J
John21652
Guest
Yeah, you’re probably right. It’s a measure of my character. I have little tolerance for people who give evasive answers!
- Status
H
Holly3278
Guest
I really like this article. It makes clear that the Magisterium has not officially ruled on whether lying in such a case as to protect someone’s life or for other serious reasons is justified or not. Therefore, it is still technically a gray area. Personally, I would definitely lie to a thug at my door looking for a person I might be hiding if I knew that the thug’s intentions were evil. And no, I do not think that God would send anyone to Hell for doing such a thing either.
One thing that I definitely believe here is that if lying in such a case is even a sin at all, it most definitely is not a mortal sin but only a venial sin and probably a very minor venial sin at that.
T
thistle
Guest
I guess it is a measure of your character and maybe you also need reading glasses.
READ my posts. In every one I have stated lying is ALWAYS a sin which obviously means that is the answer to any question that starts "is it a sin to lie to…?
C
catholictiger
Guest
i understand what your getting at with your venal and grave sin
but i have a simple question for you not as a way to argue i just want to see what your view of the issue is.
ok so if lieing in all instances is a sin even if venial should you commit that venial sin in order to avoid a horrible thing like someone dieing that you could have saved.
personally I don’t think its a sin, becuase you chose the option that serves the lord you save one of his creations from an evil.
again im just trying to get your opinion on the matter and trying to show you my opinion no intention to argue.
T
thistle
Guest
I didn’t realise I wrote my earlier posts in a foreign language. How many times do I have to give the same answer.
Let me go through this again.
All lying is sinful.
All lying is not gravely sinful.
Some lies are venial.
Venial sins do not sever the relationship with God.
Would I lie in a venial way to save someone’s life? Yes.
J
John21652
Guest
My my, aren’t we a bit tetchy.
Let me get this straight.
You say someone who lies to the Nazis to save some Jews who are hiding under the floor boards is committing a sin.
A venial sin.
The Church says even a venial sin weakens a person’s will to avoid evil and thus may indirectly lead to mortal sin.
I say, lieing to the Nazis, who you say are supported by the Devil, is not a sin. Not even a venial sin. The lie took great moral courage, because the chance of discovery of the lie would have dire consequences. The display of moral courage would bring the person telling the lie closer to God and would strengthen their resolve against mortal sin.
Read the Catechism, for at at 1755 it tells us -
A morally good act does not offend God in any way whatsoever.
T
thistle
Guest
The repetitive nature of posts in this thread is getting boring so I’ll move on to more interesting ones.
I’ll stick with Church teaching that all lies are sinful.
T
tjm190
Guest
Since you did not respond before, I’ll repeat my point at the risk of seeming pushy.
If lying to the Nazis is a sin, venial mortal, that means God would rather we not do it. Do you honestly believe God would rather you tell the Nazis that you are sheltering Jews?
What would you expect Mary to do in that situation, given that she was sinless?
J
John21652
Guest
tjm190, I don’t think we are allowed to repeat opinions and ideas which might conflict with thistle! How will he ever educate us?!
W
Windfish
Guest
I asked this question before but never received an adequate answer.
“A lie consists of speaking a falsehood with the intent to deceive.”
Am I not deceiving the Gestapo when they ask if I am harboring Jews? Am I, then, committing a sin by lying to them?
I appreciated VonDerTann and comrade1789’s posts, but it is disappointing that the Catechism is not clearer on this matter. I want to talk with a priest about this.
“A lie consists of speaking a falsehood with the intent to deceive.”
Am I not deceiving the Gestapo when they ask if I am harboring Jews? Am I, then, committing a sin by lying to them?
I appreciated VonDerTann and comrade1789’s posts, but it is disappointing that the Catechism is not clearer on this matter. I want to talk with a priest about this.
V
VonDerTann
Guest
For anyone who happens to be lurking & reading this…
…and since Thistle claims to have left, having insulted people and declared the thread boring (I think it’s interesting, but hey, what do I know)…
…his positions are not supported by Catholic teaching.
The Catholic Church simply never says:
“All lying is sinful.”
–The Church could have so stated. The CCC could have. A pope, any pope, speaking ex cathedra, could have. The magisterium could have. And yet…
…They did not.
…and since Thistle claims to have left, having insulted people and declared the thread boring (I think it’s interesting, but hey, what do I know)…
…his positions are not supported by Catholic teaching.
The Catholic Church simply never says:
“All lying is sinful.”
–The Church could have so stated. The CCC could have. A pope, any pope, speaking ex cathedra, could have. The magisterium could have. And yet…
…They did not.
W
Windfish
Guest
Let me take up thistle’s place, then. I don’t necessarily agree with him, but I think it might be helpful if we a spar a bit on this.
“A lie consists of speaking a falsehood with the intent to deceive.”
