Is lying always wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ace86
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Steadfast_love said:
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?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, I’ll explain it. First, it should be noted that the actual Latin of the verse 8 is not “I will not” but rather ego non ascendo, “I do not go up.” Present tense. Moreoever, the question asked by his disciples was if he would accompany them to the festival, he declined saying that his time had not yet come, because firstly they were not dependent upon God’s will, thus he sent them away and remained in Galilee. He was answering them directly to their request that he go with them at that time, in the stance of a public figure as it were. He was reluctant to do, we can intimate, because he had not been instructed to by the Father. There was also the issue of his disciples wishing him to go openly, which he found unacceptable given that his brethren did not presently even believe in him (cf. John 7:5). This is why he went in secret. And it is not entirely clear how long after his disciples departed that he followed, but it must have been some time, given the distance from Galilee to Judea, which would’ve been traversed on foot.
 
LilyM said:
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.
Click to expand...
:amen:Exactly!!!
fin said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thank you!! This is precisely my point of view!!:blessyou:
quasimodo said:
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.
Click to expand...
And thank you, as well!!
JimG said:
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?
Click to expand...
I know just what you mean; that is what drives me crazy whenever this subject comes up!! Some people seem :nope: :nope: not to be able to get beyond the words when lying is the topic…
 
Zooey said:
:amen:Exactly!!!

Thank you!! This is precisely my point of view!!:blessyou:

And thank you, as well!!

I know just what you mean; that is what drives me crazy whenever this subject comes up!! Some people seem :nope: :nope: not to be able to get beyond the words when lying is the topic…
Click to expand...
I’m sorry that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Sacred Scripture and the Church Fathers are contrary to your point of view. I’ve done my best to show the catechetical position of the Church. What you choose to do with it is entirely up to you. Dominus tecum.
 
I know one thing. No liar will enter into the kingdom of heaven.Gods Word is clear.
 
MilesXpisti,

I agree with your explanation but not with your conclusion. Jesus words were not sin because he was “instructed by his Father,” and was doing something “not openly…” but “in secret” – and that’s exactly the point. The ends of obeying the Father’s will and keeping a “just-secret” vindicate Jesus’s words.

Your position, that it is wrong to mislead people irregardless of their right to the truth goes beyond the example of our Lord not only in this verse but in also anytime he outfoxes someone. It also goes beyond CCC2483 which defines that a lie is to …lead into error someone who has the **right to know **the truth.

Certainly I respect your devotion to truthfulness but it goes beyond what is written in the Bible and the CCC.
 
Steadfast_love said:
MilesXpisti,

I agree with your explanation but not with your conclusion. Jesus words were not sin because he was “instructed by his Father,” and was doing something “not openly…” but “in secret” – and that’s exactly the point. The ends of obeying the Father’s will and keeping a “just-secret” vindicate Jesus’s words.

Your position, that it is wrong to mislead people irregardless of their right to the truth goes beyond the example of our Lord not only in this verse but in also anytime he outfoxes someone. It also goes beyond CCC2483 which defines that a lie is to …lead into error someone who has the **right to know **the truth.

Certainly I respect your devotion to truthfulness but it goes beyond what is written in the Bible and the CCC.
Click to expand...
Likewise I understand your explanation, but do not agree with the conclusion. You seem to be making the argument that if God tells you to do something morally wrong, that it somehow makes it okay. I, however, do not believe that God ever urges someone to sin. Never in any case do I believe this happens; it is a human failing that seeks to justify weakness in an unfortunate situation. Christ’s actions in John 7 were not a sin, not because he was “instructed” to lie by the Father, but because quite literally they were not a sin. He did not lie.
 
I don’t think you got my point. The point is that Jesus didn’t sin. Jesus was able to:
  • Do God’s will
  • protect the truth with misdirection (not just silence)
  • and not sin.
Our Lord’s technique dovetails perfectly with the CCC so his technique is exactly what we need to keep nosy Nazis out of our attic.

Are there refugees in your attic?
There are **not **refugees in my attic.

Are you going to Jeruselem?
I am **not **going to Jeruselem.
 
Steadfast_love said:
I don’t think you got my point. The point is that Jesus didn’t sin. Jesus was able to:
  • Do God’s will
  • protect the truth with misdirection (not just silence)
  • and not sin.
Our Lord’s technique dovetails perfectly with the CCC so his technique is exactly what we need to keep nosy Nazis out of our attic.

Are there refugees in your attic?
There are **not **refugees in my attic.

Are you going to Jeruselem?
I am **not **going to Jeruselem.
Click to expand...
How is ‘there are not refugees in my attic’ not a lie? It most certainly is a lie, because there ARE in fact refugees (people escaping from the Nazis) in your attic.

As if any moderately bossy or sneaky Nazi wouldn’t just say ‘is there anybody in your attic’ or more likely 'we’ve been told you’ve got people in your attic - the neighbours heard ‘em in there yesterday, is it true?’ or some such. They wouldn’t normally leave you room to prevaricate.
 
LilyM said:
How is ‘there are not refugees in my attic’ not a lie? It most certainly is a lie, because there ARE in fact refugees (people escaping from the Nazis) in your attic.
Click to expand...
My statement does not **…lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth ** therefore, it is not a lie by definition. (CCC2483)
As if any moderately bossy or sneaky Nazi wouldn’t just say ‘is there anybody in your attic’ or more likely 'we’ve been told you’ve got people in your attic - the neighbours heard ‘em in there yesterday, is it true?’ or some such. They wouldn’t normally leave you room to prevaricate.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes, everyone knows they have *:mad: ways of making you talk :mad: *but the real issue is, can they skip all that and **compel **a Catholic to betray innocent people into evil ends just by asking a well constructed question? The answer, demonstrated by our Lord and confirmed by the CCC is no. After all, a so-called “lie” that does not …lead into error those who have a right to know the truth is no lie at all.
 
