Lieing

[HNA444]

+1

If a person is not entitled to the truth, then failing to give the person something that they are not entitled to is not a sin. :knight1:

thanks , good to know!!!

 

[johngh]

This goes back to the nazi holocaust example.

The example goes like:

You are a resident of X country during WWII. You are hiding a Jewish family in your house to keep them safe from the Nazis. One day a group of Nazi soldiers come to your house and ask if there are any Jewish people in the house. What do you tell them?

Now I have heard people claim that no matter the circumstance lying is sinful. Personally I have a very difficult time accepting that. In the case of the Nazis, I would say it would not be sinful at all to lie, and in fact it WOULD be sinful to tell the truth as what you are saying is leading to the harm/probable death of innocent people.

Really like most things, this will come down to a circumstantial basis. I think there are times when lying can be the right thing to do. However I will say that those circumstances are rare and on the whole, I find honesty to be incredibly important.

 

[yablabo]

It is almost funny the support and encouragement of circumstantial morality that is shown in this thread.

The Church has CONDEMNED circumstantial morality, by the way.

– Nicole

 

[Sir_Knight]

It is almost funny the support and encouragement of circumstantial morality that is shown in this thread.

The Church has CONDEMNED circumstantial morality, by the way.

– Nicole

They did? And they forgot to update CCC2488! Amazing!! Maybe you should tell them about it.

Because as long as CCC2488 remains a valid Church teaching, then so does “circumstantial morality”.

 

[Lorrie]

They did? And they forgot to update CCC2488! Amazing!! Maybe you should tell them about it.

Because as long as CCC2488 remains a valid Church teaching, then so does “circumstantial morality”.

Thank you.

 

[Joab_Anias]

What about if someone asks , “do i look good, or how do i look?” etc… and you don’t think they look good. Do you tell them that? Or, is it a sin to say yea u look good? does a lie make it a mortal sin, if it hurts someone ?

This is a much more practical example.

And where the difference between what is a “lie” as defined by the CCC as doing grave injury to justice and charity and “discreet language” can be looked at more easily.

That being, this person most likely has a right to that truth in justice, however, in Charity, we consider if what is on “our” mind may not come across as loving for them to hear and may cause them some sort of emotional harm.

That would be something we would not want to do. So what is the alternative? Do we simply tell the white lie because its the easier answer or can we dig deeper into the virtue of Charity to use discreet language so that we are preserving our own integrity without causing our loved one any pain? I think we can.

Then comes the issue of what to say exactly so that its “discreet language” and still not a lie.

For example; If you know that just saying; “No you do not look good” would hurt their feelings you do not do that out of Charity but does that fulfill the right they have to the truth?

Since they have a right to the truth, your speech could be in a “discreet” manner that would not hurt their sensibilities and still not be a lie.

A very many things could be said that would not be an out rite lie and still be charitable such as:

:My taste is different, thank you for appreciating my opinion on this and my initial thoughts are …, If it were me …, Do you mind if I suggest something …" etc etc. You would have to judge based on who you were speaking with.

See what I mean? There is a lot of discreet language one can use that is better than the venial lie that may help the person more and will still gently and tactfully fulfill Charity and justice as well.

Getting in the habit of telling the easy white lie to tell a person what they want to hear may not be a mortal sin in our weakness and may indeed fulfill Charity but does it meet the potential of what is justly deserved of the person asking? And where can that habit lead from there or how is it a practice of the virtue of truth? This is what I ask myself.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Dr. Jeff Mirus of Catholic Culture addresses the difficulty of lying to save people’s lives from an unjust aggressor here. According to him, the Catechism prior to the recent revision defined lying as “To speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth.” This definition would have certainly settled our debate easily once Yabablo (a.k.a. Nicole) and you had quoted it. It also would have been in harmony with the definition of murder which permits killing in self-defense. But, after much consultation, for some reason, they decided to quote St. Augustine’s definition of lying which does not explicitly address our question. So, therefore, the Church has never addressed the issue, though it came close to prior to the final edition of the Catechism. Dr. Jeff Mirus then goes to explain that a possible explanation to our question would be that when one speaks a falsehood with the intention of preventing an enemy or thug from committing a grave evil, one’s intention is therefore not to deceive.

