Lying - Is it Ever Acceptable?

[AlanFromWichita]

NOW i’ve spilled beans becasue alan’s wife “St Julie” who has been through her own flavor of hell was trusting enough that alan could speak openly with my consent and with my assistance but not my wods. this is the tower of bable and if you humans want ot be loke god i double dog dare you to rebuild the tower of babel. alan was committed to the project, but was locked up for trying speed the process along



and



Father, into your hands we commit our spirits.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

2488 and 2489 are not exceptions to the rule, and if you think they are then you’re misunderstanding what the rule is.

The rule is simply that everything we DO choose to communicate should be true as opposed to deceptive untruth.

The rule is not,as you seem to think, that we MUST comunicate absolutely everything we know to be true to anyone and everyone who asks us for information regardless of circumstance.

There’s a crucial and I hope obvious distinction between not telling the whole truth to someone (which is the sort of ‘discreet language’ that the Catechism permits) and telling a deceptive untruth (lying) to them, which IMHO it doesn’t. Lying isn’t discreet language, it’s deceptive language. Discretion is not the same thing as deliberate deception by way of total untruth.

“Discrete language” is a vague and ambiguous term, and I think it is open to various interpretations. In any case, whether you use discrete language or an outright lie, the intention is the same - to deceive. The difference between deceiving by speaking a fabrication or speaking in a way that is perhaps a little confusing, but not clearly a falsehood, is more of a technicality than an basic moral principle. If someone does not have the right to the truth, then you have the duty to withhold that truth. If the information being sought is a purely yes/no answer, then often no answer at all (remaining silent) gives the same information as “yes” (an outright lie). Imagine for example an undercover cop being asked by the gangster “You’re not a cop, are you?” Silence would convey that same information as “yes”, which would violate 2488 and 2489 since you have given information (through your silence) that the person did not have the right to know. If you don’t like the cop example, then imagine if the town gossip asks you “Is Susie pregnant?”. If you say “I don’t know”, you are telling a lie. If you say nothing at all, then the gossip knows that Susie is indeed pregnant, and you would be violating 2488 and 2489. So it looks like if you find yourself in that situation, you are bound to sin no matter what you do (if we accept your interpretation).

So while 2488 and 2489 do not technically spell out exceptions to lying, they do create situations where the two parts of the Catechism appear to be contradictory. Or else you would have to accept that sometimes one cannot avoid sinning. So I prefer to see them as providing exceptions to the immorality of lying. In fact, an earlier version of the Catechism did have “right to know” language in 2483. So it is not so far-fetched to see it as an exception.

 

[LilyM]

“Discrete language” is a vague and ambiguous term, and I think it is open to various interpretations. In any case, whether you use discrete language or an outright lie, the intention is the same - to deceive.

Which perhaps is like saying ‘whether one uses NFP or artificial birth control the intent is the same - to avoid having children’. Even if that were to be the case, the point is there are morally acceptable and morally unacceptable ways of doing so. And sometimes the means matter.

What IS clear to me is that telling an untruth is impermissible, whereas in some situations not telling the whole truth is permitted.

The difference between deceiving by speaking a fabrication or speaking in a way that is perhaps a little confusing, but not clearly a falsehood, is more of a technicality than an basic moral principle. If someone does not have the right to the truth, then you have the duty to withhold that truth. If the information being sought is a purely yes/no answer, then often no answer at all (remaining silent) gives the same information as “yes” (an outright lie).

That may be so, but all that means is that there are times when silence is inappropriate. In which case one can say a million things that are true, but that aren’t the whole truth, without lying!

Imagine for example an undercover cop being asked by the gangster “You’re not a cop, are you?” Silence would convey that same information as “yes”, which would violate 2488 and 2489 since you have given information (through your silence) that the person did not have the right to know. If you don’t like the cop example, then imagine if the town gossip asks you “Is Susie pregnant?”. If you say “I don’t know”, you are telling a lie. If you say nothing at all, then the gossip knows that Susie is indeed pregnant, and you would be violating 2488 and 2489. So it looks like if you find yourself in that situation, you are bound to sin no matter what you do (if we accept your interpretation).

Again, one doesn’t have to stay silent! In the cop example there are dozens of potential answers that aren’t lies but aren’t silence and aren’t yes or no answer.

On the one hand you could, if so minded, try an evasive answer like ‘Me, a cop? Heck, I wish cops didn’t even exist’ (meaning ‘I wish there were no crime so I didn’t have to BE a cop’, which I should think would be true for any cop!)

