Without getting into the CCC, to love one’s neighbour as oneself is to not lie.I know this topic is much discussed from multiple perspectives. I would like to confine my questions to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Do CCC 2482, 2483, and 2485 establish that lying is objectively evil?
Does any assertion in the CCC condone or excuse lying per se?
Every lie has as one of its purposes deceit - a lie is said in order to lead another to believe something that is false.It seems like the lying that is being condemned is when lying is done for the purpose of deceiving, or “leading a neighbor into error”.
If your lie has some other purpose than deceit, then it would seem to be either not a sin or not a serious sin.
Bravo. I cannot tell you how many times I have said the exact same thing on this forum only to hear that we are never free to do evil so that good may come of it.However, lying is not always lying, if the person you are telling something false to, is an unjust aggressor, and if, by telling something false to the aggressor, you would be protecting the life of another person, as a consequence.
There is a strong school of Catholic thought that allows the “lie” of necessity. If a person’s conscience tells them that the correct answer is to deny knowledge of Jews in the house to preserve them from unjust aggression, then they may speak so without fear of sin because the intention is to preserve innocent life, not to aid men engaged in objectively evil actions. To preserve innocent life is certainly love of neighbor as yourself.Circumstances of duress, such as lives being at risk (eg the often-cited “do you tell the Nazis that you have Jews hiding in your house” conundrum), in my view, may lessen the moral culpability of a liar
By your definition, the “mental reservation” examples given would also have to be seen as “lessening the moral culpability of a liar”. Seems a stretch to have to say someone committed the objective sin of lying but then had their moral culpability reduced to zero because it was for the other party’s good.Every lie has as one of its purposes deceit - a lie is said in order to lead another to believe something that is false.
Circumstances of duress, such as lives being at risk (eg the often-cited “do you tell the Nazis that you have Jews hiding in your house” conundrum), in my view, may lessen the moral culpability of a liar, to the point of venial or even possibly no sin. I wouldn’t say that they necessarily mean that lying is ever obejctively other than sinful.
I certainly understand that there are schools of thought on each side, which is why I merely expressed which side I tend to favour. Possibly if I studied the issue more I would change my mind.There is a strong school of Catholic thought that allows the “lie” of necessity. If a person’s conscience tells them that the correct answer is to deny knowledge of Jews in the house to preserve them from unjust aggression, then they may speak so without fear of sin because the intention is to preserve innocent life, not to aid men engaged in objectively evil actions. To preserve innocent life is certainly love of neighbor as yourself.
If you’re not doing it for personal advantage over another, then it’s arguably not deceit.de·ceive
dəˈsēv/Submit
verb
(of a person) cause (someone) to believe something that is not true, typically in order to gain some personal advantage.
I think the words “murder” and also ‘theft’ are appropriate when describing lying itself in all its contexts.I’ve never been able to wrap my mind around the idea that it would be acceptable to kill in self-defense or in the defense of another, but not to lie. That is, unless just as murder is defined as the unjust taking of a human life (and murder in self-defense is not unjust), lying is defined as an unjust falsification. (I’ve seen it defined in some places as deception for the purpose of withholding the truth from someone who has the right to have it.)
I’m not sure if you mean ‘absolutely evil’. Lying objectively means lying with no personal opinion about the matter. That is, impartial and unbiased. Disinterested. I’m not sure if that’s even possible. I’m struggling to think of a situation where one could lie whilst remaining impartial and disinterested. The very act of lying means that you have an interest in the other person being deceived. You actually want them to be deceived, so it could hardly be described as impartial.I know this topic is much discussed from multiple perspectives. I would like to confine my questions to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Do CCC 2482, 2483, and 2485 establish that lying is objectively evil?
The full quote is: “According to the common Catholic teaching it is never allowable to tell a lie, not even to save human life.”Also it says that the Common Catholic teaching is one may never lie
In the first edition of the catechism, the entry on “lying” made a distinction about the illicitness of the act to people “who have a right to the information (paraphrased).” The second edition eliminated this distinction and was a source of discord, since now the act of lying to an unjust aggressor to preserve innocent life appears to be condemned. This simply goes against common sense. No parent is obligated to tell an unjust aggressor that their teenage daughter is hiding under the bed, thereby making them susceptible to violent rape. Anyone who would maintain as much would rightly be judged as to be the victim of disorganized thinking.Please try to stick with what the CCC says. It seems to me that 2482, 2483, and 2485 plainly assert that lying is objectively, inherently evil and therefore never permissible. All the* apparent* qualifications of that assertion involve withholding the truth, “discreet language,” etc. Nowhere does the CCC say that lying is morally permissible under any circumstances.
I am open to correction on this point with respect to the text of the CCC.
The Catechism states that lying is never to be allowed (#2485) since the only purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. It is important to note, however that the Catechism is written for the ordinary Catholic in ordinary situations. Some theologians warn that there are extraordinary occasions where to tell the truth could cause a greater harm than the harm done by withholding it. Such would be the extraordinary occasions where a life or many lives can lie in the balance as the result of the truth an undercover agent conveys or chooses not to convey.
Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
By extension of this faulty logic – it is better to do an injustice (lie) than to suffer one – all our martyrs, rather than heroic, were simply “disorganized thinkers.” Romans 3:8.…This simply goes against common sense. No parent is obligated to tell an unjust aggressor that their teenage daughter is hiding under the bed, thereby making them susceptible to violent rape. Anyone who would maintain as much would rightly be judged as to be the victim of disorganized thinking.
My apologies. On reading this part of the post more closely, this part of the argument agrees with the Catechism’ teaching. We are not obligated to tell the truth to those who have no right to know the truth. However, that is not to say that we may ever lie – white, black or gray.This simply goes against common sense. No parent is obligated to tell an unjust aggressor that their teenage daughter is hiding under the bed, thereby making them susceptible to violent rape. Anyone who would maintain as much would rightly be judged as to be the victim of disorganized thinking.