Lying - Is it Ever Acceptable?

[LilyM]

Your comments seem to be referring to lying in general, to which I agree.

But do Nazis searching for their next victims deserve our veracity?

And aren’t those hiding Jews committing an act of love instead of act of sin?

God who gave us our capacity to speak for His greater glory, and not simply as a tool to be used for lesser goods, deserves our veracity (or at least our integrity and so our refusal to distort His truth by lying) - at all times and in all circumstances.

Do you think He who is absolute Truth changes His mind about the value of truth depending on circumstances? Doubt it.

Yes, those hiding Jews are committing an act of love instead of an act of sin.

Those who tell untruths are committing an act of sin. The fact that it is in combination with an act of love doesn’t make it any less a sin - we commit plenty of sins out of a misguided sense of love.

I would liken your stance (with all due respect) to that of Judas, who failed to see the value of Mary’s anointing of Jesus’ feet, and so criticised her because she didn’t instead do a more obvious and practical good by selling the ointment and using the money to feed the poor.

In Mary’s situation, feeding the poor with the money was NOT the greater good, and so not the most appropriate thing to do, even though to do so obviously would have been an act of love on her part.

 

[FNDRB58]

God who gave us our capacity to speak for His greater glory, and not simply as a tool to be used for lesser goods, deserves our veracity (or at least our integrity and so our refusal to distort His truth by lying) - at all times and in all circumstances.

Do you think He who is absolute Truth changes His mind about the value of truth depending on circumstances? Doubt it.

Yes, those hiding Jews are committing an act of love instead of an act of sin.

Those who tell untruths are committing an act of sin. The fact that it is in combination with an act of love doesn’t make it any less a sin - we commit plenty of sins out of a misguided sense of love.

But I didn’t suggest that the act of love be “misguided”. Saving Jews is not misguided love. Please explain how it is? I said a TRUE act of love of which saving Jews in spite of your own life is one. God is Truth, but how would you respond to the fact that God is Love. Wouldn’t a true act of love in such a situation mitigate the “obligation” that we tell the truth to murderers who have evil intentions and no right to our veracity? Didn’t Jesus perform an act of love by healing the sick man on the Sabbath despite the command not to do work on the Sabbath? Is it possible that like the Jews of Jesus’ time who took one commandment out of context, that you too are misunderstanding the context of though shalt not bear false witness?

 

[centurionguard]

Lying - Is it Ever Acceptable?

Not sure if this has been answered yet but for me If Lying meant saving the immediate life of someone under the threat of being murdered or raped I wouldn’t think twice about lying.

 

[FNDRB58]

Lying - Is it Ever Acceptable?

Not sure if this has been answered yet but for me If Lying meant saving the immediate life of someone under the threat of being murdered or raped I wouldn’t think twice about lying.

Agreed. And even if the absolutists believe that it is a sin, it would not be since one’s emotional distress at that moment would preclude any culpability. Your conscience would motivate you more strongly to the more important act of saving lives than the act of telling the truth to murderers.

 

[wild_thing]

I am not commenting on any particular post, but I always understood moral theology to generally teach the following:

A strict mental reservation is a lie, and can never be justified. A broad mental reservation is morally permissible when the person seeking the information has no right to it. A common broad mental reservation is when the secretary tells a caller that “The boss is not in”, even though the boss is actually in his office at work. The statement is generally understood to mean that the boss is "Not in, to you’. Because the caller is not entitled to know if the boss is there, let alone entitled to speak with him. Plus, if the boss took every call, they might never get any actual work done. I once worked at a rectory, and my pastor would sometimes tell me to inform callers that he was not there, as he wished not to be disturbed at the time.

The correct and permissible answer to the question of Nazi’s inquiring about Jews in the house is “They are not here”. The answer that Polish Catholic social worker Irena Sendler gave while she worked with Żegota to smuggle Jewish children to safety. When asked about “Who is Zegota?”, she answered she never heard of Zegota, though she worked with them. Sendler and her helpers created over 3,000 false documents to help Jewish families. Pope John Paul II praised her efforts. Sendler was not obligated to answer the Nazis with the info they sought, she responded with broad mental reservations instead. I dare anyone to claim this woman lied and therefore sinned by what she was doing. I’m glad I don’t have to meet the standards of perfection that some of you propagate, I only have to meet God’s.

I’m so glad some of you are so perfect that you wouldn’t “lie” to save 2500 Jewish children from possible death.

