Lying - an intrinsic evil with no exceptions?

[VonDerTann]

With the utmost respect, LilyM, you are misleading others as to what the Church teaches. When you state, “You may consider [a lie] 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.”

The Church does not so state. You may want it to so state. Many others may want it to so state, in part since so many people (including many on this board!) seem to want/need to have 100% hard and fast rules for all situations they will ever encounter in life.

But that’s not what the Church teaches, and it’s not how life operates.

The Catechism at 2488 states that “respect” for truth is “not unconditional.” In other words, respect for the truth is “conditional.” However, 2488 does also say that we “must conform” our lives to the Gospel of love. Moreover, the Catechism also advises that people must follow their consciences.

When Jesus was asked what the most important commandment was, He didn’t say, “obey the law.” He said “Love others.” Love trumps the law. Jesus said so.

Now, that’s a problem for all those out there who want/need 100% guidance for all situations. Know what? The only such across the board guidance is “Love you neighbor”. Jesus said it. 2488 says we “must conform” to that.

Now, in response, you’ve basically accused me, FNDR, etc., of claiming ‘you can simply disregard the entirety of the law if your idea of love of neighbour makes you think you can’. I think you know that is a complete mischaracterization. There are good ways to love and bad, and the Church gives some guidance in this area…some, but not total. Committing adultery in a misguided effort to love someone is a bad way of loving, so much so that the Church tells us it’s across the board wrong. But “lying to save a life,” or even other lying under other circumstances, is NOT identified as “across the board wrong.” To the contrary, the Church acknowledges that respect for truth is “not unconditional.”…but loving is unconditional. By saying that respect for truth is conditional but love of neighbor is not, the Church is clearly telling us that there are times when “telling the truth” is not required.

Now, as to Nazis at the door – there may be ways of “fudging,” or avoiding the answer, or whatever…but if you answer, “any Jews here?” with “uh…how should I know,” and get “YES OR NO, DUMBKOPF?” as a reply, the issue is simple: Is it a sin to say “no?” For reasons articulated elsewhere, the Church does not state “yes across the board.”

Now please answer this: Does asking a question of another person entitle the questioner to a truthful answer? Yes? No? If “it depends”…on what? Please advise.

 

[meltzerboy]

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?

I like Thomas Aquinas’ analysis of morality and your examples, with only one exception. According to Judaic law, the intention of an act certainly does make a difference; however, the example of giving money to a beggar for the purpose of showing off, while one of the lowest levels of charity since it is not a selfless or noble intention, is still preferable to NOT giving anything at all. Also, giving money grudgingly is better than doing nothing. One of the highest acts of charity would be giving to another anonymously. Thus, there are levels of morality: it’s not necessarily an all-or-none situation, moral vs. non-moral behavior. In fact, if one has all the best and kindest wishes and intentions for that beggar, but does nothing to alleviate their suffering AND one could have done something, that would be an even lower level of morality than giving grudgingly or for the purpose of showing off.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In terms of documentation about lying, here’s documentation from the CCC with my own commentary interspersed:

2482 “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.” [deceiving anyone, for any reason, whether it be Nazis in order to save lives or anybody else at any other time for any other reason] 281 The Lord denounces lying [all lying, not just some, not just lies told to some people or for some motives] as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."282

I think this is an incorrect interpretation, especially in light of 2489 which I shall address later. But right now I want to deal with your interpretation of “intention”. In the Nazi-looking-for-Jews example, you claim that it is wrong to speak a falsehood because the intention is to deceive. I claim that if the* intention* is to deceive, then it is the intention in the same sense that killing an attacker in self-defense has the* intention* to kill. But we know that this is not correct. Killing an attacker in self-defense, if there are no less lethal alternatives, is justified by the Church and the Catechism. That is because the fact of killing the attacker is not the real intention. It is only the unavoidable side-effect of preventing the attack. In fact, if you can reasonably prevent the attack without killing the attacker, you are obliged to do so. Another example is providing necessary medical treatment for a pregnant woman that has the unavoidable consequence of killing the baby. Even though abortion is intrinsically evil, this might not be abortion under the right conditions because the intention was not the kill the baby.