Now, the present Catechism does explain clearly that: “If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity” (CCC # 2484). In other words, a lie is only a mortal sin when it directly violates the virtues of justice and charity. This makes sense, since sin is contrary to virtue. Now, is speaking a falsehood to a Nazi thug intent on killing Jews a violation of the virtues of Justice and Charity? Of course not! I would also add that the virtue of fortitude is being followed here since it takes tremendous courage to risk your life by speaking falsely to such thugs, if one speaks the truth to them about the whereabouts of the Jews, then it is clearly cowardice. Now, this helps to address your other question of denying Christ to save your own life or others’ lives. Denying Christ even if done falsely goes against the virtues of Justice, Charity, Faith, Hope, and Fortitude. The Catechism defines the virtue of Justice as “the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor,” (CCC # 1807). But, above all “Justice toward God is called the ‘virtue of religion,’” (ibid.). The theological virtue of Charity is defined as “the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God,” (CCC # 1822). For the other virtues that are violated which I cited, you can refer to that section, but here I focus on these two since it is mention in the section on lying. When one denies Christ one clearly violates the Justice owed to God by which we must acknowledge his existence and authority, as well as cooperate with him in spreading his Truth by witnessing to it in the face of persecution. One also violates the virtue of Charity in which we must love God above all things including one’s self and others. When one denies Christ to save our own lives or the lives of others one is loving ourselves and others above God. The virtue of Hope is violated because in doing so we are doubting God’s promises to bring us to eternal heavenly Glory if we lift up or Cross and follow him. The virtue of Hope is what permits us to order everything in our lives towards our last end. Anything that denies our last end to be with God is clearly a violation of this virtue. Fortitude or courage is obviously also violated by denying Christ. And so on and so forth. I hope this helps.

May God bless you.

Thank you for this brother.

Could you elaborate on the difference between “discreet language” and a venial or mortal lie in the circumstance where a person has a just right to the truth but Charity would dictate the use of discreet language.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

**To: Yablabo (a.k.a Nicole)

Nice quotes of the Catechism explaining that lying is intrinsically evil. However, have you bothered to read the ENTIRE section of the Catechism which you quoted from? To put it bluntly, the Catechism clearly teaches that certain wickedly evil individuals do not have the right to know the Truth. That would include folks like the Nazi Gestapos hunting for innocent Jews to murder in your house which you are hiding. Here is the part in the Catechism:**

Wow. You would really show signs of hesitation, remain silent, or dodge questions repeated from the persistent and relentless Nazi Gestapo searching your house for innocent Jews you’re hiding? They have no right to know the truth because of the evil they clearly intend to do with it. So, it is not considered the sin of “lying.” The Church authorizes to make use of a “discreet” language. Also, wasn’t it Pope Pius XII and many other Catholic clerics and religious at the time who authorized the falsification of baptismal records in order to save Jewish children from the Nazis?

Yablabo is correct, friend, and so are you.

1. One has a duty always to speak the truth if one is going to speak.
2. One has a duty to protect Jews from the Gestapo, in your example.

Thus, one must not reveal the truth of the Jews’ whereabouts, but one should refrain from deceptive words if one is able.

Obviously, if one cannot think quickly enough to do a tap-dance around the truth, the venial sinfulness of lying is perhaps mitigated by the stress of the situation, and perhaps by one’s desire to do God’s will and save lives, but the intrinsic wrong is not removed from the lie.

One’s culpability for a sinful action can be mitigated by the circumstances, but the immoral nature of the action remains.

As with killing in self-defense, the action taken is wrong; the end does not justify the means, but it may mitigate the actor’s culpability.

I believe this is what Yablabo was trying to say.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Roman_Army]

What about if someone asks , “do i look good, or how do i look?” etc… and you don’t think they look good. Do you tell them that? Or, is it a sin to say yea u look good? does a lie make it a mortal sin, if it hurts someone ?

You could say: “You look just right,” as in they look exactly how they’re supposed to look: ugly, lol. Or perhaps you might suppress your own personal tastes and try to look at it through someone else’s tastes who might find them attractive. Try to see something in them that might be attractive to someone other than yourself. Then answer accordingly like "Yes, I particularly like _____ " or “Yes, I particularly find your _____ very attractive.” I do know that I’ve seen some models and beauty queens out there that are way outside what I personally consider attractive, yet for some reasons those judging them see them as gorgeous. If you can learn to see the beauty in all creatures rather than what your personal taste is for a possible mate, then you would not have to worry about lying to people when they ask about their looks. When they request specific details about them, then it becomes more complicated. Then perhaps I would find a way to either dodge the question or answer honestly in a way that makes it sound good such as provide advice on how to lose or gain a little weight, gain muscle mass, or how to dress, etc.

