C
Cimachol
Guest
I question whether lying is ALWAYS an injustice. See my quote from Father Serpa above.
- Status
T
Tim_D
Guest
I realize that you retracted this statement but I still nevertheless object to the idea that if it was good enough for the martyrs, then it is good enough for me. We live in a day and age where it is by far the exception and not the rule for people to randomly suffer at the hands of the villainous. Just because early Church martyrs did it 1,800 years ago doesn’t mean that we should do it now.
R
rabbitdonkey
Guest
Just because we can’t lie doesnt mean we cant not say the truth.
Thanks
God Bless
Thanks
God Bless
O
o_mlly
Guest
“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.”
In concert with the Catechism, the good father teaches we may on extraordinary occasions withhold the truth but we may never lie.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Principles of morality are independent of people, place and time. Lying is evil. It is an objective sin against the Truth. What did the martyrs do? They refused to lie, that is deny Christ in order to live. They could not have done that without grace from above. Neither could I.
T
Tim_D
Guest
Actually, that’s not true. There was a time when society was perfectly fine in marrying off a 12 or 13 year old girl to a man 30 years her senior to achieve some beneficial gain on their end. Principles of morality have certainly been refined over the centuries.
The question is, is it a lie to speak an untruth to someone who does not have a right to that knowledge? It is called discretion. Is a priest compelled to tell the “truth” to a person who quizzes them about a someone else’s confession? Is a man who is in marriage therapy compelled to answer personal questions to someone who is simply nosey? To “lie” is to purposely speak an untruth in order to deceive someone who has a right to certain information. Speaking in a way to preserve confidentiality from someone who has no right to that information is not a “lie.” It is not a sin against Truth.
Some of them did, at least; others did not. You best hope that you are never put to the test but you just may be disappointed in your decision when push comes to shove.
O
o_mlly
Guest
What moral principle is it that you think changed?
There is a profound difference in not speaking, speaking discretely (apart from the truth) and lying. The last is always evil.
This is Catholic Answers. If you think you may lie sometimes, please cite the authoritative source that teaches so.
???. Those who lied are not martyrs, are they? Peter was not excused but rather gently rebuked by our Lord for lying.
I do hope that I am not put to the test and if I am I hope that I am delivered just as every one else who prays the Lord’s prayer.
T
Tim_D
Guest
You make the fundamental mistake in thinking that a statement that isn’t factually “true” is a lie. When speaking about a “lie,” it is generally meant speaking falsely about something that the other party has a right to know. The true “lie” is usually done for avoiding just repercussions for actions done freely or for illicit gain or advantage in a situation.
One is certainly permitted to withhold and answer ambiguously to a question that leads another to an erroneous conclusion. The crux of the question is, does the person asking have a right to that knowledge? An escaped criminal who breaks into a neighborhood home (something that has been reported in the news lately) and demands of the person that they have taken hostage if there are any females in the house, is certainly under no obligation under pain of sin to tell him that his wife and 2 daughters are hiding in the attic closet. Are you suggesting that this same person is bound under Catholic principles to reveal the whereabouts of his family? Does that serve Justice?
O
o_mlly
Guest
V
Viki63
Guest
My understanding is that there are more martyrs in this century than there were in the first. Not often in the Western world, but it’s still happening.
We are enjoined not to deny Christ. This is for the sake of the enemy’s soul as well as our own.
But we don’t have to reveal the location of innocents to evil men or criminals. They have no right to the knowledge. This has nothing to do with denying Christ.
.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Its all in the CCC and explained clearly enough.
Two definitions are given at 2482 and 2483.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
So given the below referenced defintions then lying is objectively evil.
However it admits parvity of matter so is usually venial.
But note the matter can easily become grave.
Also, it is not enough to speak a falsity, one must have the intention of deceiving as well.
Further the person deceived must have had a right to know in the first place.
However it admits parvity of matter so is usually venial.
But note the matter can easily become grave.
Also, it is not enough to speak a falsity, one must have the intention of deceiving as well.
Further the person deceived must have had a right to know in the first place.
T
Tim_D
Guest
Exactly.
It is a far cry from a husband lying to his wife about his whereabouts while in the arms of another woman to denying the whereabouts of a innocent person to an unjust aggressor. We are not required to cooperate with evil.
E
e_c
Guest
Lying perverts the communicative faculty. It is never permissible, for any reason, at any time. This is the clear teaching of Scripture, the Fathers and Doctors, and the universal catechisms. It is a hard bullet to bite, but it is softer when one understands the doctrine of broad mental reservation - which can take some work. Anyone looking for sources to understand this distinction does not need to look that hard.
T
Tim_D
Guest
Horse feathers.
Mental reservation is nothing more than the backdoor that allows one to speak “truthfully” but with the intention to deceive. When the gestapo officer asks “are there any Jews here,” the response of “there aren’t any Jews here,” meaning no Jews here in the doorway, not upstairs in the attic behind a false panel, is a deliberate attempt to circumvent, undermine and deceive the person into thinking that there are no Jews in this house.
This is from the first edition of the catechism:* "“To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error* someone who has the right to know the truth.”
This is from the second edition of the catechism: "To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error."
