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

[jmcrae]

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.

I think the Scriptures answer that, in the two stories in the Books of the Maccabees. In the first story, the old man could have lied and pretended to eat pork, when really he wasn’t. He refused, and they killed him for standing up for his Jewish beliefs. God praises this man. In the second story, the mother refuses to lie and say that she no longer believes in God; instead, she and all of her children are killed for their faith.

The history of the Church also follows this same lead - those who returned from the arenas alive were forthwith excommunicated from the Church. Not because anybody thought they had seriously meant to deny Christ - obviously in a lot of cases they were just lying to save themselves, and probably also to save their children, but the Church still took a dim view of it, and excommunicated them anyway.

We still consider those who die for their faith rather than lie under duress to be modern Saints, as well, especially those under Nazism and Communism, and those who are living in Arab countries.

 

[Roman_Army]

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”.

If you read the Catechism section I cited, you would see that lying is also a sin. Also, I do not think that St. Peter would have excused himself of his sin of lying three times to cover the truth that he knew the Lord. The question is not whether it is justified since anything that is intrinsically evil is never justified, the question is whether it is venial sin or mortal sin. I answered that it can be either venial or mortal depending on the mental condition of the individual at the time that they commit the sin. Now, a lie itself is an intrinsic evil and is never justified, a lie can be either venial or mortal depending on the type of truth that it violates, the circumstances, the intention, and the harm that inflicts (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church para. # 2484). As the section of the Catechism that I cited states, a lie is a mortal sin when it damages the virtues of Justice and Charity, otherwise it is venial (cf. CCC para. # 2484). When one lies about one’s faith one is violating the Justice due to God and Charity due to him, not to mention also the other virtues that are also severely damaged (Faith, Hope, Fortitude, etc.). Now, it may happen at times that a murderer might inquire about the whereabouts of innocent victims to murder, in such a case one must use discreet language (cf. CCC para. # 2489). Discreet language is not the same as deceptive language. In discreet language one uses certain ambiguous words or a partial truth in order to conceal a truth that must be kept hidden from the person who has no right to know it. Now, it may happen that at the spur of the moment the person might not be in a mental state to employ discreet language, so they might use deceptive language and therefore lie. Such a lie could not be said to be mortal because it does not damage the virtues of Justice and Charity. Or do you suppose that it violates Justice or charity due to the murderer? That would be absurd. To the contrary these virtues subsist alongside the vice. So, it would be venial sin.

May God bless you.

 

[Gerard_Nadal]

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.

“Deny Christ, or I’ll blow your head off!”"

“I deny Christ!”

“Okay, thanks. I’ll go home now.”

It could almost be written by Monty Python. I’m inclined to think that a guy with a gun to my head is apt to use it. It is Satan’s work to get one to deny Christ right before killing them. I’ll take the bullet on the way to meet Jesus. My last words would be “Jesus is Lord!” Perhaps it may effect the conversion of the murderer.

 

[humanavitae]

I think the Scriptures answer that, in the two stories in the Books of the Maccabees. In the first story, the old man could have lied and pretended to eat pork, when really he wasn’t. He refused, and they killed him for standing up for his Jewish beliefs. God praises this man. In the second story, the mother refuses to lie and say that she no longer believes in God; instead, she and all of her children are killed for their faith.

The history of the Church also follows this same lead - those who returned from the arenas alive were forthwith excommunicated from the Church. Not because anybody thought they had seriously meant to deny Christ - obviously in a lot of cases they were just lying to save themselves, and probably also to save their children, but the Church still took a dim view of it, and excommunicated them anyway.

We still consider those who die for their faith rather than lie under duress to be modern Saints, as well, especially those under Nazism and Communism, and those who are living in Arab countries.

Witnessing to thousands of people in an arena setting,
or witnessing to people when you are a priest, or important person in the church,
and especially when you are the “ROCK” of the chruch (cf. Peter), and especially during the infancy of the church, or during other important times in chruch history where martydom was a call for many for the growth of the church,

The above situations are probably all mortal sins to LIE and pretend to deny christ…but
are all very different situations compared to the situation we are discussing…
i.e. witnessing to a lone crazy man who is not worth witnessing the truth to, especially at the expense of your family or loved ones. In this case, I would think it is venial, at best.

