Is it a mortal sin to lie and deny God at gunpoint to save ones life?

[CWBetts]

Jeremah 31:
31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a **new covenant **with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, F23 says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. **For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” **

Jesus is our **new **covenant - he died for our sins so that we don’t have to.

So what you are saying is that this passage eliminates the necessity for obedience? What kind of messed up theology is that?

 

[bilop]

So what you are saying is that this passage eliminates the necessity for obedience? What kind of messed up theology is that?

Sounds like OSAS, or some sort of universal salvation heresy.

God Bless

 

[Roman_Army]

I know this is a hypothetical situation and will never occur…but the question is still interesting to think about.

What if while you are home with your spouse and kids, and someone breaks down your door and puts a gun to your head and tells you that he will shoot you unless you deny christ. What should one do at this point?

I know it is heroic and a form of martydom if one doesn’t lie…and instead witness to the faith at the expense of his/her life…
but the question is…is it a mortal sin to simply lie and give some lunatic “Lip Service” to so as to avoid getting shot in the head?

I know that NOT LYING to him would be witnessing to the truth…but is the crazy lunatic who barged into my house even worth proclaiming the truth at the expense of my life or the life of one of my family members? I don’t think so, however, I would like to know what the official catholic church teaching on this matter is.

The official teaching of the Church is that denying Christ even if done falsely is always an intrinsic evil. Which means that it can never be done under any circumstances. The end does not justify the means. The same would go with any other sin in which one is threatened to lose one’s life. This would include stealing, adultery, fornication, sodomy, abortion, murder, etc. The Church has canonized St. Maria Goretti also to guide men and women who are put in such a situation of rape in which the rapist asks them to give consent under threat of death or harm. It is always wrong to do these things under any circumstances. So, it would certainly be a mortal sin if done so with full knowledge and deliberate consent. I do not think Jesus or St. Peter would say that it was justified nor even venially sinful for St. Peter to deny Jesus.

Now, with that said, the Church also teaches that under such grave circumstances some people might not be in a good state of mind to be guilty of mortal sin. It can happen that a person is so tramatized, in a state of shock, emotional breakdown, extreme fear, or in some other psychological state that might diminish the person’s reasoning capacity to make the correct decision. So, in such a case it would be venially sinful. But, this is not always the case, it can happen that one is capable of reason in such a situation and decide to value one’s life over God. Christians are to be a living wittness to God to the world, their very lives are a proof of God’s existence, and therefore one must attempt to save people’s souls by proclaiming God at the point of death. The truth about God is not conditional to the spiritual or moral status of the person requesting it as would be the case with State secrets or an innocent person’s whereabouts. All creatures have an unconditional right to know God and his revelation for the salvation of their souls. Now, if you were to say “No, I do not believe in Christ,” do you have any guarantee that they will not kill you anyway? Not at all, since they might want you to deny Christ so that you may die and go to hell after they kill you. A person that breaks into your house with the intention of killing Christians has no scruples and would most likely sense your hypocrisy and intent on continuing to be Christian and kill you anyway.

 

[Roman_Army]

PS: Also, to deny Christ with the intention to repent later only adds more gravity to the mortal sin. Presuming the Lord’s mercy with the intention of committing a sin is also a sin in itself. It is called the sin of presumption.

 

[trayletha]

So what you are saying is that this passage eliminates the necessity for obedience? What kind of messed up theology is that?

No - obedience IS necessary, struggling everyday to live according to God will and not our own, but I also think that God holds our live to have value. In the original post, is was asked if denying God would be a mortal sin; and generally I think we can agree that it would not meet the criteria because of the presence of duress. I also believe that I have a covenant with God to raise the children He has gifted to me, and that to preserve their lives and my own - He would not damn me in a circumstance like we were discussing. Especially since He would know my heart. I truly don’t KNOW what I would do if something like “the gunman theory” happened to me; without my responsibility to my children, if I were single and childless…

I may be wrong and misguided, but isn’t that the reason we come here? To ask questions and discuss and learn? We should be able to discuss these things without being mean to each other.

 

[LilyM]

No - obedience IS necessary, struggling everyday to live according to God will and not our own, but I also think that God holds our live to have value. In the original post, is was asked if denying God would be a mortal sin; and generally I think we can agree that it would not meet the criteria because of the presence of duress. I also believe that I have a covenant with God to raise the children He has gifted to me, and that to preserve their lives and my own - He would not damn me in a circumstance like we were discussing. Especially since He would know my heart. I truly don’t KNOW what I would do if something like “the gunman theory” happened to me; without my responsibility to my children, if I were single and childless…

I may be wrong and misguided, but isn’t that the reason we come here? To ask questions and discuss and learn? We should be able to discuss these things without being mean to each other.

