Lying - Is it Ever Acceptable?

[mosher]

Comparing priests’ obligations in the Sacrament of Confession and the question of whether it is permissible to tell an untruth to Nazis in order to save the lives of Jews is like comparing apples to oranges. If telling the confessions of penitents to others were permissible, even in the most dire situations, then there would be no trust of the priest nor the Sacrament, leaving the Sacrament effectively worthless. No one would confess murders, rapes, etc. This is a much different scenario than the non-sacramental one’s of which we are discussing.

In the other thread I started on this subject I said this:

Jesus healing on the Sabbath…

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. 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?

1. So you are saying that the seal is simply utilitarian??? But, apart from this you are missing my analogy. The analogy centers about what a priest can say while under dire circumstances. He cannot tell the sins of penitents but also cannot lie. So, what does he do? Usually in this situation the priest goes to jail or is killed. Remember there is not natural relationship between the seal and the Sacrament of Penance. If the Church did away with the canonical imposition of the ‘seal’ Catholics would still need to seek the Sacrament. Recall that in the early Church confessions were public and made to the Bishop. But there are very good reasons beyond its utilitarian function. In any case the analogy holds.
2. You are committing a category mistake in your second paragraph and committing the genetic fallacy. You are also doing really poor biblical exegesis. First, Jesus didn’t violate the Sabbath injunction against work. Rather, he demonstrated that the way in which the injunction had been interpreted was wrong. Jesus, being God, and the definitive interpreter of His Word was correcting the interpretation. Also, it was not necessarily for the salvation of a man’s soul. Rather, it was that works of mercy can be done on the Sabbath.

But see, now, you are attempting to equate this to exceptions against the 5th commandment. But, the problem is that they these are not the same in a number of ways. The most important of these is that there is no confusion about the definition of murder and there are no exceptions of this. You have set up your relationships wrong. In effect your are confusing your genus with your species. Rather the proportion should look like this:

genus 1: Right Worship
species 1: Sabbath rest

genus 2: Killing
species 2: Murder

genus 3: False signification
species 3: lying

Instead you have inverted genus 2 and genus 3 with species 2 and species 3 respectively. To put this in plain English: Murder is a type of killing not the other way around and lying is a type of false signification not the other way around.

Now concerning Jesus doing ‘good works’ on the Sabbath we are looking at a proper definition of the Sabbath rest. What Jesus teaches us is that the definition of Sabbath rest does not include works of charity. But this is about the definition of the Sabbath rest. Just like self-defense does not enter into the definition of murder. However, killing in self-defense is a species of genus 2. So:

genus 2: Killing
species 2a: Murder
species 2b: killing in self-defense

Just as killing in self defense does not enter into the definition of murder neither do other types of false signification enter into the definition of lying. This is because lying is a specific type of false signification. This is why dissembling does not enter into the definition of lying.

Let’s keep our categories straight please.

 

[mosher]

Another point regarding confession and telling a lie:

A priest cannot be forced by authorities to give information about what was said in the confessional and at the same time he is not necessarily revealing anything harmful by saying I cannot answer. The authorities can’t make a determination based on the answer.

However, a Nazi at the door asking are there any Jews hiding here is going to form a positive opinion that there are if you say I can’t answer.

I like your example of Jesus working on the Sabbath. He broke a technicality of the Law to act in the Spirit of the Law. If I was first on the scene of an injury car accident and didn’t stop to render aid (I’m an RN) because it would mean doing work on the Sabbath, I’d be keeping one commandment but breaking one of the greatest commandments which is to love my neighbor. If telling a lie saves a life, then I am breaking one commandment in order to keep the commandment about loving my neighbor. Since keeping one commandment can’t logically break another commandment, then I think telling a lie in that case isn’t breaking a commandment at all.

It seems to me that in a perfect world absolutes such as never telling any lie even to a good end would be possible. In our broken world however, I question how we can be that absolute and still be able to do the most loving thing. People have listed example after example in which telling the truth or even remaining silent would bring about harm. I think greater evil can be morally thwarted by lesser evil.

I also cannot accept the idea that telling a literal or half truth with the intent to deceive is any more moral than telling a proportionate lie with the intent to do good.

One final thought. If we can kill in self-defense or defense of another’s life why can’t we lie in the same circumstances? We all know that hiding Jews was a killing offense so if they were discovered you were going to die right along with them.

