Lying - an intrinsic evil with no exceptions?

[Tantum_ergo]

IMHO there is a huge difference between adulterers and someone who tells the Nazis “no jews here!” Some won’t see any difference at all.

So I’m sorry, LilyM, we will have to disagree. You are simply not going to convince me (or a LOT of others) that saying “no jews here!” to the Nazis is even 1% sinful.

If you’ll pardon me for jumping in, it is apparent that a lot of people (by your claim) have fallen victim to the idea of situational ethics and relativity.

Just the way you have phrased the above proves it by assigning a ‘percentage number’ to a given sin. As though ‘lying to the Nazis’ is only say 1% ‘sin’ and must therefore be 99% GOOD (not sin). . .or as though in the grand relational scheme it is simply not as important to lie to ‘bad people’ as it is to ‘save good people’. . .

As though the only possible WAY to save them was by a lie. . .

AND as though the only possible OUTCOME of your lie was NOTHING BUT GOOD.

IF the summit of all good was to exist temporally on earth, you MIGHT have a case. . .but we are not created to live endlessly on earth. Something must be more important than our physical life, because each and every one of us is at some point going to experience physical death. . .with our BODY. The more important thing is to ensure eternal life for the SOUL. …

And sin kills our soul’s ‘life’ (that is, its relationship with God).

So actually, if one were faced (as one is) with a situation whereby we can do an ‘evil’ act which will save the lives (for a period of anything from seconds to years, but all those who ‘live’ will ultimately die!). . .and the evil act ‘kills’ our soul. . .

OR we can refrain from doing an evil act, with the POSSIBILITY that some may suffer physical death (not of OUR doing) but they also may NOT die. . .at that time. . .

then we should be striving to save our souls for the ultimate goal. We can HOPE for more life if that’s the way it turns out, but gee wilikers, the whole point of our existence ON EARTH is that it is TEMPORARY. We should be using our time on earth practicing for how we’ll live in heaven.

If our ‘practice on earth’ consists of doing evil and trying to justify ‘our’ will against God’s, is that really practice for heaven? I think not!

 

[VonDerTann]

A final thought on police lying: The world is full of bad people, and I see no reason why police should not have, as part of their arsenal, the right to lie to suspects. The fact that the US courts – which are about as fair as any in the world – repeatedly allow this indicates IMHO the justice of allowing it. The criminals lie to the police all the time. Police can lie for many reasons but there are many things they can’t do – they can’t beat a suspect; deny food; deny a lawyer, etc. Lying to suspects is allowed under the theory is that the truly innocent will maintain their innocence. Are suspects scared? Maybe. More likely, people confess because they are actually guilty.

 

[Sum_Fidelis]

There is no place in the Bible that say “Thou can lie”,and that is what we must accept. But please tell me what you would do if the following thing would happen. You are in a shop,and a old man,poor as a beggar,living on the streets,takes a loaf of bread and hide it in his pocket. You see this,and before he are outside the shop,one from the staff comes to you and ask if you saw him taking the bread. What would you answer? Keep in mind that God never forbid us to do a good deed. Please be honest,forget the Bible,the Catechism and all what you have been thought about what is right or wrong. Give me a honest answer,one from your heart,not from the Bible. God bless.

 

[FNDRB58]

The bible wouldn’t say that because a lie is a sin therefore it would be contradicting God.

A lie by its definition presupposes that the requirements for it to be sinful are present. We all agree that a lie is a lie because a lie is a sin and a sin is a sin. This is like saying murder is murder. Well, of course it is! But there is justifiable killing isn’t there? Sure there is.

Having said this, let’s start talking about what I am talking about - a telling of an untruth that is justified (not a lie) vs one that is not (a lie).

We don’t forget the Bible nor the Catechism here. Without the guidance of God and the Magisterium we have nothing. Your suggestion is that we take the secular viewpoint which is the downfall of society since the beginning of time!