Didn’t Jesus say something about “the spirit of the law, as opposed to the letter”? Some of you are seriously are hung up the letter of the law, and think there is no room for debate here. You scare me! Some of you get the whole “spirit of the law” thing, thank you!

I agree with this poster. Some of you guys scare me. I had to go to confession for this exact scenario. My husband was emotionally, verbally and spiritually abusive to me. After a very frightening, violent, life-threatening type of physical episode, he demanded to know if I was going to daily mass. I was petrified to tell him the truth, afraid that he would either snap my neck; beat me up badly; prevent me from going; or all three. He was very anti-Catholic church and hated my praying or having anything to do with God. I do not remember if I flat out lied to him and said I wasn’t, or if I just evaded the question. I continued going to mass all the same, whenever I could. I brought the ‘lie’ up in the confessional, scared that I was committing a sin by not admitting to my husband that I was going. And the priest brought up the Nazi argument. My husband was not entitled to know, because he intended to harm me with the information.

This is the problem when we stick to the letter of the law, instead of the spirit of the law. It’s great that you guys can sit here and debate about these scenarios sitting at home on your computers in a comfort zone and pass judgement on people who find themselves in a dangerous situation. I wish you could have been the 107 pound female against a six foot two, 220 pound angry male who had thrown you against the wall, held you up by your neck and then shoved your face in the carpet, threatened to take away your children and bury your parents in legal fees if you said anything.

When I come before God on my judgement day, I’m sure there are a lot of other things He will be disappointed with about me- and not a lie I told to save myself that one day.

 

[wild_thing]

Sorry if I sounded too vehement and got too personal. It’s just that it is not just a theoritical situation for me. I feel exposed giving away so much information. I ought to just stay quiet and stick to prayer intentions.

 

[valentino]

curiousSeed:Lying has to have the intent of deceiving and doing harm to who you are trying to decieve.To lie to a Nazi trying to fing out if your hiding Jews would certainly be permissable.

 

[LtTony]

According to my beleif, I’m aloud to lie in three cases…

This is something very normal, and logical, and this is something any person would do. Your intention is not to cause problems; rather your intention is to cause good and peace, only a fool would argue saying to lie to make peace is bad. If a lie could bring peace and end war, or blood-shed, or violence, would you not lie to end it and bring the peace? Only an idiot would say no.

I, on the other hand, think only an idiot would lie. Intelligent people know that a lie won’t hold up to the light of truth. Peace based on a lie will not be permanent, in most cases, especially those involving a number of people.
“only a fool would argue saying to lie to make peace is bad.”
Only a fool, in my opinion, thinks lying is OK – even when trying to convince people your religion has a peaceful stance regarding non-adherants.
In my view, your rationalization of lying is destroyed all credibility.

 

[LilyM]

Sorry if I sounded too vehement and got too personal. It’s just that it is not just a theoritical situation for me. I feel exposed giving away so much information. I ought to just stay quiet and stick to prayer intentions.

It isn’t a theoretical situation for a lot of people, myself included. I’m a lawyer by trade, and deal with lies and liars - and people who use the flimsiest excuses to rationalise and justify their lying - by the dozen every single day. The incredibly casual attitude to truth held by so many in our society is an absolute sickness, and I’m talking as someone who deals with only the tip of the iceberg.

I’m put on the spot plenty of times, most often by angry clients who, like the Nazis or your husband, are more than capable of physically doing me harm if I don’t tell them what they want - sometimes they want me to lie for them, sometimes they want truth to which they’re not entitled and so some would feel justified in lying to them.

I’m certainly not perfect nor unwavering in my commitment to the truth, but I try my darndest to be, and I’m proud of the fact that I try, in a very unethical profession, to show a bit of integrity.

I am very aware of how strong the urge to protect oneself or others with a lie is when in a dangerous situation like yours. And I’m certain God is more understanding than I could possibly be about it too. There so often seems to be no way out as well.

At the same time I can’t really bring myself to believe that God would put us in a situation where we have no option but to offend Him in some way or other. And I firmly believe lies. at any time for any reason, offend Him on at least some level, however minor. He is Truth itself, after all, how can they not?

I, on the other hand, think only an idiot would lie. Intelligent people know that a lie won’t hold up to the light of truth. Peace based on a lie will not be permanent, in most cases, especially those involving a number of people.
“only a fool would argue saying to lie to make peace is bad.”
Only a fool, in my opinion, thinks lying is OK – even when trying to convince people your religion has a peaceful stance regarding non-adherants.
In my view, your rationalization of lying is destroyed all credibility.

