S
Splinker
Guest
Would it be a grave sin to tell the truth in those circumstances?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
V
VonDerTann
Guest
It is, most respectfully, theologically unsound to assert that “Lying is ALWAYS a sin.”
The Catholic Church does not hold that position. The CCC, for example, could have simply stated that. It does not.
Thistle keeps citing to the CCC, so let’s look more closely at the cited portions:
CCC 2482 “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.”
–It does NOT say, “a lie consists of speaking a falseood.” It adds the element of intent to deceive. Once again, if the police lie to a suspect to make him confess to a crime, their intent is to uncover the truth, not to deceive.
“CCC 2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.”
–Once again, the cite does not merely state, “To lie is to speak or act against the truth.” The CCC adds the statement, “in order to lead someone into error.”
“CCC 2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision.”
–This presupposes that the person being deceived has a right to know the truth. This “right to know” often does not exist and cannot ever be presumed. The Nazis have no “right to know” about the Jew you are hiding, and the gangbanger at your door asking for your daughter has no “right to know” that your daughter is home.
The CCC simply does not state that “lying is always a sin.”
As I indicated earlier, life is too complex to have hard fast rules, conseqences be damned, for deceiving others.
The Catholic Church does not hold that position. The CCC, for example, could have simply stated that. It does not.
Thistle keeps citing to the CCC, so let’s look more closely at the cited portions:
CCC 2482 “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.”
–It does NOT say, “a lie consists of speaking a falseood.” It adds the element of intent to deceive. Once again, if the police lie to a suspect to make him confess to a crime, their intent is to uncover the truth, not to deceive.
“CCC 2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.”
–Once again, the cite does not merely state, “To lie is to speak or act against the truth.” The CCC adds the statement, “in order to lead someone into error.”
“CCC 2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision.”
–This presupposes that the person being deceived has a right to know the truth. This “right to know” often does not exist and cannot ever be presumed. The Nazis have no “right to know” about the Jew you are hiding, and the gangbanger at your door asking for your daughter has no “right to know” that your daughter is home.
The CCC simply does not state that “lying is always a sin.”
As I indicated earlier, life is too complex to have hard fast rules, conseqences be damned, for deceiving others.
C
ccross
Guest
Lying is always wrong, unless it furthers truth. For example if you tell someone a lie that helps them live true than its ok. If you told someone the truth and it directly caused them to sin than it is not ok. This is an extremely slippery slope though so don’t go lying and not paying attention to what you are causing. It is usually best to always tell the truth, since we are all filthy sinners and thus usually unable to distinguish when it is ok to lie.
ccross
ccross
T
thistle
Guest
Your comments simply reinforce that all lying is a sin. The intent and harm done determines if it remains venial or is grave.It is, most respectfully, theologically unsound to assert that “Lying is ALWAYS a sin.”
The Catholic Church does not hold that position. The CCC, for example, could have simply stated that. It does not.
Thistle keeps citing to the CCC, so let’s look more closely at the cited portions:
CCC 2482 “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.”
–It does NOT say, “a lie consists of speaking a falseood.” It adds the element of intent to deceive. Once again, if the police lie to a suspect to make him confess to a crime, their intent is to uncover the truth, not to deceive.
“CCC 2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.”
–Once again, the cite does not merely state, “To lie is to speak or act against the truth.” The CCC adds the statement, “in order to lead someone into error.”
“CCC 2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision.”
–This presupposes that the person being deceived has a right to know the truth. This “right to know” often does not exist and cannot ever be presumed. The Nazis have no “right to know” about the Jew you are hiding, and the gangbanger at your door asking for your daughter has no “right to know” that your daughter is home.
The CCC simply does not state that “lying is always a sin.”
As I indicated earlier, life is too complex to have hard fast rules, conseqences be damned, for deceiving others.
For the benefit of the other poster God does not reward sinners but venial sins do not cut the relationship with God.
CCC 1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace it is humanly reparable.** “Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness.” **
V
VonDerTann
Guest
I’m sorry, Thistle, there is simply no cite you are pointing to which says, “all lying is always a sin.” You can quote the CCC (we all welcome it). But the CCC just doesn’t say “all lying is always a sin.”