Oh…and I would tell the shop clerk the truth and pay for the bread myself.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

A final thought on police lying: The world is full of bad people, and I see no reason why police should not have, as part of their arsenal, the right to lie to suspects. The fact that the US courts – which are about as fair as any in the world – repeatedly allow this indicates IMHO the justice of allowing it. The criminals lie to the police all the time. Police can lie for many reasons but there are many things they can’t do – they can’t beat a suspect; deny food; deny a lawyer, etc. Lying to suspects is allowed under the theory is that the truly innocent will maintain their innocence. Are suspects scared? Maybe. More likely, people confess because they are actually guilty.

This is a very bad example of justifying lying. The fact is that many innocent people are scared into confessing to something they did not do just because they were lied to about the consequences. Such a use of lying is a grave offense against justice. On the other hand, lying in order to obtain evidence that stands on its own may be justified in some cases. But please pick a better example.

 

[Sum_Fidelis]

You sure know how to twist words. Untruth is the same thing as a lie,only in wrapped in fancy paper. I have in many places told you all that lying is a sin,so we don’t need to go in there anymore. What makes a few words a lie? That it is not true,but to be a sin it needs to serve some purpose. I have been told a few times about my bad examples I give,so I continue with them. (I don’t want to let you down) You are late at work,because you did not leave home in time,or stop on the way,what are you use as a use as a explanation? Traffic? Car did not start? You did not wake up in time? Who are the brave one who tells the truth,which can be that you stop on the way to shop or something. Look. I now how people react,I see it almost every day,and I know that people lie because they are afraid to tell the truth. In many cases it is valid,but not acceptable,you don’t lie in court. People have are born with the need to please other people,and a lie is sadly to often the instrument to do so. (“Is this dress OK? Of course it is darling”) People also lie to get off the hook,well,that does things more complicated because a lie always fail to help someone. And people lie because they are afraid to tell the truth. (“Did you brake this window? No,it was broken when I came”) I think we all know the story in the Bible when Jesus did heal someone on a Sunday,that was wrong then,and He knew it,and still go ahead. Then he asked: "is it right or wrong to do a good deed on a Sunday?. A lie became a sin when we gain something from it. A lie to help someone else in need,what ever it might be,is of course a lie,but it is the only right thing to do in some circumstances. As long as we don’t gain from it,as long as it do not hurt anyone or point to someone who have nothing to do with it,as long as it will not cause damages or do things worse,as long as you say what you may say that is not true don’t cause damages,it is a good thing to do. You all,and I say this with love in my heart,yes,lawyers have both heart and love,need to sit down and think. You know you can’t do everything right,you can’t live a life without a lie,and what more,you can’t live a life making you think that all you do is pure and right. We are not perfect,and thank God for that. You who said that you would have paid for the bread are closer to heaven then you think,but not close enough,as is no one here,including me. To night,praying the Rosary,I will remember you all,and pray that God will give you a heart bigger then the one you have now. It is always the right time to do right. God bless you.

 

[Kay_Cee]

I personally have no desire to get into the debate here, but I thought I would throw into the discussion something Thomas Aquinas had to say about morality. You can also find this in the CCC: numbers 1755 through 1760.

Three things have to be right for an act to be morally right (see CCC 1757):

1. the nature of the act itself
2. the intention or motive for the act, and
3. the situation or circumstances

The first part regards moral values that are absolute and objective. For example, if I make love to a person, it is morally right to make love to my spouse but morally wrong to make love to some other person. If I need money, it is morally right for me to earn it but morally wrong to take it from another person.

Regarding the second part, if I give money to a beggar in order to show off, the act is not morally right. You might recall that Jesus had something to say about this.

But the situation and circumstances also have to be morally right. It is wrong to take away somebody’s freedom, but is it wrong to imprison a lawfully convicted criminal? It is wrong to take away the property of another person, but is it wrong to take away a rifle from a mentally deranged sniper shooting at innocent people?

The catechism (number 1756) lists only these as examples of sins that are absolutely independent of circumstances: blasphemy, perjury, murder, and adultery. My dictionary defines perjury as “The willful giving of false testimony or the withholding of material facts or evidence while under oath in a judicial proceeding.”

