Lying to Pollsters: The Catholic Church Wouldn't Approve of That, Correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RidgeSprinter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I will not hide the fact that I am utterly confused. Maybe this is a dumb day for me or I’m on a sugar high.

So lying even with full intention and knowledge of the intrinsic evil of it isn’t a mortal sin, based on the gravity? This makes no sense to me. “Intrinsic evil/grave matter” means that in the three fonts of morality, no matter what your intention is in doing it, or the circumstances (gravity, consequences go here) it is ALWAYS a objective mortal sin. To me, saying a lie isn’t mortal even with full knowledge and deliberation, based on the extent (circumstances) is denying intrinsic evil of this act and is like saying “adultery even though intrinsically evil, if you do it with full knowledge and will, it still won’t be a mortal sin in this circumstance” or replace that with any other sin that is intrinsically evil, like murder

When I say grave matter, I mean the nature of the act, not the circumstance (it being trivial or not). Intrinsically evil things only stop being mortal sin when lacking full will or knowledge, so I am confused. That is the only way an act like that can be venial, or if it isn’t intrinsically evil it is venial by default

What is Jansenism and what does it have to do with this? Britannica says: Jansenism , in Roman Catholic history, a controversial religious movement in the 17th and 18th centuries that arose out of the theological problem of reconciling divine grace and human freedom. Jansenism appeared chiefly in France, the Low Countries, and Italy. In France it became connected with the struggle against the papacy by proponents of Gallicanism—a political theory advocating the restriction of papal power—and with opposition to the monarchical absolutism of Armand-Jean du Plessis Cardinal de Richelieu and Louis XIV.

I fail to see relevance

If a lie, no matter what it is, is said with full will and deliberation and knowledge that lying is evil, is a mortal sin. It is of all the commandments the easiest to follow (in my experience at least, up there with not stealing) we do not need to excuse any liars
 
Last edited:
FrostArcana said:
So lying even with full intention and knowledge of the intrinsic evil of it isn’t a mortal sin, based on the gravity? This makes no sense to me. “Intrinsic evil/grave matter” means that in the three fonts of morality, no matter what your intention is in doing it, or the circumstances (gravity, consequences go here) it is ALWAYS a objective mortal sin. To me, saying a lie isn’t mortal even with full knowledge and deliberation, based on the extent (circumstances) is denying intrinsic evil of this act and is like saying “adultery even though intrinsically evil, if you do it with full knowledge and will, it still won’t be a mortal sin in this circumstance” or replace that with any other sin that is intrinsically evil, like murder

When I say grave matter, I mean the nature of the act, not the circumstance (it being trivial or not). Intrinsically evil things only stop being mortal sin when lacking full will or knowledge, so I am confused. That is the only way an act like that can be venial, or if it isn’t intrinsically evil it is venial by default
Click to expand...
Not all intrinsically evil things are grave matter. Small lies are not grave matter. Traditional catechisms always recognized that lying does admit of parvity (i.e., relative smallness) of matter. The same is true of stealing small amounts. Our present legal and social system takes a very dim view of any kind of stealing — my cousin shoplifted a $2 pack of fishing lures from a store and was taken to the county jail over it, convicted with a lifetime crime of shoplifting on his record — but that does not mean that all stealing is grave matter, mortally sinful, whatever you want to call it. Taking the Lord’s Name in vain, in the everyday course of life, is usually not grave/mortally sinful matter — the home carpenter who smashes his finger with a hammer and calls upon God to consign the hammer (and possibly the nail as well) to eternal perdition.

Some sins are always grave matter and mortally sinful. Adultery (and all deliberate, completed sexual sins) are always grave/mortal. Ditto with murder. There are other examples.

Jansenism was a theological error in post-“Reformation” Europe, basically “Catholic Calvinism”. The moral-theological side of it was exceedingly strict, and from this, I think we can call the modern tendency (among some Catholics) to discount the concept of parvity of matter, and create vast categories of mortal sins, as “modern-day Jansenism”.

The best remedy for this is to consult a traditional catechism or a moral theology manual such as the one written by Father Heribert Jone. That should clear up any ambiguities.
 
Polling organisations know that some people lie. They account for this. The only way of putting results ‘off’ would be to organise an unexpected number of people to lie in one direction.

Here is what Pewresearch.org says about it in their FAQs:

Do people lie to pollsters?​

We know that not all survey questions are answered accurately, but it’s impossible to say that any given inaccurate answer necessarily involves lying. People may simply not remember their behavior accurately.