C
catholictiger
Guest
a sin is when you turn your back on God or we miss the mark (as some christians say)
but lets look at it as we turn our back on God becuase its alot easier to describe in this way and we can’t possibly know what that mark is.
anyway if you know someone would die becuase you told the truth, but still told the truth, would that be turnign your back on God you aren’t protecting his loved ones the one he created in his image just so you don’t have to lie. Seems like a sin to me
but if you lie in order to save that persons life, it seems like you are actually standing with God in that instance you didn’t turn your back on God in that instance.
plus you are more morally obligated to save that persons life then not lieing
keep in mind if you can dodge the question by answering with a truth but not the most relevant truth you aren’t lieing meaning you avoid to possible sins, one of letting someone die even though you could have saved them and lieing.
but if you can’t avoid both I don’t think lieing in that instance would be a sin. Its defiantly morally acceptable the point of this thread.
but lets look at it as we turn our back on God becuase its alot easier to describe in this way and we can’t possibly know what that mark is.
anyway if you know someone would die becuase you told the truth, but still told the truth, would that be turnign your back on God you aren’t protecting his loved ones the one he created in his image just so you don’t have to lie. Seems like a sin to me
but if you lie in order to save that persons life, it seems like you are actually standing with God in that instance you didn’t turn your back on God in that instance.
plus you are more morally obligated to save that persons life then not lieing
keep in mind if you can dodge the question by answering with a truth but not the most relevant truth you aren’t lieing meaning you avoid to possible sins, one of letting someone die even though you could have saved them and lieing.
but if you can’t avoid both I don’t think lieing in that instance would be a sin. Its defiantly morally acceptable the point of this thread.
T
thistle
Guest
J
John21652
Guest
Let me get this straight - if the Gestapo knock on my door, ask if I’m hiding any Jews and I say “yes” to avoid telling a lie. The result is the innocent Jews are taken away and executed. I’m Ok, because I never lied!Lying is ALWAYS a sin no matter the intention. Its just a question of whether the lie consitutes a venial sin or a grave sin.
The favourite topic in these forums about lying is always about WWII and if the Gestapo comes to your door and asks if there are any Jews hiding in the house. If there are but you say no is that lie a sin? Well the answer is yes it is a sin but it is not a grave sin.
I’m sure I’d not get too many browny points off God for that one!!
Lying in this siuation requires moral courage, because if the ‘lie’ is found out, you get taken away and shot along with the Jews. Not lyeing, to the contrary, shows a distinct lack of moral courage, as the truth is told to save oneself from ‘sinning’, but at the expense of the innocent Jews.
This then leads me to ask, doesn’t context and circumstance decide the issue of whether or not lying is sinful?
T
tjm190
Guest
But a non-sin is always preferable to a sin is it not, no matter the magnitude? As such, wouldn’t this mean it would be morally superior to say “Yes”?Lying is ALWAYS a sin no matter the intention. Its just a question of whether the lie consitutes a venial sin or a grave sin.
The favourite topic in these forums about lying is always about WWII and if the Gestapo comes to your door and asks if there are any Jews hiding in the house. If there are but you say no is that lie a sin? Well the answer is yes it is a sin but it is not a grave sin.
T
thistle
Guest
You obviously did not read what I wrote carefully.Let me get this straight - if the Gestapo knock on my door, ask if I’m hiding any Jews and I say “yes” to avoid telling a lie. The result is the innocent Jews are taken away and executed. I’m Ok, because I never lied!
I’m sure I’d not get too many browny points off God for that one!!
Lying in this siuation requires moral courage, because if the ‘lie’ is found out, you get taken away and shot along with the Jews. Not lyeing, to the contrary, shows a distinct lack of moral courage, as the truth is told to save oneself from ‘sinning’, but at the expense of the innocent Jews.
This then leads me to ask, doesn’t context and circumstance decide the issue of whether or not lying is sinful?
I said all lying is a sin but in the case you just cited lying to the Gestapo would be a sin, but not a grave sin. Why can’t you understand the difference between a venial and a grave sin?
J
John21652
Guest
Your over sensitivity to being even remotely wrong, or criticised, is causing you to be blind to what I was actually getting at. Plus, your response contains two gross assumptions that are proof of this.You obviously did not read what I wrote carefully.
I said all lying is a sin but in the case you just cited lying to the Gestapo would be a sin, but not a grave sin. Why can’t you understand the difference between a venial and a grave sin?
In blunt terms, for the benefit of someone who can’t read between the lines, I am saying that in the circumstances, it was neither a venial sin, or a mortal sin.
Take your blinkers off and you might have been intellectually capable of reading between the lines.
T
thistle
Guest
I know you are saying such an example would not constitute a sin of any kind.Your over sensitivity to being even remotely wrong, or criticised, is causing you to be blind to what I was actually getting at. Plus, your response contains two gross assumptions that are proof of this.