Now, regarding the real situation I found myself in (see post #22), if I had done nothing, I would have allowed my mother to die when I could have easily saved her, which would have been a grave sin (please remember that acts of omission are also sins). But if telling a falsehood is never allowed under any circumstances whatsoever, then I would also have sinned by telling her the ice cream was sugar free. If you want to argue that telling a falsehood is never allowed under any circumstances whatsoever, then you will also have to argue that God allowed me to be placed in a dilemma in which I had no choice but to sin.

Does anybody here really want to argue that?

 

[LilyM]

I personally have no desire to get into the debate here, but I thought I would throw into the discussion something Thomas Aquinas had to say about morality. You can also find this in the CCC: numbers 1755 through 1760.

Three things have to be right for an act to be morally right (see CCC 1757):

1. the nature of the act itself
2. the intention or motive for the act, and
3. the situation or circumstances

The first part regards moral values that are absolute and objective. For example, if I make love to a person, it is morally right to make love to my spouse but morally wrong to make love to some other person. If I need money, it is morally right for me to earn it but morally wrong to take it from another person.

Regarding the second part, if I give money to a beggar in order to show off, the act is not morally right. You might recall that Jesus had something to say about this.

But the situation and circumstances also have to be morally right. It is wrong to take away somebody’s freedom, but is it wrong to imprison a lawfully convicted criminal? It is wrong to take away the property of another person, but is it wrong to take away a rifle from a mentally deranged sniper shooting at innocent people?

The catechism (number 1756) lists only these as examples of sins that are absolutely independent of circumstances: blasphemy, perjury, murder, and adultery. My dictionary defines perjury as “The willful giving of false testimony or the withholding of material facts or evidence while under oath in a judicial proceeding.”

Now, regarding the real situation I found myself in (see post #22), if I had done nothing, I would have allowed my mother to die when I could have easily saved her, which would have been a grave sin (please remember that acts of omission are also sins). But if telling a falsehood is never allowed under any circumstances whatsoever, then I would also have sinned by telling her the ice cream was sugar free. If you want to argue that telling a falsehood is never allowed under any circumstances whatsoever, then you will also have to argue that God allowed me to be placed in a dilemma in which I had no choice but to sin.

Does anybody here really want to argue that?

Your list is incomplete. Contraception is inherently evil (and so wrong in all circumstances), so is homosexual sex. There are doubtless others as well.

I’ve been going back and forth on the issue of choices in regards lying, with someone on another thread. I would respectfully disagree that you had no option but to lie to your mother.

As one option you not simply have told her ‘this is medicine, it will make you feel better’ - works for most people, even those who aren’t thinking too clearly. As a last resort, with actual two year olds I’ve seen their parents simply pinch their noses so that they had to open their mouths and swallow whatever was put in 'em. You could have done the same.

Of course, these are only two examples that I’ve come up with literally off the top of my head. I’m sure there are plenty of others.

 

[hazcompat]

St. Augustin-On Lying

ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/PNI3-15.TXT

peace

 

[Kay_Cee]

Your list is incomplete. Contraception is inherently evil (and so wrong in all circumstances), so is homosexual sex. There are doubtless others as well.

It’s not ***my ***list. It’s the list in the CCC.

I’ve been going back and forth on the issue of choices in regards lying, with someone on another thread. I would respectfully disagree that you had no option but to lie to your mother.

As one option you not simply have told her ‘this is medicine, it will make you feel better’ - works for most people, even those who aren’t thinking too clearly. As a last resort, with actual two year olds I’ve seen their parents simply pinch their noses so that they had to open their mouths and swallow whatever was put in 'em. You could have done the same.

My mother may have not been thinking clearly but she knew it was ice cream. She would not have been duped by that, even under those circumstances. Besides, I had already tried reasoning with her, telling her she was ill and that it was something she needed. She still refused to take it.

Also, pinching her nose closed would not have worked. She was plently strong and could have fought me. (In fact, knowing my mother, she would have fought me.) One thing I did not mention was that she also had a skin condition and bled incredibly easily. I would have had to assault her to force the ice cream down her throat, and she would have been physically injured by that. Do you want to argue that assaulting her would have been better?

I should also mention that I was under a time restraint since I didn’t know how soon she might lapse into a coma. I did not have plenty of time to evaluate the situation, so I did what I judged to be best under the circumstances.