This definition is taken directly out of the Catechism. Here are a few cases for consideration:
- The popular Gestapo case. If I were to lie to them about harboring Jews, would I not be deceiving them? Would it not be more morally courageous to say that I simply would not reveal their location? I may suffer, but I would have remained without sin.
- Police lying to a suspect to extract a confession. Again, the police are deceiving the suspect. Is this not unethical?
V
VonDerTann
Guest
Windfish, youer question is actually an interesting one.
CCC 2482 “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.”
-As I indicated, the intent to deceive is a subjective element. 2 points: One, as I indicated, the addition of “with the intent to deceive” clearing has some significance, since had the CCC simply stopped and not added that, intent would be irrelevant. I postulate that as stated above, the intent to deceive requires that the listener have a right to know. Also note that, without this commonsense view, all falsehoods could be said to have “the intent to deceive”…and then addition would be irrelevant, because it would be redundant. Because it is not irrelevant, or irrelevant…it clearly has SOME purpose.
The CCC also states:
“CCC 2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims.”
–Thus the Church appears to admit that circumstances, intent, and harm suffered by the “victim” are critically relevant and important in gauging whether a lie is sinful at all. Neither the CCC, nor a pope speaking ex cathedra, has to my knowledge ever said, “all lies are sinful.” By negative implication, some lies are not sinful.
My opinion, for what it’s worth, is the following:
First, as I said, Catholicism about a relationship with God, and with humanity, and the spirit of God’s law: “Love one another, as I have loved you,” is a perfect polestar, which trumps Canon law, nitpicky interpretations of the CCC, etc.
Second, we live in a morally dark world. We live in a world where the Gestapo existed, and where gangbangers exist. I don’t WANT to lie to anyone…but perhaps I may HAVE to, for self defense, or to protect my daughter in my earlier example, or whatever. ANY lie has repercussions…but that is a given merely because we live in a world where bad things may come our way.
Third, the Catholic Church is based on the “good news” for ALL humanity. It’s message, by necessity, must be complex. It must be complex enough to allow for deep rational thought…and simple enought to be understood by simple people who are looking for a complete primer on what to do, what to say, and how to think, almost 100% of the time, in a genuine effort to live moral lives. Sadly, that includes “rules lawyers,” or those looking to the letter of the law and not the spirit, but that is another issue.
So I cannot give an absolute answer, except to say that the CCC appears to acknowedge that subjective elements have a great deal to do with whether lying is allowed, or sinful.
-VdT
CCC 2482 “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.”
-As I indicated, the intent to deceive is a subjective element. 2 points: One, as I indicated, the addition of “with the intent to deceive” clearing has some significance, since had the CCC simply stopped and not added that, intent would be irrelevant. I postulate that as stated above, the intent to deceive requires that the listener have a right to know. Also note that, without this commonsense view, all falsehoods could be said to have “the intent to deceive”…and then addition would be irrelevant, because it would be redundant. Because it is not irrelevant, or irrelevant…it clearly has SOME purpose.
The CCC also states:
“CCC 2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims.”
–Thus the Church appears to admit that circumstances, intent, and harm suffered by the “victim” are critically relevant and important in gauging whether a lie is sinful at all. Neither the CCC, nor a pope speaking ex cathedra, has to my knowledge ever said, “all lies are sinful.” By negative implication, some lies are not sinful.
My opinion, for what it’s worth, is the following:
- The Church will not ever say, “all lying is always sinful.” Why not? Because anyone of modest intellect can conceive of a dozen scenarios where a lie appears to be NOT sinful. “Gestapo at the door,” and “police say they have criminal’s fingerprints” are just a few…
–BUT–
2 The Church also cannot ever say EXPLICITLY “some lying is okay.” If it does, then the Church is on a morally very slippery slope. Precisely because many people will look to it to dictate exactly what can and should be done in all instances, it is much better to simply leave it to individual consciences, than to try to define all hard & fast moral rules on this subject.
First, as I said, Catholicism about a relationship with God, and with humanity, and the spirit of God’s law: “Love one another, as I have loved you,” is a perfect polestar, which trumps Canon law, nitpicky interpretations of the CCC, etc.
Second, we live in a morally dark world. We live in a world where the Gestapo existed, and where gangbangers exist. I don’t WANT to lie to anyone…but perhaps I may HAVE to, for self defense, or to protect my daughter in my earlier example, or whatever. ANY lie has repercussions…but that is a given merely because we live in a world where bad things may come our way.
Third, the Catholic Church is based on the “good news” for ALL humanity. It’s message, by necessity, must be complex. It must be complex enough to allow for deep rational thought…and simple enought to be understood by simple people who are looking for a complete primer on what to do, what to say, and how to think, almost 100% of the time, in a genuine effort to live moral lives. Sadly, that includes “rules lawyers,” or those looking to the letter of the law and not the spirit, but that is another issue.
