S
Scottgun
Guest
LOL! Yes. We can probably find examples of churchmen and even of popes lying. While it scandalizes the Church, it does not abrogate the teaching one whit.
- Status
A
adrift
Guest
A snide and misleading statement. Your link is about forged document The Donation of Constantine. No where in that link does it state the Popes lied. That was your malicious interpretation
L
LilyM
Guest
Exactly - it was certainly a forged document which was mistakenly taken on good faith. Who’s to say there was any lying by Popes in the matter?
D
Durendin
Guest
Back to the metaphor about hiding the Jews from the Nazis, I’d rather follow the example of the Priests in Italy who hid Jews. You can bet they didn’t charge forward to the SS Officers and open their hearts with the truth when asked.
If I lived during the time when Christ walked the Earth and a Roman Soldier bent on His arrest asked which way He went, I’m probably going to lie then to. He’s not getting truth out of me, not even for a bag of silver coins. How much would you sell the Jews out for? After all, you’re walking away with a clean concious, how much money or blood is that worth to you? Don’t worry too much, someone else has paid the price for your telling the truth.
If I lived during the time when Christ walked the Earth and a Roman Soldier bent on His arrest asked which way He went, I’m probably going to lie then to. He’s not getting truth out of me, not even for a bag of silver coins. How much would you sell the Jews out for? After all, you’re walking away with a clean concious, how much money or blood is that worth to you? Don’t worry too much, someone else has paid the price for your telling the truth.
I
IHS
Guest
So your saying it,s ok to sin because Jesus paid the price. So we can trample the blood of Jesus Christ.
God save us.
C
Coder
Guest
Hello,
What do you mean by this? Our salvation does not mean that we are allowed to do wrong.
C
Coder
Guest
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.
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.
D
Durendin
Guest
I knew that as soon as I used that line that some would instantly confer it to the sacrifice of Christ. Let me try again using the Jewish family in the attic example.
By not telling a lie and exposing the family, you did not sin in that you did not tell a lie, but the family paid the price for your righteousness with their lives when in fact the sin was yours to burden in the first place.
And yes, if a Roman hunting Christ asked me if I knew where He was (and I did), I would lie. I would then ask Christ if what I did was wrong and if so, would He forgive me?
C
Coder
Guest
No. You are missing the point sir. I think the sin of lying is in the spirit of the law. There may be some circumstances in which being discreet/evasive is morally acceptable. For example avoiding disclosure of information to protect the innocent can be considered based on its morality not whether the sin is acceptable because it was necessary. Morality allows for accepting unwanted side effects in certain cases. In such cases, these unwanted side effects are not sin, they are simply accepted because a necessary good required acceptance of them.
Also, don’t confuse this with doing evil so that good may be done. St. Paul warns us about this.
S
Steadfast_love
Guest
…which is why the CCC first explains what a lie consists of (2482) and then what it actualy is to lie. (2483)
No. let’s not waste time on strawmen.
S
Steadfast_love
Guest
I agree that lying is always wrong… but is that the same as saying “Truth whatever the cost?” Again, I think you’re going beyond what is written.
C
Coder
Guest
Are Notre Dame football quarterbacks sinning when they deceive the defense by faking a handoff?
Are basketball players sinning when they deceive by faking a jump shot?
There are both examples of intentional deception, yet I don’t think they’re considered a sin.
Are basketball players sinning when they deceive by faking a jump shot?
There are both examples of intentional deception, yet I don’t think they’re considered a sin.
A
AHapka
Guest
So how does the Nazi situation correlate with 2483 of the catechism?
“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.” (empasis added).
Can it be argued that the Nazi has the right to know as defined by God’s law, since he intends to do evil?
Andy
“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.” (empasis added).
Can it be argued that the Nazi has the right to know as defined by God’s law, since he intends to do evil?
Andy
S
Steadfast_love
Guest
Aha! And lookie here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=119576
If “The tooth fairy is real” is not a lie, there must be more to a lie than (1) speaking a falsehood with (2) the intention to deceive.
If “The tooth fairy is real” is not a lie, there must be more to a lie than (1) speaking a falsehood with (2) the intention to deceive.
M
MilesXpisti
Guest
So, let me get this straight…lying to the gestapo is to be considered myth-making. What?. I accept only that the myths described in that post are for the purposes of entertainment, not unlike a television show or a good novel. But that is not the intention when lying to the SS. You’re not doing it for an adrenaline rush or some chucks, but for the purpose of deception. Period.
M
MilesXpisti
Guest
If lying is always morally wrong, then it must follow that it can never be morally justified to do it, for whatever reason, so says the Catechism. (CCC 1753)
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
This is so “sola scriptura”-like and simplistic to be laughable. Just like we rightly criticize those who take Scripture out of context, so must we criticize this.
First of all, when one is under duress one is give the moral authority to take reasonable steps to remove themselves from teh duress. This includes lying to one who has a gun pointed at our head.
Secondly, CC1753 is out of context when under duress or one is questioned by one who has not right to the truth.
Thirdly, one needs to remember CCC-2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.
Additionally, one needs to study the “Double Effect Theory” which I believe was first articulated by St. Thomas Aquinas but is used by the Church when justifying matters like self-defense, just war, and certain medical procedures to protect life. In most of the examples on this thread, the concept is applicable here.
Also, if all the answers for all situations could be found in Scripture and the Catechism, there would be no need for conscience and the exercise of our prudential judgment. These significant gifts from God that separate us from the animals and not to be minimized or trivialized.
Finally, I refer you to the section of the CCC on Sin (1846-1869) which introduces the concepts of:
*]Sin is a failure in love of God- Protecting the lives of others from evildoers is consistent w/ our call to love and follow God
*]Sin is a lack of charity- Placing one in harm for another or protecting another’s well-being is an act of charity
*]Consent- Without consent or freedom (ie duress) there is no sin
S
Scottgun
Guest
No it doesn’t. The duress removes much of our culpability if we lie, but it is still wrong.
Not having a right to the truth does not give the agent a free exemption from the objective wrongness of lying.
Yes, but there is nothing in there authorizing lying.
Double-effect only applies when the means are objectively good or indifferent, when they are objectively wrong as lying is, double-effect cannot be appealed to.
This is turning the teaching that lying is objectively wrong into something relative. Relative circumstances do not make objective wrongs right.
Yes, I agree *as long as the means to achieve charity and love are moral. *Lying ain’t, so its off the table.
Q
quasimodo
Guest
(flaunting Godwin’s Law once again)
“Sorry about that Miss Frank, but the CCC is very clear. I could not finesse my way out of it, so you have to die a horrible death at the hands of these fiends. There’s good news, though. My conscience is clear. Have a nice day!”
The law and the CCC were made for man, not man for the law or the CCC. We must be carreful not to approach the CCC like Pharisees.
“Sorry about that Miss Frank, but the CCC is very clear. I could not finesse my way out of it, so you have to die a horrible death at the hands of these fiends. There’s good news, though. My conscience is clear. Have a nice day!”
The law and the CCC were made for man, not man for the law or the CCC. We must be carreful not to approach the CCC like Pharisees.
S
Scottgun
Guest
You are right about not using the CCC like a pharisee. But the objective wrongness of lying is derived from Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the constant teaching of the Church. Objective wrongs do not become right according to circumstances. Culpability might change due to circumstances (that is, under duress the sinfulness of lying might be thoroughly mitigated), but as an objective act, it’s wrong.
- Status