Lying - an intrinsic evil with no exceptions?

[FNDRB58]

In a perfect world you would probably have a Chan’s to be right,but this is not a perfect world,and that is our fault. We have made it to be what it is. I am amused by the fact that you call me a pagan,that has never happen before,in fact,no one has ever told me what you are doing. And what does not make sense is that you are now punching holes in your own thread. I don’t know you,and you don’t know me,but God knows us both. You started this thread trying to explain and justify that it is sometimes right to lie. Now you accuse me of being against the Church,a pagan,a secular person,and I guess I a few more things you don’t want to right down. Now my son,listen to me,and listen careful. **There is nothing wrong in doing something right. A lie is a sin,but a greater sin is to not do what is right. God judges us by our deeds,not how good catholics we are. It is not yours nor mine place to say who is a better catholic. This is not a competition of who knows better. This is forum with rules,and your last comment broke just about all of them,but,and this is directed to the moderators,let this lad,or lass,go one,he do have a chance to learn something from us older catholics. If I tell my children that what they have drawn,or write,is good and nice,even if it is the worst thing I ever has seen,I do right because I don’t hurt their feelings. If that makes me a bad catholic and a even worser human,let it be so then,because I am that only in your eyes. And never,never,ever,write or say to anyone what you wrote to me. I forgive you son,because I am a Christian and a catholic. Go back and read your Bible,you may learn something from it. And if you want to be a good Christian you need to control your temper. **I hope you understand,and maybe some day learn that others maybe right sometime. Don’t start a debate if the only way you know to end it,is by being rude. God bless you.

I can’t believe I am giving you the time of day by responding as most of your post doesn’t make any sense at all.

I didn’t call you a pagan. And pagan is not a bad word just as atheist and agnostic are not bad words. Don’t start an argument. I said pagans live life without the guidance of God and you are not debating with God and the Church as your guide. You admitted to this fact repeatedly. This means you are debating in a secular manner. In fact you seem to be the only one who is. I will let you make the call as to whether you fit the category of pagan or not.

If a lie is a sin then you can’t sin period. This is something you are obstinate to admit. Your position has been that one can sin if it suits their needs. No one else in this thread believes this as you do. What the rest of us are debating is the interpretation of the Church as to whether telling an untruth is laudible in certain extreme circumstances.

So, as the original poster of this thread I would ask you to not post here if you continue to advise us to leave God and the Bible and the Church out of it. The rest of us say “no” to you.

And enough with the “son” comments and the patronizing commentary.

 

[FNDRB58]

Listen to me lad,or lass. Don’t ever call anyone a pagan. God judges us by our deeds,not by how good we follow the Bible. If you start a thread,you must know how to stop it. All I have done is to try to make you see that sometimes a lie is better then the truth. That does not make me a pagan,or anything else you accuse me of being. Here are rules,and you need to learn to follow them. I will consider what action I will take by sleeping over this night,I am not going to suggest that you will be banned for good,but you need to clean up your act a bit and learn from us older catholics. Maybe,just maybe,I will do nothing,but it is up to you. You can start by say that you are sorry. God bless you.

Wow. You speak in a very irrational manner. Please leave this thread so the rest of us can continue this debate on Catholic teaching. Thank you.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Wow. You speak in a very irrational manner. Please leave this thread so the rest of us can continue this debate on Catholic teaching. Thank you.

Wow. Perhaps you should realize that any member of CAF in good standing has the right to post in any thread he/she desires to post in. Your continued “orders” for this member to leave are uncharitable and constitute harassment.

Also, I am rapidly growing weary of your statement such as “the rest of us say ‘no’ to you.” You don’t know that. And there are people who read these posts but don’t post themselves - they are called lurkers and they are very important.

An OP does not have the right to kick posters out of a thread. If you have a problem, you can contact a moderator.

 

[FNDRB58]

Wow. Perhaps you should realize that any member of CAF in good standing has the right to post in any thread he/she desires to post in. Your continued “orders” for this member to leave are uncharitable and constitute harassment.

Also, I am rapidly growing weary of your statement such as “the rest of us say ‘no’ to you.” You don’t know that. And there are people who read these posts but don’t post themselves - they are called lurkers and they are very important.

An OP does not have the right to kick posters out of a thread. If you have a problem, you can contact a moderator.

I never said he didn’t have a right and I asked him to bow out due to his patronizing manner and his secular viewpoint. I also have the right to ask someone to not post if I feel he is not contributing in a way in which I had hoped to a post I started. He has the right to stay…of course. But I hope he would change his tone as he is instigating an argument with his comments.

Thank you for your comments.

 

[FCCopleston]

The fact of the matter is: *WE LIVE IN A FALLEN WORLD. *

Because of the sin inherited through our first parents, we are often confronted with moral dilemma’s, i.e., a situation in which one is faced with alternatives, none of which being entirely satisfactory. This means that when Nazis come to our door and ask us if we are hiding Jews in our attics, that we must choose between two evils (by the way, not acting in this situation is itself an evil choice of action).

However, this need not be as troublesome as we often make it. The Law was made for humanity, not humanity for the Law. We are to serve God and neighbor with our lives, and this means loving God and neighbor with our whole heart. When we are given the choice between preserving the lives of our neighbors or telling the truth to those who would desire to kill our neighbors, we had better choose the former. To choose the latter is nothing but cold-hearted, pharisaic, Kantian legalism. Should we pray for forgiveness? Yes. Should we acknowledge that lying is always sin? Yes. Should we allow our neighbor to be murdered by tyrants in the name of “morality”? God forbid it.