1. You are correct. If my analogy was based upon proving similarity in outcomes then it breaks down. The point of the analogy has to do with the notion of lying/not lying and coercion. Beyond that it breaks down.
2. Please see my above critique of the Jesus working on the Sabbath issue.
3. I’m not saying that in a contingent world we face simple solutions to hard question. Rather, I’m simply saying that we ought not call evil good. If we choose to do something that is objectively evil then we need to own up to it even if it does cause a good. This is why we speak about two different but related considerations of an act. The first is objective and the second is subjective. We ought not conflate the two nor say that only the subjective matters.
4. You are correct. Telling a “half-truth” is a specific type of lying. It, therefore, is also an objectively evil act.
5. Please see the proper relation of genus to species in my above post on the topic. You will see that murder is a type of killing and not the other way around.

 

[FNDRB58]

FNDRB58;7643578:

Another point regarding confession and telling a lie:

A priest cannot be forced by authorities to give information about what was said in the confessional and at the same time he is not necessarily revealing anything harmful by saying I cannot answer. The authorities can’t make a determination based on the answer.

However, a Nazi at the door asking are there any Jews hiding here is going to form a positive opinion that there are if you say I can’t answer.

I like your example of Jesus working on the Sabbath. He broke a technicality of the Law to act in the Spirit of the Law. If I was first on the scene of an injury car accident and didn’t stop to render aid (I’m an RN) because it would mean doing work on the Sabbath, I’d be keeping one commandment but breaking one of the greatest commandments which is to love my neighbor. If telling a lie saves a life, then I am breaking one commandment in order to keep the commandment about loving my neighbor. Since keeping one commandment can’t logically break another commandment, then I think telling a lie in that case isn’t breaking a commandment at all.

And THAT is my point! You got it! While a lie is a sin and is wrong, if a circumstance arises (a tenchnicality as you put it) where the main action of lying (the telling of an untruth) is justified then there is no lie, ergo, no sin.

Do you, therefore, concede the validity of my point by stating that you believe there are technicalities that could preclude what otherwise might be sinful to in fact be justifiable…as Jesus illustrated by his example?

You wrote such long posts. I will have to take on the rest later, but this one above pretty much illustrates what I have been saying throughout this thread and it seems that you now agree with my position.

 

[LilyM]

momor;7643745:

And THAT is my point! You got it! While a lie is a sin and is wrong, if a circumstance arises (a tenchnicality as you put it) where the main action of lying (the telling of an untruth) is justified then there is no lie, ergo, no sin.

Do you, therefore, concede the validity of my point by stating that you believe there are technicalities that could preclude what otherwise might be sinful to in fact be justifiable…as Jesus illustrated by his example?

You wrote such long posts. I will have to take on the rest later, but this one above pretty much illustrates what I have been saying throughout this thread and it seems that you now agree with my position.

There are critical differences between the situation re working on the Sabbath and that of lying. We’ve been trying to point these out to you.

On the one hand Jesus showed by His own example that one is allowed to do necessary (eg emergency services) work on the Sabbath. And so the church has always recognised this exception to the rule and has in canon law and various other places openly enshrined the principle that one is exempt from attendance at Mass if one has necessary work obligations that conflict with Mass attendance.

On the other hand Jesus never told a lie, even when lives could have potentially been saved or other good achieved by His doing so. For example, when Pilate asked if He were a king. This issue of His claim to kingship got Him and His followers into a whole mess of trouble with Rome.

He could easily have simply said ‘King? Who, me? I’m no King!’ The issue would have been averted and persecution, at least by the Romans, probably avoided.

But He didn’t help Himself or them by this lie. Instead He evaded - ‘My kingdom is not of this world’ (of course He is King of all earthly kingdoms as well). Then He turned the question back on Pilate - ‘you say I am King.’

He heard Peter denying Him. He could easily have saved Peter from trouble by at that moment telling a lie - by saying ‘that man is right, he’s not a follower of mine, in fact I’ve never seen him before in my life, let him go.’ But He didn’t.

Accordingly, Church teaching and thought has been and is pretty consistent that there are no circumstances in which a lie is totally justified so as to be no longer a sin.

 

[otjm]

1. The CCC clearly states that lying is an intrinsic evil. It is Part III, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 8, Title III. Offenses against Truth & Title IV Respect for the Truth. Paragraph #2475 - 2492. The CCC is a proximate norm of faith.

Actually, no, that is not correct; the section sets out some circumstances where a Lie may not be an evil. And as a matter of fact, and as I have said before, teh Church has not officially said that a lie is an intrinsic evil. Theologians are still split on the issue, and I am talking about theologians who follow the Magisterium.

