J
joanofarc3
Guest
Okay!
Definitely not mortal, but still venially sinful.
- Status
Definitely not mortal, but still venially sinful.
B
bilop
Guest
I don’t have a particular source. I am just trying to reconcile the fact that some lies are clearly not sins (i.e. lying to the Nazis about where the Jews are hiding).
I think there are two important sections of the Catechism to consult.
and also
It would seem from 2482-83 that the sin of lying is in leading someone into “error” which is associated with the work of the devil.
Section 2488-89 clearly state that we don’t have to answer truthfully when the person doesn’t have the right to know.
The gray area then arise when we get to how to avoid telling the truth. 2489 speaks of silence and discreet language. Clearly these are preferred options.
But what about the situation where neither will suffice? To go back to the Nazis/Jews example; if you remain silent or are evasive, the Nazis will assume there are Jews there. In this case a firm falsehood is the only option to accrying out the dictum
“No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.”
So, I guess I come down to the conclusion that a falsehood is not a lie when the person has no right to know, and you are not doing evil ('the work of the devil") through the lie.
God Bless
J
Joyousguard
Guest
Ill post something on this. i believe I can find a place where it explains it far better than I
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
bilop,
Thank you for the discussion.It’s a topic that I find interesting, especially in regard to its historical development.
As you point out bilop, the complicated part is when you must align the fact that it seems sinful to lie with the need to protect the innocent. Incidentally the “Nazi” example of hiding a man in one’s house has quite a long history itself, even mentioned by St. Augustine.
However, I think it is fair to say that all lying is sinful, and this seems to be in accord with the Catechism and with the tradition of the Church.
When posed with a difficult situation (such as the “Nazi” example) I don’t think the best response is to say that lying to someone who is not entitled to information is not lying. Why? Because we can think of instances where that principle seems to break down. For instance, let us say that you work for a real estate development company. You receive a phone call from a competitor who asks whether or not your company is planning on bidding on a certain plot of land. The inquirer is not entitled to that information, certainly. Would that give you license to say “No” when in fact your boss is preparing the bid in the other room? I would say this example seems to contradict the proposed formula that “lying is only a sin when the person has a right to the information.”
Of course most of us in the above example would simply say “I am not at liberty to say.” I understand that this example is not like the “Nazi” example for a few reasons: there is not an unjust aggressor, there is no danger of death to an innocent person, and, importantly, an answer like “I cannot tell you” would be tantamount to a betrayal of the person hiding. BUT - my example was only to illustrate the deficiencies in the statement that “lying is only a sin when the person has a right to know the information.”
In regard to the “Nazi” example it seems the solution that most theologians accept is the making use of wide mental reservation. This solution seems to take into account the absolute prohibition on lying on the one had and the requirements of justice and the need to protect an innocent from harm on the other hand.
For those who wish to pursue this topic further, see the Catholic Encyclopedia articles:
Lying
Mental Reservation
I found our discussion interesting. I hope you did as well.
Thanks!
VC
Thank you for the discussion.It’s a topic that I find interesting, especially in regard to its historical development.
As you point out bilop, the complicated part is when you must align the fact that it seems sinful to lie with the need to protect the innocent. Incidentally the “Nazi” example of hiding a man in one’s house has quite a long history itself, even mentioned by St. Augustine.
However, I think it is fair to say that all lying is sinful, and this seems to be in accord with the Catechism and with the tradition of the Church.
When posed with a difficult situation (such as the “Nazi” example) I don’t think the best response is to say that lying to someone who is not entitled to information is not lying. Why? Because we can think of instances where that principle seems to break down. For instance, let us say that you work for a real estate development company. You receive a phone call from a competitor who asks whether or not your company is planning on bidding on a certain plot of land. The inquirer is not entitled to that information, certainly. Would that give you license to say “No” when in fact your boss is preparing the bid in the other room? I would say this example seems to contradict the proposed formula that “lying is only a sin when the person has a right to the information.”
Of course most of us in the above example would simply say “I am not at liberty to say.” I understand that this example is not like the “Nazi” example for a few reasons: there is not an unjust aggressor, there is no danger of death to an innocent person, and, importantly, an answer like “I cannot tell you” would be tantamount to a betrayal of the person hiding. BUT - my example was only to illustrate the deficiencies in the statement that “lying is only a sin when the person has a right to know the information.”
In regard to the “Nazi” example it seems the solution that most theologians accept is the making use of wide mental reservation. This solution seems to take into account the absolute prohibition on lying on the one had and the requirements of justice and the need to protect an innocent from harm on the other hand.
For those who wish to pursue this topic further, see the Catholic Encyclopedia articles:
Lying
Mental Reservation
I found our discussion interesting. I hope you did as well.
Thanks!
VC
B
bilop
Guest
In light of your argument let me modify my statement.
Falsehood is not lying (i.e. sinful) if the person has no right to know the answer and silence or discreet language is not an option.
If silence or discretion is a real option, then lying is clearly sinful.
Fascinating topic.
God bless
- Status