Lying is OK sometimes...?

[Reservoir_Dog]

He couldnt fold?{/quote]

Yes, I got him to fold. that’s what “laying down a hand” means. I meant to say that you can’t force someone out of a hand by betting more than he’s got on the table.
ignatius777;7250673:

I have no idea if your soul is in jeopardy. But I can say that if the loction of your souls eternal resting place hinges on this example then you have lived a very exemplary life my friend

This is one of the handful of felonious activities that the statute of limitations is still running on. So I must be discrete.

 

[ignatius777]

ignatius777;7250673:

He couldnt fold?{/quote]

Yes, I got him to fold. that’s what “laying down a hand” means. I meant to say that you can’t force someone out of a hand by betting more than he’s got on the table.

This is one of the handful of felonious activities that the statute of limitations is still running on. So I must be discrete.

I didnt suspect you could bet more then you have on the table. But you got him to fold by lying instead of just betting. Betting/blufing is a deceptive part of the game that all parties know beforehand and willingly accept.

I understand entirely believe me!

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Reservoir Dog;7250682:

I didnt suspect you could bet more then you have on the table. But you got him to fold by lying instead of just betting. Betting/blufing is a deceptive part of the game that all parties know beforehand and willingly accept.

I understand entirely believe me!

No, I checked. No bet. A sign of a probable weak hand. He bet. I raised, an aggressive show of strength. Then I lied about my hand. Between the lie and the check raise, he was intimidated enough to surrender. It took both.

 

[catholictiger]

The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. **The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons **for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it. - CCC 2488-2489 (emphasis mine)

Add that with what it says a few paragraphs earlier…

The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity. - CCC 2484 (emphasis mine)

And we can conclude that lying is OK sometimes, if being silent is absolutely not an option. Not to use a tired example (but I’ll use it anyway), if a Nazi knocks on your door asking if there are any Jews in the area, and you’re hiding a Jewish family in your own home, then you’d be able to lie as per the Catechism paragraphs 2489 and it wouldn’t be a venial or mortal sin if simply remaining silent isn’t a viable option (which it isn’t in this case).

If someone doesn’t deserve to know the truth or will use it to harm you, themselves, or others, then silence is the best way to conceal the truth. If silence is not possible, then a lie will not be sinful. Am I right?

I can’t fathom someone suffering in Purgatory or even Hell because he/she lied to a Nazi about there being Jews in his/her house. Many priests did this in fact, but I’m sure most of you already know how much Catholics helped the persecuted during WWII.

But note how it says “Concrete situations”. What about when telling jokes or playing a prank (like a Scare Tactics style prank, not a prank that actually harms people)? Is lying a sin here?

i know i’m late to the thread but I had a thread similar to this one a while back and people said its always a sin to lie while others said it wouldn’t always be a sin. I kinda i’m the side of it isn’t always a sin.

My reasoning, in the majority of circumstances yes lieing would be a sin, but there are those rare situations where you would be forced to lie in order to save the life of another.

just think about this you have a room mate and one day your on campus and he runs by you 2 black eyes bleeding badly along with other things, he runs off and hids in the library 2 min later this guy comes up with a baseball bat and asks have you seen joe bob (roommate)

how do you respond

I think the best way ot respond is to say yeah I saw him last night.

But what if the guy turns the question back on you, did you see him run past here a couple mineuts ago I know he ran this way.

For you to tell the truth will put your roommates life in danjour. You could say I refuse ot answer it and he says I beat you with this baseball bat. You are forced to answer the question, how do you respond.

The moral thing would be to lie and tell him either yeah I saw him, and point him to the wrong building, or say no i haven’t seen him since last night, both responses are lies but save the roommates life.

This isn’t a sin not even venal sin becuase if Christ where put in this situation he would probably handle it in the same way I would think anyway, and if lieing was a sin then that would mean Christ would be sinning and its not possible to do that. This may not be the best way to put it but its my thought on the issue. If telling the truth leads to death of an inocent human being, while lieing would prevent the death of that human being, you must lie and because in the situation it would be the morally acceptable thing to do.

Now let me mention this these situations are so rare they may be practically non existent so in a since its never ok to lie, but yes there are exceptions

if you are put into situations like this your best thing is to tell a truth that isn’t exactly answering the question, you may call it implying an untruth, or something along the lines of that.

thats my thought on the issue anyway

 

[ignatius777]

ignatius777;7250723:

No, I checked. No bet. A sign of a probable weak hand. He bet. I raised, an aggressive show of strength. Then I lied about my hand. Between the lie and the check raise, he was intimidated enough to surrender. It took both.

You USED both. My father taught me an honest has no need to tell you he is honest ( I am referring to general honesty not in this case specifically) but as it relates to his case to tell him he had to beat a particular hand is a sure tell, I myself would have raised again