Of course our lives have value, but like all worldly goods their value is not utterly absolute and depends upon lots of factors - including the use to which we put them and the reasons for which we lay them down.

Above all, their value is determined by how God views life, which is why in some circumstances such as just war or self-defence it is OK to kill. Similarly, in some circumstances, such as defence of country it is OK to lay down one’s life as well.

Soldiers have children too, don’t forget. That doesn’t make their sacrifice of their lives in wartime wrong at all, on the contrary at times it is necessary and a duty to fight, with associated risk of death, in defence of one’s country when it is attacked. And that is regardless of whether one has children or not, after all the fight is also to preserve their futures.

So it is when one dies as a witness to the faith. In such a case it’s not their physical hides you’re giving your life for, but the much more precious commodity of their immortal souls, as you are teaching them by example the importance of living in God’s service (which paradoxically sometimes means dying in that service as Christ did).

 

[trayletha]

Soldiers have children too, don’t forget. That doesn’t make their sacrifice of their lives in wartime wrong at all, on the contrary at times it is necessary and a duty to fight, with associated risk of death, in defense of one’s country when it is attacked. And that is regardless of whether one has children or not, after all the fight is also to preserve their futures.

no I agree the sacrifice is not wrong, but the children end up sacrificing too.

God of all goodness,
Look with love on those who wait
for the safe return of their loved ones
who serve in the armed forces of their country.
In faith and hope, we turn to you for comfort.
Grant that we may trust in your mercy
and send an angel to sustain us as we await their safe return.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.

[Source: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops]

 

[BobCatholic]

But if one were to seek out martyrdom, it might be seen as testing God. Perhaps the sin of presumption.

It is presumption to seek out a white martrydom for the same reason then.

Thus since there’s only 2 ways to please God - white and red martrydom, I seek out the red.

 

[trayletha]

PS: Also, to deny Christ with the intention to repent later only adds more gravity to the mortal sin. Presuming the Lord’s mercy with the intention of committing a sin is also a sin in itself. It is called the sin of presumption.

I don’t think, in the situation we are discussing that I would be thinking so clearly as to be able to think I could repent later - I don’t even know if I would be sure I would need to repent, I wouldn’t mean it - even if I said it.

and I don’ t think I am *presuming *the Lord’s mercy, like “oh God will forgive me if I …”, but more like I KNOW that God is merciful. I don’t think that says what I am trying to say, but I can’t seem to “verbalize it” How about SAT test layout; God is Merciful as, actually that wouldn’t work either I can’t think of anything consistent enough (the sky is NOT always blue). God is Merciful as I am imperfect.

 

[LilyM]

no I agree the sacrifice is not wrong, but the children end up sacrificing too.

God of all goodness,
Look with love on those who wait
for the safe return of their loved ones
who serve in the armed forces of their country.
In faith and hope, we turn to you for comfort.
Grant that we may trust in your mercy
and send an angel to sustain us as we await their safe return.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.

[Source: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops]

Yep, and this prayer teaches them to do as we all must at some point - let our loved ones (and ourselves) be free do the right thing, even at the expense of our (or their) lives and our (temporary) suffering. And trust ourselves and those we love to God’s eternal and unfailing protection rather than try to rely entirely on our own wholly inadequate ability (and desire) to prolong their lives or prevent their deaths.

 

[trayletha]

Isn’t it kinda the whole point of verses like

‘For whosoever would save his life shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it.’ (Matt 16:25)?

And ‘What profit it a man if he gain the whole world and lose his soul?’ (Mark 8:36).

I’d like to hear how you understand those verses, if not that nothing is preferable to eternal life, which eternal life is gained primarily by striving to remain sinless, even at the cost of our physical lives.

I haven’t ignored your question - it kind of got swamped over, I am thinking and truly I don’t know.

One thing that keeps coming to my mind is - if God would prefer that we die rather than sin, then what is the point in marriage and children? Would it be better if no children were born, because they are much more likely to be a sinners then saints? We are all conceived in sin, so in the act of creating children we sin…is this too far off?

 

[jmcrae]

It would not be a sin to submit, but it would be heroic virtue to resist, even unto death.