In the same way, the fact of the Nazis being deceived is not the real intention of the false speech. It is the unavoidable consequence of the laudable purpose of preventing a grave injustice. If it were possible to accomplish that laudable purpose without speaking a falsehood, you would have done it. But in that case there was no alternative. Even silence would have given away the truth that the Nazis were not entitled to have by justice. So the Nazis and Jews example does not fall under 2482 because the speaking of the falsehood was not the actual intention, just the unavoidable consequence in the same way that shooting an attacker causes the unavoidable consequence of causing death.

…more in next posting…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth [ie his relationship to God who is truth, and all untruths do this injury, even those told to murderous Nazis] and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

This interpretation also fails to apply to the Nazi/Jew example. In the Nazi/Jew example, the Nazi has already injured his relationship to the truth by engaging in such an unjust purpose as exterminating Jews. Your act of speaking a falsehood to prevent the Nazi from exterminating one more Jew may actually help to repair the Nazi’s relationship to higher truth. Once again, by hiding the truth, you are not leading the Nazi into error, but rather you are doing what you can to lead him back to the real truth by preventing him from carrying out his unjust purpose.

2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. [No suggestion that these factors ever completely eliminate the gravity of a lie]. 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. [No suggestion that any lie is less than a venial sin under any circumstances].

Once again, the example under consideration does not apply here. That is because the falsehood that was spoken to hide the Jews did not deform the truth at all. In fact, to have given up the Jews to the Nazis would have been the real deformation of the truth by giving assent to an injustice which was the real offense against the truth. And no harm at all came to the “victims”. The Nazi’s soul might have actually been saved by the act. At least that is the intention when the falsehood is told.

2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. [Full stop, no ifs, ands, buts or exceptions, but by its very nature]. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor [even a neighbouring Nazi] into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

Yes, once you know what a lie is. But as I showed above in my comments about your comments about 2482, the example in question is not a lie because the intention was not the deceive.

2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. [Again, no ifs ands or buts, no special cases where the wrong of the violence is outweighed by other considerations]. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.

Again, this is irrelevant because the example in question does not qualify as a lie, under the definition in 2482.

2487 Every offense committed against justice and truth entails the duty of reparation, even if its author has been forgiven. When it is impossible publicly to make reparation for a wrong, it must be made secretly. If someone who has suffered harm cannot be directly compensated, he must be given moral satisfaction in the name of charity. This duty of reparation also concerns offenses against another’s reputation. This reparation, moral and sometimes material, must be evaluated in terms of the extent of the damage inflicted. It obliges in conscience.

Nothing really needs to be said here since in the example in question there was no offense against justice in speaking the falsehood.

IV. RESPECT FOR THE TRUTH

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it. [But not to tell an untruth to someone who asks for the truth, presumably because such is never appropriate].

Your added comments are unsupported and exactly what is in dispute here.

2489 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 [but not for lying] or for making use of a discreet language* [but not telling an untruth]*. 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. [None of which can be taken to mean that one is entitled to tell untruths to people who don’t have a right to the truth, or indeed to anyone at all]

“but not for lying” - yes, the example in question is not a lie.
“but not for telling an untruth” - no, this is not implied. The use of discreet language may enable someone to avoid telling a lie in small matters of little importance. But it would do no good at all in the Nazi/Jew example. Your silence or attempt at “discrete language” would give away the real truth the Nazis were looking for. Since silence or discrete language would not hide the truth, being bound not to tell a falsehood is equivalent to being bound to reveal the truth, which is explicitly denied by 2489.

 

[Sum_Fidelis]

