s life. You can’t-ever. Even if it’s a child we’re trying to save.

Really? I don’t think so. I don’t believe someone who lied about the whereabouts of a Jew during the Haulocaust was sinning. Life isn’t just black and white and it doesn’t come with a rule book. It’s fine for you if you can’t ‘lie even to save a person’s life. You can’t-ever.’, but I do believe you’re in the minority when it comes to real life. There are more important things in life than mere rules and laws. And most adults in their right mind, living in the real world know that…

 

[Debora123]

Really? I don’t think so. I don’t believe someone who lied about the whereabouts of a Jew during the Haulocaust was sinning. Life isn’t just black and white and it doesn’t come with a rule book. It’s fine for you if you can’t ‘lie even to save a person’s life. You can’t-ever.’, but I do believe you’re in the minority when it comes to real life. There are more important things in life than mere rules and laws. And most adults in their right mind, living in the real world know that…

Agreed.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Really? I don’t think so. I don’t believe someone who lied about the whereabouts of a Jew during the Haulocaust was sinning. Life isn’t just black and white and it doesn’t come with a rule book. It’s fine for you if you can’t ‘lie even to save a person’s life. You can’t-ever.’, but I do believe you’re in the minority when it comes to real life. There are more important things in life than mere rules and laws. And most adults in their right mind, living in the real world know that…

You’re right. I am in the minority.

I believe in Aquinas’s natural law theory. Not much more to say about that.

 

[anilorak13ska]

I don’t believe someone who lied about the whereabouts of a Jew during the Haulocaust was sinning. Life isn’t just black and white and it doesn’t come with a rule book. …] There are more important things in life than mere rules and laws.

Not to veer off topic, but in regards to lies, I do believe the purpose of the commandment against lying is for the sake of not leading people astray from God by disrespecting truth. As several on here have said, in real life, not in theory, there are times when we must choose between respecting truth versus respecting human life (for example). We cannot wash our hands of all culpability and say that we respected one, so we’re not guilty of disrespecting the other. In some cases, we may have no choice but to be guilty of one or the other, and in such cases, it is imperative to choose the lesser of the two evils.

From the Catechism

2482 "“A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.”

I think if you lie to save a life, your intention is to save a life, not to deceive, no?

And even more telling…

2489 “No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.”

I believe that if I know the person I’m talking to will use the information I give to take human life, I must then acknowledge that said person does not in fact have a right to know said information.

And finally:

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.”

 

[Debora123]

Not to veer off topic, but in regards to lies, I do believe the purpose of the commandment against lying is for the sake of not leading people astray from God by disrespecting truth. As several on here have said, in real life, not in theory, there are times when we must choose between respecting truth versus respecting human life (for example). We cannot wash our hands of all culpability and say that we respected one, so we’re not guilty of disrespecting the other. In some cases, we may have no choice but to be guilty of one or the other, and in such cases, it is imperative to choose the lesser of the two evils.

From the Catechism

2482 "“A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.”

I think if you lie to save a life, your intention is to save a life, not to deceive, no?

And even more telling…

2489 “No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.”

I believe that if I know the person I’m talking to will use the information I give to take human life, I must then acknowledge that said person does not in fact have a right to know said information.

And finally:

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.”

Honestly, I don’t even care what a book says. Life is more complicated than that sometimes. If I was in a position where I had Jews in my home and the Nazi came looking, I would absolutely lie. And I would do so with 100% certainty that God wouldn’t punish me for it.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Honestly, I don’t even care what a book says. Life is more complicated than that sometimes. If I was in a position where I had Jews in my home and the Nazi came looking, I would absolutely lie. And I would do so with 100% certainty that God wouldn’t punish me for it.

You’re right about one thing-God almost certainly wouldn’t punish you for it.

Basically Aquinas’s position on “murderer at the door” scenario lying was something like this (as an example I believe he uses the Jews lying about hiding Rahab during the destruction of Jericho):

Lying to save somebody’s life is such a venial sin that because of the fact that you’re doing it out of respect for human life and you’re doing it to avoid murder being committed that God will actually look down upon you pleased.