On the other you could, I don’t know, go completely off the deep end and start babbling nonsense about a totally unrelated topic and so avoid answering the question or something? A stream of nonsense about the moon being made of green cheese or aliens implanting radio chips in your brain or something? Start doing bird imitations or strip naked and do cartwheels? Or something equally distracting?

In the example of the pregnancy - again, there are ways of using speech that aren’t lying but don’t reveal the truth. If Susie told you she was pregnant without you asking, for example, you could perhaps truthfully say ‘I haven’t been game enough to ask her - you know women sometimes just put on weight and get SO offended when people assume they’re pregnant!’

So while 2488 and 2489 do not technically spell out exceptions to lying, they do create situations where the two parts of the Catechism appear to be contradictory. Or else you would have to accept that sometimes one cannot avoid sinning. So I prefer to see them as providing exceptions to the immorality of lying. In fact, an earlier version of the Catechism did have “right to know” language in 2483. So it is not so far-fetched to see it as an exception.

It’s not far-fetched for people like you who create a false dilemma, and imagine that there is no option but to a) stay silent or b) lie and that one cannot take a third course and use speech in a way that is not a direct untruth but still avoids telling the whole truth.

The problem is that most people simply don’t respect truth enough, and aren’t committed enough to making serious efforts to avoid telling untruths, to think about and practice using alternatives.

As a result, they are caught short and unprepared when faced with such dilemmas. Rather like an unfit person when called upon to do anything requiring bodily strength or agility. They take the easy road of lying when it’s not strictly necessary to do so.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Again, one doesn’t have to stay silent! In the cop example there are dozens of potential answers that aren’t lies but aren’t silence and aren’t yes or no answer.

On the one hand you could, if so minded, try an evasive answer like ‘Me, a cop? Heck, I wish cops didn’t even exist’ (meaning ‘I wish there were no crime so I didn’t have to BE a cop’, which I should think would be true for any cop!)

Well, if that is your interpretation of “discrete speech” then just about any lie can be rationalized as discrete speech. In the undercover cop case, for example, I could say “I am not a cop!” (meaning, my true title is “police detective”, not “cop”). Is that all it takes to make a lie acceptable to you? Suppose you have two police detectives in two different situations both give exactly the same answer: “I am not a cop.”. But one of them, in his mind, was able to think of the tricky interpretation that made it not a lie, and the other one, for whatever reason, didn’t think of that. Are you telling me that of these two cops who both told exactly the same thing, one of them is guilty of the sin of lying and the other isn’t? And what if the guy who didn’t think of the trick happened to think of the trick an hour later? Does that thought come too late? Or does having that thought magically transform his sin into not a sin?

…In the example of the pregnancy - again, there are ways of using speech that aren’t lying but don’t reveal the truth. If Susie told you she was pregnant without you asking, for example, you could perhaps truthfully say ‘I haven’t been game enough to ask her - you know women sometimes just put on weight and get SO offended when people assume they’re pregnant!’

On the other hand I could just say “No she’s not pregnant” (meaning we prefer to use the term “expecting” because “pregnant” is so clinical).

 

[LilyM]

Well, if that is your interpretation of “discrete speech” then just about any lie can be rationalized as discrete speech. In the undercover cop case, for example, I could say “I am not a cop!” (meaning, my true title is “police detective”, not “cop”). Is that all it takes to make a lie acceptable to you? Suppose you have two police detectives in two different situations both give exactly the same answer: “I am not a cop.”.

No - at no time in my answer did I say I was not a cop. Nor did I even imply in any way that I wasn’t a cop. So I didn’t say ‘exactly the same thing’ as the person who said they weren’t a cop. Not even close.

I simply expressed a true wish that I didn’t have to do my job as a cop - one which many cops would share and say similar things. That is all.

As for ‘what if the thought came too late to the other guy, who lied’. Well, back to my earlier post. Many people tend to see lying as a first option to get oneself out of trouble and so get careless and lazy in their thought and speech.

For those who make it their goal to respect truth and not tell untruths, ‘the thought’ is that truth must be respected, and it is always uppermost in one’s mind.

On the other hand I could just say “No she’s not pregnant” (meaning we prefer to use the term “expecting” because “pregnant” is so clinical).

No - do some research on the concept of ‘mental reservation’ and more specifically the distinction between broad and strict mental reservations. You can’t play around with the ordinary meaning or use (or invent special rules about the meaning or use) of words - such as ‘pregnant’ in this case.

