If push comes to shove I choose conscience over Church teaching

[Curious11]

Also, some people have argued that “staying silent” is a viable alternative, which many times is not the case.

A silent response to “do I look fat in this dress?” is pretty self-explanatory.

 

[Randolph]

A self-professed “most humble” person—placing his/her conscience above the will of Christ and the teachings of the Church… Can you really comprehend the flaws of your own words?

My friend, goodcatholic. Don’t fool yourself… Your own pride has indeed taken over you, and has blinded you from the will and the love of Christ… You should be reminded that Satan placed his own conscience above God’s will when he fell and separated himself from God. Satan went on to rule the kingdom of Hell.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That is surprising.

I couldn’t find the exact quotation I was looking for, but in his introduction to the Catechism, he says, “The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess.” Since there was a dispute about the passage in the Catechism on lying, and since there is no clear and unambiguous history of the Church teaching precisely what the Catechism now reads, I believe we should conclude that lying in extreme circumstances is not unequivocally forbidden by Catholic teaching.

Citation: Ratzinger on the Catechism – Jimmy Akin

 

[anon10271182]

And who decides from whom this food is to be taken?
What if the person from whom the food is taken is down to their own last bit of food, and has hungry children of their own?
And tomorrow, when the children of the first woman are hungry again, she will have to find someone else to ‘redistribute’ food from, yes? And if at some point she commits breaking and entering, property damage, etc. to get at someone else’s food, is that okay? What if the person whose home or business is broken into can’t afford repairs and therefore ingress is allowed to other, less needy ‘redistributors?’
If the mother does forcibly enter someone’s home and is shot by a terrified occupant, what then? What happens to the hungry children then?

As has already been observed in previous posts here, in the most likely real world scenario the person from whom the food is “redistributed” is most likely to be someone who will suffer, in turn, as a result of the redistribution.

I agree that in an ideal world, mothers should not have starving children. However, the kind of simplistic answer Fr. Bob Levis presents fails to take numerous other conditions and potential consequences into account. And–every action has consequences.

 

[guanophore]

It s funny too. Once you hint that not all truths are objective, you get pigeon-holed as some radical liberal or relativist who wants to bend genders for example.

I was recently told I am an atheist trying to get people to leave the Church, so I think you are right. Although Catholicism has room for many perspectives, some Catholics do not.

If I give some off the cuff examples here, I’m likely to be devoured by some of the PC police who need to slap my wrist for anything remotely individualistic.

I am primarily interested in the forgiveness topic.

If you’re not looking for discussion or feedback, I suggest that you start a blog.

You seem to agree that the likely feedback will necessarily be done by PC police who are invested in slapping the wrist of “anything remotely individualistic”.

Frankly I am amazed at the lack of support given to the OP here.

I’m glad you brought up the ego point. This is something I must continually be wary of and question myself. I will make mistakes and yes a decision I make will come from ego sometimes instead of from the spirit within. I do sin.
Of course I respect the Church. But do I have to obey every rule to the letter of the law every time? I don’t think so.

Clearly, when it comes to moral decisions, the “letter” has nuances and gray areas where situational ethics are required.

Hi @guanophore ,just wondering what your definition
of a fundamentalist is in reference to posters here ?

Ron gave a better definition that I could.

I get a bit tired of defending my approach here. I have responded to questions but many of them are shallow, dismissive and dogmatic. Many of you don’t like to be challenged. “Closed case. Obey the Church” How can anyone discuss anything when dealing with such an attitude?

It is not really a discussion, it is just telling the poster what must be done. In fact the thread quickly swelled to 310 posts (as of this writing) and after having read all of them, I am still unclear about what is really on the OP’s mind in starting the thread. I can make some guesses based on recent post history, but for a thread to have this many posts and the OP concern still not be addressed seems baffling.

 

[guanophore]

For example I seriously doubt whether some actually events took place in the Book of Exodus. The magic in the plagues for example. There’s a lot of metaphor in the Bible. Like the Book of Jonah is a fascinating one.

You might really enjoy this YouTube about the science of the 10 plagues.

There is provision for that within Catholic teaching. It wouldn’t necessarily be considered a lie. And there is also a principle of whether or not someone has the right to certain information. Conscience in this case provides the obvious answer and it is backed up by the Church.

I think such nuances are what the OP is making inquiry regarding. Not everything is as black and white as some people would like it to be.

What does this mean, for example? What would an “intention” that would be “good” that one might intend by withholding forgiveness?

 

[anon10271182]

Here is another quote by Fr. Levin. Does it contradict the quote you posted? Why or why not?
http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=531365&Pg=&Pgnu=&recnu=3

 

[Greenfields]

It is kind of difficult to have a proper discussion when a thread starts out as a firm statement,unwilling to understand and listen to other thoughts,to even learn .I’ts like an invitation to argue unfortunately.Kind of closed ears.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Satan is the father of lies. Why would you want to play in THAT sandbox?

Let me see, Satan also had so much pride and love of himself that he rebelled against God.

Putting one’s own feelings, opinions above God does not have a great rack record.

 

[TheLittleLady]

And my “lie” wouldn’t be sinful in the least.

Your lie is always sinful.

Your culpability for that lie may be lessened if the conditions for mortal sin are not met.

 

[TheLittleLady]

That old trope.

The cartoon “little wifey who cannot handle the truth” rarely exists. When she does, she has some sort of emotional or mental disorder.

When I ask someone for their opinion, I want honesty. My husband is honest with me and thank GOD for that! 99% of the time when we ask “does this look good on me?” we know it looks bad and just need confirmation because we really WANTED to wear it.

