Is is considered euthanasia if the person is dying?

[Brendan_64]

If I can save a life by lying I lie. And if that is wrong, so be it.

CCC 2483 To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.

If I was hiding some Jews in my house in Nazi-occupied Europe and the SS knocked on my door asking if there were any Jews in my house, would I be morally obliged to tell the truth?

Lying is not simply speaking against the truth, it is doing so in order to lead someone into error. Is it leading someone into error by preventing them from murdering someone? Of course not. Would my telling the SS that there were no Jews in my house (when there was) be a lie? No, it wouldn’t be a lie. It would be an untruth, but it wouldn’t be a lie.

There are instances when speaking or acting against the truth is not considered by the Church to be lying. Lies must be in order to lead someone into error.

 

[Lasting_faith]

CCC 2483 To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.

If I was hiding some Jews in my house in Nazi-occupied Europe and the SS knocked on my door asking if there were any Jews in my house, would I be morally obliged to tell the truth?

Lying is not simply speaking against the truth, it is doing so in order to lead someone into error. Is it leading someone into error by preventing them from murdering someone? Of course not. Would my telling the SS that there were no Jews in my house (when there was) be a lie? No, it wouldn’t be a lie. It would be an untruth, but it wouldn’t be a lie.

There are instances when speaking or acting against the truth is not considered by the Church to be lying. Lies must be in order to lead someone into error.

Exactly what I did try to explain, but I reckon we must live in a world where people see all only black and white. Kind of strange?
PS: I hope my remark did not offend anyone. Truth sometimes do so.

 

[devoutchristian]

CCC 2483 To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.

If I was hiding some Jews in my house in Nazi-occupied Europe and the SS knocked on my door asking if there were any Jews in my house, would I be morally obliged to tell the truth?

Lying is not simply speaking against the truth, it is doing so in order to lead someone into error. Is it leading someone into error by preventing them from murdering someone? Of course not. Would my telling the SS that there were no Jews in my house (when there was) be a lie? No, it wouldn’t be a lie. It would be an untruth, but it wouldn’t be a lie.

There are instances when speaking or acting against the truth is not considered by the Church to be lying. Lies must be in order to lead someone into error.

That’s a rediculous interpretation of the word error. Error means something that is false, it refers to knowledge, not actions. You also made a strawman of the Catholic position, since one would be obligated to deceive the Nazi, but direct lying would not be permissible.

 

[hannajomar]

From the Catechism:

(I added the bold emphasis)

This sounds like your situation exactly. According to this, the morphine treatment which your parents allowed was morally acceptable.

By the way, this is from the section on euthanasia, 2276-2279.

This is the answer to your question.

 

[Brendan_64]

That’s a rediculous interpretation of the word error. Error means something that is false, it refers to knowledge, not actions. You also made a strawman of the Catholic position, since one would be obligated to deceive the Nazi, but direct lying would not be permissible.

It is not a ridiculous interpretation. An is the state of being wrong in judgement or conduct. If a football player makes an error during a game, what else is it other than a wrong action? I suggest that you check a dictionary before telling others that their definitions are wrong.

As for having to speak the truth to the SS regardless of the fact that it would lead to the death of innocents, how would you propose someone did that? Just stay silent if asked or say, “I don’t see any Jews here, do you?”. It is simply not feasible to behave like that and expect to be able to say “Oh, OK then, there must be no Jews here, let’s move on”. Evil people are not necessarily lacking in intelligence, so as to be fooled so easily.

If telling the truth will directly result in someone committing a grave sin, and you are fully aware of this, then you are complicit in that sin. You would in effect be sacrificing the lives of others in order to avoid committing what you perceive to be a venial sin. Failing to tell the truth in such circumstances is not lying, and in fact to tell the truth in such circumstances would be to neglect one’s Christian duty to protect the weak, the innocent, and the vulnerable. To speak the truth in these circumstances would be an act of cowardice.

It’s a good job that Oskar Schindler didn’t always speak the truth on the times when he was arrested and questioned over his activities. Its a good job he didn’t tell the truth when he fabricated ‘exemptions’ to prevent Jews being sent to concentration camps. I would suspect that our Lord will have looked upon Schindler’s activities with favour and I doubt he would condemn Schindler for telling untruths to save the lives of innocent Jews (including children and disabled Jews).

 

[devoutchristian]

It is not a ridiculous interpretation. An is the state of being wrong in judgement or conduct. If a football player makes an error during a game, what else is it other than a wrong action? I suggest that you check a dictionary before telling others that their definitions are wrong.

As for having to speak the truth to the SS regardless of the fact that it would lead to the death of innocents, how would you propose someone did that? Just stay silent if asked or say, “I don’t see any Jews here, do you?”. It is simply not feasible to behave like that and expect to be able to say “Oh, OK then, there must be no Jews here, let’s move on”. Evil people are not necessarily lacking in intelligence, so as to be fooled so easily.