In my cop example, at no time did I change the ordinary meaning or use of any of my words, nor invent special rules unique to myself such that, for example ‘cop’ to me means ‘elephant’ and not ‘policeperson’.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No - at no time in my answer did I say I was not a cop. Nor did I even imply in any way that I wasn’t a cop. So I didn’t say ‘exactly the same thing’ as the person who said they weren’t a cop. Not even close.

I disagree. Your answer to the cop question was clearly meant to mislead the gangster into believing a falsehood. The ordinary understanding of your “I wish that cops didn’t even exist” implies you belong to the group that is inconvenienced by cops, and thus are not a cop. That statement is just as much of a falsehood as my statement about using my official title (Police Detective) instead of the slang term (cop). You are playing with ordinary understanding of words and phrases just as much as I am. You would have a hard time justifying why one answer is a sin and the other isn’t.

As for ‘what if the thought came too late to the other guy, who lied’. Well, back to my earlier post. Many people tend to see lying as a first option to get oneself out of trouble and so get careless and lazy in their thought and speech.\quote]
That may be, just because one didn’t think of a really effective mental reservation on short notice does not necessarily mean that he is lazy or careless. He may just not be clever enough. I don’t think being clever is a pre-requisite to getting into heaven.

For those who make it their goal to respect truth and not tell untruths, ‘the thought’ is that truth must be respected, and it is always uppermost in one’s mind.

Yes, but that is not the thought I was referring to. I was referring to the thought that realizes that the falsehood that you just told can actually be seen as a mental reservation. If you don’t like my mental reservations, then let’s use yours. Suppose a cop said “I wish cops didn’t exist”, but he said that without realizing how your clever rationalization could make it the truth. In other words, he just outright lied. Then suppose that later on he is talking to his buddies about his lie, and they point out the alternate interpretation. Now he realizes that he did not in fact lie after all. Does this realization suddenly wipe away his sin? Or was his sin already wiped away because the alternate interpretation existed, even though he didn’t realize it right away?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Lily,

Thank you so much for answering me. Please do not take offense at the following questions because I want to help you know what this male thinks based on your writing style, when I wouldn’t know you from Eve. I’m just going to take a few samples of what you said, with highlights over a couple parts that stuck out like a sore thumb. This isn’t how I view you AT ALL so do not claim I think these things of you. I’m saying that the male mind like to selectively hear certain words more than others, whenever those words are symbols reminding men of different things. Watch what I can get, for example, using your words but with selective hearing. Selective hearing has its purposes in being able to focus. If you don’t believe me, go watch the movie “Beautiful Mind” and tell me that some guys might be out here who hear your writing this way.

Which perhaps is like saying ‘whether one uses NFP or artificial birth control the intent is the same - to avoid having children’. Even if that were to be the case, the point is there are morally acceptable and morally unacceptable ways of doing so. And sometimes the means matter. [ooh, she’s mean]

What IS clear to me is that telling an untruth is impermissible, whereas in some situations not telling the whole truth is permitted.

That may be so, but all that means is that there are times when silence is inappropriate. In which case one can say a million things that are true, but that aren’t[grammar error, is she nervous or distracted?] the whole truth, without lying!

Again, one doesn’t have to stay silent! In the cop example there are dozens of potential answers that aren’t lies but aren’t silence and aren’t yes or no answer.

Now, if you don’t think that people who have been marginalized and verbally and emotionally abused are so sensitive that they pick up on the tiniest cues that say “yes” or “no” guys know that when women say either it really means maybe because they are apparently thinking of the context while the guys don’t have a context in mind.

Now if you can see the pattern of the parts I bolded, maybe it will help you see why people go nuts when “non-crazy” people talk to them. Methinks sometimes the inmates are running the asylum.

I know my writing style may have changed, but it’s because of the incredible traumatic but wonderful changes I’ve undergone in the past few days. It’s an experience like nothing other, and even though it’s mentally challenging, if you open your mind enough there are several ways one could look at it – again this is why people like me have to have qualifiers attached to every statement – people who like me who are “mentally ill” btw, and btw yesterday I went to my psychiatrist and told him I had a delusion that I had figured out how to feel like the mind of Christ, and people are treating me like I have three heads. He was greatly pleased because he knew what that meant – what that meant is that I didn’t need any psychoactive medication for myself, but for others who are around me for some reason people are less scared by other people when the others are on psychoactive medications, than when they’re not. This is the turned around world that we “nutcases” have to live in.