And as a matter of fact, the Vatican during World War 2 provided false passports; not one or two, but many. And that is in fact a lie, if you will; it is specifically an untruth designed specifically to deceive those who had no moral right to the truth.

 

[FNDRB58]

Using your logic Lily, Jesus never killed in self-defense either. He could easily have simply said, “Don’t touch me or I will defend myself?” He could have fought the soldiers and escaped or just not gone where he knew they would find him. He could have had his thousands of disciples protect and defend Him. All of which would have been justifiable. Yet he did not do it. So to say that because Jesus didn’t do something in a particular moment doesn’t necessarily mean that doing that action is always sinful.

Jesus’ refusal to renounce the accusation was not meant to be a teaching moment on how to tell the truth in dire circumstances. It wasn’t God’s plan that His Son avoid his conviction, Passion, and death. Pontius Pilate, being the governor, had the authority to ask Jesus if He were a king and he had the right to know if Jesus was a king. Therefore, if Jesus said he wasn’t then Jesus would have committed a lie (unjustifiable untruth).

If a terrorist accosted me with a gun pointed at my head and said that he hates Christians and asks if I am a Christian, if I say no then I lied, and indeed committed a sin. So not all lying to save a life is justifiable. There are several nuances to the Nazi example that when addressed would give one the conclusion that telling an untruth to these murderers would be justifiable. They do not have a right to know anything and remaining silent would result in death to innocent people.

 

[LilyM]

Actually, no, that is not correct; the section sets out some circumstances where a Lie may not be an evil. And as a matter of fact, and as I have said before, teh Church has not officially said that a lie is an intrinsic evil. Theologians are still split on the issue, and I am talking about theologians who follow the Magisterium.

And as a matter of fact, the Vatican during World War 2 provided false passports; not one or two, but many. And that is in fact a lie, if you will; it is specifically an untruth designed specifically to deceive those who had no moral right to the truth.

Yes, the Vatican did those things. At a time of great difficulty when many others were doing the same.

Popes and Vatican officials are fallible, y’know. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they are.

If all of their behaviour in every circumstance was to be a guide for our lives then literally every sin under the sun - murder, simony, sexual immorality of every imaginable kind - would be both permitted and laudable.

 

[LilyM]

Using your logic Lily, Jesus never killed in self-defense either. He could easily have simply said, “Don’t touch me or I will defend myself?” He could have fought the soldiers and escaped or just not gone where he knew they would find him. He could have had his thousands of disciples protect and defend Him. All of which would have been justifiable. Yet he did not do it. So to say that because Jesus didn’t do something in a particular moment doesn’t necessarily mean that doing that action is always sinful.

Jesus’ refusal to renounce the accusation was not meant to be a teaching moment on how to tell the truth in dire circumstances. It wasn’t God’s plan that His Son avoid his conviction, Passion, and death. Pontius Pilate, being the governor, had the authority to ask Jesus if He were a king and he had the right to know if Jesus was a king. Therefore, if Jesus said he wasn’t then Jesus would have committed a lie (unjustifiable untruth).

If a terrorist accosted me with a gun pointed at my head and said that he hates Christians and asks if I am a Christian, if I say no then I lied, and indeed committed a sin. So not all lying to save a life is justifiable. There are several nuances to the Nazi example that when addressed would give one the conclusion that telling an untruth to these murderers would be justifiable. They do not have a right to know anything and remaining silent would result in death to innocent people.

Pilate had no legitimate authority, he was a foreign invader. He didn’t even WANT to get involved, he wanted the Jews and their native-born leader, Herod, to sort out their own problems.

And he had no more right to know if Jesus was King than the Nazis did to know if someone was harbouring Jews - since there was precisely the same deadly intent to persecute behind Pilate’s question as behind the Nazis questioning.

So I disagree with your premise that there is any significant difference between a lie told to the Nazis to protect Jews and a lie told to Pilate - to protect Jews as well, ironically, in the form of Jesus’ Jewish followers.

 

[FNDRB58]

1. So you are saying that the seal is simply utilitarian???

The Church by her authority declared there be a seal of confession. The Church states in the Catechism the reason for the seal of confession…“Given the delicacy and greatness of this ministry and the respect due to persons…” I think this speaks for itself.

But, apart from this you are missing my analogy. The analogy centers about what a priest can say while under dire circumstances. He cannot tell the sins of penitents but also cannot lie. So, what does he do? Usually in this situation the priest goes to jail or is killed. Remember there is not natural relationship between the seal and the Sacrament of Penance. If the Church did away with the canonical imposition of the ‘seal’ Catholics would still need to seek the Sacrament. Recall that in the early Church confessions were public and made to the Bishop. But there are very good reasons beyond its utilitarian function. In any case the analogy holds.