There is a canonized Saint, St. Maria Goretti, who died defending her purity at the age of 12.

God Bless

There is also St. Agnes, who at the age of 13 preferred to die (which she did) rather than enter into a forced mixed marriage with a pagan man.

 

[jmcrae]

I haven’t ignored your question - it kind of got swamped over, I am thinking and truly I don’t know.

One thing that keeps coming to my mind is - if God would prefer that we die rather than sin, then what is the point in marriage and children? Would it be better if no children were born, because they are much more likely to be a sinners then saints? We are all conceived in sin, so in the act of creating children we sin…is this too far off?

No, the act of creating children (presuming it is within a valid marriage) is actually a very holy thing to do - it is certainly not a sin.

When we say that we are “conceived in sin” we are not referring to the marriage act, but rather, to the fact that we have all died in Adam, because of Adam’s sin. But when we baptize our children, shortly after they are born, we bring them into new life with Christ, and the opportunity to become Saints.

 

[Tosk]

It is presumption to seek out a white martrydom for the same reason then.

Thus since there’s only 2 ways to please God - white and red martrydom, I seek out the red.

If you’re still alive that means you’re not actively seeking red martyrdom because if you have a death wish and want to become a martyr it should be a really easy task to accomplish. A martyring vacation to North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Sudan is all you would need. Although I would think that actively seeking out martyrdom mocks God and all of the christian martyrs who have died for their faith. I can’t imagine having such a disdain for the gift of life as to just go and basically commit suicide.

 

[LilyM]

I haven’t ignored your question - it kind of got swamped over, I am thinking and truly I don’t know.

One thing that keeps coming to my mind is - if God would prefer that we die rather than sin, then what is the point in marriage and children? Would it be better if no children were born, because they are much more likely to be a sinners then saints? We are all conceived in sin, so in the act of creating children we sin…is this too far off?

No. God created us out of love, all the while knowing that the most part of us would turn our backs on Him.

There is nothing wrong with imitating Him in this loving and creative act - in fact He commands us (within the bounds of the sacrament of matrimony) to do so, to ‘be fruitful and multiply’.

 

[humanavitae]

The official teaching of the Church is that denying Christ even if done falsely is always an intrinsic evil. Which means that it can never be done under any circumstances. The end does not justify the means. The same would go with any other sin in which one is threatened to lose one’s life. This would include stealing, adultery, fornication, sodomy, abortion, murder, etc. The Church has canonized St. Maria Goretti also to guide men and women who are put in such a situation of rape in which the rapist asks them to give consent under threat of death or harm. It is always wrong to do these things under any circumstances. So, it would certainly be a mortal sin if done so with full knowledge and deliberate consent. I do not think Jesus or St. Peter would say that it was justified nor even venially sinful for St. Peter to deny Jesus.

Now, with that said, the Church also teaches that under such grave circumstances some people might not be in a good state of mind to be guilty of mortal sin. It can happen that a person is so tramatized, in a state of shock, emotional breakdown, extreme fear, or in some other psychological state that might diminish the person’s reasoning capacity to make the correct decision. So, in such a case it would be venially sinful. But, this is not always the case, it can happen that one is capable of reason in such a situation and decide to value one’s life over God. Christians are to be a living wittness to God to the world, their very lives are a proof of God’s existence, and therefore one must attempt to save people’s souls by proclaiming God at the point of death. The truth about God is not conditional to the spiritual or moral status of the person requesting it as would be the case with State secrets or an innocent person’s whereabouts. All creatures have an unconditional right to know God and his revelation for the salvation of their souls. Now, if you were to say “No, I do not believe in Christ,” do you have any guarantee that they will not kill you anyway? Not at all, since they might want you to deny Christ so that you may die and go to hell after they kill you. A person that breaks into your house with the intention of killing Christians has no scruples and would most likely sense your hypocrisy and intent on continuing to be Christian and kill you anyway.

You mentioned “according to official church teaching…”, can you please back this up? Specifically, in the context we are talking about, not some out of context verse. Also, Please realize that “to deny christ” is completely different than to “LIE to a gunmen and pretent to deny christ”. Also, please realize you can’t prove that something is a mortal sin by praising the opposite. For example,women who choose to save their lives rather than abort a fetus who is threatening his life, are not committing a mortal sin, even though the chruch has commended women who willingly sacrifice their lives for their fetus.