This is from the author of the following article: "Of course, the Catechism is intended as a basic compendium of Catholic doctrine, assembled with due ecclesiastical care, and not as a collection of definitive infallible pronouncements permanently settling every question on every topic it covers. In other words, the change in definition does not mean the original formulation was wrong."
catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-lying-ever-right
E
e_c
Guest
Tim, I recall going back and forth with you at least once before on this issue. I’ll respond to you this one time on this thread, only to address what you’ve brought up. I will post some resources too. I can accept that I will probably not change your mind, but I bother because you are scandalizing people by telling them they can lie when this is not the teaching of the Church, which is the opposite.
The communicative faculty exists for conveying the truth. It is the system whereby the mind and body cooperate to present a concept through the manifestation of a symbol with the aim of conforming another’s mind to that symbol, with respect to its generic nature within a presumably shared symbolic (i.e. linguistic) context. The listener (or even watcher) is tasked with inferring the meaning of that symbolic expression with respect to the situation within which it is manifested. This is the foundation of communication, which is clearly naturally ordered to telling the truth. To contradict this order is to subvert its design, which is an affront to its Designer. This is the same basic problem with contraception. Horse feathers I think not.
You are right - one may speak a truth to deceive. We agree then, that telling a truth is not a lie. If you want to disparage the enormous tradition of broad mental reservation (which is more complicated than most people seem to think), well, I can’t stop you. But that’s silly.
Dr. Mirus is correct, but then one is bound to say that the first version might not have been right. I suggest adverting to the fact that it was indeed changed, by Cdl. Ratzinger and JPII. I recall Ratzinger thinking the former version was “Protestant.” Sorry I don’t have the source on that.
I stick by my statement. And until the time when you or anyone else can provide substantial evidence of magisterial weight to the contrary, it seems foolish not to.
It’s a hard bullet to bite. This is how many people feel about contraception… and guess what, identical arguments were and are used to try to justify it. “If we don’t use it, something bad might happen. If we refrain from the sexual act altogether, it will be difficult.” Etc. True, but it perverts a faculty, per se.
Here are several sources:
newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm (see the last paragraph)
newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm (reveals a problem with Augustine’s accommodation for his own overly rigorous position on telling “the naked truth”)
newadvent.org/summa/3110.htm#article3
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/01/smith-tollefsen-and-pruss-on-lying.html (also see his four interlinks near the top of this article)
cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcomm08.htm
I will end with a quote from the last source, the Roman Catechism (produced by Trent):
"In a word, lies of every sort are prohibited, especially those that cause grave injury to anyone, while most impious of all is a lie uttered against or regarding religion.
God is also grievously offended by those attacks and slanders which are termed lampoons, and other defamatory publications of this kind.
To deceive by a jocose or officious lie, even though it helps or harms no one, is, notwithstanding, altogether unworthy; for thus the Apostle admonishes us: Putting away lying, speak ye the truth. This practice begets a strong tendency to frequent and serious lying, and from jocose lying men contract the habit of lying, lose all reputation for truth, and ultimately find it necessary, in order to gain belief, to have recourse to continual swearing.
…
With regard to those who defend their conduct by saying that to speak the truth is often attended with inconvenience, priests should answer that (such an excuse) is an accusation, not a defence, since it is the duty of a Christian to suffer any inconvenience rather than utter a falsehood."
T
Tim_D
Guest
That is all very eloquent and impressive, to say the least. However, when a situation presents itself where an unjust aggressor seeks to do evil to an innocent person, one’s conscience and common sense should tell them what the “correct” response to such a situation should be. I would not hesitate to tell an escaped convict that there is no female in the home when the truth is that there is a 16 year old hiding in the hall closet and I would go to bed with a clean conscience for it.
Maximillian Kolbe ordered his brothers to abandon their habits and assume the clothing of civilians to escape arrest in World War II era Germany. By doing such, they “inferred” themselves to be something they were not and could even be accused of abandoning their ministry. Yet, now we celebrate the feast of Saint Maximillian Kolbe. Sometimes we must simply do what is prudent. For myself, I don’t find being a cooperating agent of evil to be prudent. The answer isn’t nearly as clean cut as you make it out to be.
C
Cimachol
Guest
I believe you are mistaken on this point, if by lying you mean deliberately expressing something one knows is false with the intent of convincing the other person that it was true. If that were the case, no Catholic could ever work as an undercover police officer. Drug dealers would only need to ask everyone they deal with, “Are you a cop?,” and the officer would be bound by moral law to bow his own cover. According to Father Serpa, that is not the case. (And, contrary to popular urban legend it is not entrapment if a cop lies about being a cop.)
Of course, most of the time when we lie, we are not doing it to thwart an aggressor, but to gain some advantage that isn’t rightfully ours or to escape the consequences of our own actions.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
I don’t see how you can read OM as saying this
.He is saying you don’t have to answer somebody who has no right to the truth.
- You may therefore keep silent.
- If that is a giveaway you may reply with an indirection (answer something he didn’t ask).
- if that will not do you may reply ambiguously even if you know it is likely they will hear the answer they want to hear even if it is not in reality the case.
The CCC does seem to say we may intend to deceive someone who has no right to the knowledge they seek.
That suggests it is OK to intend and tell a direct lie under such conditions.
And this is not called “lying” by the Church’s definition (which is that lying is always immoral).
- Status