Now about this open mind thing. “They:” say that a mind that’s too open allows it brains to fall out, but here’s what really happens if your mind is “truly” openn. first, is it exposed so women can feel our thoughts but don’t understand what they mean, kind of like “Troy” in Star Trek. Men are scared by this, though, because they aren’t trained to keep their thoughts under their Klingon Cloaking Devices. I’ve exposed a bit of my thinking above to give you a peek inside my troublesome thoughts. Also, if you want God to renew your mind, you have to break it free of its changes of limited thinking – where people are taught that “absolutely right” means “say what doesn’t get you into trouble with teacher.”

Honestly I have no idea why I just wrote this post. My mind is racing a mile a minute, and lately I don’t really know why I did something until sometime after I did it. Such as this post. I think it signifies a glitch in the “matrix” that is the wonderland we roam in… I don’t know but I’ll post this fwiw. Please know I’m just saying this is how you come across, even though you may think your writing is robotic and sterile and devoid of clues as to your real thoughts. The male mind cuts through the actual word pattern and rearranges them to “hear” subliminal messages even though they don’t notice them consciously. they try to turn everything into “yes” she loves me, unlike the kid’s game with Daisys. If you don’t believe me, ponder permutations and combinations of a few things the Church Lady on Saturday Night Live said – "now WHO would it be … " “Santa Claus”

The prosecution rests, regretful that it couldn’t have rested 10 years ago when he was locked up by a woman against his will, based on false infromation. Once a man is emotionally abused or teased by a woman, his thoughts develop selective hearing because he simply can’t deal with taking “subliminal” insults and worse.

Remember that the male mind has an instinct to ferret out the weak ones of a pack for killing and consumption. I say this because I believe it, not about you personally.

Peace,
Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Now, for the other side, I’ll just pick out the reaction one poster had to what you said. I’ll pick out certain things and see what this person picked up fromn your words:

Leaf, if you don’t mind I’ll borrow a bit of your reply and point out the pattern I noticed. I noticed you were trying to say things without sounding accusatory, when to the senstive mind and heart like ours, it is blatantly obvious.

Now, since I can’t read Leaf’s mind, I cannot know what anybody else in the world notices in terms of patterns that data mining through much noise could find.

just about any lie can be rationalized as discrete speech. … cop … , for example

… And what if the guy who didn’t think of the trick happened to think of the trick an hour later? Does that thought come too late? Or does having that thought **magically transform **his sin into not a sin?

** “No she’s not pregnant”**

clearly meant to mislead the gangster into believing a falsehood. The ordinary understanding of you…

**my official title instead of the slang term **

If these things don’t mean anything to you, then you are not able to detect your own subliminal messages.

Aman

 

[Pitcharan]

Now, for the other side, I’ll just pick out the reaction one poster had to what you said. I’ll pick out certain things and see what this person picked up fromn your words:

Leaf, if you don’t mind I’ll borrow a bit of your reply and point out the pattern I noticed. I noticed you were trying to say things without sounding accusatory, when to the senstive mind and heart like ours, it is blatantly obvious.

Now, since I can’t read Leaf’s mind, I cannot know what anybody else in the world notices in terms of patterns that data mining through much noise could find.

If these things don’t mean anything to you, then you are not able to detect your own subliminal messages.

Aman

Hi Alan, LilyM’s arguments quoting CCC resemble those of the Pharisees in the gospels. They swore by the Law, and argued about how to keep the Sabbath holy, with the Lord of the Sabbath.

If lying is an intrinsically evil thing, would angel Raphael lie to Tobias and his father that he was their relative?

Would anyone commend Judas Iscariot for revealing the truth about Jesus’ identity?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Here is what is wrong with claiming that “mental reservation” is fundamentally different from lying:

#1: Any lie can be rationalized as a mental reservation. Suppose in the cop question cited earlier, I was talking with the gangster over the phone instead of in person. And suppose what I said was “I am not a** bad **cop.”. This is 100% speaking the truth. However, being on the phone, I carefully pressed the mute button during the word “bad” so that the words that the gangster heard were “I am not a cop.” I did not tell a lie. And pressing the mute button to withhold the truth from someone who has no right to it is directly and explicitly allowed by CCC 2388 and 2389. It is not hard to see how any lie can be “delivered” in a package of mental reservation.