So I cannot give an absolute answer, except to say that the CCC appears to acknowedge that subjective elements have a great deal to do with whether lying is allowed, or sinful.
-VdT
W
Windfish
Guest
It is not an irrelevant addition, I agree, but there can be genuine disagreement on what its purpose is. For example, it is possible to speak falsehood and not have the intent to deceive. We do this all the time when we unknowingly share false information/knowledge with others. We are simply mistaken in such cases - we are not speaking with an intent to deceive. With the Gestapo case, however, we are speaking with an intent to deceive, even if this intent has a noble goal. In such a case, thistle might be right that it would constitute a sin, but not a grave one, since the situation reduces our culpability.
However, I think your observation that the definition presupposes a “right to know” could change things. Indeed, you are probably right about this since comrade1789 points out that earlier publications of the Catechism contain this stipulation. Assuming this stipulation is implied, then I think it would not be sinful to lie in such cases where the person does not have a right to know.
I think this is an important point, and we should all be able to agree that the CC does not teach that all lies are sinful.
I also think comrade1789’s Biblical perspectives need to be talked about more.
In any case, I am quite disappointed that the Catechism isn’t clearer on this.
C
catholictiger
Guest
its a gray area i don’t think the catechism is designed to address all those gray area issues , if it did i don’t think you could put it all in one book, and its already pretty thick.
D
dsf11785
Guest
The source of thistle’s difference in opinion from everyone else’s is the difference in his definition of a venial sin. Everyone who has posted on this thread (including thistle) agrees that to “lie” to the thugs at the door is the right thing to do. The difference is that thistle believes that, even though it’s the right thing to do, it’s still a venial sin. Sometimes the right thing to do is to commit a venial sin. God would be proud of that person for committing the venial sin. In fact, the decision to commit the venial sin was good, even virtuous, even if the venial sin itself was a small but unavoidable evil. As I take it, that is thistle’s understanding of the matter, given his interpretation of a venial sin.
Thistle does a great job backing up his interpretation. He quotes the CCC as follows:
"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."
This can be interpreted to mean that venial sins are not hurtful to God and can be committed quite freely, and in some situations, committing a venial sin can even be good (as long as one is careful not to let them become mortal sins). In fact, it is difficult to interpret the venial sin any other way, given this quotation. It seems that thistle therefore interprets it that way. (Thistle, if you are still there, how did I do?)
If everyone in this thread were to accept thistle’s interpretation of a venial sin, there would be no major disagreements. Everyone would agree that, yes, lying to the thugs would be a venial sin, but there’s nothing wrong with venial sin, so the right thing to do would be to lie.
But everyone else in this thread, it seems, has a different interpretation of venial sin. I was raised a Catholic, and I was always taught that a venial sin is a slap in God’s face. I was taught that to commit a deliberate venial sin brings more evil into the world than all the naturally caused pain and suffering ever to have existed in the world. The only thing in the universe more evil than a venial sin is a mortal sin. One should stay out of venial sin at all costs, and if a person has the misfortune of falling into venial sin, one should confess it right away with the resolution never to commit it again. However, God understands that it is next to impossible for a human to stay out of venial sin because of our fallen human nature. For this reason, it is permissible to receive Communion in the state of venial sin, as long as the person is repentant, which means that they are determined never to commit the venial sin again in the same situation. In addition, God will not send a person to Hell for an unconfessed venial sin; instead, he will send them to Purgatory to cleanse them of the venial sin before they can enter Heaven. If a person commits a venial sin and is not sorry for it, this puts them on very bad terms with God. This has always been my understanding of a venial sin, and I have never known a Catholic to disagree with this understanding.
But thistle’s citation directly contradicts my understanding of venial sin. Have I been wrong all this time? If so, what becomes of the concept of Purgatory? So many Catholic doctrines will fall apart if CCC 1863 is correct. Can anyone account for the contradiction between CCC 1863 and the interpretation of venial sin that I have been taught?
Catholictiger, as for your original question, I think we all agree (including thistle) that lying is sometimes morally acceptable. But if you wish to answer the question, “Is lying ever not sinful?”, we must first answer the question:
Is committing a venial sin ever morally acceptable?
T
tjm190
Guest
@dsf
"Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.“121”
Sure, the citation says venial sins do not cut us off from God, but regardless- they are still sins, which means they are subject to the definition above.
All sin is offensive to God- to varying degrees of course. And if lying is always a sin, then God is offended by every lie- even if it saves an innocent life.
"Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.“121”
Sure, the citation says venial sins do not cut us off from God, but regardless- they are still sins, which means they are subject to the definition above.
All sin is offensive to God- to varying degrees of course. And if lying is always a sin, then God is offended by every lie- even if it saves an innocent life.