I think we can say a few things for sure. It is never wrong to do good deed even if it means we may lie/sin. A good deed is never something you do to gain something from it. A lie that harm others is a grave matter and sin.
We can read the Bible for ever and we will never get the answer to this debate if we don’t understand that a lie is a sin as such,but a lie we tell preventing greater damages to others is justified [as long as we don’t do it to gain something more then a good deed] in circumstances that can’t be specified exactly to a certain point. If we follow word by word what is in the Bible we are to close. From a distance we will see more,and as far as I know there is not one single line in the Bible that says we can’t do a good thing when needed to. Strictly,the Bible do not tell us lie,but it do tell us to do what is right,and if we can help someone doing a [venial] sin God will forgive us. I hope that you would be honest to your self and all of us here and stop hiding behind the Bible and the Catechism and use your heart. There is nothing evil in help someone even if it means that you have to lie,or bend the truth a bit. If we can’t understand this,we don’t understand nothing. Would I lie to save my children,yes,and so would you,and I think it is a sin to say something else,because that is a lie you gain something from,in this case our respect,cause there is no parent in the world,I hope,who would not protect their children even if it would be a sin. When a child is sick parents often says “oh I wish I could take your pain and sickness” but that is easy to say but who really would do so if it would be possible? Be honest to your self and us here on this forum and tell us the truth. Are you trying to be the best catholic in the world in our eyes or are you honest enough and stop lying and tell us the truth? It is so easy to find things wrong in others,but what about your self, (Matt.7:3) are you as good as you want us to think. I wish you would,I truly do but I am afraid that you are not. You are in such hurry to be right that you don’t see that being wrong is a blessing. There are always exceptions,and I reckon there always will be,and that is blessing to. We are told not to sin,and that is good,but when our need to be “perfect” comes first we do much more harm then those who thinks with their heart. We can’t be “perfect” but we can be,and should try to,humans with a heart,and open mind and a forgiving soul. We have a choice,and if that means that,this is only for me,I must lie to save someone or something [without gaining anything my self] I lie. I am a human,I am weak,and I sin,and I happy that I can admit it. God bless you all,and may He give you a heart to think with. Amen.

.

 

[FNDRB58]

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’.

I can’t disagree with what you have said here except with one exception. You think I am changing it and I think you may be misinterpreting it.

Jesus wasn’t just exercising the “technicality” for Himself only. Jesus was teaching all of us something of which we were to emulate. Jesus didn’t set an example of committing adultery nor use the Lord’s name in vain, nor bear false witness because there are no situations where commiting those acts are justifiable. At, least none that I can think of. He did allow us to kill a human being though. He did allow us to “work” on the Holy Day.

He did however show us how there wasn’t an absolute in what most thought was the the absolute law. As you well know, the Bible doesn’t clarify everything for us. That is why he said, “who hears you hears Me.” The Magesterium does indeed have the right to clarify teachings in the Bible. I don’t think the Catechism is explicit enough to answer the Nazi scenario as I have demonstrated in previous posts.

Though not expressly stated in the Catechism, the Church may indeed be leaning toward St. Augustine’s view of never telling an untruth. But there are many saints that oppose his view also. St. Raymond is one that I know of.

He said,* if one can kill another to protect their life, then one may lie to prevent another from being killed.*

 

[FNDRB58]

I think we can say a few things for sure. It is never wrong to do good deed even if it means we may lie/sin. A good deed is never something you do to gain something from it. A lie that harm others is a grave matter and sin.
We can read the Bible for ever and we will never get the answer to this debate if we don’t understand that a lie is a sin as such,but a lie we tell preventing greater damages to others is justified [as long as we don’t do it to gain something more then a good deed] in circumstances that can’t be specified exactly to a certain point. If we follow word by word what is in the Bible we are to close. From a distance we will see more,and as far as I know there is not one single line in the Bible that says we can’t do a good thing when needed to. Strictly,the Bible do not tell us lie,but it do tell us to do what is right,and if we can help someone doing a [venial] sin God will forgive us. I hope that you would be honest to your self and all of us here and stop hiding behind the Bible and the Catechism and use your heart. There is nothing evil in help someone even if it means that you have to lie,or bend the truth a bit. If we can’t understand this,we don’t understand nothing. Would I lie to save my children,yes,and so would you,and I think it is a sin to say something else,because that is a lie you gain something from,in this case our respect,cause there is no parent in the world,I hope,who would not protect their children even if it would be a sin. When a child is sick parents often says “oh I wish I could take your pain and sickness” but that is easy to say but who really would do so if it would be possible? Be honest to your self and us here on this forum and tell us the truth. Are you trying to be the best catholic in the world in our eyes or are you honest enough and stop lying and tell us the truth? It is so easy to find things wrong in others,but what about your self, (Matt.7:3) are you as good as you want us to think. I wish you would,I truly do but I am afraid that you are not. You are in such hurry to be right that you don’t see that being wrong is a blessing.

This will be my last response to you my friend. Instead of responding with coherent rebuttals, you have resorted to disparaging comments. I have therefore lost interest in your posts. Also, you are not interested in Catholic teaching given your comments about “forget the Bible, forget the Catechism.” My intention by starting this thread was to debate with those who refer to the Bible, the inspired Word of God, and the Divine Church that God instituted and has the power to teach us and guide us since she herself is guided by the Holy Spirit. I pray that you will turn from your secular thinking and not conform to the standards of this world. Common sense is important but doing so without the guidance of the Church is very dangerous to your soul to say the least. You are missing out and I hope you are obedient to the Church that Christ instituted. God bless you. You are in my prayers.

