Is lying always wrong?

[Scottgun]

And I have said it once (actually twice), & I’ll say it again: If there are Jews hiding in my attic, & Nazis at the front door, I have 2 choices: I can tell a lie & save their lives, or I can tell the truth & get them killed. I will tell the lie every time, & if that means I am going to go to hell, I would rather go there for lying than for being the cause of those Jews ending up in the ovens at Auschwitz & Dachau!!
But hey, that’s me.

But you are not the cause of Jews going to concentration camps, the Nazis’ are. You would probably have limited culpability if you lied, meaning you would likely not go to Hell, but our attitude should not be, “it’s only venial so it is ok.” Our attitude should be death before sin.

 

[Scottgun]

The moral teachings of the church are important and correct guidelines, but they do not and cannot tell us specifically how to behave in any given situation.

In the case of objective wrongs, yes they do. Once again, when soemthing is objectively wrong as lying is, no amount of good intentions or special situations make it right.

Some situations will put our values in conflict, and we must make value judgments then act. In other words, in a dangerous and violent world our values can be placed in conflict.

This doesn’t really overthrow my point so no comment.

Choices have to be made that cause internal dissonance. Zooey, you indicate that you would want to choose genuine charity over rigid obedience to laws. That is the right choice because it is the path laid out for us by Christ. I pray we are never forced to make such choices.

No it is not the right choice because when the goal is charity, the means must be moral and lying ain’t.

 

[BillP]

Our attitude should be death before sin.

Maybe YOUR attitude is “death before sin”. MY attitude is:

John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

In my opinion, it is MUCH better for me to commit a venial sin and catch a bit more time in Purgatory than have that poor Jew die.

 

[Scottgun]

Maybe YOUR attitude is “death before sin”. MY attitude is:

In my opinion, it is MUCH better for me to commit a venial sin and catch a bit more time in Purgatory than have that poor Jew die.

Nice try but no dice, because the Nazi’s are going to search your house in any case and because you harbored them, you would be laying down your life for them. We don’t have to lie. Once again lying is aways wrong and no one has shown otherwise. No one is ever compelled to commit a sin. Even a “little” one.

 

[Neo_Canaan]

Nice try but no dice, because the Nazi’s are going to search your house in any case and because you harbored them, you would be laying down your life for them. We don’t have to lie. Once again lying is aways wrong and no one has shown otherwise. No one is ever compelled to commit a sin. Even a “little” one.

And even the tiniest sin is STILL evil.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Why can’t women have the same thing? Does that mean a woman can’t lay down her for her friends too? And that only males can?

 

[LilyM]

But you are not the cause of Jews going to concentration camps, the Nazis’ are. You would probably have limited culpability if you lied, meaning you would likely not go to Hell, but our attitude should not be, “it’s only venial so it is ok.” Our attitude should be death before sin.

Death before sin means OUR OWN death - not that we allow OTHERS to suffer or die for our sake. In a situation where you are the only person affected by your lying or lack thereof, or you can die to SAVE someone’s life that’s one thing.

If you are reasonably sure, for example, that your silence, though resulting in your own death, will save the Jews you are hiding, then of course that’s the correct thing to do.

I for one would rather committ the venial sin of lying to protect lives, if I don’t see any genuine alternative open, than committ the greater sin of aiding and abetting torture and genocide either by silence or by speaking.

And yes, if by your silence or your speech you knowingly permit those Jews to be found and tortured or killed you ARE responsible for what happens to them. There is such a thing as being complicit in the sin of another. Complicity can occur when you keep silent rather than preventing the sin by speech. So yes, it’s quite possible that in this situation you would indeed be complicit in the sins of the Nazis.

 

[Steadfast_love]

Seriously though, why can’t we do what Jesus did?

www.vatican.va

 

[quasimodo]

Ya’ll worrying about a lie in this case have your priorities all hosed up. There is a heirarchy of Good in Catholic moral theology. Truth is quite high in the heirarchy. Life is higher. You would be obligated to lie if necessary - by Catholic moral theology - in the example being discussed. Yes, there might be sin attached to the lie. 100% of the guilt would be attached to the person forcing the issue; none to the person protecting life.

 

[JimG]

And even the tiniest sin is STILL evil.

Why can’t women have the same thing? Does that mean a woman can’t lay down her for her friends too? And that only males can?

In the English language, “man” is a generic noun.

 

[Neo_Canaan]

In the English language, “man” is a generic noun.

toro. It’s time we stop doing 2 things–lying regardless and treating women as subhumans.

 

[JimG]

toro. It’s time we stop doing 2 things–lying regardless and treating women as subhumans.

