Is lying always wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ace86
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Thank you, Scott. That’s the thrust of what I’ve been trying to convey from my perspective. The examples given may reduce culpability to that of the mildest venial sin (such as the case of the Eqyptian midwives), but it doesn’t not render culpability null. Having violated objective moral law, it can’t.
 
Thank you, Scott. That’s the thrust of what I’ve been trying to convey from my perspective. The examples given may reduce culpability to that of the mildest venial sin (such as the case of the Eqyptian midwives), but it doesn’t not render culpability null. Having violated objective moral law, it can’t.
I have not looked at culpability in-depth, but I’m inclined to take your point.
 
Another question: would telling the Nazi where the Jews were make you guilty of being an accomplice to murder? By telling a Nazi soldier where the Jew is knowing that he intends to do evil to them would make you an accomplice, I would think.

Therefore, an answer of either “yes” or “no” would be sinful. Wouldn’t it be possible to be absolved of the guilt of saying “no” based on double effect?

And after thinking about it for a while, I think that the most saintly course of action would be to stay completely silent, even if it means sacrificing your own life. This to me would be the course of action that would guarantee no sin whatsoever is commited (by yourself). After all, aren’t we commanded to lay down our lives if need be (not saying that it would be an easy decision for anyone, and I don’t know what I would do)? I think that Jesus made it clear that it is acceptable to stay silent when asked a question (He did it Himself a lot) and accept what may come.

You could of course, in the act of your sacrifice witness how murder is a sin… Again, not easy to do, but in my opinion the most saintly course of action.

Andy
 
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.
So, now we turn in the poor victim even though the sinfulness of lying is thoroughly mitigated, or the act is reduced to a venial sin. That’s just great.
 
That’s just great.
That’s just the nature of correct moral reasoning. It keeps us from the Faustian bargain of, “do this evil and you can save lives.” Which, more often than not, never works out the way that was expected. Since we cannot see all ends, but do know objective right from wrong, we have have to act in accordance and never do wrong.
 
Thank you, Scott. That’s the thrust of what I’ve been trying to convey from my perspective. The examples given may reduce culpability to that of the mildest venial sin (such as the case of the Eqyptian midwives), but it doesn’t not render culpability null. Having violated objective moral law, it can’t.
So, out of fear for God the midwives lied their heads off and God rewards them. Don’t try to split hairs that he rewarded them for fearing the Lord - He rewarded them because they showed their fear by lying. What other sins does God reward?
 
From Scottgun: No it doesn’t. The duress removes much of our culpability if we lie, but it is still wrong.
Sin requires consent. No consent. No sin.
From Scottgun: Not having a right to the truth does not give the agent a free exemption from the objective wrongness of lying.
This is where prudential judgment comes in and 2488. There are many cases where silence works or where you say “none of your business”. However, when a person who has no right to the Truth gives you two choices: Tell the truth and usually betray a confidence or to use deception, under the double effect theory you may take reasonable action for the greater good.
From Scotgun: Yes, but there is nothing in there authorizing lying.
See above
From Scottgun: 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.
If one is under duress there is no sin. One may not sin under the double effect.
From Scottgun: This is turning the teaching that lying is objectively wrong into something relative. Relative circumstances do not make objective wrongs right.
I’m making a case that it is not objectively wrong. If the Pope can lie to the Nazi’s to to protect Jews and even encourage the use of false baptismal certificates (conduct for which he has been praised for), I’ll reject your black and white/simplistic determination that all deception is objectively wrong.
From Scottgun: Yes, I agree *as long as the means to achieve charity and love are moral. *Lying ain’t, so its off the table.
I’m glad I don’t have to ever trust you with my or my children’s life.
 
Sin requires consent. No consent. No sin.
Yes, but this is about objective right and wrong. Lying is objectvely wrong, so no circumstance can make it right.
This is where prudential judgment comes in and 2488. There are many cases where silence works or where you say “none of your business”. However, when a person who has no right to the Truth gives you two choices: Tell the truth and usually betray a confidence or to use deception, under the double effect theory you may take reasonable action for the greater good.