Zooey said:
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.
Click to expand...
Zooey:

In this case, you would be acting according to the Tradition of the Church, which in WW II hid Jews in Monesteries and Convents and lied about who they were to the Nazis, going so far as to fake Bapismal Certificates and to have the Jewish boys act as Acolytes.

Many of these Jewish boys actually thought they were Catholics because of all the times they had served at Mass, and had a tough time adjusting to life as Jews after the war.

The Church the people asking the questions and demanding answers (in this case, the Nazis) had no right to truthful answers as they intended to use those truthful answers to harm innocent people once they found them. And, That because of this, giving the Nazis truthful answers or anything which did not send them away would contribute to and be a participation in their evil.

Anyone wishing to argue with the decision can go argue with Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII.

The CCC is a guide, a teaching instrument but it is not the end all and be all, and it is not to be used as he sole source when answering questions such as this that the Church has actually dealt with.

The Tradition of the Church is much more than the CCC which is a summary of that Tradition, and I submit to that Tradition and the Magisterium which produced and maintains it with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
 
Steadfast_love said:
My statement does not **…lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth ** therefore, it is not a lie by definition. (CCC2483)

Yes, yes, everyone knows they have *:mad: ways of making you talk :mad: *but the real issue is, can they skip all that and **compel **a Catholic to betray innocent people into evil ends just by asking a well constructed question? The answer, demonstrated by our Lord and confirmed by the CCC is no. After all, a so-called “lie” that does not …lead into error those who have a right to know the truth is no lie at all.
Click to expand...
Actually, if you bothered to read the section directly before it, you would see that the actual definition of a lie is something that “consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving” CCC2482. In the now-famous Gestapo example, to say there are no “refugees” is with the intent to deceive. For the purposes of saving life, yes, but it’s still a lie.
 
My last thought on this is (from another thread) one of mere practical apologetics. I think we need to cling tooth-and-nail to the Church teaching that uttering falsehoods with intention of deceiving is always and everywhere objectively wrong because it provides a sharp contrast to Islam in which lying is permitted in circumstances. Meaning how the heck is anyone supposed to know whether or not the words coming out of their mouths are truth or one of those circumstances? The choice between a religion of Truth whatever the costs vs. a religion of situational ethics is an easy one for me.
 
MilesXpisti said:
Actually, if you bothered to read the section directly before it, you would see that the actual definition of a lie is something that “consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving” CCC2482. In the now-famous Gestapo example, to say there are no “refugees” is with the intent to deceive. For the purposes of saving life, yes, but it’s still a lie.
Click to expand...
There’s no contradiction. 2482 says what a lie CONSISTS of. 2483 defines what to lie IS.

A square CONSISTS of four lines and four corners. That’s not the same as defining what a square IS.

Likewise a practical joke CONSISTS of the same things as a lie: (1)speaking a falsehood with (2)the intention to deceive but since it is not done to …lead into error it does not meet the definition of what a lie IS – so it’s just a non-lie, a practical joke.
 
John 6:5-6
When Jesus raised his eyes and saw that a large crowd was coming to him, he said to Philip, “Where can we buy enough food for them to eat?” He said this to test him, because he himself knew what he was going to do.
 
Scottgun said:
My last thought on this is (from another thread) one of mere practical apologetics. I think we need to cling tooth-and-nail to the Church teaching that uttering falsehoods with intention of deceiving is always and everywhere objectively wrong because it provides a sharp contrast to Islam in which lying is permitted in circumstances. Meaning how the heck is anyone supposed to know whether or not the words coming out of their mouths are truth or one of those circumstances? The choice between a religion of Truth whatever the costs vs. a religion of situational ethics is an easy one for me.
Click to expand...
In situations that require witness to the faith, the Christian must profess it without equivocation, after the example of St. Paul before his judges. CCC2471

“Truth whatever the cost and no situational ethics” is a catchy slogan but I don’t think that you’re marketing what the church is teaching.
 
Steadfast_love said:
There’s no contradiction. 2482 says what a lie CONSISTS of. 2483 defines what to lie IS.

A square CONSISTS of four lines and four corners. That’s not the same as defining what a square IS.

Likewise a practical joke CONSISTS of the same things as a lie: (1)speaking a falsehood with (2)the intention to deceive but since it is not done to …lead into error it does not meet the definition of what a lie IS – so it’s just a non-lie, a practical joke.
Click to expand...
Semantics. Clever semantics, but semantics nonetheless. It is precisely the constitution of a lie that is important in this situation. It is defined by the matter, an offence against the truth, and free assent of the will to injure the truth for the purposes of deception. Just as a surgeon can do nothing to help a patient if he knows that the patient is a human but not what constitutes one, we cannot recognize a lie without know what a lie consists of. Are we to assume that the error spoken of in 2483 is merely a theological one? Of course this is not true, as lying for the purposes of injuring your neighbor is prohibited. You are in fact leading them into error in their perception, a representation of reality that is divorced from its actuality. You say there is no one hiding in your house. There is someone hiding in your house. The gestapo think there is no one in the house.
 
Steadfast_love said:
In situations that require witness to the faith, the Christian must profess it without equivocation, after the example of St. Paul before his judges. CCC2471"Truth whatever the cost and no situational ethics" is a catchy slogan but I don’t think that you’re marketing what the church is teaching.
Click to expand...
Properly understood it does. I’m not saying that there are not situations. I’m talking about a system of situational ethics in which circumstances trump objective rights and wrongs. Relativism in other words. When something is objectively wrong as lying is, no circumstance makes it right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top