If telling the truth will directly result in someone committing a grave sin, and you are fully aware of this, then you are complicit in that sin. You would in effect be sacrificing the lives of others in order to avoid committing what you perceive to be a venial sin. Failing to tell the truth in such circumstances is not lying, and in fact to tell the truth in such circumstances would be to neglect one’s Christian duty to protect the weak, the innocent, and the vulnerable. To speak the truth in these circumstances would be an act of cowardice.

It’s a good job that Oskar Schindler didn’t always speak the truth on the times when he was arrested and questioned over his activities. Its a good job he didn’t tell the truth when he fabricated ‘exemptions’ to prevent Jews being sent to concentration camps. I would suspect that our Lord will have looked upon Schindler’s activities with favour and I doubt he would condemn Schindler for telling untruths to save the lives of innocent Jews (including children and disabled Jews).

Please quit with the strawman of the Catholic position. One could always say something like “there are no Jews here” or “I haven’t seen Mr. Emmanuel” since the term “here” can have multiple meanings and the term “have” can be interpreted as referring to the phrase “not seen Mr. Emmanuel” as a whole.

 

[Brendan_64]

Please quit with the strawman of the Catholic position. One could always say something like “there are no Jews here” or “I haven’t seen Mr. Emmanuel” since the term “here” can have multiple meanings and the term “have” can be interpreted as referring to the phrase “not seen Mr. Emmanuel” as a whole.

I don’t think whether an action is right or wrong boils down to games of semantics. It boils down to intent. Whether or not when asked the question, “Are there any Jews in this house?” you answered as you have suggested, or simply answered, “No” makes no difference. The intent is still the same. Sin is about intent, not about clever use of language.

And the definition of error does not simply mean knowledge. An error can also include wrong judgement or wrong actions.

To lead someone into error also applies to leading someone into wrong action. In this case it would not be wrong to tell something that was not truthful, as to tell the truth would lead someone to commit murder, which is indeed a very grave error.

I think that the original Catechism used to say something like, “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”. Presumably the last phrase was dropped because it was viewed that the preceding part of the sentence actually already covered this and phrase “who has the right to know the truth” could be misinterpreted and abused.

 

[devoutchristian]

I don’t think whether an action is right or wrong boils down to games of semantics. It boils down to intent. Whether or not when asked the question, “Are there any Jews in this house?” you answered as you have suggested, or simply answered, “No” makes no difference. The intent is still the same. Sin is about intent, not about clever use of language.

And the definition of error does not simply mean knowledge. An error can also include wrong judgement or wrong actions.

To lead someone into error also applies to leading someone into wrong action. In this case it would not be wrong to tell something that was not truthful, as to tell the truth would lead someone to commit murder, which is indeed a very grave error.

I think that the original Catechism used to say something like, “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”. Presumably the last phrase was dropped because it was viewed that the preceding part of the sentence actually already covered this and phrase “who has the right to know the truth” could be misinterpreted and abused.

Catholics are not utilitarians. We don’t believe that morality is just a matter of intent. One’s means must not be evil.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

Please return to the topic of the thread. A new thread may be started in the Moral Theology forum if posters wish to further discuss the morality of lying. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[Lasting_faith]

If something is forbidden and a sin, no, we should not do it even if we have good intentions. But it is not forbidden to provide pain meds to someone who is in pain, even if it hastens his death as a secondary effect. That is not a sin, as long as the intention is to relieve pain.

A life is a life, created and given by God and I do all I can to save a life no matter whos life it is and even if it maybe the life of a animal, and if I need to sin doing so I sin. As long as my intention is good I can live with that.

 

[devoutchristian]

A life is a life, created and given by God and I do all I can to save a life no matter whos life it is and even if it maybe the life of a animal, and if I need to sin doing so I sin. As long as my intention is good I can live with that.

Catholics are not utilitarians. We don’t believe that morality is just a matter of intent. One’s means must not be evil.

 

[Brendan_64]

A life is a life, created and given by God and I do all I can to save a life no matter whos life it is and even if it maybe the life of a animal, and if I need to sin doing so I sin. As long as my intention is good I can live with that.

Palliative care is not about saving a life, it is about ensuring that a terminally ill patient can live out the last chapter in their life free from physical agony. A common effect of the drugs administered is also to hasten a person’s death.

Palliative care is permitted, and actually encouraged by the Church, despite the fcat that it often hastens a person’s death.

CCC 2279 - Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity** if death is not willed as either an end or a means**, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.

Clearly** intent does matter** here, as it is the intention of the action of administering drugs such as diamorphine that determines whether the person administering the drugs has committed a sin, or whether they have committed an act of mercy encouraged by the Church. If the intention is to hasten death of a terminally ill patient, then it is a grave sin. If the intention is to relieve the pain of a terminally ill patient, then it is an act of mercy encouraged by the Church.

Clearly, at least in this case, the intent of an action determines whether or not that action is sinful.

 

[maryjk]

A life is a life, created and given by God and I do all I can to save a life no matter whos life it is and even if it maybe the life of a animal, and if I need to sin doing so I sin. As long as my intention is good I can live with that.

There is a difference between saving a life and extending life.