 

[FNDRB58]

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

Yeah, there are many, such as Augustine, who believe that there are no exceptions to telling an untruth. The problem is that there are saints, such as St. Raymond and others, who disagree. So when posting quotes from saints please at least give quotes that speak specifically to lying to murderers to save lives as this seems to be the best example of such an exception. The above quote is pretty general and doesn’t really answer this question.

Thanks.

 

[Kay_Cee]

I like Thomas Aquinas’ analysis of morality and your examples, with only one exception. According to Judaic law, the intention of an act certainly does make a difference; however, the example of giving money to a beggar for the purpose of showing off, while one of the lowest levels of charity since it is not a selfless or noble intention, is still preferable to NOT giving anything at all. Also, giving money grudgingly is better than doing nothing. One of the highest acts of charity would be giving to another anonymously. Thus, there are levels of morality: it’s not necessarily an all-or-none situation, moral vs. non-moral behavior. In fact, if one has all the best and kindest wishes and intentions for that beggar, but does nothing to alleviate their suffering AND one could have done something, that would be an even lower level of morality than giving grudgingly or for the purpose of showing off.

I think you’re looking at it from a different perspective than what is intended.

While giving money to charity solely in order to show off does indeed do society good, it does no good for the person making the donation. That is, it is not morally good for that person. As Jesus states, that individual has already received his reward: looking good in front of others, which from an eternal perspective means pretty much nothing. He receives no heavenly reward, which is what would actually be good for him.

IMHO, the Catechism is dealing with how acts affect us morally, not so much how they affect others. To quote CCC #1757, “The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three ‘sources’ of the morality of human acts.”

 

[meltzerboy]

I think you’re looking at it from a different perspective than what is intended.

While giving money to charity solely in order to show off does indeed do society good, it does no good for the person making the donation. That is, it is not morally good for that person. As Jesus states, that individual has already received his reward: looking good in front of others, which from an eternal perspective means pretty much nothing. He receives no heavenly reward, which is what would actually be good for him.

IMHO, the Catechism is dealing with how acts affect us morally, not so much how they affect others. To quote CCC #1757, “The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three ‘sources’ of the morality of human acts.”

Thank you for that clarification.

 

[meltzerboy]

Regarding telling the truth at all times, I was actually in a life or death situation.

My mother was a Type I diabetic. She was staying at my home because my Dad was in the hospital. At about midnight, I checked on her and her skin was cold and clammy. I knew this meant her blood sugar level was dangerously low and that I needed to get some sugar into her ASAP or she could go into a coma and die.

I got some ice cream and woke her up. But she wouldn’t take the ice cream. She tightened her lips, shook her head no. You see, she knew that under normal circumstances, she’s not supposed to eat anything with sugar in it. I tried to reason with her, but because her blood sugar was so low, she was not thinking clearly. She was acting (even talking) like a two-year-old.

So what would you do? Would you tell your mother the ice cream was sugar free or would you let her die?

The answer to me is quite simple according to my own sentiment and Jewish teaching. Telling a lie to save a human life (and, in this case, one’s own mother!) is totally justified, just as in an emergency life-and-death situation, one is permitted to eat non-kosher food, work on the Sabbath, and so on. Saving a life supersedes all other commandments.

 

[meltzerboy]

Now, as to the position that the Catechism prohibits all untruths, I’m sorry, but such a position is theologically unsound:

“2482 “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.” [deceiving anyone, for any reason, whether it be Nazis in order to save lives or anybody else at any other time for any other reason]”
–The important consideration is that the 2482 does NOT say, “a lie consists of speaking a falsehood.” 2482 adds the subjective element of “intent to deceive.” If my intent is to save a life of a Jew, or investigate a crime, I have not lied. 2482 could have said, “a lie consists of speaking a falsehood.” It did not.
–The fact that we can IMPLY meaning is obvious. 2482 says a lie is SPEAKING falsehood, and 2485 says it is a profanation of SPEECH. We know that covers printed words, as well, but the Catechism says “speech.” If you can imply that a lie includes WRITTEN falsehoods, I can imply that it also only means when the deceived has a right to the truth.