 

[lilypadrees]

You would have to ask goodcatholic that since he would be the one having the ulterior motive.

Me, I don’t believe people have to be spared the truth. But one doesn’t have to lie either. If you know the truth is going to hurt someone, then you find a way to express that truth in a less offensive way. If there is no other way to express it, it is best to refrain from speaking at all. That way, you don’t have to worry about hurting others with your words and you spare the person’s feelings without committing any sins.

 

[lilypadrees]

Excellent post, TLL.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Thank you.

 

[ShowersofRoses]

And my “lie” wouldn’t be sinful in the least.

I think the clarifications about lying that were brought up earlier really apply here.

“To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth.”

There is provision for that within Catholic teaching. It wouldn’t necessarily be considered a lie. And there is also a principle of whether or not someone has the right to certain information.

A person who wants to hurt my son or your brother or sister, in my opinion, is not “due” the truth. He is not owed the truth. So I don’t see it as the same as telling a lie.

Saying nothing isn’t lying. Not revealing everything isn’t lying. Not being explicit isn’t lying.

I appreciate the posters who brought up the fact that people who intend harm are not “owed” the truth. If the Nazis at my door are demanding to know if I’ve hidden any Jews in the house and where they’re located, then I do not believe I am lying if I withhold that truth from them. I can mislead them by saying “Why would I hide any Jews? I know the law!” I can also refrain from telling them the truth, because they are not due the truth from me since they intend harm.

Same as the example that Kathleen brought up earlier, and which has even more relevance to today’s society:

I live with the daily knowledge that schools are targets. You had better believe if a gunman approached me and asked where kids were I would lie through my teeth.

In this situation, a gunman is not “owed” the truth…he intends harm. Kathleen and any teacher would be right to “deceive” the gunman by misleading him or refusing to answer. Can anyone tell me that, in this situation in school, that the gunman is owed the truth? Of course not. We would expect the teacher to protect the kids to the best of his/her ability.

Since lying has been defined as needing to fulfill two conditions: 1. Saying something false and 2. Intending to deceive someone who is owed the truth, I think we can safely say that not explicitly telling the truth in these types of situations is justified and not sinful.

And neither is it a “sin of omission” to not tell the gunman or the Nazis where the children are. And I don’t think the “deceit” in either of those situations would make me or the teachers culpable. If it does, then I think God can see the bigger issue at stake here.

 

[stpurl]

9 times out of 10 (at least) the person who is oh-so tender of the ‘feelings’ of the other person is just stoking his or her own ego. “See how thoughtful I am, I would lie or commit other sins for ‘my loved ones’, how much better I am than the rigid rules-followers who only care about things instead of people”. Yep, pride is definitely at the root of such. And while they project their own feelings of anger and need for justification onto the ‘rigid ones’, simply by the fact that they get so emotional and argumentative they are crying out, deep down, for somebody to hold them to the rules. They are so stubborn because, deep down, they know that the Church and her rules are true and correct, and that obedience to God is the only corrective for the diabolical pride of ‘individualism’ that is endemic in humans especially today.

 

[ShowersofRoses]

continued…

I also appreciate the examples brought up about undercover cops or spies. This is another good point to illustrate that lies are not, in every conceivable situation, always sinful. It depends on context and intent. I certainly would not condemn cops who are undercover to bust a sex-trafficking ring or a gang of pedophiles on the internet. They’re using deceit in an intentional way to bring about justice. Same with spies who are trying to root out terrorists or gain valuable intelligence. I certainly don’t condemn Joshua and Caleb in Jericho.

I really appreciate the fact that the Catholic Church lives in the real world. Yes, honesty and truth are so extremely important…no one denies this. But there is provision in the Catechism for the types of real world situations mentioned above that allow for refraining or “bending” of the truth in order to serve a higher cause of justice. And by saying that, it does not at all imply that it means that then “anything goes” and we can justify lying in all situations. Of course it doesn’t.

 

[stpurl]

But I’m pretty sure that the Church still condemns lying. In any of the very few and specific examples that it gives, it doesn’t say, "the means of lying justifies the ends of protection’ for example, or that 'it’s not really lying to ‘bend truth’ to those who shouldn’t be demanding it, but rather as another poster I believe put it that while lying is objectively wrong (IOW, the Church condemns lying), the CULPABILITY for the objective wrong (lying) can be reduced to even nothing provided that certain conditions are met. For example, if a person intends harm, we ‘can’ lie, and that lie is still objectively wrong in itself; however the fact that the person demanding is doing to to harm means that he is not ‘entitled’ to a correct response, and the ‘protection’ of innocents mitigates the culpability of the one who ‘bends’, ‘misdirects’, or outright lies.

Church is still right, lying is still wrong, but in certain circumstances anything other than complete and outright ‘whole truth’ may be given with reduced or mitigated culpability.

 

[ShowersofRoses]

Yes, I can agree with what you’ve said here, good points. I just wanted to disagree with those who made it sound like lying to protect others in these situations was always wrong and made the person culpable of grave sin. Some people made it sound like “lying” or not explicitly giving all of the truth, was always the wrong thing to do, even when the intent is to protect others or bring about justice. Thanks for some added clarification.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Lying is intrinsically evil. Can never be good.

The nature of a lie

Much time and energy has been wasted in the recent debate about lying – since some have simply refused to accept the definition of a lie a...

newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com

Library : List of Catechism Changes | Catholic Culture

2483. The second sentence of this paragraph presently reads:

"To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth."

This sentence will be modified to read:

"To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error."