What does he do about what? He is under a seal. This is a sacrament you are talking about and the Church, by her authority, made a special declaration by employing this seal. This seal “admits no exceptions.” The Church has made no such seals with regard to telling an untruth or killing a human being. You have made an incomplete and inaccurate comparison.

1. You are committing a category mistake in your second paragraph and committing the genetic fallacy. You are also doing really poor biblical exegesis. First, Jesus didn’t violate the Sabbath injunction against work. Rather, he demonstrated that the way in which the injunction had been interpreted was wrong. Jesus, being God, and the definitive interpreter of His Word was correcting the interpretation. Also, it was not necessarily for the salvation of a man’s soul. Rather, it was that works of mercy can be done on the Sabbath.

I know He didn’t violate the commandment. That is exactly what I said. The peoples’ interpretation of the commandment was that Jesus DID violate the Sabbath. But Jesus taught them that their interpretation was wrong and that doing a good work makes it in fact NOT a violation. Is it possible that you too are committing the same misunderstanding with regarding to lying?

But see, now, you are attempting to equate this to exceptions against the 5th commandment. But, the problem is that they these are not the same in a number of ways. The most important of these is that there is no confusion about the definition of murder and there are no exceptions of this. You have set up your relationships wrong. In effect your are confusing your genus with your species. Rather the proportion should look like this:

genus 1: Right Worship
species 1: Sabbath rest

genus 2: Killing
species 2: Murder

genus 3: False signification
species 3: lying

Instead you have inverted genus 2 and genus 3 with species 2 and species 3 respectively. To put this in plain English: Murder is a type of killing not the other way around and lying is a type of false signification not the other way around.

Not sure you have it right. It does not match up as I show below:

genus 1: Right Worship (acceptable)
species 1: Sabbath rest (acceptable)

genus 2: Killing (acceptable)
species 2: Murder (UNacceptable)

genus 3: False signification (acceptable)
species 3: lying (UNacceptable)

The 1’s are both acceptable. You can’t make two acceptables be the comparison with the 2s and 3s. They do not match the 2s and the 3s.

This is what I am saying.

killing – murder
telling an untruth – lying
worship – working in violation of the Sabbath

In each of the three sets there are the exceptions that make the genus acceptable or just.

just killing (defending yourself from an attacker example)
just telling of an untruth (when doing an act of love in the Nazi example)
just working on the Sabbath (when doing an act of love in the healing example)

Therefore…

the just killing is not murder
the just telling of an untruth is not a lie (or not a sinful one)
the just working on the Sabbath is not working in violation of the Sabbath

Now concerning Jesus doing ‘good works’ on the Sabbath we are looking at a proper definition of the Sabbath rest. What Jesus teaches us is that the definition of Sabbath rest **does not **include works of charity.

The definition of the Sabbath rest doesn’t include works of charity because it isn’t part of the definition, it is the exception that makes the rule non-absolute.

The doing of “work” on the Sabbath is justifiable in circumstances when charity is involved. In the same way the telling of an untruth to Nazis is justifiable in circumstances where charity is involved.

 

[FNDRB58]

Pilate had no legitimate authority, he was a foreign invader. He didn’t even WANT to get involved, he wanted the Jews and their native-born leader, Herod, to sort out their own problems.

And he had no more right to know if Jesus was King than the Nazis did to know if someone was harbouring Jews - since there was precisely the same deadly intent to persecute behind Pilate’s question as behind the Nazis questioning.

So I disagree with your premise that there is any significant difference between a lie told to the Nazis to protect Jews and a lie told to Pilate - to protect Jews as well, ironically, in the form of Jesus’ Jewish followers.

Pilate was the Prefect of Judea. Samaria, Judea proper and Idumea were amalgamated into the Roman Judaea Province. Herod, his king, told him to take care of the matter, therefore he had the authority. It doesn’t matter whether he wanted to take care of it. He had to.

Jesus didn’t answer him directly because the question was asked with the understanding from Pilate that Jesus was an earthly king. Jesus knew that neither Pilate nor the people would understand that He was in fact the heavenly King of all mankind. So instead of saying yes, which wasn’t the complete truth, and explaining that He was God would fall on deaf ears, He opted for saying nothing.