In blunt terms, for the benefit of someone who can’t read between the lines, I am saying that in the circumstances, it was neither a venial sin, or a mortal sin.
Take your blinkers off and you might have been intellectually capable of reading between the lines.
You are wrong. It is a sin but a venial one.
I agree with the Church and the position of Augustine and Aquinas.
C
comrade1789
Guest
I happen to disagree with your position, and I agree with the Church and the position of Origen and Chrysostom.I know you are saying such an example would not constitute a sin of any kind.
You are wrong. It is a sin but a venial one.
I agree with the Church and the position of Augustine and Aquinas.
I thank you Thistle for postin that link to This Rock article, but that article seems to tear away from your CCC argument, it reads:
"I referred earlier to the difficulty of conceptualizing a perfect definition of lying that might reveal a solution to our dilemma. The magisterium of the Church has not endorsed any such definition, but it recently came very close to taking a small step in that direction. Over the past hundred years there has been a growing movement among moral theologians to tweak the definition of lying as follows: “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 very sentence, in fact, is taken from the initial edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2483, 1994 edition).
When the Catechism was first published in French in 1994, and translated into other languages from the French, it contained the sentence quoted above, and so there was some speculation that the Holy See had finally decided to throw at least a modicum of magisterial weight behind this solution to our dilemma. This very precise definition, with its inclusion of the right to know, enables us to handle lying and falsehood in a manner very similar to the way we handle murder and killing. Through a person’s intention to use particular knowledge for an evil end, that person would presumably forfeit his right to know. Thus it would be morally acceptable to speak a falsehood to the murderous thugs. But we would no more call this “lying” than we would call an act of self-defense “murder.”
Alas, the matter is not so easily resolved. For, as it turns out, when the official Latin text of the Catechism was released in 1997 after a process of revision, the right to know was dropped. The operative sentence now reads simply: “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.” Of course, the Catechism is intended as a basic compendium of Catholic doctrine, assembled with due ecclesiastical care, and not as a collection of definitive infallible pronouncements permanently settling every question on every topic it covers. In other words, the change in definition does not mean the original formulation was wrong. But it does mean that the editors of the Catechism were not prepared to endorse it in an official Catholic reference work. In the end, then, the current Catechism does not directly address our problem. "
So, we are back where we began and I also haven’t seen my argument addressed by anyone, which is a slightly different take, but Biblically based. Was it that bad that no one felt compelled to either agree or disagree with it?
T
tjm190
Guest
But again- it is always better to not sin then sin, right?I know you are saying such an example would not constitute a sin of any kind.
You are wrong. It is a sin but a venial one.
I agree with the Church and the position of Augustine and Aquinas.
As such, if telling the Nazi’s that there are no Jews under your floorboard would be a sin, then you would be better off either saying yes or trying to mince words which would of course arouse suspicion.
T
thistle
Guest
The views in this thread about that scenario range from a venial sin to no sin. Either way you do not cut yourself off from God.But again- it is always better to not sin then sin, right?
As such, if telling the Nazi’s that there are no Jews under your floorboard would be a sin, then you would be better off either saying yes or trying to mince words which would of course arouse suspicion.
I said it would be a venial sin only so I would commit a lie in these circumstances.
J
John21652
Guest
Would lieing to satan be a sin?
T
thistle
Guest
How would it be any different from lying to the Nazis?Would lieing to satan be a sin?
T
tjm190
Guest
not what I asked.The views in this thread about that scenario range from a venial sin to no sin. Either way you do not cut yourself off from God.
I said it would be a venial sin only so I would commit a lie in these circumstances.
God would prefer you not sin at all, right? Jesus didn’t say “Go, and commit only venial sins from this point forward”, but rather “Go, and sin no more.”
So, if lying to the Nazi’s would be a sin and telling them the truth would not be, that means God would prefer you tell the Nazi’s you are harboring Jews.
J
John21652
Guest
How about showing a bit of moral courage and answering the question directly.How would it be any different from lying to the Nazis?
The question was " Would lieing to satan be a sin?"
T
thistle
Guest
How about reading my other posts then you wouldn’t have to make stupid sarcastic comments or is that the measure of your character?How about showing a bit of moral courage and answering the question directly.
The question was " Would lieing to satan be a sin?"
Lying is always a sin. In the case of Nazis and Satan (who supported the Nazis) it would simply be a venial sin.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.