BTW, one thing I also didn’t mention was that I took this to my Spiritual Director in confession afterward. He told me I had committed no sin.

 

[Sum_Fidelis]

First day in law school our prof. told us this: “you must learn to be wrong or you never learn what is right,you must remember that there is always someone smarter then you and all you know is worthless if you don’t have a heart.” You probably think he was a foolish old man,but I try to remember that every day. Close your Bibles for a while and listen to me. To do something good is never a sin as we see it,it may very well be one,but if it does something good,it is a sin only in our minds. A Cardinal I know once told me that we can’t judge like God does,and that what we so badly hope is a sin are most likely a good deed,so go out and do some good,behind your books you are useless to God. Feed the hungry,show mercy,love your neighbor as you love your self and love God from all your heart,soul and mind. If it takes a lie to do right,lie,truth is sometime a lie,as lie is sometime the truth. God bless you.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

First day in law school our prof. told us this: “you must learn to be wrong or you never learn what is right,you must remember that there is always someone smarter then you and all you know is worthless if you don’t have a heart.” You probably think he was a foolish old man,but I try to remember that every day. Close your Bibles for a while and listen to me. To do something good is never a sin as we see it,it may very well be one,but if it does something good,it is a sin only in our minds. A Cardinal I know once told me that we can’t judge like God does,and that what we so badly hope is a sin are most likely a good deed,so go out and do some good,behind your books you are useless to God. Feed the hungry,show mercy,love your neighbor as you love your self and love God from all your heart,soul and mind. If it takes a lie to do right,lie,truth is sometime a lie,as lie is sometime the truth. God bless you.

Ouch.

Um, just who decides what is ‘good’ in your ‘proposal?’

Better recheck the catechism. One may never do evil in order for something good to result. . .which is what you are saying with your ‘if it does good it is a sin only in our minds’.

POPPYCOCK.

So if you’re out with your BFF and she is sneaking around with her boyfriend, having sex, and her mother asks you, “was my daughter with you yesterday” (when the two of you were not together at all, but your friend had lied to her mother and said she was with you), you’d think it was a GOOD thing to say, “yes she was” (and lie) in order to protect your friend from being punished/grounded etc.? I don’t think so!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It seems to me that there is entirely too much attention focused on what is intrinsically evil versus what is just plain evil. The implication is that things that are intrinsically evil should be avoided much more assiduously than the non-intrinsic kind. In that sense “intrinsic” becomes a code word for “worst”.

In fact, the only thing the classification of “intrinsically evil” does is make it easier to decide if a specific instance is evil. It says nothing about the relative severity of the evil. A specific instance of a non-intrinsically evil act can actually be worse than some intrinsic evil.

 

[FNDRB58]

One may never do evil in order for something good to result. . .which is what you are saying with your ‘if it does good it is a sin only in our minds’.

Of course one may not do evil in order for something good to result. No one is debating that. A sin is a sin. But, you are presuming that telling an untruth is already a lie and therefore evil. I am still trying to get someone to address the fact that it is not a lie (sinful) unless the telling of the untruth meets all of the requirements for it to be a lie.

What you said above can be rephrased this way: One may never murder (unjustified killing) in order for something good to result. Obviously. Yet, we do kill people (justifiable killing) in just war and self-defense. So why aren’t there exceptions that allow someone to tell an untruth when the circumstances warrant such an action?

I was hoping we could focus on just a few of the classic examples that I believe proves my assertion. No one has yet show me that telling Nazis an untruth to save Jews hid inside is a lie, that is, a sinful telling of an untruth.

And it would be absurd to not lie to your irrational mother to get her to take medicine that could save her life. Anyone in that moment who would sit there for who knows how long in order to be completely truthful while she may die is just not using common sense. God gave us common sense too.