If one is under duress there is no sin. One may not sin under the double effect.
Double effect does not count because lying is objectively wrong. Double-effect is about accepting an evil end, not an evil means.
I’m making a case that it is not objectively wrong.
Scripture, Sacred Tradition and constant Church teaching are all against you.
If the Pope can lie to the Nazi’s to to protect Jews
Evidence?
and even encourage the use of false baptismal certificates (conduct for which he has been praised for),
A false baptismal certificate is not uttering a falsehood. It may fall under some other thing that may or may not be objectively wrong, but one subject at a time please.
I’ll reject your black and white/simplistic determination that all deception is objectively wrong.
I didn’t say that. I said all lying is objectively wrong. We need to be clear on our terms. All lying involves deception, but not all deception is lying.
I’m glad I don’t have to ever trust you with my or my children’s life.
I’m glad you would never ask me to make a Faustian bargin. In my weakness, I would probably lie to protect them, but it would still be wrong.
 
So, out of fear for God the midwives lied their heads off and God rewards them. Don’t try to split hairs that he rewarded them for fearing the Lord - He rewarded them because they showed their fear by lying. What other sins does God reward?
If you think I’m splitting hairs, that may be something that you want to take up with both the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Archdiocese of Baltimore that approved the Douay-Rheims Bible, as both have nihil obstat and both support that the reward was for their fear of the Lord, and having been tainted by the particular venial sin of the lie, was purely material.. Both sources are clear on this point.
 
So, let me get this straight…lying to the gestapo is to be considered myth-making.
That is wrong obviously.

Again: “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error (not myths) someone who has the right to know the truth. (not gestapo.)”

I’m still interested in hearing your argument by the way. But I’d rather you not predicate it on outrageously silly straw men.
 
That is wrong obviously.

Again: “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error (not myths) someone who has the right to know the truth. (not gestapo.)”

I’m still interested in hearing your argument by the way. But I’d rather you not predicate it on outrageously silly straw men.
Well, since you firmly protest the notion that the error is one dealing with the disparity of perception vs. reality, I doubt there’s anything I could say that would convince you. But I still firmly believe that the error is not merely a theological one (i.e. leading another into heresy, etc.), but one of logical or factual error. I use false witness in this instance, which damages the reputation of another by virtue of altered perception, who rightly should be told the truth of the situation.

Alas, this cannot happen with the gestapo, as either one or the other facets can be affirmed in the situation by means of spoken words. You can alter one’s perception in a false or deceiving way (the officer believes no Jews are present) or your can affirm the person’s right to know the whole truth and tell them that there are. The degree of culpability is not at issue here (I personally think the veniality of the sin would be of great minority), but a sin will have been committed.

Moreover, I find it interesting that you append the “right to know the truth” to a preceding section. Appropriately read, this phrase is derived from the following:

Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it… (CCC 2489).

Said section says clearly that the manner in which these extreme cases should be handled are :eek: silence and discreet language.
 
Ok, I’ve heard it from one perspective,

Why is it** right** and not sinful to speak the truth to the Gestapo if doing so ensures betrayal of the family that trusted you for protection?

Alternatively if your silence leads to them arresting you searching the house and exposing the family, is that also right and without sin?
 
Telling the truth about someone can also be a sin. The sin of detraction consists in telling the truth.

Not sure if that applies here, but telling the truth can certainly be sinful.
 
Telling the truth about someone can also be a sin. The sin of detraction consists in telling the truth.

Not sure if that applies here, but telling the truth can certainly be sinful.
Yes. You are right. I think I made the point elsewhere that Tennessee William’s play *Streetcar Named Desire *seems to be all about that. Everything nasty thing Stanley says about Blance is true (if I remember correctly), but he unecessarily tells it in order to injure her.
 
If you think I’m splitting hairs, that may be something that you want to take up with both the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Archdiocese of Baltimore that approved the Douay-Rheims Bible, as both have nihil obstat and both support that the reward was for their fear of the Lord, and having been tainted by the particular venial sin of the lie, was purely material.. Both sources are clear on this point.
So, what other venial sins does God reward?
 
Why doesn’t somebody send this hypothetical to the Vatican? Maybe we can get its perpective…
 
: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…
Zooey, Thank YOu .
i’m glad somebody Understood my post.

still, the other people who posted saying that lying is ALWAYS wrong haven’t answered my question yet.