So I would say that Pilate indeed had an authoritative right to ask the question. And Jesus, had He been in fact the earthly king of the Jews, would have been obligated to answer truthfully (of course Jesus’ Divine Nature was not obligated but he obeyed the Jewish laws). So I will retract only somewhat in saying that Jesus was obligated to answer him directly given the situation.

Jesus knew the heart of Pilate. Pilate had the initial intention of releasing Him. It was God’s plan however, that His Son be convicted, tried, tortured, and murdered. Comparing Our Savior’s situation before Pilate to Nazis banging on someone’s door to kill Jews just isn’t the most appropriate comparison. How about addressing the example of Jesus’ teaching that it is acceptable to do work (loving act) on the Sabbath while not in violation of the commandment? An exception?

Also, it appears you only commented on half of one sentence in my last post of three paragraphs, all with valid points. Could you comment on those points as well?

 

[Gift_from_God]

If lying to a killer would save your own life would you do it?
If lying would give comfort to a dying friend would you give it?
If lying would convince a suicidal man to live one more day would you tell it?
If lying would save a relationship with the person you loved would you lie to their face?
When, if ever, would you lie, and where do you draw the line?

Recently, I was speaking with someone who says they would not lie under any circumstance. I can honestly see some good reasons to lie and I personally would lie if given most of the above scenarios. At the very least, I feel the saving of a life is a worth a lie.

Yes
Maybe
Yes
Depends on the circumstance
To protect lives or to protect some sort of privacy, I would lie

 

[otjm]

This is not quite the case. Please note my above reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The second edition of the CCC made a specific retraction in the section on lying to come into conformity with Aquinas and Augustine on the issue. The CCC is a proximate norm of faith to which we must give our assent.

Plus that, it is not really a matter of Theology so much as it is a matter of philosophy.

The CCC did not make a retraction; it simply dropped part of a section. There is nothing in the sections you quoted that uses the term “intrinsic evil”. And you may be well schooled in both philosophy and theology, but I am far more likely to follow theologians, well known and well published, who have publicly stated that the Church has not resolved the issue.
You are certainly entitled to an opinion; I simply give more weight to theirs.

And As I have noted, the Vatican itself - not some stray individual working there, but the Vatican in a concerted effort - during WW2 provided numerous false passports.
As I have said, if it was not clear; there are theologians in the Church, and true tot he Church who hold your position, and there are other theologians, in the Church and true tot he Church, who hold a contrary opinion, and there is no magisterial pronouncement on the matter saying they are wrong.

Both Aquinas and Augustine are excellent guides, and most certainly to be among those of the Church to whom much weight is given. They are not, however, a part of the Magisterium. /There is a tendency among some to say “he said it; I believe it, and that ends it” as if commentary by the two you mention were somehow granted infallibility. Much of what they have said has been adopted by the Church as the teaching of the Church. This area, however, is one which is still not finally defined.

It may well be that the Church will come out and say all lies are intrinsically evil; so far it has not, and the CCC has not.

And by the way, I was already aware that the CCC in the revision had removed the part about “having a moral right to the truth” in regards to the one lied to; one of the theologians publicly pointed that out as part of their comment on the matter (referencing the outing of Planned parenthood recently). the analysis was still the same - the Church has not spoken.

And while we are talking about the retraction, there has been, to my knowledge, no public statement as to why that part was dropped - whether to bring anything into conformity with anyone, or for other reasons. If you are aware of such a statement, please reference it as I would be interested.

 

[otjm]

Yes, the Vatican did those things. At a time of great difficulty when many others were doing the same.

Popes and Vatican officials are fallible, y’know. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they are.

If all of their behaviour in every circumstance was to be a guide for our lives then literally every sin under the sun - murder, simony, sexual immorality of every imaginable kind - would be both permitted and laudable.

No bubble has been burst. I am well aware that people can sin. I have yet to see anyone from the Vatican publicly say “We made false passports and that was a sinful act of which we repent” or anything even remotely heading in that direction. As I have said, the Church has not settled what is still a debated issue among theologians who follow the Magisterium. There certainly are theologians as such who say such acts are not justifiable; there are others who say that there are limited circumstances - limited to those in which the one hearing the statement does not have a moral right to the truth - in which one may tell an untruth - not an evasive partial truth, but an untruth.

and my reference is not such that every sin would be permitted and/or laudable; my reference is that there are circumstances where the hearer has no moral right to the truth. It is the same as calling all killing immoral; that simply is not the fact.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…And while we are talking about the retraction, there has been, to my knowledge, no public statement as to why that part was dropped - whether to bring anything into conformity with anyone, or for other reasons. If you are aware of such a statement, please reference it as I would be interested.