But NOT lying (and you can use deception in this case, a subtle but important distinction), as long as you’re not lying for the right reasons (i.e. not because you don’t care about human life or even that you’re holier than thou but because you have the humility and wisdom to realize that ultimately obeying God’s laws is the most important thing to do at all times regardless of circumstance) is even holier.

[As an aside, you realize that my views were formulated originally by Thomas Aquinas, one of the great thinkers of all time, and have been held for around a thousand years and still hold a huge following today, right? Several Thomistic philosophers (James Chastek and Edward Feser come to the top of my head, but there are others) concur exactly with my views. It’s really unfair of you to dismiss it with an eye roll.

A couple of threads on this subject will prove I’m not the only person who holds these views: http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=699135

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9680590#post9680590

Of course, you’re not the only person who holds your views either. But I’m not really so unusual. If you’d like to argue the point, you could perhaps take it up there.]

 

[Marc_Anthony]

From the Catechism

2482 "“A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.”

I think if you lie to save a life, your intention is to save a life, not to deceive, no?

Yes, BUT you’re still speaking a falsehood. Deception is not sinful in certain circumstances. Lying is.

And even more telling…

2489 “No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.”

I believe that if I know the person I’m talking to will use the information I give to take human life, I must then acknowledge that said person does not in fact have a right to know said information.

Indeed, you should either use deception, not say anything, or say, “I won’t answer.”

And finally:

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.”

Yes, the right to COMMUNICATION of the truth is not unconditional. In concrete situations we can WITHHOLD the truth, or deceive. Not lie.

That said, Church teaching is intentionally ambiguous on the issue because there are two theories regarding lying that are both technically allowed to believe. But I hold to the one that says lying is wrong in all circumstances-natural law theory.

Since this is now really off-topic I suggest we move to the second of the two threads linked below.

 

[Debora123]

You’re right about one thing-God almost certainly wouldn’t punish you for it.

Basically Aquinas’s position on “murderer at the door” scenario lying was something like this (as an example I believe he uses the Jews lying about hiding Rahab during the destruction of Jericho):

Lying to save somebody’s life is such a venial sin that because of the fact that you’re doing it out of respect for human life and you’re doing it to avoid murder being committed that God will actually look down upon you pleased.

But NOT lying (and you can use deception in this case, a subtle but important distinction), as long as you’re not lying for the right reasons (i.e. not because you don’t care about human life or even that you’re holier than thou but because you have the humility and wisdom to realize that ultimately obeying God’s laws is the most important thing to do at all times regardless of circumstance) is even holier.

[As an aside, you realize that my views were formulated originally by Thomas Aquinas, one of the great thinkers of all time, and have been held for around a thousand years and still hold a huge following today, right? Several Thomistic philosophers (James Chastek and Edward Feser come to the top of my head, but there are others) concur exactly with my views. It’s really unfair of you to dismiss it with an eye roll.

A couple of threads on this subject will prove I’m not the only person who holds these views: http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=699135

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9680590#post9680590

Of course, you’re not the only person who holds your views either. But I’m not really so unusual. If you’d like to argue the point, you could perhaps take it up there.]

I don’t think it would be a sin at ALL to lie in this case. Period. And neither do I think it would be a sin to lie and say “yeah I really like the gift you gave me” or “no I don’t think you look fat.”

And nah, I have no need to argue the point. I just simply disagree with the notion. I find it legalistic and simplistic. That’s really all there is to it.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I don’t think it would be a sin at ALL to lie in this case. Period. And neither do I think it would be a sin to lie and say “yeah I really like the gift you gave me” or “no I don’t think you look fat.”

And nah, I have no need to argue the point. I just simply disagree with the notion. I find it legalistic and simplistic. That’s really all there is to it.

What does “Disagree with the notion” mean, exactly?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

[Accidental Post, Disregard]

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Sorry, I misunderstood. This:

Yes, BUT you’re still speaking a falsehood. Deception is not sinful in certain circumstances. Lying is.

…does not address what you said. My mistake.

Anyway, the reason it’s a lie is that you’re speaking a falsehood with the intent to deceive IN ORDER to save a life. Your intention is still to deceive, because deception accomplishes your goal.

 

[Debora123]

What does “Disagree with the notion” mean, exactly?

It means I disagree that it would be sinful in any way shape or form.