 

[FNDRB58]

You sure know how to twist words. Untruth is the same thing as a lie,only in wrapped in fancy paper. I have in many places told you all that lying is a sin,so we don’t need to go in there anymore. What makes a few words a lie? That it is not true,but to be a sin it needs to serve some purpose. I have been told a few times about my bad examples I give,so I continue with them. (I don’t want to let you down) You are late at work,because you did not leave home in time,or stop on the way,what are you use as a use as a explanation? Traffic? Car did not start? You did not wake up in time? Who are the brave one who tells the truth,which can be that you stop on the way to shop or something. Look. I now how people react,I see it almost every day,and I know that people lie because they are afraid to tell the truth. In many cases it is valid,but not acceptable,you don’t lie in court. People have are born with the need to please other people,and a lie is sadly to often the instrument to do so. (“Is this dress OK? Of course it is darling”) People also lie to get off the hook,well,that does things more complicated because a lie always fail to help someone. And people lie because they are afraid to tell the truth. (“Did you brake this window? No,it was broken when I came”) I think we all know the story in the Bible when Jesus did heal someone on a Sunday,that was wrong then,and He knew it,and still go ahead. Then he asked: "is it right or wrong to do a good deed on a Sunday?. A lie became a sin when we gain something from it. A lie to help someone else in need,what ever it might be,is of course a lie,but it is the only right thing to do in some circumstances. As long as we don’t gain from it,as long as it do not hurt anyone or point to someone who have nothing to do with it,as long as it will not cause damages or do things worse,as long as you say what you may say that is not true don’t cause damages,it is a good thing to do. You all,and I say this with love in my heart,yes,lawyers have both heart and love,need to sit down and think. You know you can’t do everything right,you can’t live a life without a lie,and what more,you can’t live a life making you think that all you do is pure and right. We are not perfect,and thank God for that. You who said that you would have paid for the bread are closer to heaven then you think,but not close enough,as is no one here,including me. To night,praying the Rosary,I will remember you all,and pray that God will give you a heart bigger then the one you have now. It is always the right time to do right. God bless you.

Is *murder *the same thing as killing in self-defense? No. Isn’t murder a word we use to describe an unjust killing? Yes. The same goes for a lie. Like murder, a lie is the name we give to the telling of an untruth without justification.

As a lawyer you should understand exactly what I have said here.

You see, we have to get technical by digging deeper than the superficial comments that have been put forth by many posters. A lie is a telling of an untruth, unjustifiably, just as murder is a killing of a human, unjustifiably. Therefore, the same formula would hold for the telling of an untruth.

I would love a direct rebuttal to the points I have made above. Thanks.

 

[FNDRB58]

…I think we all know the story in the Bible when Jesus did heal someone on a Sunday,that was wrong then,and He knew it,and still go ahead. Then he asked: "is it right or wrong to do a good deed on a Sunday?.

Your example of Jesus healing on the Sabbath actually supports my position and here’s why…

Working on the Sabbath was forbidden as written in the Ten Commandments. Yet, Jesus did do work on the Sabbath contrary to the law. Why, because he was doing an act of love by saving a man’s soul which is a good thing. You see, everyone interpreted the law incorrectly. Did Jesus sin? No. Jesus showed them that there were exceptions to the law. Just as there are exceptions to “thou shalt not kill (murder)” we can still kill in self-defense. Just as there are exceptions to lying which makes it not a lie but rather a justifiable telling of an untruth. Certainly saving the lives of innocent Jews would be considered an act of love. If Jesus breaks a law to save a man’s soul, isn’t it prudent for us to break the “no lying” law to save a man’s life?

 

[LilyM]

Is *murder *the same thing as killing in self-defense? No. Isn’t murder a word we use to describe an unjust killing? Yes. The same goes for a lie. Like murder, a lie is the name we give to the telling of an untruth without justification.

As a lawyer you should understand exactly what I have said here.

You see, we have to get technical by digging deeper than the superficial comments that have been put forth by many posters. A lie is a telling of an untruth, unjustifiably, just as murder is a killing of a human, unjustifiably. Therefore, the same formula would hold for the telling of an untruth.

I would love a direct rebuttal to the points I have made above. Thanks.

Reread the catechism and you will know the definition of a lie which the Church uses in its teaching - ‘a lie consists in telling a falsehood with the intent to deceive’. That’s it.