I wouldn’t go quite that far. Lots of people who are very intelligent, with the best possible intentions, lie and seem to achieve an amount of good out of doing so.

 

[FNDRB58]

Lily -

I was hoping you would respond to my post #140 which was directed to you. Please read it and respond if you would. In a nutshell, you mentioned above that Jesus is Truth itself, but he is also Love itself. An act of true love put in context the command not to work on the Sabbath. My question to you is, wouldn’t an act of love such as putting your life on the line to save Jews from murderous Nazis also put in context the command to not bear false witness? In other words,
aren’t those of you who are absolutists for “one must never lie” acting similarly to those who were absolutists about "one must never work on the Sabbath? They were not aware that love is greater than the strict interpretation of the law. Jesus showed them this. I wonder if you are not doing the same.

Thanks.

 

[dailey]

Wow! This has been an interesting thread, though I must admit, I have not gone through all of the responses (too many!).

I have to say that personally, I cannot stand liars. BUT…this thread has opened my eyes to how many times I actually lie in the day. They are never anything major, just little white lies. For example, my mom has a bad habit of always dragging me into her conversations. She will say something like “Isn’t Jane’s dress beautiful??” So of course, I will say “yes” (even though I think it is terribly ugly) because if I say nothing, that would be extremely rude…and I can’t tell her the truth.

So has anyone come to a conclusion in this thread on whether these types of lies are sinful?

 

[LtTony]

According to my beleif, I’m aloud to lie in three cases…

This is something very normal, and logical, and this is something any person would do. Your intention is not to cause problems; rather your intention is to cause good and peace, only a fool would argue saying to lie to make peace is bad. If a lie could bring peace and end war, or blood-shed, or violence, would you not lie to end it and bring the peace? Only an idiot would say no.

I, on the other hand, think only an idiot would lie. Intelligent people know that a lie won’t hold up to the light of truth. Peace based on a lie will not be permanent, in most cases, especially those involving a number of people.
“only a fool would argue saying to lie to make peace is bad.”
Only a fool, in my opinion, thinks lying is OK – even when trying to convince people your religion has a peaceful stance regarding non-adherants.
In my view, your rationalization of lying is destroyed all credibility.

I wouldn’t go quite that far. Lots of people who are very intelligent, with the best possible intentions, lie and seem to achieve an amount of good out of doing so.

I’m not talking about “little white lies” that we all commit to avoid hurting someon’es feelings. But even you would admit that the practice has limits, because continuing a charade might eventually cause more harm than good.

That’s not what Rebax was talking about when using the terms “idiot” and “fool” (that’s the reason I used them). Rebax was applying lying (maybe even taqiyya)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya
on a larger scale.
I contend a lasting and just peace between countries, for example, cannot be built on lies.
I’m sure you see the difference and agree.

It isn’t a theoretical situation for a lot of people, myself included. I’m a lawyer by trade, and deal with lies and liars - and people who use the flimsiest excuses to rationalise and justify their lying - by the dozen every single day.

That is the kind of thing I’m talking about.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

This is the problem when we stick to the letter of the law, instead of the spirit of the law. It’s great that you guys can sit here and debate about these scenarios sitting at home on your computers in a comfort zone and pass judgement on people who find themselves in a dangerous situation. I wish you could have been the 107 pound female against a six foot two, 220 pound angry male who had thrown you against the wall, held you up by your neck and then shoved your face in the carpet, threatened to take away your children and bury your parents in legal fees if you said anything.

When I come before God on my judgement day, I’m sure there are a lot of other things He will be disappointed with about me- and not a lie I told to save myself that one day.

Thank you, wild thing, for an excellent post.

God wrote His code on our hearts; Jesus liberated us so that we can access that code in an undistorted fashion.

First, I wish even those who would say they would never lie to a Nazi to save a Jew or a priest to ask themselves, “OK. I told the truth and somebody just died. Am I honestly pleased that I did it?”

For that matter, let’s ask, “is God pleased that I did it? Will God reward me for telling the truth even though it caused evil to triumph over good?”