More people say they voted in a given election than voting records indicate actually cast ballots. In some instances, researchers have actually verified the voting records of people who were interviewed and found that some of them said they voted but did not. Voting is generally considered a socially desirable behavior, just like attending church or donating money to charity. Studies suggest these kinds of behaviors are overreported. Similarly, socially undesirable behaviors such as illegal drug use, certain kinds of sexual behavior or driving while intoxicated are underreported.

We take steps to minimize errors related to questions about socially desirable or undesirable activities. For example, questions about voter registration and voting usually acknowledge that not everyone takes part in elections. Pew Research Center’s voter registration question is worded this way:

“These days, many people are so busy they can’t find time to register to vote, or move around so often they don’t get a chance to re-register. Are you NOW registered to vote in your precinct or election district or haven’t you been able to register so far?”
 
I’ll research that more, I’ve never heard of intrinsically evil things not being either mortal or venial, or being able to do an intrinsically evil thing knowingly without it being a mortal sin. I hope it is just a theological opinion because that is just… I don’t know but it burns me interiorly and is depressing
 
FrostArcana said:
I’ll research that more, I’ve never heard of intrinsically evil things not being either mortal or venial, or being able to do an intrinsically evil thing knowingly without it being a mortal sin. I hope it is just a theological opinion because that is just… I don’t know but it burns me interiorly and is depressing
Click to expand...
Many many sins are intr intrinsically evil. Stealing is one - it is an offence against honesty even over and above the practical.harms it can do.

Stealing 5 cents from a squillionaire like Bill Gates, while definitely a sin, and definitely evil, is neither a grave nor a mortal sin even so.
 
FrostArcana said:
I’ll research that more, I’ve never heard of intrinsically evil things not being either mortal or venial, or being able to do an intrinsically evil thing knowingly without it being a mortal sin. I hope it is just a theological opinion because that is just… I don’t know but it burns me interiorly and is depressing
Click to expand...
Yes, to think of so many intrinsically evil, yet relatively small things, as being mortal sins would be pretty depressing indeed. It’s an error that, for some reason, has caught hold in some contemporary Catholic circles. There is a lot of loosey-goosey use of terms such as “grave”, “serious”, “intrinsically evil”, and so on, and it makes for a lot of confusion. Just think in terms of mortal and venial. It makes consideration of the moral life so much easier — and not nearly as discouraging.

A catechism I really like is the 1958 edition of Life in Christ. It’s hard to find but here’s a go at it:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-LI...y-JAMES-KILLGALLON-GERARD-WEBER-/172801543540

Father John Hardon’s The Catholic Catechism is also excellent:

https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Catechism-Contemporary-Teachings-Church/dp/038508045X
 
Last edited:
Xystus said:
I’m fine with it. I’m not remorseful for giving views that do not actually reflect my own. If you want to try to shame me for being a “bad catholic” then that’s fine too. It really does not bother me.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. If I am polled about my intending voting close to an election, I will say whatever I think may help my candidate - especially if it misleads the enemy.

For me, one of the most enjoyable political events of the last four years was the meltdown on TV of the pollsters as their preferred candidate, and the one who apparently couldn’t lose, lost. One of the suggested reasons was that people had lied in opinion polls, either out of nervousness at admitting an unpopular choice, or as a strategy.

That was good! 😁. Even better for us Aussies was when the scenario was repeated here in May 2019! On election night the MSM lined up with glee, based on the polls, to count their candidate in and lick their lips over the end of the conservative government. It was not a question of if would lose, but by how much. “Landslide” was the prediction. Instead, they had to watch the government being returned!. There’s great pleasure in watching smug journalists get a nasty surprise.

It seems they still haven’t learned. I’m looking foward to it again.
 
Last edited:
Lying is defined as an injustice depriving someone with the right to know the truth.

So I fail to see the problem with using a mental reservation to mislead a stranger who’s interrupting my supper and asks me slanted poll questions fishing for political opinion.
 
Anesti33 said:
right to know the truth.
Click to expand...
Not everyone has a right to know every truth, but everyone has a right not to be lied to. This definition came from a late draft of the CCC… and it was thankfully and rightfully expunged.
 
kapp19 said:
Not everyone has a right to know every truth, but everyone has a right not to be lied to.
Click to expand...
Right. Especially when you’re deliberately misleading them when you could just as easily say “I’d rather not participate, thanks.” and hang up.

This isn’t a scenario in which the Nazis are on the door demanding to know where the Jews are hiding. You can just end the call.
 
Last edited:
If a child is worrying about things too difficult for him to understand, and he turns to Mom for solace, is he looking for truth or seeking reassurance? If mom says “don’t worry honey, everything is going to be OK,” is that a lie?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top