#2: If mental reservation is not a lie, then it could be used any time. Suppose, I used LilyM’s suggested mental reservation regarding Susie’s pregnancy. But instead of talking to the town gossip, I am now talking with Susie’s parents (Susie is 14 years old). If mental reservation is not a lie, then it is not a lie when told to her parents too. It is clear that what makes the deception acceptable in the original example of talking to the town gossip is the fact that the gossip did not have the right to that knowledge - not the fact that I used a mental reservation.

#3: A mental reservation is a lie according to CCC 2283. which states: “To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.” Clearly a mental reservation does exactly that.

Although misleading or technically correct speech may be preferred over blantant untruths, there are some times (not many) when the only way to uphold CCC 2388 and 2389 is to say something that is not true.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Hi Alan, LilyM’s arguments quoting CCC resemble those of the Pharisees in the gospels. They swore by the Law, and argued about how to keep the Sabbath holy, with the Lord of the Sabbath.

If lying is an intrinsically evil thing, would angel Raphael lie to Tobias and his father that he was their relative?

Would anyone commend Judas Iscariot for revealing the truth about Jesus’ identity?

Those are some great thoughts for meditation.

I think lying is intrinsically evil under the law, but Jesus freed us from the law, did He not?

Alan

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LilyM, I’ve been thinking about our discussion about lying in exceptional circumstances, and I want to grant you this: that in the vast, vast majority of cases, neither lying nor mental reservation are needed. But as is often the case here on CAF, the discussions turn to the outlandish far out cases, while ignoring the everyday. After all, Nazis didn’t generally just ask “any Jews here?”. And it would be a pretty stupid gangster who would bother to ask the undercover cop if he was a cop. And even when the town gossip asks me if Susie is pregnant, I could probably just say “I don’t think that’s any of your business”. If the gossip knows me and my values, then that person knows I would give exactly the same answer if Susie were not pregnant. So the gossip would still not know the truth, and I have avoided lying. So while we have been debating Nazis and gangsters and gossips, we have not mentioned the much more common affronts to the truth that are perpetrated by some stock advisers, real estate salesmen, and people who falsify their resume to get a job, and many others. So I am sorry for my role in perpetuating this unproductive emphasis on the outlandish.

 

[LilyM]

Those are some great thoughts for meditation.

I think lying is intrinsically evil under the law, but Jesus freed us from the law, did He not?

Alan

Jesus came to fulfil the law, and to free us from servile (fearful) bondage to it. Not to endorse disobedience to it. One certainly shouldn’t be truthful out of fear of Hell, but out of love of Him who is Truth incarnate.If one is truthful for such a reason then one need not fear being in bondage to the law.

Remember in some instances (eg divorce, lustful looks, ‘an eye for an eye’) He was in fact far stricter than the Pharisees who he condemned. So we can’t assume that freedom from the law automatically means a relaxation of moral standards, or that one who sets high standards is automatically being Pharisaic.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

But as is often the case here on CAF, the discussions turn to the outlandish far out cases, while ignoring the everyday.

OK. You’ve finally given me enough ammunition to shoot straight at the heart of this “absolute” v. “relative” feuding. :banghead:

Outlandish cases are not likely, but they are not only possible, they happen. There were Nazis who asked these things. There are gunmen who are after people and need to be misled, and yes, there are people who actually win the lottery.

Anyone who claims that something is the “absolute” truth must include EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE CASE, NOT JUST THE ONES THAT ARE COMMON.

By definition, that is what absolute means.

To claim that we should not take “outlandish” but not impossible cases into account is, may I shout a bit? It is …
RELATIVISM.

Now somebody tell me how I’m wrong.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Jesus came to fulfil the law, and to free us from servile (fearful) bondage to it. Not to endorse disobedience to it. One certainly shouldn’t be truthful out of fear of Hell, but out of love of Him who is Truth incarnate.If one is truthful for such a reason then one need not fear being in bondage to the law.

Remember in some instances (eg divorce, lustful looks, ‘an eye for an eye’) He was in fact far stricter than the Pharisees who he condemned. So we can’t assume that freedom from the law automatically means a relaxation of moral standards, or that one who sets high standards is automatically being Pharisaic.

Please explain your take on the following:
Rom 8:2-4:

For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed you from the law of sin and death. For what the law, weakened by the flesh, was powerless to do, this God has done: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for the sake of sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the righteous decree of the law might be fulfilled in us, who live not according to the flesh but according to the spirit.

Alan

 

[Pitcharan]

Those are some great thoughts for meditation.