Let’s draw an example that maybe isn’t so emotionally loaded. When I’m flying an airplane as pilot-in-command, I am bound to follow ALL the applicable FARs (Federal Aviation Regulations). One thing I cannot do is make a landing at a controlled airfield without clearance. But, and yes this does happen, what if I take off and my engine quits, and I believe that if I start turning right now, while at the same time adjusting the flaps, putting down the gear, adjusting the engine power and/or mixture control, cowl flaps, and whatever else, I can probably make it to a different runway on the same airfield. I might have a few seconds to act to take advantage of the window of opportunity. If I get on the radio and ask for clearance before I turn from my assigned heading, it will cost me the chance I need to maneuver the plane. I was take, “first aviate, then communicate, then navigate.” So I circle around, make my landing – even though it could cause confusion and maybe even a safety risk for the controllers – and make the landing, and nobody gets hurt.

I have two questions: 1) did I break an FAR? 2) am the FAA going to punish me or take my license away?

The answers are, 1) yes, and 2) possible, but hardly likely.

That is because there is one FAR that says safety is the ultimate responsibility of the pilot-in-command, and in an emergency, in the interest of safety of the flight, the PIC may deviate from any of the other FARs to the extent that it is necessary to ensure the safety of the flight.

So yes, I broke one FAR, but based on the overriding concern for “safety,” the FAA and the NTSB might investigate, but if my story is true, I will not face any sanctions. Now, if I lost power at high altitude and three miles away, and spent 5 minutes gliding

I think God has some things to say that might indicate a similar idea, both in theory and in example. Academic theologians can disagree with me, but I’m talking about how the scripture speaks to my heart – even a theologian can’t tell me that because the Church, afa I know, doesn’t claim she can define the meaning of the scriptures in any sense except the literal.
1 Cor 13:1-3:

If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.

So my love for people makes me want to save a life from an unjust aggressor. My love for God makes me want to tell the truth always, but in the heat of the moment I can’t think of an alternative to save the life. So I tell a Nazi, “he went that way,” rather than “I’m not saying.” I have now lied, but if I had held silent on the basis he has no right to know but do not lie, then the Nazis shoot me, then find the Jews and shoot them. If I am to believe you absolutist literalists who say that the silence is licit and lying is not, then the lying is a sin and silence is not.

(continued)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

(continued)

Let’s address this ends-justify-means idea. If you are right about that, God will not only say that I sinned, but will likely mete out punishment for me if I don’t regret having lied. Moreover, he will be pleased that I sacrificed another person’s life so that I may uphold His Truth. If that’s the way God loves, then my heart is very wrong about how God sees things.

Now, to address the idea that I can make an absolute statement that God says, and I infallibly understand, that in this extreme scenario, He will tolerate this and not that, let me offer this:
1 Cor 8:1b-2:

… we realize that “all of us have knowledge”; knowledge inflates with pride, but love builds up. If anyone supposes he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know.

So if I act of out human love and compassion, but because of my intellectual “knowledge” of God’s commands, then have I acted in a way that pleases the Lord, or that grieves Him?

Consider Father Emil Kapaun, Servant of God. He is in the beatification process, and part of what he did that is likely to make him a saint, is to put himself at rick by lying to his captors, so that he may steal food for his fellow POWs. If the rule about “ends never justify the means” is absolute, and the rule about “never lie, ever, ever, under any circumstances because it’s a sin,” then somebody had better tell the Church so they can call off the beatification investigation.

So what if we sin? Does that mean that God will be angry with us? Let’s assume for a minute that we claim to be born-of-the-spirit Christians:
Rom 8:1-4:

Hence, now there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 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.

If we could please God by following rules, then His Son died for nothing.

Finally, let me ask you this: let’s say you and I each got into an extreme situation. You tell the truth or remain silent, and one or more people die or are tortured. I say, “they went that-a-way,” and the unjust aggressors went off and didn’t find their intended victims.

As long as we’re being honest with everyone, let’s say you are asked by the widows, “what happened? Was there no way to save them?” I guess you could say, “I’m not telling” because they don’t have a right to know. If you say that, then I’m going to have to scratch my head a while. If you tell them the absolute truth, you MUST tell them, "I thought of something that might have saved their life, but 1) it would have required lying to the gunmen and that would please God so I made God happy by not lying, and 2) my immortal soul is more important than their mortal lives. [believe it or not, one absolutist poster told me in another thread that that’s why SHE would let ME die]

Is it technically a “sin?” Maybe, in a technical sense, it is a sin against the law. Is it opposed to “love?” If it is, then I know nothing about love and God’s word is not imprinted on my heart

edit: In my ignorance, I would be all too eager to say to God, “God, the theologians say that I have sinned. I did it because I thought I had to, in order to save Your child. If I have done wrong, please tell me so, and do with me what You will.” Who really thinks I’m risking my immortal soul? What if I get an extra 10 years in purgatory? Was it worth it to save another’s life?