I have no authoritative explanation, but if I may offer my own uneducated guess: In the older edition, the reference to those who have the “right to know” was in both 2483 and 2489. In the latest edition, it was removed from 2483, but it remained in 2489. So perhaps the thinking was that this point was already covered well enough by mentioning it in 2489, and that mentioning it in two places might put undue emphasis on the concept and lead to possible abuse of the concept. It is easy to imagine someone applying the concept incorrectly by stretching the interpretation of “right to know” to exclude those who, in truth, do actually have the right to know the truth.

 

[mosher]

Actually, no, that is not correct; the section sets out some circumstances where a Lie may not be an evil. And as a matter of fact, and as I have said before, teh Church has not officially said that a lie is an intrinsic evil. Theologians are still split on the issue, and I am talking about theologians who follow the Magisterium.

And as a matter of fact, the Vatican during World War 2 provided false passports; not one or two, but many. And that is in fact a lie, if you will; it is specifically an untruth designed specifically to deceive those who had no moral right to the truth.

The Church does not need to “declare” something morally evil for it to be morally evil. The issue is not primarily a theological one it is primarily a philosophical one. The philosophical analysis on this point is sound unless you want to become a consequentionalist, proportionalist or utilitarian.

Further, you are equivocating the term ‘lie’ with ‘un-truth’. These are two very different yet related things as I explain above. In short, your read of that section of the CCC is incorrect.

Further, just because the Vatican did something that was a sin does not mean that it was not a sin. Knowingly taking money gained through simony is a sin and this was done to build St. Peter’s Basilica. Your argument doesn’t follow.

A good part of my point is that we shouldn’t call something good when it is objectively evil. Rather, own up to it being evil and take responsibility for that choice. Yeah, you may have thought it was the best thing to do, and it may have been the only thing to do in a particular circumstance. However, that does not make it a good act. Sometimes we get caught in circumstances because of the nature of living in a contingent world where there are no good answers in a particular situation.

 

[mosher]

I’ll try to make this as simple as I can. I’ll do inter-linear text for simplicity.

The Church by her authority declared there be a seal of confession. The Church states in the Catechism the reason for the seal of confession…“Given the delicacy and greatness of this ministry and the respect due to persons…” I think this speaks for itself.

Let us get past the example of the seal. It is just confusing the matter.

What does he do about what? He is under a seal. This is a sacrament you are talking about and the Church, by her authority, made a special declaration by employing this seal. This seal “admits no exceptions.” The Church has made no such seals with regard to telling an untruth or killing a human being. You have made an incomplete and inaccurate comparison.

For the sake of the analogy the sacramentality is not relevant. But as I said let us leave this aside because it is just confusing the matter.

I know He didn’t violate the commandment. That is exactly what I said. The peoples’ interpretation of the commandment was that Jesus DID violate the Sabbath. But Jesus taught them that their interpretation was wrong and that doing a good work makes it in fact NOT a violation. Is it possible that you too are committing the same misunderstanding with regarding to lying?

What makes the “good work” ok is not that it is an exception to the prohibition. Rather, it is that the prohibition did not include “good works.” Do you see the distinction?

Not sure you have it right. It does not match up as I show below:

genus 1: Right Worship (acceptable)
species 1: Sabbath rest (acceptable)

genus 2: Killing (acceptable)
species 2: Murder (UNacceptable)

genus 3: False signification (acceptable)
species 3: lying (UNacceptable)

The 1’s are both acceptable. You can’t make two acceptables be the comparison with the 2s and 3s. They do not match the 2s and the 3s.

I don’t think you understand the relationship between genus and species. Let me explain. A genus is a generic description of something and a species is a specific instance within a genus. For instance, The word airplane is a genus because it is the generic term that describes all such things. A species of this genus is an F-16. Do you see the comparison? This is part of how one analysis anything to determine its description. As I noted:

‘Right Worship’ is to ‘Sabbath rest’ as ‘killing’ is to ‘murder’ as ‘false signifying’ is to ‘lying’

The relationship is one of genus to species not a relationship of acceptable act to acceptable/non acceptable act. It is essential to the understanding of an act that we know what kind of act it is.

My point here was to show how you were committing a category mistake. You were saying that there is this type of act called ‘murder’ and then there are exceptions to this kind of act. But this is wrong. This is why I was trying to show you the error you were making by separating things into their proper categories. Rather, what is correct is that there is a type of act that is called ‘killing’ and some types of killing are good and some bad. One bad type is called ‘murder’. Just so, lying is not the genus with good and bad types of lying under it. Rather, there is a genus called ‘false signification’ which has good and bad types under it and lying is one of the bad types. Do you see how this analysis works?