“2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man’s relation to truth [ie his relationship to God who is truth, and all untruths do this injury, even those told to murderous Nazis]…”
–If my intent is not to lead another to error, I have not committed an offense.

“2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. [No suggestion that these factors ever completely eliminate the gravity of a lie].”
–False. 2484 admits that the gravity can be lessened on circumstances. It can be lessened to zero. There is no proof otherwise.

“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. [No suggestion that any lie is less than a venial sin under any circumstances].”
–It says “IF” a lie is a venial sin. It could have said “all lies are at least venial.” It did not. By negative implication some lies are not even venial.

As to the remainder you qoute…I can only respond that 2488 admits that “the right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional…”
–Period. I take this to mean some lies are accceptable. 2488 says that “everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love.” Right to communicate the truth is not unconditional, but EVERYONE MUST conform to the Gospel of LOVE. This seems clear that telling the truth is conditional, but LOVE overrides that. If in my love of neighbor I lie to save him from the Nazis…I have not sinned.

My final proof is simply common sense: Anyone who really thinks I sin by lying to save the Jew when the Nazis come, is witness to an overly legalistic/autocratic view of morality, and Christianity. As Benedict XVI observed, Catholicism is not a set of rules, its a relationship with God, and humanity…and I am confident that love of neighbor ALWAYS overrides simplistic notions of “never, ever lie.”

FYI, this is the position taken in Judaism. As I mentioned to another member, saving a life trumps all other commandments according to Jewish Law: one may eat non-kosher food, work on the Sabbath or the High Holy Days, and so on. This applies to Orthodox Rabbis as well. Indeed, NOT telling a lie in an emergency situation is considered sinful.

 

[hazcompat]

do you love this exile so much that you would forfeit you immortal soul. lying is always evil.

peace

 

[FNDRB58]

Three of us have posted responses to each of the Catechism references to lying. I believe we have shown that, put in context, none of them apply to the Nazi example. I would like to hear a rebuttal of our responses from those who used them as your support.

 

[FNDRB58]

Lily -

I noticed you did not respond to my long post #35. I think my points on the Catechism show some merit. If you have the time could you comment on at least three of them?

Thanks.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

do you love this exile so much that you would forfeit you immortal soul. lying is always evil.

peace

Do you mean lying in the sense of the definition stated in the Catechism section 2482? Because that meaning I claim does not cover the Nazis looking for Jews example, so it is not really a lie, and so you would not forfeit your immortal soul of you told the Nazis there were no Jews in the house. See my posting #63 above for a fuller explanation.

 

[hazcompat]

Do you mean lying in the sense of the definition stated in the Catechism section 2482? Because that meaning I claim does not cover the Nazis looking for Jews example, so it is not really a lie, and so you would not forfeit your immortal soul of you told the Nazis there were no Jews in the house. See my posting #63 above for a fuller explanation.

please see posts 49 and 60

peace

 

[FNDRB58]

Hazcompat

If you are interested in getting in on this debate you will have to contribute more than just telling us to refer to your cut and paste posts. Please use your own words to describe your points in collaboration with your quotes from saints. Thanks.

 

[Sum_Fidelis]

This will be my last response to you my friend. Instead of responding with coherent rebuttals, you have resorted to disparaging comments. I have therefore lost interest in your posts. Also, you are not interested in Catholic teaching given your comments about “forget the Bible, forget the Catechism.” My intention by starting this thread was to debate with those who refer to the Bible, the inspired Word of God, and the Divine Church that God instituted and has the power to teach us and guide us since she herself is guided by the Holy Spirit. I pray that you will turn from your secular thinking and not conform to the standards of this world. Common sense is important but doing so without the guidance of the Church is very dangerous to your soul to say the least. You are missing out and I hope you are obedient to the Church that Christ instituted. God bless you. You are in my prayers.