Would they be able to sleep at night, knowing somebody DIED as a result of their silence or “telling the truth”?
:rolleyes:
 
Well, since you firmly protest the notion that the error is one dealing with the disparity of perception vs. reality.
Wrong. I protest that the gestapo do not have the right to know the truth.
I doubt there’s anything I could say that would convince you.
I would be convinced if you would address the Gestapo’s right to know the truth instead of tilting with strawmen.
Moreover, I find it interesting that you append the “right to know the truth” to a preceding section. Appropriately read, this phrase is derived from the following:
Wrong again, I appended nothing. The Vatican website says…
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P8K.HTM
2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. 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. ***By injuring man’s relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.
Said section says clearly that the manner in which these extreme cases should be handled are :eek: silence and discreet language.
Makes sense to me.
  • 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.
  • To myth make is to act against the truth [but not] lead into error, someone who has the right to know the truth.
  • To keep silent or speak discretely is to act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who does [not] have the right to know the truth.
  • To tell the truth is to is to [not] speak or act against the truth [at all.]
 
I was questioned on if Pope Pius XII ever lied and falsified papers (including forging Baptism certificates) and other things that in normal circumstances would be an Offense of against the Truth. Why this story doesn’t talk about it directly, does anyone think that the Pope’s silent orders to protect and give refuge also included the directive:

“Don’t lie. If the Nazi’s ask if there are any Jews here be silent. I know they will figure out their are Jews in your midst and they’ll kill you and all the Jews. But I can’t condone your sin. You’ll be a martyr. As for the fact that I’ve been denying for years there are Jews in the Vatican posing as Priests, nuns, maids, Swiss Guards, etc., well, I’m not as pure as you.”

The Pope understood that they were under duress and that the Nazi’s had no right to the truth.

See the following excerpt from a book by a Sister:
Opening the cloister

Since this encounter, I’ve been striving to write from my heart a “manifesto” for justice. Pope Pius XII, through ecclesiastical channels, instructed priests and nuns to shelter any Jew who knocked on their doors. When I learned about this, and about the Vatican’s network to provide false identification papers for Jews and other refugees, I decided to publish these facts.

For several years Pope Pius XII did not leave the Vatican, where he was concealing many Jews. Every corner of his estate at Castelgandolfo, his summer home, also was occupied by them. According to Father Robert A. Graham, S.J., the editor of World War II Vatican documents, word spread from the Vatican for Religious to open the doors of convents and monasteries to protect Jews. Directives were only given orally because, under the German occupation, all archives were subject to Gestapo raids.

This was an extraordinary Vatican command because until this time convents and monasteries were considered cloistered. Very strict regulations existed that prohibited the laity from entering these cloistered areas. In those days one’s own parents were nor allowed to enter the private quarters of a convent or monastery. Neither was anyone else. However, when Jews and other refugees needed sanctuary, the regulations were suspended.

For fifty years, books have been published, films have been produced, lectures have been given, but few people have defended Pope Pius XII. In his time, people from different parts of the world insisted that the pope publicly condemn the Nazis. But to the very end, Pius XII was convinced that, should he denounce Hitler, there would be serious and devastating retaliation.

Evidence shows that he was right. Bishop Jean Bernard of Luxembourg, an inmate of Dachau from February 1941 to August 1942, declared that “whenever protests were made, treatment of prisoners worsened immediately.” Because of the pope’s prudence and courage, many more lives were saved. If Pope Pius XII had protested, not only would he have been unsuccessful in halting the destruction, but he might have caused a great deal of additional damage to the thousands of Jews hidden in the Vatican, in convents and monasteries, as well as to the Church in German-occupied Europe. Nazi policy sought the extermination not only of Jews but of certain non-Jewish peoples as well. The thousands of Jews hidden in convents and monasteries would have been sent to concentration camps along with those who were trying to save them. (catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0004.html)
 
The Church issued tens of thousands of false baptismal certificates in WWII as has been pointed out in this thread. To claim that it is not a lie because it was not “uttering a falsehood” is beyond comprehension. It is lying clear and simple. It is lying with a permanent record of the fact. It is a lie that can be repeated over and over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top