This is what I am saying.

killing – murder
telling an untruth – lying
worship – working in violation of the Sabbath

In each of the three sets there are the exceptions that make the genus acceptable or just.

If you followed my explanation above you will see how this is not the case.

just killing (defending yourself from an attacker example)
just telling of an untruth (when doing an act of love in the Nazi example)
just working on the Sabbath (when doing an act of love in the healing example)

Therefore…

the just killing is not murder
the just telling of an untruth is not a lie (or not a sinful one)
the just working on the Sabbath is not working in violation of the Sabbath

If you followed what I said above you will understand the fallacy in your conclusions here.

The definition of the Sabbath rest doesn’t include works of charity because it isn’t part of the definition, it is the exception that makes the rule non-absolute.

Not being part of the definition is not the same as being an exception.

The doing of “work” on the Sabbath is justifiable in circumstances when charity is involved. In the same way the telling of an untruth to Nazis is justifiable in circumstances where charity is involved.

If you followed what I explained above you will see how this conclusion isn’t sound.

I am beginning to think that what may be at the heart of this problem for us as it stands is that you may believe that there is always an action is is good in every circumstance. But this is not the case. The human condition doesn’t always provide us with a right action in each and every circumstance. This is part of the problem of living in a contingent world where there are multiple people with free will acting all the time.

The problem has been emphasized by an Ethicist named Philippa Foot (who just died) in her famous thought experiment involving an out of control trolly. The problem is that you can’t stop the trolly all you can do is change its tracks. On the track you are on there is a family that will most probably be killed if you stay on it. However, if you change tracks there is one guy who will most probably be killed as well. There are a lot of things that can be discerned from this thought experiment but one of the most important ones is that sometimes there just isn’t a good choice to be made.

 

[mosher]

The CCC did not make a retraction; it simply dropped part of a section. There is nothing in the sections you quoted that uses the term “intrinsic evil”. And you may be well schooled in both philosophy and theology, but I am far more likely to follow theologians, well known and well published, who have publicly stated that the Church has not resolved the issue.
You are certainly entitled to an opinion; I simply give more weight to theirs.

And As I have noted, the Vatican itself - not some stray individual working there, but the Vatican in a concerted effort - during WW2 provided numerous false passports.
As I have said, if it was not clear; there are theologians in the Church, and true tot he Church who hold your position, and there are other theologians, in the Church and true tot he Church, who hold a contrary opinion, and there is no magisterial pronouncement on the matter saying they are wrong.

Both Aquinas and Augustine are excellent guides, and most certainly to be among those of the Church to whom much weight is given. They are not, however, a part of the Magisterium. /There is a tendency among some to say “he said it; I believe it, and that ends it” as if commentary by the two you mention were somehow granted infallibility. Much of what they have said has been adopted by the Church as the teaching of the Church. This area, however, is one which is still not finally defined.

It may well be that the Church will come out and say all lies are intrinsically evil; so far it has not, and the CCC has not.

And by the way, I was already aware that the CCC in the revision had removed the part about “having a moral right to the truth” in regards to the one lied to; one of the theologians publicly pointed that out as part of their comment on the matter (referencing the outing of Planned parenthood recently). the analysis was still the same - the Church has not spoken.

And while we are talking about the retraction, there has been, to my knowledge, no public statement as to why that part was dropped - whether to bring anything into conformity with anyone, or for other reasons. If you are aware of such a statement, please reference it as I would be interested.

The removal of that clause was deliberate. You don’t have to take my word for it. You can look up the controversies that surrounded the initial publication and then the revision of the CCC. Do the work for yourself.

It doesn’t matter who says it, the issue is either true or not. To simply rely on an authority is a logical fallacy uninterestingly called “appeal to authority”.

The Church hasn’t resolved the issue because it is not an issue for the Church to resolve unless it wants to address the issue of lying under the ratio or moral theology. However, the issue is more properly a philosophical issue which is not an area on which the Church formally comments for clarification.

Whether the Vatican did that or not doesn’t effect the objective quality of the act. This is also a logical fallacy.

Actually the status of Augustine and Aquinas as Doctors of the Church makes them more than simply good guides. Further, the Magisterium has conferred on Aquinas a higher dignity in noting in the Encyclical Aterni Patris that “Holy Mother Church recognizes in his theology something particularly her own.” But to argue this point is moot. If something is true it is true no matter who says it. People disagree because they don’t like the conclusion not because its wrong.

