Is it okay to deny christ in word to save your life if you have a family depending on you?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tess11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The poster saying canon law is irrelevant is correct - the subject matter is one which would require a moral theologian and not a canon lawyer.

There’s no such thing as ‘empty words’ before God - and you will even have to answer for every idle word at your judgment. Duress can diminish culpability but that’s God’s call - objectively denying God is always grave and the martyrs show us the path we are to follow as well as Our Lord’s admonition that to deny Him before man is to forfeit eternal life.
 
“RosaryCrusader said:
The poster saying canon law is irrelevant is correct - the subject matter is one which would require a moral theologian and not a canon lawyer.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I’ve already dispensed with that claim of yours. Repeating the same error doesn’t make it right. Do you have a response to my rebuttal?
Duress can diminish culpability but that’s God’s call
Click to expand...
And you have just proven that you are wrong.
objectively denying God is always grave and the martyrs show us the path we are to follow as well as Our Lord’s admonition that to deny Him before man is to forfeit eternal life.
Click to expand...
But one who is forced, at gunpoint, to say that he denies God, is not objectively denying God. He is not intend nor mean the words he is forced to say. It is the one pointing the gun who is objectively denying God and committing the grave sin.
 
Last edited:
I hope it never becomes an issue but I would not deny God for any reason.

How do you know that this person who is threatening to kill you by trying to force you to deny God wouldn’t be overwhelmed by your devotion love for Our Lord and refusal to deny Him, even upon threat of death, that he/she decides because of what you did, to give their life to Christ? I mean, what a powerful testimony to defend your faith with your life! How many souls were won over in the past because of the martyrs who did this very thing? Did they not have families and loved ones who depended on them too?
 
LumberJack said:
Didn’t Peter deny Jesus? He went on to do great things.
Click to expand...
Good point. He denied Christ three times and likely saved his life in doing so. Then, he was left in charge of the Church.

Luke 22:Peter’s Denial Foretold. 31 [a]“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”
 
Sorry but you don’t have a grasp of basic concepts such as what is meant by objective and subjective (ie. external and internal forum) so there is a communication gap apparently and it’s pointless to go on.

Regardless, giving the nod to someone to go ahead and deny Christ for an apparent ‘good’ should be condemned in no uncertain terms as it goes against the very words of Our Lord, the Saints and Martyrs and the Church Herself. We should build people up to heroic faith not give them words of encouragement to surrender to a hypothetical situation that only exists in their mind. When a real threat comes there will be no resolve but only a premeditated weakness.
 
Last edited:
RosaryCrusader said:
Sorry but you don’t have a grasp of basic concepts such as what is meant by objective and subjective (ie. external and internal forum) so there is a communication gap apparently and it’s pointless to go on.
Click to expand...
Well, just recognize that you don’t understand the concepts being discussed. A very simple example to disprove all that you have claimed, is the example of St. Peter. He denied Christ three times. Yet, he is not condemned to hell.
 
Any sin can be repented of. The martyrs could have just as easily denied Christ and (hopefully) repent given the grace to do so - but they didn’t - nor can you be assured that God will give you the grace to repent in such a case. What you describe is actually called ‘presumption of God’s Mercy’ which is contrary to the Christian spirit and is actually one of the sins which has been traditionally acknowledged as one of the sins against the Holy Ghost, along with the sins of final impenitence and final despair.

Ultimately your position is the ends justifies the means which is condemned by the Church, Christ, and the Saints. You use St. Peter as an example that it’s okay to sin in certain cases because you can repent just like St. Peter. That’s a ridiculously foolish thing to say.
 
Last edited:
Apparently a lot of folks here think that God can make the world, but that He can’t take care of a martyr’s children.
 
Amen, with some of these respondents it’s almost like they have their denial of Our Lord already rehearsed in their minds and have already rationalized apostasy.

The next question would be what about if the denial needs to be prolonged? Say like if your country was invaded by an oppressive religious force and you have to continually deny Christ in order that your children are not orphans?

I would say it’s better to die as a family of Christians than to live as a family of apostates.
 
As to free choice under the threat of death…this passage spoke to me. The author is speaking about the effect the interrogations he underwent in the prison camps of Siberia while in solitary confinement for five years had on him and what he learned of our response to God. I recommend the book very highly!

“The body can be confined, but nothing can destroy the deepest freedom in man, the freedom of the soul, and the freedom of mind and will. These are the highest and noblest faculties in man, they are what make him the sort of man he is, and they cannot be constrained. Even in prison a man retains his free will, his freedom of choice. Even in prison, a man can choose to do good or evil, to fight for survival or to despair…” (He Leaderh Me, by Fr. Walter Ciszek, pg 156).
 
Various martyrs in history were martyred while being fathers/mothers with children to support. This would have been countless people during the early persecutions in the Church. St Thomas More described his obligations to his family as being his number one pain when accepting his martyrdom.

So I’m not sure how much it helps your question, but the precedent has been: you never renounce Christ under any circumstances.
 
I’m pretty sure he had the Holy Spirit.

John 13:10 Jesus said to him, “Whoever has bathed has no need except to have his feet washed, for he is clean all over; so you are clean, but not all.”

Bathed is euphemism for baptized. Simon showed that the Holy Spirit was already working through him when he confessed that Jesus is God:

Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
 
Truefaith said:
If St. Peter had the holy Spirit, please explain this then:…
Click to expand...
Sure. I’ll explain with a question. Where is it written that the Holy Spirit will only be given, once?

Do we not receive the Holy Spirit in Baptism?
Then again in Confirmation?
And again in every Sacrament?
 
Truefaith said:
We should always pray for renewal of the Spirit but the scriptures are clear. During the time Jesus was on Earth, the Spirit was on him and him alone.
Click to expand...
The Scripture say that Jesus would baptize with fire and water. It is clear to me that Jesus baptized the Apostles when they were in the Jordan. From then on, the Apostles took over the duties of baptizing. But without Jesus first baptizing them, they could not continue.

John 3:22 Final Witness of the Baptist. After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing.
 
He had already been named as Pope, so, I am pretty sure he’d been Baptized, etc.
 
Scripture doesn’t contradict itself.

If one Scripture says that Jesus baptized and the other says He didn’t, then we need to harmonize the two. Now, is it farfetched to believe that Jesus baptized the Apostles, and this is to what the first verse was in reference. And then delegated to them the duty of baptizing the crowds? And this is to what the second text is in reference.
 
Last edited:
I would add that its never ok to deny Christ even if you are not a Christian.
 
I think you are probably both right, in ways. I agree that the Spirit did not “indwell” and “work” in men the same as when Jesus granted us to receive His life. But i also think men (and women) were moved, inspired, compelled, called, beckoned, and instructed by His Spirit prior to His resurrection.

He definitely promised His Spirit would come after Him, and be given in full measure!

As for whether Peter was unable to be strong, in the Lord, because of this, idk. I think you could be on to something.

But it was NOT on Him alone.
 
Last edited:
No it is not okay. The saints never did even if some of them were given the most brutal punishments for doing so, like having their teeth pulled out and then killed or being burned alive. They knew this would happen and yet would still not deny their own Creator. I love them so much
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top