The church isn’t merely ‘getting technical’ when it defines these terms. Jesus wasn’t merely ‘getting technical’ when he taught us that ‘anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery with her’ either. It’s called TEACHING, and is revealed by the Holy Spirit for our guidance, and not mere technicality. Nor can it be ignored at will for the sake of some alleged ‘higher law’ of love. Jesus told us that those who love Him KEEP His commandments, and don’t look for loopholes in the definition so that they may do their own thing instead.

Now when you tell those Nazis that there are no Jews in your house you have every intention of deceiving them, and so you are lying to them. You have another intention as well, of course, that of saving lives, but the fact that you have that additional intention doesn’t mean you don’t still intend to deceive as well, and so doesn’t change your lie into a non-lie. It still fits the definition of a lie.

You may consider it to be justifiable in view of the fact of saving lives, the Church doesn’t teach so, but instead teaches what constitutes a lie and that all lying by its very nature is to be condemned. Again, it’s not some optional technicality, it’s Magisterial teaching to which we need to assent.

 

[FNDRB58]

It’s your interpretations of the Catechism I question.

Did you read my post above yours? Please interpret the example Jesus gave when he essentially excercised a technicality that changed the law.
Thanks.

 

[LilyM]

It’s your interpretations of the Catechism I question.

Did you read my post above yours? Please interpret the example Jesus gave when he essentially excercised a technicality that changed the law.
Thanks.

I’ve responded to it several times in this thread. Please go back and read my posts on the issue.

Jesus is GOD, HE sets the parameters of when and how and in what circumstances the law can change or be relaxed. When He changes it, it’s not an ‘exercise of a technicality’, it’s an exercise of His right as God, as supreme lawgiver. That is something none of us have the authority to do, except in the very limited circumstances in which He has given it to some of us.

He did relax it in that one instance, and so we can work on the Sabbath if need be. He did not in many others, and so we still can’t commit adultery, still can’t misuse the Lord’s name, still can’t bear false witness.

He made it STRICTER than the Mosaic law in some other aspects - eg looking at someone with lust is morally equivalent to adultery, divorce is not permitted even though in some circumstances when Moses allowed it.

So it’s not a case of ‘you can simply disregard the entirety of the law if your idea of love of neighbour makes you think you can’.

 

[hazcompat]

St. Augustin-On Lying

ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/PNI3-15.TXT

peace

1. Certain it is, albeit all this disputation go from side to side,
   some asserting that it is never right to lie, and to this effect reciting
   divine testimonies: others gainsaying, and even in the midst of the very
   words of the divine testimonies seeking place for a lie; yet no man can
   say, that he finds this either in example or in word of the Scriptures,
   that any lie should seem a thing to be loved, or not had in hatred; howbeit
   sometimes by telling a lie thou must do that thou hatest, that what is more
   greatly to be detested may be avoided. But then here it is that people err;
   they put the precious beneath the vile. For when thou hast granted that
   some evil is to be admitted, that another and more grievous may not be
   admitted; not by the rule of truth, but by his own cupidity and custom
   cloth each measure the evil, accounting that to be the more grievous, which
   himself more greatly dreads, not which is in reality more greatly to be
   fled from. All this fault is engendered by perversity of loving. For being
   there are two lives of ours; the one eternal, which is promised of God; the
   other temporal, in which we now are: when a man shall have begun to love
   this temporal more than that eternal, for the sake of this which he loveth
   he thinks all things right to be done; and there are not any, in his
   estimation, more grievous sins than those which do injury to this life, and
   either take away from it any commodity unjustly and unlawfully, or by
   inflicting of death take it utterly away. And so thieves, and robbers, and
   ruffians, and torturers, and slayers, are more hated of them than
   lascivious, drunken, luxurious men, if these molest no man. For they do not
   understand or at all care, that these do wrong to God; not indeed to any
   inconvenience of Him, but to their own pernicious hurt; seeing they corrupt
   His gifts bestowed upon them, even His temporal gifts, and by their very
   corruptions turn away from eternal gifts: above all, if they have already
   begun to be the Temple of God; which to all Christians the Apostle saith
   thus: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of
   God dwelleth in you? Whoso shall corrupt God’s temple, God will corrupt
   him. For the temple of God is holy: which temple are ye.”(4)

peace