I am not in any way against the Church. All that I wanted to establish is that behind the Bible is a loving and understanding God with more forgiveness we ever can understand. God never forbid us to do good things. I have all the time been saying that a lie is a sin,all I want to say is that sometimes we are in a situation when we can’t think what the Church may say about what we are forced to do. You have,at least as I can figure out,never been lying,I don’t know how you have been able to live like that because even priests lie sometimes. It is not evil to lie,it a sin,but a sin that we sometimes must do. If we want to stay human and be nice and loving,it will include lying. We lie about six times every day,and that includes almost the whole population of the world,I think it was about 76%. (All are “small” lies,not mortal sins.) To be a good Christian is more then be obedient to the Church even if that is the foundation to be “good”. The Church has no official rule about lies that to more good then the possible truth will do harm. I don’t know if you have children,but I have,and as all kids they sometimes draw a picture,walks up to you and ask,or rather say,“this is a ugly picture” and if you say “yes it is”,then you better go and confess because that is wrong. You can’t,well of course you can,answer that “yes it is ugly,it is bad and I don’t like it all”. If you say that your honesty makes more damages then you can understand. (Now I hope you don’t have kids,because from your point of view I am sure,and terrified,that you will say it is ugly and destroy a small child’s world.) Honesty is the best we can do,and sometimes to be a honest good Christian means that we must lie. No,take the picture and keep it because one day when you are old you may need to look at it. I have saved every thing my kids has done,and it feels good to look at them once in a while. All is not black and white. And for your remarks,well,I am as catholic as the Pope is,and I do my best to do what the Church has told me to do,but I try to be a human first,other vice it has no meaning that I are obedient to the Church,and I hope you understand that because that is the only way to be a good Christian. God bless you son,I hope you will understand that life as a catholic is more then just do as the Church says.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

Oh yes, pinch her nose and she will open her mouth. Honestly, Lily, I am very very surprised at what you have written here. A grown woman is not a two year-old child. A grown woman in a severe diabetic reaction can break your jaw.

My Mom was also a Type I diabetic, extremely brittle, with highs that went off the chart to lows of about 20 within the space of an hour. She was not just not thinking clearly, she was not thinking clearly in the least. I have absolutely no feelings of guilt about any actions I ever took to save her life (and I did take perfom those actions many, many times).

Once she kicked me repeatedly as I tried to keep her from possibly smashing a breakfront in her living room. Her brain may have been oxygen-deprived, but she was amazingly strong. Now you can say I should call 911. If so I would have to ask you if you have considered the possibility that paramedics would be unable to respond to emergencies where they were really needed, such as cardiac arrest, profuse bleeding, etc. when a person who is present with the diabetic in a severe reaction can take care of the problem on her own (I know you didn’t present this in your post but I think it would suggest itself as a possibility for dealing with this problem).

If Kay Cee chose to feed her mother ice cream (which is an excellent source of glucose) and told her the sugar-laden ice cream was in fact sugarless, I see no problem. Her mother did not have the right to know the truth. Not having the right to know the truth does not only apply to Nazis and other evil people - it applies to those who cannot help themselves as they are dying.

You would have Kay Cee tell her mother the ice cream is medicine? I’ve been in this sort of situation. A diabetic in a severe reaction does not think normally - he/she can’t. My Mom would never have accepted the “medicine” story. She would have had her teeth clamped together and her lips as tightly closed as possible. I don’t think you realize how drastic and quick the thinking and behavior of a diabetic changes. Kay Cee said her mother was acting like a two year-old child. My Mom often did not know who I was. I don’t believe she even knew who she was! She was very, very ill and a reaction is a crisis situation. I saved my Mom’s life many times. I’m not saying that to show how wonderful I am, because I’m not. I am saying it because it is true. Attempting to reason with a diabetic in a severe reaction wastes precious time. What needs to be done needs to be done now. You get the sugar into the diabetic as fast as you can because her blood glucose is probably still dropping. There is no time for reasoning or debate. This is an emergency situation.

You would have Kay Cee hold her mother’s nose shut? Should she drag her mother to the floor, lie down on top of her in order to try to restrain her and hold her nose? How? Seriously, what do you think would happen? I have a good idea. Kay Cee would be badly injured and Kay Cee’s mother would most likely be dead.

I loved (and love) my Mom. If I ever had to tell her something that was not true in order to save her life then that is the price I will gladly pay. I have no guilt feelings over any actions I took to protect her. As a human being she was precious to God and created in His image. She was also precious to me. Saving a person’s life is an act of love.

Please walk a mile in my moccasins before deciding what the correct course of action is. Better yet, try walking a mile in my Mom’s moccasins. She doesn’t wear them anymore because she passed on several years ago. From diabetes.