I would like to note specifically that a Magisterial judgment on this point is not something that is going to happen nor will it happen. That is not the way this charism of the Church functions. The limits of Magisterial authority are very clear and they do not extend to the particular sciences. Even if Mother Church were to decide to rule under the auspices of treating the issue under moral theology I fear that the tradition is very consistent. It is only in the modern and post-modern era where “theologians” have tried to claim that lying is ok or even good. I would challenge you to cite a theologian, Doctor of the Church, Father of the Church, or Magisterial Document prior to 1950 that would even suggest that lying was acceptable.

 

[FNDRB58]

mosher -

I still believe you have it wrong and this is why and will clear it up:

You say that Sabbath rest is a type of right worship. You are correct.
But Sabbath rest is ALSO a type of worship. Correct?
And right worship is ALSO a type of worship. Correct?

worship - working in violation of Sabbath is the correct relationship because the genus is generic whereas you added the adjective “right” to qualify the worship, thus making it also a type. So you haven’t quite stripped it down enough. Worship is as generic as killing is generic as telling an untruth is generic. Do you understand?

You see, we can’t only say this is to that as this is to that. The genuses also have to match up with each other and the speces have to match up with each other. The other genuses are not qualified as right killing or right lying.

By your logic and to be consistent, you must also then say that murder is a type of right killing:

right worship - Sabbath rest
right killing - murder
right telling of an untruth - lying

…which doesn’t work. You can’t add an adjective in front of the genus if you don’t do the same with the other genuses. If you add an adjective to all of them then you are tearing up the whole comparison as there are no generic genuses.

You also say Sabbath rest when it should be working in violation of because that would match up with killing and lying whereas Sabbath rest does not.

 

[FNDRB58]

The removal of that clause was deliberate. You don’t have to take my word for it. You can look up the controversies that surrounded the initial publication and then the revision of the CCC. Do the work for yourself.

It doesn’t matter who says it, the issue is either true or not. To simply rely on an authority is a logical fallacy uninterestingly called “appeal to authority”.

The Church hasn’t resolved the issue because it is not an issue for the Church to resolve unless it wants to address the issue of lying under the ratio or moral theology. However, the issue is more properly a philosophical issue which is not an area on which the Church formally comments for clarification.

Whether the Vatican did that or not doesn’t effect the objective quality of the act. This is also a logical fallacy.

Actually the status of Augustine and Aquinas as Doctors of the Church makes them more than simply good guides. Further, the Magisterium has conferred on Aquinas a higher dignity in noting in the Encyclical Aterni Patris that “Holy Mother Church recognizes in his theology something particularly her own.” But to argue this point is moot. If something is true it is true no matter who says it. People disagree because they don’t like the conclusion not because its wrong.

I would like to note specifically that a Magisterial judgment on this point is not something that is going to happen nor will it happen. That is not the way this charism of the Church functions. The limits of Magisterial authority are very clear and they do not extend to the particular sciences. Even if Mother Church were to decide to rule under the auspices of treating the issue under moral theology I fear that the tradition is very consistent. It is only in the modern and post-modern era where “theologians” have tried to claim that lying is ok or even good. I would challenge you to cite a theologian, Doctor of the Church, Father of the Church, or Magisterial Document prior to 1950 that would even suggest that lying was acceptable.

Would a saint be good enough? St. Raymond…He said “if one may kill to save another then one may lie to prevent someone from being killed.” Not a doctor of the Church but a saint. That should be enough to show that we crazies who would lie to Nazis in fact make an assertion shared by prominent Catholics who are now in heaven. And there were others who shared this view. He is the first that came to mind.

 

[allyl]

Lying is not the same as concealing the truth. A lie would be, “nope, no Jews here.” (if there were in fact Jews present). Concealing the truth without lying would be to remain silent, or to say something like “How would I know?”, etc.

I am pretty sure that concealing the truth is also considered lying, my friend.
‘Did you do your homework?’ If I say ‘What do you think?’ I’m leading the person in the wrong direction to think that just because I am a typically good student that I have done my homework when I may not have. Leading the person to think something other than the truth=lying.

I would lie if I were saving someone’s life/protecting it. The concept of ‘for the greater good’ I suppose. I would not consider it to be a sin, I think it’s a lot like shouting at your child when he does something wrong which would be okay because you’re trying to explain that okay you’ve got to stop doing this/a form of guidance and shouting at your child for no reason, the latter which would be wrong.