That is a non-sequitur.

 

[Neo_Canaan]

That is a non-sequitur.

No, it’s the truth.

 

[MilesXpisti]

Ya’ll worrying about a lie in this case have your priorities all hosed up. There is a heirarchy of Good in Catholic moral theology. Truth is quite high in the heirarchy. Life is higher. You would be obligated to lie if necessary - by Catholic moral theology - in the example being discussed. Yes, there might be sin attached to the lie. 100% of the guilt would be attached to the person forcing the issue; none to the person protecting life.

snickers Just like I’ve heard that then-Cardinal Ratzinger said that it was justifiable to vote for pro-choice candidates if they agree with the Church in matters of dealing with poverty, death penalty, etc.

A Catholic has no obligation to do anything morally wrong. Not ever. And to suggest that our Lord could be the author or supporter of an evil deed is blasphemy, for St. James wrote in his epistle: Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils: and He tempteth no man.

If that were the case, then the entire system of moral and natural law becomes subject to endless questions of mitigation, almost spiritual simony. What can I do to get away with this in this instance vs. this instance. By your rationale, we could justify killing an abortionist physician. Life is higher on the list in truth, so one life would understandably be less important than several thousand right? Seems our German friends had the same idea about 60 years. Get real.

God does not promise you, me or those Jews hiding in the attic even one more breath. Death can come at any time and by any means under the sun. I’m obligated only to speak the truth, or use silence and discrete language to protect life. That is the extent of my obligation. Moral law is the ruler by which I must measure my action; I do not have the right or luxury to force it to fit what would be comfortable or expedient.

 

[Steadfast_love]

A Catholic has no obligation to do anything morally wrong. Not ever. And to suggest that our Lord could be the author or supporter of an evil deed is blasphemy, for St. James wrote in his epistle: Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils: and He tempteth no man.

The point is: Jesus doesn’t live up to your standard of truth telling so it is by* your own words *that you condemn our Lord. :tsktsk:

As for me, I’m perfectly happy to follow our Lords example of saying things that are misunderstood for the good of the kingdom. Do you agree or would you care to explain John 7?

 

[valient_Lucy]

Fair enough. But the Catechism was rather clear on the subject. Under no circumstances is a lie anything other than a sin. If, for the protection of others, you cannot reveal a truth, then remain silent, but do not lie.

If I was a Gestapo soldier, and someone remained silent if someone asked me that question, I would assume that they were hiding Jews, and promptly search the house.
Of course, I might search the house even if they said no. But I think that silence is also a kind of lie. If you don’t say anything, and you allow someone to think something that is not true, that is a kind of lie.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Or suppose there was some sort of emergency, and you say “It’s going to be okay”. Is that a lie?

Actually, if you’re caring for someone in an emergency, you shouldn’t say that. Say, “we’re doing everything we can for you.”

 

[valient_Lucy]

Being silent or using discreet language is not the same as lying.

Scott

I think that’s splitting hairs. IMO, anything that does not CLEARLY and DIRECTLY answer a question truthfully is a kind of a lie. Being silent and using descreet language IS a lie, because it is an attempt to decieve someone and hide the truth from them.

So, IMO, if a person who is hiding Jews remains silent or uses descreet language or remains silent, they are lying, because they are attempting to deceive someone and hide the truth from them.

ANYTHING short of, “Yes, I am hiding Jews and I will show you where they are,” is a lie, imo.

 

[fin]

very Interesting topic

to those who say that lying is a sin, whatever the situation…
what would you do if someone’s life is in danger; woouldn’t you lie?

i don’t think i would be able to sleep at night if i chose to be silent OR tell the truth and someone died as a result of that.

so , if lying is the ONLY viable option , to convince the killers, then I would do it.

 

[quasimodo]

I can see it now … (Godwin’s law not withstanding)

Our hero, his attempt to finesse the gestapo having failed, rats on the person in hiding. As the prisoner is led away to death in the concentration camp, he looks her in the eyes and thinks to him, “Well, at least my conscience is clear!”

Other than that Miss Frank, how was your day?

In order for it to be a lie, someone must be hurt and the person must have the right to the truth. Otherwise, we could not morally read or write fiction. The law is for man not the other way around.

 

[JimG]

What is it about the sin of lying that causes us to absolutize it? There is not a commandment that says “Thou shalt not lie.” The commandment, rather, is “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”

I don’t see any similar threads making absolute claims about the commandment: “Honor the father and thy mother,” for example.

Is it just this one thing–lying–that requires no definitions, no nuances, no explanations, no looking at circumstances, no examination of individual cases or individual culpability, and none of the other commandments?