Yes, even after hearing all these arguments, I would lie in a minute – among your warning that I am risking my immortal soul – to save YOUR mortal life.

Alan

PS In the FAA example in the previous post, not only would I keep my license, I would likely be seen as a hero – not for breaking the FAR by failing to communicate, but for saving my plane and its passengers.

 

[LilyM]

Lily -

I was hoping you would respond to my post #140 which was directed to you. Please read it and respond if you would. In a nutshell, you mentioned above that Jesus is Truth itself, but he is also Love itself. An act of true love put in context the command not to work on the Sabbath. My question to you is, wouldn’t an act of love such as putting your life on the line to save Jews from murderous Nazis also put in context the command to not bear false witness? In other words,
aren’t those of you who are absolutists for “one must never lie” acting similarly to those who were absolutists about "one must never work on the Sabbath? They were not aware that love is greater than the strict interpretation of the law. Jesus showed them this. I wonder if you are not doing the same.

Thanks.

I’ve been considering my response. Not to mention considering whether it was worth responding to at all. I think I’ve made my position clear enough that it really needs no further response.

Yes, Jesus is love itself, but His own example demonstrates that love doesn’t trump justice or truth or any other of His essential qualities, rather that we must seek to bring them all into harmony. He told the truth at all times, even when doing so was incredibly inconvenient and even highly dangerous to Himself and His followers. If that’s a ‘strict interpretation of the law’ that somehow is contrary to love, then I would assert that it’s one which His own example clearly sanctions.

Your comparison with the pharisees (and its implied criticism) doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. The ‘no work on the Sabbath’ rule never was a hard-and-fast absolute. Jesus noted that even His critics themselves made plenty of exceptions to it - ‘who among you would not rescue his ox or *** if it fell into a pit on the Sabbath’.

He was pointing out the hypocrisy of their criticism of Him in light of the exceptions they themselves made, I don’t know that He was making any deeper point about the law in general.

About the sabbath observance he said ‘the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath’ (in other words it is a rule that can be broken when human considerations make it difficult or impossible to keep).

He certainly never said anything remotely similar about truth or our obligations to it. Nothing to the effect of ‘truth was made to serve man, and can be put to one side at his convenience, and man is not required to conform himself to truth even when it costs’. Not so much as a hint to the effect.

 

[FNDRB58]

I’ve been considering my response. Not to mention considering whether it was worth responding to at all. I think I’ve made my position clear enough that it really needs no further response.

Yes, Jesus is love itself, but His own example demonstrates that love doesn’t trump justice or truth or any other of His essential qualities, rather that we must seek to bring them all into harmony. He told the truth at all times, even when doing so was incredibly inconvenient and even highly dangerous to Himself and His followers. If that’s a ‘strict interpretation of the law’ that somehow is contrary to love, then I would assert that it’s one which His own example clearly sanctions.

Your comparison with the pharisees (and its implied criticism) doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. The ‘no work on the Sabbath’ rule never was a hard-and-fast absolute. Jesus noted that even His critics themselves made plenty of exceptions to it - ‘who among you would not rescue his ox or *** if it fell into a pit on the Sabbath’.

He was pointing out the hypocrisy of their criticism of Him in light of the exceptions they themselves made, I don’t know that He was making any deeper point about the law in general.

About the sabbath observance he said ‘the sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath’ (in other words it is a rule that can be broken when human considerations make it difficult or impossible to keep).

He certainly never said anything remotely similar about truth or our obligations to it. Nothing to the effect of ‘truth was made to serve man, and can be put to one side at his convenience, and man is not required to conform himself to truth even when it costs’. Not so much as a hint to the effect.

It is not my position that we can put truth aside at our convenience. I don’t think anyone is stating such. We are talking about a dire situation with the Nazi example just like Jesus was faced with a dire situation to heal a dying man to which an act of love was appropriate.

You mentioned that Truth is a “hard and fast rule,” but so is Love. You can’t not love when you are supposed to love just like you can’t lie when you are supposed to be truthful.

