M
Mtdobbs
Guest
I’m not disagreeing.
If push comes to shove I choose conscience over Church teaching
- Status
J
jcrichton
Guest
Here’s the thing; if I lie; it’s a lie even if I save someone’s life.
If I kill; it is a killing even if I save someone’s life.
The moment that I equate lie or killing to protect as not a sin I am passing Judgment over God’s Commandments.
Maran atha!
Angel
If I kill; it is a killing even if I save someone’s life.
The moment that I equate lie or killing to protect as not a sin I am passing Judgment over God’s Commandments.
Maran atha!
Angel
U
una_ecclesia
Guest
Aquinas distinguishes between theft and stealing. theft is always wrong, but stealing is not.
Read question 66 article 7 of the summa in particular.
Also, to address Rosarypoet, if you do steal something, it must be from the surplus of another, rather than being from a good that the other needs. I was unclear on this but the issue about Venezuela gave me some pause when it came to stealing from someone poor (turns out my conscience was right, lol, but the reasoning wasn’t explicit)
Read question 66 article 7 of the summa in particular.
Also, to address Rosarypoet, if you do steal something, it must be from the surplus of another, rather than being from a good that the other needs. I was unclear on this but the issue about Venezuela gave me some pause when it came to stealing from someone poor (turns out my conscience was right, lol, but the reasoning wasn’t explicit)
M
Mtdobbs
Guest
Even G.K. Chesterton famously said, “Every sane man knows he would tell a lie to save a child from Chinese torturers.”
A
anon10271182
Guest
It does tug at my heart, to serve in such a manner. I mentioned it to family, but they reminded me that I’m getting on in years…
A
anon10271182
Guest
Wrote a poem once, on a certain, very famous photograph from Venezuela. After numerous rejections, someone finally published it.
I’ve been to Ecuador. Lovely people there, salt of the Earth.
I’ve been to Ecuador. Lovely people there, salt of the Earth.
G
guanophore
Guest
Is not a lie a deliberate attempt to deceive another? Is this not a lie of omission?
I agree, but how does one determine when it becomes a sin of omission?
And this is construed as honesty? How are these things not a deliberate attempt to deceive?
I have been at CAF a long time, and I cannot remember when a thread garnered this many posts this fast!
@goodcatholic obviously dropped a match into a gas tank or something!
I will be disappointed. Is that vanity?
That depends. ARe they already dead? Is there no other food available within a days walk?
ARe they people you know, and you are sure they would not mind if you ate their food? What @goodcatholic is trying to show is that there are “what if’s” and gray areas in moral theology.
Help me understand this. What might the implications be of forgiving someone who has wronged you, or a loved one?
J
jcrichton
Guest
No. I was stating that one can omit the truth in order to prevent others to hurt people; yet, lying is lying. Omission of the truth is not a lie. The only harm would be if the truth is omitted to cause harm to someone; yet, it would still not be a lie.
So in the extreme case of the Jews omission of the truth would help save lives (no sin); while telling a lie to save lives is a sin even when lives are saved.
I made an omission on my telling of the bus incident; as I was about to reach the thug there was a second person behind me ready to assist me–we did not know each other but instinct took over and we sought to right a wrong.
Did I lie about the episode on the bus? No. Did my omission hinder anyone? No.
I thanked God that the issue was resolved without the violence that I fear would ensue.
No lies were committed during the incident or after the telling/retelling of it!
Maran atha!
Angel
So in the extreme case of the Jews omission of the truth would help save lives (no sin); while telling a lie to save lives is a sin even when lives are saved.
I made an omission on my telling of the bus incident; as I was about to reach the thug there was a second person behind me ready to assist me–we did not know each other but instinct took over and we sought to right a wrong.
Did I lie about the episode on the bus? No. Did my omission hinder anyone? No.
I thanked God that the issue was resolved without the violence that I fear would ensue.
No lies were committed during the incident or after the telling/retelling of it!
Maran atha!
Angel
G
goodcatholic
Guest
I wonder if someone has ever broken into someone’s house and only stolen some food in the fridge.
It would be an unusual story.
It would be an unusual story.
G
guanophore
Guest
Well, @goodcatholic, you have uncovered quite a nesting site of fundamentalists. Most of the posts in this thread did not address your OP. Why didn’t you post it in moral theology or catholic living?
J
jcrichton
Guest
But they both mean the same.
Habitual stealing/theft as a one time thing means the same: taking possession of goods/property that belongs to another person.
How is theft different from stealing, could you post the quote where stealing vs. theft (not wrong vs. wrong)?
Maran atha!
Angel
M
Mtdobbs
Guest
I think by our answers, we are answering the OP. Some of us think “When push comes to shove” that the conscience should be followed. Others think conscience can never be opposed to Church teaching.
Using very difficult scenarios that even theologians cant agree on haha
Using very difficult scenarios that even theologians cant agree on haha
Last edited:
J
jcrichton
Guest
U
una_ecclesia
Guest
Deceit is not the same as lying. I’ll actually agree with jcrichton on this one. Lying is never a sin of omission, since it is comprised specifically of two things: 1) saying something false combined with 2) the intent to deceive.
Sometimes you can say something false but not deceive (for example, if you’re acting or joking). Sometimes you can deceive but still say something true, or at least not say anything false. The mentality of the latter is dependent pin circumstances.
M
Mtdobbs
Guest
Again, I’m aware lol I’m not trying to argue that it isn’t a sin lol
J
jcrichton
Guest
Yet, he starts the argument with him as the agent that determines what is moral theology (my conscience vs. Church’s Teaching: my conscience wins).
That is the argument that I’m fighting against. When we make the determination that there are circumstances which diminish our culpability and we throw in “freedom of conscience” as the determining factor, are we not making ourselves into God (God is the Judge which we replace when we say “it’s not sin”)?