 

[Roman_Army]

Yablabo is correct, friend, and so are you.

1. One has a duty always to speak the truth if one is going to speak.
2. One has a duty to protect Jews from the Gestapo, in your example.

Thus, one must not reveal the truth of the Jews’ whereabouts, but one should refrain from deceptive words if one is able.

Obviously, if one cannot think quickly enough to do a tap-dance around the truth, the venial sinfulness of lying is perhaps mitigated by the stress of the situation, and perhaps by one’s desire to do God’s will and save lives, but the intrinsic wrong is not removed from the lie.

One’s culpability for a sinful action can be mitigated by the circumstances, but the immoral nature of the action remains.

As with killing in self-defense, the action taken is wrong; the end does not justify the means, but it may mitigate the actor’s culpability.

I believe this is what Yablabo was trying to say.

Peace,
Dante

Thanks for your wise commentary. Yes, in my proceeding post after the one you quoted, I explained when a lie becomes a mortal sin as the Catechism explained, that is when it goes against the virtues of Justice and Charity. Otherwise, then it is a venial sin as the Catechism states. Certainly, we must always strive to either tell the truth or avoid telling it when needed. But, in some circumstances, you simply cannot do so without causing grave harm to others. Mere silence, dodging, or tap dancing around the question will make the circumstances worst. Sometimes the venial sin is a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil.

It’s not the same with denying Christ while being threatened, since we would then violate both Justice and Charity as well as many other virtues. When one denies Christ then one is choosing between God and man, one’s life or the live’s of others over God. When we lie to a Nazi to save a Jew we are merely choosing between that Nazi and the innocent Jew.

 

[Roman_Army]

Thank you for this brother.

Could you elaborate on the difference between “discreet language” and a venial or mortal lie in the circumstance where a person has a just right to the truth but Charity would dictate the use of discreet language.

Well, ummm…, now that I think of it, I do not believe “discreet language” is the same as a falsehood. Discreet language seems to be the use of words in such a way as to conceal a truth. An example would be revealing a partial truth, while not revealing the rest of the truth. Or when you use vague words to express something, and this hides the truth that you are hiding. The Catechism did not intend to address the question. But, it does explain that a lie is a mortal sin only when it goes against the virtues of justice and charity. So, otherwise it would be venially sinful.

 

[HNA444]

They did? And they forgot to update CCC2488! Amazing!! Maybe you should tell them about it.

Because as long as CCC2488 remains a valid Church teaching, then so does “circumstantial morality”.

lol Nicole, no one is trying to justify lying, it was just a curious question.

 

[Roman_Army]

Perhaps it is possible to use discreet language in our Nazi example in order to save the Jews, such as saying “There are no filthy Jews here” or “There are no wretched Jews here.” You can say this without going against your own mind, since the Jews you are saving are not filthy or wretched. They are innocent of any punishable crimes. Jesus himself used similar discreet language here:

"‘Go you up to this festival day, but I go not up to this festival day: because my time is not accomplished.’ 9 When he had said these things, he himself stayed in Galilee. 10 But after his brethren were gone up, then he also went up to the feast, not openly, but, as it were, in secret." (John 7:8-10 [D-RB])

He told his disciples that he would not attend this festival day (i.e. the festival lasted 8 days) because his time was not yet accomplished. Then later on some other day of the festival his time was accomplished and went in secret rather than in public as his disciples wanted. The disciples perhaps went with the perception that he was not going at all, this way he was able to go in secret.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

… Sometimes the venial sin is a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil.

It’s not the same with denying Christ while being threatened, since we would then violate both Justice and Charity as well as many other virtues. When one denies Christ then one is choosing between God and man, one’s life or the live’s of others over God. When we lie to a Nazi to save a Jew we are merely choosing between that Nazi and the innocent Jew.

Careful - this is not exactly true.