In Christ,
JCCopleston

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Wow. . a lot of response and in fact, too much for me to link, respond, link, respond, so I’ll try to do it with as little ‘extra’ as possible.

I think that we are looking at the same thing but using words in a slightly different manner. I tried to be as clear as I could, but apparently it was not clear.

So I’ll try again.

Now obviously if there exists a situation wherein the only choices that can be made are an evil (otherwise known as ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ choice) and another evil (bad or wrong). . .but ONE of the evils is ‘less’ bad/wrong. . .or shall we say, a venial sin as opposed to a mortal sin. . .then one must pick the 'lesser evil" (or the lesser wrong, or the venial sin.) This is addressed in the Catechism and I’m pretty sure the relevant citations were posted earlier.

We also know that this type of situation exists. Not that God has FORCED us into it. God does not force us into anything. If a situation arises where there are only ‘evil’ choices that is not because God is making us choose evil.

Now I’ll address KayCee’s situation, as I understand it, specifically.

KayCee’s mother herself was not capable of understanding or judging the right or wrong of something anyway, and she was also due to that neglecting her health in a way that she would not have done were she capable of understanding.

KayCee, in order to get her mother to eat (which is a good and proper action) lied about the sugar content (saying it was sugarless).

Now, that lie is still a lie (though the intentions, to save a life, are laudable).

And when I say KayCee should regret that of the choices available to her, the only choice that she could make was a lesser of two evils, a VENIAL SIN of lying, I don’t mean KayCee should have done something else that was worse (starve her mother).

KayCee wanted to do a good thing, and her intentions were pure, but the only way she could accomplish them was by utilizing a VENIAL sin. So it is regretable that the VENIAL SIN was the way that she ‘had’ to do it. Certainly sustaining her mother’s life is NOT regretable.

I hope this makes things a little clearer.

It is not that God ‘forced’ KayCee into a situation where there was no way KayCee could pick a ‘good choice.’

And by KayCee choosing a VENIAL sin (which is regretable) it does not make KayCee a bad person. It does not make God a bad person. It does not make God responsible for KayCee having to lie.

The only thing is that I want to be sure that in saying that it was ‘good’ for KayCee to help her mother to survive, we have to be careful not to say that the LIE itself was a good thing. It wasn’t. It was a lie, and lies are wrong, even lies done with good intention to help save lives. The end does NOT justify the means.

But that being said, it was a very difficult situation and KayCee should not regret that she tried to help her mother (which is good) but only that the way in which it was done involved a VENIAL SIN (not good). IOW, regret is that one resorted to that venial sin, even though it was the ‘only way’. . .regret that there could NOT have been a way found to achieve the purpose that did NOT involve a lie. . .but NOT regret for the attempting to save a life as the ultimate end result.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…Now obviously if there exists a situation wherein the only choices that can be made are an evil (otherwise known as ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ choice) and another evil (bad or wrong). . .but ONE of the evils is ‘less’ bad/wrong. . .or shall we say, a venial sin as opposed to a mortal sin. . .then one must pick the 'lesser evil" (or the lesser wrong, or the venial sin.)

No, I’m afraid that still won’t do. What you have just said is that under some special circumstances one must sin. Are you sure you want to say that? Mary, the mother of Jesus, lived a sinless life. Are you saying that if Mary somehow encountered one of these exceptional situations, that even she would have had to sin? Come on, now!

…The only thing is that I want to be sure that in saying that it was ‘good’ for KayCee to help her mother to survive, we have to be careful not to say that the LIE itself was a good thing. It wasn’t. It was a lie, and lies are wrong…

There you go again, using the word “wrong” in that totally nonsensical fashion. Please stop doing that because it is very confusing. You can say that the lie was evil - perhaps a necessary evil - and I would agree with you. But it could not be “wrong” in the sense that everybody understands the word. Wrong means a mistake that should have been done differently. But if the evil was a “necessary” one, it could not have been a mistake too.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No, I’m afraid that still won’t do. What you have just said is that under some special circumstances one must sin. Are you sure you want to say that? Mary, the mother of Jesus, lived a sinless life. Are you saying that if Mary somehow encountered one of these exceptional situations, that even she would have had to sin? Come on, now! No, I am saying that if there is a situation whereby there are only two choices perceived, a lesser evil, and a greater one, the lesser evil MAY be chosen.

There you go again, using the word “wrong” in that totally nonsensical fashion. Please stop doing that because it is very confusing. You can say that the lie was evil - perhaps a necessary evil - and I would agree with you. But it could not be “wrong” in the sense that everybody understands the word. Wrong means a mistake that should have been done differently. But if the evil was a “necessary” one, it could not have been a mistake too.

Nonsensical?
BTW, I do love your forum name. Tolkien rules!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…No, I am saying that if there is a situation whereby there are only two choices perceived, a lesser evil, and a greater one, the lesser evil MAY be chosen…

OK, that I can agree with.

And maybe “nonsensical” is a little too strong. But sometimes people deliberately substitute words in order to make a point without actually making the point, because making the point directly invites too much scrutiny. But from other things you have written, I guess that is not what you were trying to do.

I’m glad you recognized the Tolkien reference. I still get choked up whenever I read that little gem.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Due to failing charity…
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)