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
You’ve hit it on the head…
Say I got into your house–'cause I’ve gone without food for days… I eat whatever I can find… then I use the bathroom… and while collecting my thoughts to ‘what’s next?’ happen to glance at some of the things round the place (jewelry, expensive anything, even a huge jar filled with coins/money)… if I justify taking the food out of necessity, could/would I not justify taking anything/everything else? (you know, that slippery slope thing)
Maran atha!
Angel
Say I got into your house–'cause I’ve gone without food for days… I eat whatever I can find… then I use the bathroom… and while collecting my thoughts to ‘what’s next?’ happen to glance at some of the things round the place (jewelry, expensive anything, even a huge jar filled with coins/money)… if I justify taking the food out of necessity, could/would I not justify taking anything/everything else? (you know, that slippery slope thing)
Maran atha!
Angel
U
una_ecclesia
Guest
Sure. Q66 article 3 gives the definition of theft:
"Three things combine together to constitute theft. The first belongs to theft as being contrary to justice, which gives to each one that which is his, so that it belongs to theft to take possession of what is another’s. The second thing belongs to theft as distinct from those sins which are committed against the person, such as murder and adultery, and in this respect it belongs to theft to be about a thing possessed: for if a man takes what is another’s not as a possession but as a part (for instance, if he amputates a limb), or as a person connected with him (for instance, if he carry off his daughter or his wife), it is not strictly speaking a case of theft. The third difference is that which completes the nature of theft, and consists in a thing being taken secretly: and in this respect it belongs properly to theft that it consists in “taking another’s thing secretly.”
Theft consists of 1) taking something that properly belongs to another 2) that it involves taking a thing (rather than a person), and 3) that it is done in secret (as opposed to robbery, which he defined as a forceful type of stealing.
In Q7 (titled “Whether it is lawful to steal through stress of need”), he then states:
"Things which are of human right cannot derogate from natural right or Divine right. Now according to the natural order established by Divine Providence, inferior things are ordained for the purpose of succoring man’s needs by their means. Wherefore the division and appropriation of things which are based on human law, do not preclude the fact that man’s needs have to be remedied by means of these very things. Hence whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor. For this reason Ambrose [Loc. cit., Article 2, Objection 3] says, and his words are embodied in the Decretals (Dist. xlvii, can. Sicut ii): “It is the hungry man’s bread that you withhold, the naked man’s cloak that you store away, the money that you bury in the earth is the price of the poor man’s ransom and freedom.”
Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all to be succored by means of the same thing, each one is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things, so that out of them he may come to the aid of those who are in need. Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another’s property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery."
"Three things combine together to constitute theft. The first belongs to theft as being contrary to justice, which gives to each one that which is his, so that it belongs to theft to take possession of what is another’s. The second thing belongs to theft as distinct from those sins which are committed against the person, such as murder and adultery, and in this respect it belongs to theft to be about a thing possessed: for if a man takes what is another’s not as a possession but as a part (for instance, if he amputates a limb), or as a person connected with him (for instance, if he carry off his daughter or his wife), it is not strictly speaking a case of theft. The third difference is that which completes the nature of theft, and consists in a thing being taken secretly: and in this respect it belongs properly to theft that it consists in “taking another’s thing secretly.”
Theft consists of 1) taking something that properly belongs to another 2) that it involves taking a thing (rather than a person), and 3) that it is done in secret (as opposed to robbery, which he defined as a forceful type of stealing.
In Q7 (titled “Whether it is lawful to steal through stress of need”), he then states:
"Things which are of human right cannot derogate from natural right or Divine right. Now according to the natural order established by Divine Providence, inferior things are ordained for the purpose of succoring man’s needs by their means. Wherefore the division and appropriation of things which are based on human law, do not preclude the fact that man’s needs have to be remedied by means of these very things. Hence whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor. For this reason Ambrose [Loc. cit., Article 2, Objection 3] says, and his words are embodied in the Decretals (Dist. xlvii, can. Sicut ii): “It is the hungry man’s bread that you withhold, the naked man’s cloak that you store away, the money that you bury in the earth is the price of the poor man’s ransom and freedom.”
Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all to be succored by means of the same thing, each one is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things, so that out of them he may come to the aid of those who are in need. Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another’s property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery."
U
una_ecclesia
Guest
The distinction being made is due to the fact that our ownership is not absolute. We have the right to what we need, but our surplus then carries with it an obligation towards the poor. Hence our ownership over surplus does not carry the same absolute levels of ownership on our part as our necessities. As I understand it, the main difference between “theft” and “stealing” has to do with part 1) of the three components of theft. This is adduced from his reply later on to objection 2: “It is not theft, properly speaking, to take secretly and use another’s property in a case of extreme need: because that which he takes for the support of his life becomes his own property by reason of that need.”
(Of course, these are Aquinas’ definitions. language is a slimy thing… in every day language we might use theft and stealing synonymously, but if you want to be philosophically precise, you will have to use distinct terms to distinguish certain kinds of acts from each other)
(Of course, these are Aquinas’ definitions. language is a slimy thing… in every day language we might use theft and stealing synonymously, but if you want to be philosophically precise, you will have to use distinct terms to distinguish certain kinds of acts from each other)
Last edited:
po18guy
Well-known member
Ponder the fact that the Church is indefectible. Christ’s promise. The Church is Christ’s mystical Body. In all conflicts involving faith and morals, we are safer to assume that we simply misunderstand doctrine, or are allowing our egos to influence us. The Church has been tested time and again over 2,000 years. It is the oldest organization on earth. We cannot err if we willingly assent to the deposit of faith, the content of which has been added to as understanding improves, but never changed.
Impossible.
Impossible.
- Status