 

[CWBetts]

Witnessing to thousands of people in an arena setting,
or witnessing to people when you are a priest, or important person in the church,
and especially when you are the “ROCK” of the chruch (cf. Peter), and especially during the infancy of the church, or during other important times in chruch history where martydom was a call for many for the growth of the church,

The above situations are probably all mortal sins to LIE and pretend to deny christ…but
are all very different situations compared to the situation we are discussing…
i.e. witnessing to a lone crazy man who is not worth witnessing the truth to, especially at the expense of your family or loved ones. In this case, I would think it is venial, at best.

Such HUBRIS! Who are you, who are any of us, to decide who is “worth witnessing to”?! We are all made in the image and likeness of God. Every single one of us, and to say that one is not worth witnessing to is to say that they are beyond redemption. None of us deserves the grace of God. It cannot be merited. You, my friend, have shamed the Church by suggesting that some people are more worth witnessing to than others. This has been brought up before, but what about the man who killed St. Maria Goretti? He most definitely would have fit the description of one “not worth witnessing to,” yet the witness of a twelve year old girl brought him into the Church. I would think about what you have posted here, and why it is most definitely not pleasing to the God you claim to follow.

 

[Secret_Square]

Regarding Maria Goretti: I don’t know where I read this, but I did once read an account of her life and death that claimed that when she told her attacker “No, it is a sin!” she was thinking of the sin HE was about to commit, and trying to persuade him not to go through with it. She was not implying that she herself, or any girl in the same predicament, would be guilty of mortal sin if she gave in, but instead, heroically carrying out Christ’s command to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us.

The fact that she forgave him on her deathbed and asked others to pray for him further confirms that she was thinking more about his salvation than her own. Also, I believe her assailant repented after having a vision of her while in prison – indicating that she continued to intercede for him from heaven. So her heroic charity probably played just as much, if not more, of a role in his conversion than her heroic chastity.

 

[CWBetts]

Regarding Maria Goretti: I don’t know where I read this, but I did once read an account of her life and death that claimed that when she told her attacker “No, it is a sin!” she was thinking of the sin HE was about to commit, and trying to persuade him not to go through with it. She was not implying that she herself, or any girl in the same predicament, would be guilty of mortal sin if she gave in, but instead, heroically carrying out Christ’s command to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us.

The fact that she forgave him on her deathbed and asked others to pray for him further confirms that she was thinking more about his salvation than her own. Also, I believe her assailant repented after having a vision of her while in prison – indicating that she continued to intercede for him from heaven. So her heroic charity probably played just as much, if not more, of a role in his conversion than her heroic chastity.

I usually don’t accept accounts claiming to know what someone else was THINKING. Especially when it claims to know what someone else was thinking and had no way to discern this. Did someone conduct an interview with her…if so wouldn’t that make him a medium? This account that says that they know what she was thinking as she was attacked is dubious at best. I still say it was her witness to protect her purity…which is what every reliable source I have seen has said.

 

[humanavitae]

Such HUBRIS! Who are you, who are any of us, to decide who is “worth witnessing to”?! We are all made in the image and likeness of God. Every single one of us, and to say that one is not worth witnessing to is to say that they are beyond redemption. None of us deserves the grace of God. It cannot be merited. You, my friend, have shamed the Church by suggesting that some people are more worth witnessing to than others. This has been brought up before, but what about the man who killed St. Maria Goretti? He most definitely would have fit the description of one “not worth witnessing to,” yet the witness of a twelve year old girl brought him into the Church. I would think about what you have posted here, and why it is most definitely not pleasing to the God you claim to follow.

Doesn’t the following 2 versus from CCC basically indicate that we are not obligated to witness the truth to everyone in all situations?

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.283

Now…what if the situation is such that one is absolutely forced to give an answer or else suffer [private]death [to myself or a family member]? To make the point even clearer…once could extent this hypothetical question even further, such that the threat was computer automated and your choices for answers (with a finite time period) was to push a button that says “YES, I AM CATHOLIC” or another button saying “NO, I AM NOT CATHOLIC”.

I know that staying silent or boldy proclaiming the truth will result in the glory of Martydom. However, my only question is if it is a MORTAL sin if someone tries to trick the gunmen/computer by lying to him? I just don’t understand how that can be a mortal sin? My Catholic priest (very devout, Holy, and orthodox) says it is not mortal (in the specific situation I described), and my conscience and logic says it is not mortal either. Obviousally, in other situations, it could very well be mortal.

 

[CWBetts]

Doesn’t the following 2 versus from CCC basically indicate that we are not obligated to witness the truth to everyone in all situations?

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.283

Now…what if the situation is such that one is absolutely forced to give an answer or else suffer [private]death [to myself or a family member]? To make the point even clearer…once could extent this hypothetical question even further, such that the threat was computer automated and your choices for answers (with a finite time period) was to push a button that says “YES, I AM CATHOLIC” or another button saying “NO, I AM NOT CATHOLIC”.