Though Jesus did point out to the Pharisees that they save their oxen, that wasn’t the main point that was being made. It was about love for man. The Pharisees didn’t LOVE their oxen. Oxen were tools used to make money. The bigger point from Jesus was that a true act of love for our brother mitigates the adherance to the commandment even more so. Hence, if faced with a murderer asking you to tell the truth so he could kill, out of an act of love the commandment not to bear false witness is also mitigated.

Hence, the commandment to “not bare false witness against thy brother” is meant as an act of love to whom we witness. Are we witnessing to Nazis? You have it backwards. We would be witnessing to the Jews who risk death from evildoers. The Catechism talks about harming the one to whom we lie…Harming the Nazis? It says we must apologize and perform retribution to the offended…Who, the Nazis? It says to tell the truth to those who have a right to know…Who, murderers?

Didn’t Pope Pius hide Jews from Nazis and weren’t fake passports made in the interest of love and justice? Has the teaching of the Catechism changed to the point that we went from it was okay to lie to your enemy then to now you can’t lie to your enemy if faced with that situation again? If it was a sin for the Pope to lie if the Nazis asked him where the Jews were then wasn’t he sinning by putting himself in an occasion to sin?

Would you lie to your child if he asks if his painting is pretty? What if it was bad and in fact worse than he ever did? Are you obligated under the commandment to tell him the truth?

And then there is this story I just heard from Archbishop Fulton Sheen:

The Burma Road, WWII - The Japanese had captured many soldiers. During a detail they noticed a shovel was missing. They told the soldiers that they had five minutes to tell them where the shovel was or they all would be killed. After three minutes no one had spoken up. Then one man stepped forward and confessed that he had taken the shovel. He was immediately beaten and killed. The rest were spared. When they all returned to camp, they found the shovel. The point of the story was that like Jesus this man took on the debt for the rest but I think it also shows another point…did this man commit a sin against his Lord?

 

[Rascalking]

I was talking about the “lying situation” thing with a buddy of mine today. He gave me this situation.

A smoker, desperate to quit and on day three of quitting, asks you, a smoker, for a cigarette. You have some. What would you do? What if it’s a alcoholic asking you for booze? Clearly, if you had a shred of decency, you’d lie and say you don’t.

It’s one thing to be sitting in front of our computers and say we’re morally superior because we would “never, ever lie-regardless…no sir, not me.” But I hope if someone came to my house asking for a Jewish family in 1930’s Germany, or in the situation above, I’d blatantly lie. I don’t think God would really care…Or, if He did, I’d have to explain to the life of a Jew in the holocaust didn’t mean anything-nor did my friends sobriety.

 

[Edward_H]

A priest once told me in a moral theology class that, paraphrasing best I can:

“Lying is never morally permissible…so, say you’re hiding Jewish citizens in your basement and the Nazis come by…you can tell them anything you want. That verbal act is not itself a lie. Not because of your intention, not because of the particular circumstances, but because the moral object itself, the act, is not a lie. You have no real free choice. They have no legitimate authority to ask the question nor any right to an answer.”

 

[FNDRB58]

A priest once told me in a moral theology class that, paraphrasing best I can:

“Lying is never morally permissible…so, say you’re hiding Jewish citizens in your basement and the Nazis come by…you can tell them anything you want. That verbal act is not itself a lie. Not because of your intention, not because of the particular circumstances, but because the moral object itself, the act, is not a lie. You have no real free choice. They have no legitimate authority to ask the question nor any right to an answer.”

Agreed. That’s why I have been distinquishing between a lie (sinful act) versus the telling of an untruth (not sinful in the Nazi example). Absolutists say that the telling of an untruth is a lie which is incorrect since the former is not a sin whereas the later is by definition. Just as some worship on the Sabbath is considered work and sinful and some worship is acceptable work.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Agreed. That’s why I have been distinquishing between a lie (sinful act) versus the telling of an untruth (not sinful in the Nazi example). Absolutists say that the telling of an untruth is a lie which is incorrect since the former is not a sin whereas the later is by definition. Just as some worship on the Sabbath is considered work and sinful and some worship is acceptable work.

If circumstances coupled with intent make a person less culpable or not culpable at all, then to me it’s a rhetorical issue whether it is a “sin” that God is unlikely to punish, or whether it isn’t a “sin” at all. Seems to me it signifies the same condition of the spirit, as far as we can presume to understand the mind of God, and results in the same judgment and “sentence.” Potayto, potahto. Hatfields and the McCoys. :slapfight:

Alan