To choose to lie is to choose something that is inherently immoral, regardless of the circumstances. It cannot merely be as simple as a choice between a Nazi or a Jew; the immoral action has negative consequences, too, but these consequences are spiritual and therefore more abstract.

I would also not be so quick to dismiss the virtue inherent in deflecting the Nazi’s search by saying things that, while not dishonest, nevertheless keep the Jew(s) hidden. Again, though, not everyone is so gifted, and one’s impulse may be to lie under pressure. Mitigating factors in one’s guilt, of course.

Peace,
Dante

 

[JanetF]

Discreet language=diplomacy.

With respect to the “how do I look” question…I usually try to pick something about the outfit that I truly like, like the shoes, or the necklace. With my young daughter, I will tell her honestly if something doesn’t look good. But I will say something like, well, it doesn’t really do anything for you, i.e. a loose tunic that is shapeless…It’s modest, sure, but there are other things that are modest that are also better looking, KWIM?

If it’s a stranger in a dressing room, I usually jjokingly say, you’re asking the wrong person, my daughter tells me I have horrid taste. I don’t go beyond good color, but maybe a different style would be better.

The Nazi question isn’t really that tough IMO. The Nazi’s do not deserve the truth. Not telling them actually preserves justice and charity because the Jews don’t deserve to be killed or shipped to concentration camps. It’s charitable because you are saving the Jews lives. If you look at it from the point of view that the Nazi’s were evil, then they don’t deserve the truth, you see that the choice should not be so difficult.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Careful - this is not exactly true.

To choose to lie is to choose something that is inherently immoral, regardless of the circumstances. It cannot merely be as simple as a choice between a Nazi or a Jew; the immoral action has negative consequences, too, but these consequences are spiritual and therefore more abstract.

I would also not be so quick to dismiss the virtue inherent in deflecting the Nazi’s search by saying things that, while not dishonest, nevertheless keep the Jew(s) hidden. Again, though, not everyone is so gifted, and one’s impulse may be to lie under pressure. Mitigating factors in one’s guilt, of course.

Peace,
Dante

As I said before and as is OFFICIALLY taught by the Church, to withhold the truth from some one that is not entitled to the truth, is not a sin and there is no guilt.

Did Jesus lie in John 7:8-10 when He told His followers that He was not going to the festival and then went up in secret?

 

[Joab_Anias]

As I said before and as is OFFICIALLY taught by the Church, to withhold the truth from some one that is not entitled to the truth, is not a sin and there is no guilt.

Did Jesus lie in John 7:8-10 when He told His followers that He was not going to the festival and then went up in secret?

No Jesus didn’t lie. Nor was He able to sin. We are.

Joh 7:8 Go you up to this festival day: but I go not up to this festival day, because my time is not accomplished.
Joh 7:9 When he had said these things, he himself stayed in Galilee.

 

[Tamsulosin]

My family is lying to my old, bedridden mother in law. we are telling her that her son is in a nursing home. In fact he passed away a few months ago. We are all afraid to tell her,since that was her most favorite son,and the news may just cause her demise or the loss of her wish to live. Not a day passes without her asking for him.
Are we committing a sin?
Yet nobody wants to be the one disclosing the sad truth to her .We are all afraid for her sake

How do you apply the Church’s rules here?

 

[djeter]

Christians are people dedicated to living in the truth, because Jesus described himself as the Truth (John 14:6). We who worship Jesus cannot live in falsehood, because he is the criterion by which true and false are discriminated, the light in which the difference between good and evil is seen. Those who wish to live in the shadows must marginalize him, as Pilate did rhetorically — “What is Truth?” (John 18:38) — and as his own townspeople did more directly:

“They led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they might hurl him off the cliff” (Luke 4:29). But if we accept him as Messiah and Son of God, we must live the truth that he is, even when it costs us.

More here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/08/21/truth-telling/

In Christ,

dj

 

[DanteAlighieri]

As I said before and as is OFFICIALLY taught by the Church, to withhold the truth from some one that is not entitled to the truth, is not a sin and there is no guilt.

Did Jesus lie in John 7:8-10 when He told His followers that He was not going to the festival and then went up in secret?

I think you’re failing to see the distinction between withholding the truth and lying. As to whether Jesus was lying, clearly that’s an absurd question. Check your translation; the Douay-Rheims says he was not going “yet”:

7:8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come.

7:9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.

7:10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

Peace,
Dante