I know that staying silent or boldy proclaiming the truth will result in the glory of Martydom. However, my only question is if it is a MORTAL sin if someone tries to trick the gunmen/computer by lying to him? I just don’t understand how that can be a mortal sin? My Catholic priest (very devout, Holy, and orthodox) says it is not mortal (in the specific situation I described), and my conscience and logic says it is not mortal either. Obviousally, in other situations, it could very well be mortal.

Mortal or not, it is still sin, and every sin we commit drives the nails deeper. Instead of figuring out if it is mortal or not, perhaps we should do everything possible to avoid all sin.

 

[trayletha]

Mortal or not, it is still sin, and every sin we commit drives the nails deeper. Instead of figuring out if it is mortal or not, perhaps we should do everything possible to avoid all sin.

Well I am fairly sure that avoiding this particular sin, in the original “What if” scenario should be quite easy.

I have come to the conclusion that I am not very likely to be a martyr.

 

[Brooklyn]

It seems to me, in all the answers to these posts, everyone is presuming that we have to make this decision all by ourselves. Does anyone not consider the fact that if we were ever to be in such a situation, we would be surrounded by the Grace of God, that the Holy Spirit would be right there with us, giving us all the strength and courage we would need to do the right thing? That doesn’t mean we wouldn’t be scared. But to get through it, all we would need to do would be to call out to God. How do you think the martyrs down through the ages, right to our times, have been able to find the courage to give their lives for Christ? Do you think they were all some kind of supernatural beings who had more courage than we can ever imagine?

None of the posts I have seen here have really pointed to the Grace of God. God is the one who gives us the strength and courage we need to overcome daily sin, and He is the one would infuse us with courage in such a situation as this.

I think the sin would be if we would make this decision on our own and not call out to God. Isn’t that really the sin in every situation, big or small? Making a decision without God always leads to sin.

 

[Secret_Square]

One of my favorite writers/speakers, Mary Beth Bonacci, addressed the issue of martyrdom in one of her columns shortly after the Columbine massacre.

Her main point was that one normally cannot make a huge sacrifice like dying for Christ (as Cassie Bernall did) without first paving the way by making a lot of smaller sacrifices that involve LIVING for Him.

If one does not have the will power to refuse one’s favorite food or TV show, or to put aside gaming or Internet surfing (lol) long enough to pray or show attention to a family member or friend, to refuse to go along with “friends” who want to get drunk or use drugs, to tolerate the irritating habits of a spouse, child or parent, or to speak up when someone spreads insulting gossip about another or blasphemes God’s name in your presence, then how would you expect to have enough willpower to say “I believe in God” knowing those could be the last words you will ever say?

I suppose the same would be true of a martyr of purity like Maria Goretti; she lived a heroic and sacrificial life long BEFORE she died, and obviously understood the meaning of all the other virtues long before her chastity was put to the ultimate test.

 

[Roman_Army]

Regarding Maria Goretti: I don’t know where I read this, but I did once read an account of her life and death that claimed that when she told her attacker “No, it is a sin!” she was thinking of the sin HE was about to commit, and trying to persuade him not to go through with it. She was not implying that she herself, or any girl in the same predicament, would be guilty of mortal sin if she gave in, but instead, heroically carrying out Christ’s command to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us.

The fact that she forgave him on her deathbed and asked others to pray for him further confirms that she was thinking more about his salvation than her own. Also, I believe her assailant repented after having a vision of her while in prison – indicating that she continued to intercede for him from heaven. So her heroic charity probably played just as much, if not more, of a role in his conversion than her heroic chastity.

That is a novel interpretation which was not in the mind of her contemporaries and her own assailant. It would make sense until we realize that her refusal to give in only caused her assailant to commit an even worst sin of murder. So, that interpretation pretty much falls apart right there. In fact, the Canonization process was delayed because her assailant claimed that she gave into his demands. After his conversion, he then retracted his accusation to the tribunal and that’s when it sped up to the point that she was Canonized while her mother and assailant were still alive to witness it. Also, the Popes themselves have consistently affirmed in audiences and perhaps homilies that she witnessed to her purity and avoided sin to the point of death every time her feast came up.

But, anyway, even with the novel interpretation, then had she consented would she not have been an accessory to sin? Certainly. But, besides being an accessory to sin, it is always intrinsically evil to consent to sex outside of the marital bond even if one is threatened with a knife or gun.