V
VonDerTann
Guest
dsf11785:
As to whether your “original understanding” was incorrect, I would say, “no.”
If thistle is correct, then, in fact, “sometimes the right thing to do is to commit a venial sin.”
You write that under those cirumstances, “God would be proud of that person for committing the venial sin. In fact, the decision to commit the venial sin was good, even virtuous…”
Think about your statement. God, proud of us for sinning? I’m sorry, I cannot conceive of Catholicism adhering to that for one moment, and I am aware of no authority holding otherwise.
As to whether Thistle did “a great job backing up his interpretation,” you and I will differ because the CCC simply never says what thistle said it does, which is that lying is always sinful. Personally, I happen to think thistle did not back up his interpretation, at all. I keep writing: The CCC could have said “all lying is sinful,” as could a pope speaking ex cathedra. Those things never happened.
“This can be interpreted to mean that venial sins are not hurtful to God and can be committed quite freely…”
–Which is the antithesis of Christianity. Jesus said, “go and sin no more,” NOT “go and only commit venial sins.”
“If everyone in this thread were to accept thistle’s interpretation of a venial sin, there would be no major disagreements.”
–But only thistle appears to accept this proposition…because everyone else believes the proposition is faulty (because it is).
“…If a person commits a venial sin and is not sorry for it, this puts them on very bad terms with God. This has always been my understanding of a venial sin, and I have never known a Catholic to disagree with this understanding.”
–You are correct in this understanding.
“But thistle’s citation directly contradicts my understanding of venial sin.”
–No, his citation you quote was to a general provision which did not reference lying at all, and which cannot support the “interpretation” that a lie is a sin 100% of the time.
“Catholictiger, as for your original question, I think we all agree (including thistle) that lying is sometimes morally acceptable.”
–Yes…because it’s sometimes not a sin at all.
"But if you wish to answer the question, “Is lying ever not sinful?”, we must first answer the question:
Is committing a venial sin ever morally acceptable?"
–Sin is NEVER “morally acceptable” because the 2 are opposites.
This question only arises if you accept thistle’s “interpretation.” We can answer the question “is lying ever not sinful,” without reaching your question, because your “question” isn’t a true question at all; the 2 are opposites, and cannot be reached.
As to whether your “original understanding” was incorrect, I would say, “no.”
If thistle is correct, then, in fact, “sometimes the right thing to do is to commit a venial sin.”
You write that under those cirumstances, “God would be proud of that person for committing the venial sin. In fact, the decision to commit the venial sin was good, even virtuous…”
Think about your statement. God, proud of us for sinning? I’m sorry, I cannot conceive of Catholicism adhering to that for one moment, and I am aware of no authority holding otherwise.
As to whether Thistle did “a great job backing up his interpretation,” you and I will differ because the CCC simply never says what thistle said it does, which is that lying is always sinful. Personally, I happen to think thistle did not back up his interpretation, at all. I keep writing: The CCC could have said “all lying is sinful,” as could a pope speaking ex cathedra. Those things never happened.
“This can be interpreted to mean that venial sins are not hurtful to God and can be committed quite freely…”
–Which is the antithesis of Christianity. Jesus said, “go and sin no more,” NOT “go and only commit venial sins.”
“If everyone in this thread were to accept thistle’s interpretation of a venial sin, there would be no major disagreements.”
–But only thistle appears to accept this proposition…because everyone else believes the proposition is faulty (because it is).
“…If a person commits a venial sin and is not sorry for it, this puts them on very bad terms with God. This has always been my understanding of a venial sin, and I have never known a Catholic to disagree with this understanding.”
–You are correct in this understanding.
“But thistle’s citation directly contradicts my understanding of venial sin.”
–No, his citation you quote was to a general provision which did not reference lying at all, and which cannot support the “interpretation” that a lie is a sin 100% of the time.
“Catholictiger, as for your original question, I think we all agree (including thistle) that lying is sometimes morally acceptable.”
–Yes…because it’s sometimes not a sin at all.
"But if you wish to answer the question, “Is lying ever not sinful?”, we must first answer the question:
Is committing a venial sin ever morally acceptable?"
–Sin is NEVER “morally acceptable” because the 2 are opposites.
This question only arises if you accept thistle’s “interpretation.” We can answer the question “is lying ever not sinful,” without reaching your question, because your “question” isn’t a true question at all; the 2 are opposites, and cannot be reached.
D
dsf11785
Guest
But if “venial sin does not deprive the sinner of friendship with God”, how can one say that venial sin is an offense against God? It seems contradictory to both offend God and to be on terms of friendship with God. If you commit a venial sin and don’t regret it, you are not friends with God, as I have always understood it.
T
tjm190
Guest
My friend can make an off color joke, trip me, or eat some of my food without asking and still be on terms of friendship with me. That doesn’t mean I don’t dislike said actions.
- Status