I think lying is intrinsically evil under the law, but Jesus freed us from the law, did He not?

Alan

Under which law? Do you think lying is intrinsically evil under ‘God’s’ Law or ‘its perverse interpretation by hypocrites’? Did not our Lord clarify that Moses had to write down the law permitting divorce because of hard hearted men, and that it was not God’s Law?

 

[FNDRB58]

Again, one doesn’t have to stay silent! In the cop example there are dozens of potential answers that aren’t lies but aren’t silence and aren’t yes or no answer.

On the one hand you could, if so minded, try an evasive answer like ‘Me, a cop? Heck, I wish cops didn’t even exist’ (meaning ‘I wish there were no crime so I didn’t have to BE a cop’, which I should think would be true for any cop!)

Oops, you told a lie! If you are a cop and said you wish cops didn’t exist then you lied. It doesn’t matter what spin you put on it internally. You hurt your criminal brethren and now have to apologize and make amends to him as the Catechsim states.

 

[FNDRB58]

My presumption is that we should not be looking for an infallible teaching. That is not what the charism of infallibility is used for. It is not the moral and theological “answers in the back of the book.” My other presumption is that Aquinas is the "go to’ theologian for ethical debate. In the Church we usually begin with Aquinas and then work our way from there. Why? Simply because the Church consistently confirms his teachings in Magisterial form and also he is the foundation for all theological and philosophical education in the Church. Thus, to simply disagree with Aquinas is not sufficient of an argument because he doesn’t have an equal weight to other thinkers.

I would have to carefully look at the various authors you mention to comment. I can say that both Peter Kreeft’s and Janet Smith’s recent articles on the subject are quite poor examples of their own work. Janet Smith misapplies Thomistic and Aristotelian principles and Peter Kreeft makes an emotivist argument contrary to his own methodology. I haven’t seem any other significant contemporary Catholic theologians other than these two argue in favor of lying as a good.

Not simply an opinion. It is an informed and certain opinion that can be substantially justified. When it comes to helping people determine what is a right or wrong action opinion is not sufficient.

Aren’t all of these opinions? Everything we have stated regarding this issue is opinion, the saints and theologians not withstanding. What does the Church say? It is not clear in the Catechism as has been repeatedly stated because, except for one sentence that some are taking as their sole defense, most of the Catechism in this area seems to be speaking about lying in the context of hurting your fellow brethren and destroying the moral good which of course is not occurring in the Nazi example (not to beat a dead horse).

Also, has anyone answered the question of whether Pope Pius and others sinned for creating false passports and other documents to help the persecuted Jews? Though not an infallible decision…Wouldn’t this be a credible example to emulate?

Sin, even venial sin separates us to some degree from the love of God. As an absolutist on this subject you are thus saying that someone who protects innocent children of God from certain death by hiding them and lying to murderers who will kill them are thereby willfully separating themselves from the love of God. Their act of love and sacrifice to die for their fellow brethren in your eyes is a defiant act toward their creator?

Is this really your position?

And by the very fact that those who lie to Nazis in this situation would be doing so by the good of their conscience, thinking it is the right thing to do out of the love of their brothers and sisters in Christ, would thus NOT be culpable for incurring any sin. You may say objectively it is sinful to ever tell a lie yet you could not say that these heros incurred sin, can you?

 

[06convert]

Lying is a sin, period. That being said, like any sin, your knowledge, your consent, and the situational circumstances determine how badly you are on the hook. Lying to extort someone from their money, resulting in them losing their home and living on the streets is far worse than telling a lie to protect your life or the life of others.

My priest gave me the acronym STOP. Situation, Think Others, Pray. When trying to decide if something is a sin, consider the situation, think and consider the consequences, think about all of the choices and try to determine which is the less of 2 evils. Talk to others, friends, a priest and pray about it.

An example is lying to save someones life. You have 2 choices there, lie and save a life, or tell the truth and have someone killed. Neither one is desirable, but lying in this case would be the less evil of the two choices. I’m sure that God will understand the reasons behind your choice to lie. It wasn’t to do harm, it was to save someone. While lying in this situation is probably just a venial sin, if there was any question you may want to poke into confession, just to be safe.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Under which law? Do you think lying is intrinsically evil under ‘God’s’ Law or ‘its perverse interpretation by hypocrites’? Did not our Lord clarify that Moses had to write down the law permitting divorce because of hard hearted men, and that it was not God’s Law?