Is a lie a mortal or venial sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Calypso_123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
They’d be asking for information they have no right to, so you can avoid giving an answer.

No, there are no Jews in here, the area of the doorway.

He didn’t ask about the attic

Jim
 
The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

[2485]; By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

Begin at 2475 and read the entire article in the Catechism
 
PatK63 said:
What moral theologian teaches this?
Click to expand...
Very few. For the most part it is an idea circulated among zealous laity, often from the same groups who have scruples about kids believing in Santa.
 
Last edited:
You are right. The soldier has no legitimate right to know. It is not a lie. It is not a sin.
 
Taking what you said at face value I cannot believe some people are actually advising you on this thread that it could possibly be a mortal sin (grave matter)

No, it sound like a venial sin. Saying you are sick when you are not to avoid going out with a man is not grave matter. How could it become grave matter? I don’t see how. You do not have to go out with people you do not want to go out with. That does not mean it is okay to lie venially without restraint either.

Just save yourself some peace of mind and next time just tell a man “No” when you do not want to go out with him. You do not have to be mean about it, just politely decline. A real man should be able to take rejection fairly well. It happens and we all have been rejected before.
 
Because TK and others brought up the same point about “right to know” which was actually the past theological view on lying afaik. The classic example is Nazis. If you’re tired of hearing about Nazis, I can use the English Reformation with people hiding priests in the priest holes and then the soldiers come to arrest the priests. “No priests here!”
 
Calypso_123 said:
I lied and said I was sick
Click to expand...
  1. content of lie was not serious
  2. the person to whom you lied - gentleman asking you out, so no-one in authority above you ie parents, employer, police officer, judge in a court etc.
  3. venial
  4. Mortal if the person to whom you lied was in a position of authority above you and had the right to a truthful answer e.g. swearing on a bible therefore under oath and in a court of law.
CCC #2488-2489

" IV. RESPECT FOR THE TRUTH

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."

Perhaps you could say something next time along the lines of “Thank you for your invitation, but I’d rather not or I’m not available, sorry” etc.
 
Last edited:
CRV said:
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."
Click to expand...
This pretty much covers it as well as hiding Jews from Nazis or priests in a priest hole.
 
It doesn’t outright say it’s okay to lie though.

Being silent isn’t lying.
“Discreet language” is pretty unclear.
I don’t really like how the Catechism deals with this issue currently but I don’t lay awake worrying about it.
 
The bolded part is from CRVs post above. The answer lies in the last sentence.

No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it
 
Yes, but silence or discreet language do not suggest telling an active untruth.

If you read the footnotes to parts of the OT in the NABRE, you get the same sort of veiled negative statement about the actions of people like Joshua and Judith who engaged in telling falsehoods while at war on behalf of the Jewish people, that their actions need to be understood in the context of the time and comparing to Jacob getting his father’s blessing by trickery. ( Yes I know the NABRE footnotes are disliked and were probably written by people who feel negatively about all the warlike parts of the OT anyway.)

The Church is simply a bit murky on this issue of telling a lie - not just being silent or cleverly evading or doubletalking, but lying - to save a life. That’s just how it is and we will probably be having these discussions continuously.
 
Last edited:
To lie or not to lie misses the point. To love.

We need to be honest with ourselves & call a lie a lie. It harms our relationship with Christ. We must ask for forgiveness.

Even if our conscience tells us we must lie. That we are doing it for love.
 
Last edited:
In case you missed, that teaching was removed from the Catechism more than a decade ago. You may find an updated copy on the Vatican website or through any bookseller.

  1. 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."
  1. This paragraph will be changed to simply read:
"Lying consists in saying what is false with the intention of deceiving one’s neighbor."
 
Ad hom attacks are contrary to the forum rules.

I ask you to remove it in lieu of flagging your post.
 
Little Lady,
I commend your efforts. The church does not change moral teaching. New wording is meant to amplify the teaching. The new words seem to change the focus to intent.

The case we are discussing is a man ask a lady out who made her feel uncomfortable. She said she was sick. It is not a lie. The man has no right to know and the lady intend was self protection. If you have a moral theologian who has a different view I will listen.
 
TK421 said:
If a person is going to fumble over their conscience for mismeading a Nazi, they shouldn’t be keeping enemies of the state in their house. They need to take them somewhere safe.
Click to expand...
Jewish father: ‘Are you sure we’ll be safe in the basement?’
Owner of the house: ‘Oh, absolutely. Well, unless some Nazi asks me if I’m hiding anyone of course’.
 
Yep! Do you think that is a sin? One never knows how the lord will speak to us. He spoke to the wise men through the stars. He spoke to many in dreams. I don’t do it often but I did this morning!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top