 

[CWBetts]

You mentioned “according to official church teaching…”, can you please back this up? Specifically, in the context we are talking about, not some out of context verse. Also, Please realize that “to deny christ” is completely different than to “LIE to a gunmen and pretent to deny christ”. Also, please realize you can’t prove that something is a mortal sin by praising the opposite. For example,women who choose to save their lives rather than abort a fetus who is threatening his life, are not committing a mortal sin, even though the chruch has commended women who willingly sacrifice their lives for their fetus.

Anyone who provides, procures, or in any way assists in abortion is automatically excommunicated, even in a case where the life of the mother is at stake

 

[BobCatholic]

I can’t imagine having such a disdain for the gift of life as to just go and basically commit suicide.

Are you claiming that martyrdom is suicide?

The Church doesn’t teach that.

I don’t have a disdain for the gift of life. I have to first have the gift. What I have is a life that is full of pain and suffering. If I’m going to suffer anyway, might as well be a red martyr since me being a white martyr doesn’t seem to be pleasing to the Lord.

 

[Roman_Army]

You mentioned “according to official church teaching…”, can you please back this up? Specifically, in the context we are talking about, not some out of context verse. Also, Please realize that “to deny christ” is completely different than to “LIE to a gunmen and pretent to deny christ”. Also, please realize you can’t prove that something is a mortal sin by praising the opposite. For example,women who choose to save their lives rather than abort a fetus who is threatening his life, are not committing a mortal sin, even though the chruch has commended women who willingly sacrifice their lives for their fetus.

First of all, it is not just “official church teaching…” but it is also Christ’s teaching in Scripture that we may not deny him and be his follower simultaneously. (See: Matt. 10:38; Luke 14:27; etc.) If you want what the Church teaches you need only refer to the Catechism of Catholic Church, Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2.

Second, you completely misinterpreted what I said regarding abortion while being threatened with death. I was referring to a circumstance in which a thug or the government (e.g. China) forced the woman to procure an abortion of an otherwise normal healthy pregnancy. It is immoral for her to consent to the procedure, she is to say no and force the government to physically and violently force her. Now, in regards to when the woman would be in danger of death from an unhealthy dangerous pregnancy, there is a procedure that involves removing the affected fallopian tube with the intention of saving the life of the mother and the child dies as an unintended consequence. It’s not considered abortion because the child is not directly harmed. It’s the principle of double consequence. Now, I’m not sure what precisely was the circumstances of those other women who had a problem. But, the life of the mother and the life of the infant are equal, therefore in a moral evaluation it does not matter whether the mother is saved or the child saved so long as no direct abortion or euthanasia is committed.

 

[humanavitae]

First of all, it is not just “official church teaching…” but it is also Christ’s teaching in Scripture that we may not deny him and be his follower simultaneously. (See: Matt. 10:38; Luke 14:27; etc.) If you want what the Church teaches you need only refer to the Catechism of Catholic Church, Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2.

Second, you completely misinterpreted what I said regarding abortion while being threatened with death. I was referring to a circumstance in which a thug or the government (e.g. China) forced the woman to procure an abortion of an otherwise normal healthy pregnancy. It is immoral for her to consent to the procedure, she is to say no and force the government to physically and violently force her. Now, in regards to when the woman would be in danger of death from an unhealthy dangerous pregnancy, there is a procedure that involves removing the affected fallopian tube with the intention of saving the life of the mother and the child dies as an unintended consequence. It’s not considered abortion because the child is not directly harmed. It’s the principle of double consequence. Now, I’m not sure what precisely was the circumstances of those other women who had a problem. But, the life of the mother and the life of the infant are equal, therefore in a moral evaluation it does not matter whether the mother is saved or the child saved so long as no direct abortion or euthanasia is committed.

I did not mis-interpret you. You mis-interpreted my reply to you.
I am not talking about abortion, so lets not cloud the topic with that. I don’t think anyone disagrees that abortion in intrinsicially evil and can never be supported.

I asked you for proof of your statement on the official church teaching on the question posted by the OP. And I asked you to please be careful, because I knew you would pull a verse about “denying” Christ or something, and I am saying that those don’t apply because “denying” in that context means TRULY DENYING (in your heart and mind).
I am talking about LYING to save ones (or anothers) life at gunpoint.

likewise, my 2nd point was that whatever argument you bring forward should not be using a logical fallacy of saying “well, the church praised the opposite of X, so doing X must be a bad thing”.