Santa Claus

[Marc_Anthony]

you may be correct on this, but even if you are I the example brought up it is still best for someone to lie in this situation if your saying you should tell the truth when you could save a life when lying, then I’m not sure if I would agree with the churches view on this.

the question on the double effect is what do you consider the act, is the act saving the lives of the jews, or is the act lying. Eptopic pregnancy is the one classic example most moral theologians use to explain the double effect, there is an evil that occurs in a Eptopic pregnancy the death of an innocent life but because of the double effect the Church allows it to happen.

1. the act is to save the life of the mother
2. the intention of the act is to save the life of the mother.
3. there are no bad effects to obtain the good effects
4. the good is proportional to the evil, aka losing one life is better then losing both lives.

so in the case of the eptoic pregnancy the procedure which doesn’t directly attack the baby is allowed. Every double effect has evil involved.

That isn’t true. In the ectopic pregnancy example, no evil is actively being done. You are removing a different part of a woman’s body that the baby is unfortunately attached to (if I understand this correctly). You are not killing anybody. No evil is actually being done.

Good proof of this is that it’s a commonly known teaching that even when the mother’s life is in grave danger you can NOT perform a direct abortion, even to save her life. Ectopic pregnancy is a very specific, special case. If treating the illness involved killing the baby, involved, actually removing the child so that it dies, you cannot go ahead with such treatment. It’s immoral.

When you lie to save somebody, you need to lie. You can’t do something else that unfortunately causes a lie, because by definition then it’s not a lie. You’re lying. That’s wrong. That’s the difference.

Bookcat: Since when does lying HAVE to involve malicious intent? Lots of sins are committed with no malicious intent. Lying involves communicating something to somebody that they know isn’t true with the intention of making the other party believe it is true. If you go by Aquinas at least Santa Claus definitely falls under this definition.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Who on earth is Dr Feser, and what made him or her the great guru of child rearing? Is he or she a Christian or a secularist? The answer could explain their stance on Santa.

Dr. Feser is a Catholic Thomistic philosopher in full standing with the Church. He is not the great guru on child rearing, nor does he claim to be. What he DOES claim to do is apply moral logic to this real-life situation, and from his understanding of Thomistic metaphysics he concluded that it’s wrong to tell your children that Santa Claus is real. Questioning Dr. Feser’s motivations does nothing to advance the discussion.

Yes, there is a difference between a myth and a lie. The difference is that when you tell somebody that a myth is real, you’re lying. If I told my child that the Viking gods are real, would it not count as lying since it’s not a myth?

 

[catholictiger]

That isn’t true. In the ectopic pregnancy example, no evil is actively being done. You are removing a different part of a woman’s body that the baby is unfortunately attached to (if I understand this correctly). You are not killing anybody. No evil is actually being done.

Good proof of this is that it’s a commonly known teaching that even when the mother’s life is in grave danger you can NOT perform a direct abortion, even to save her life. Ectopic pregnancy is a very specific, special case. If treating the illness involved killing the baby, involved, actually removing the child so that it dies, you cannot go ahead with such treatment. It’s immoral.

When you lie to save somebody, you need to lie. You can’t do something else that unfortunately causes a lie, because by definition then it’s not a lie. You’re lying. That’s wrong. That’s the difference.

Bookcat: Since when does lying HAVE to involve malicious intent? Lots of sins are committed with no malicious intent. Lying involves communicating something to somebody that they know isn’t true with the intention of making the other party believe it is true. If you go by Aquinas at least Santa Claus definitely falls under this definition.

the loss of an innocent life is an evil correct? I understand what your saying but it would seem the loss of life is an evil this case I’m I wrong?

also I should have been clearer I don’t know the medical terms but I understand the church calls there to be no direct abortion, the doctor must remove the tube which the baby is in it is the only morally acceptable thing in this case would be this procedure. The principle of double effect applies because of the loss of an innocent life.

and it seems that we agree with the idea that its ok to lie to save someone’s life.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

So if a Nazi version of Santa Claus asks you for directions to an abortion clinic that is hiding Jews, what do you do?

We stop on the way to save a fat man from a trolley car full of children, of course.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

the loss of an innocent life is an evil correct? I understand what your saying but it would seem the loss of life is an evil this case I’m I wrong?

Yes, but you’re not the one doing the evil-and you can’t do evil for a good end, even saving somebody’s life. (BTW, I disagree with you-you cannot lie, no).

The principle of double effect, applied the way you are, basically just tells us that the ends justify the means. Think about:

-Your young son has cancer. Your intention is to be cured of cancer, but the only way that this is possible is if you can afford an extremely expensive treatment. You can’t, so you kidnap the doctor and force him to perform the treatment, claiming that if he doesn’t you’ll be forced to chop off his fingers, one by one. He performs the treatment and your son is cured, so you let the doctor go.

Using the principle of double effect I can argue that this is moral:

1. Intention: To save the child’s life.
2. Act: Give the kid treatment.
3. Does the evil outweigh the good? No, kidnapping a man and threatening him with some minor disfigurement is clearly not worse than a small child DYING. So saving a child’s life outweighs the evil.

Conclusion: Kidnapping a doctor and threatening him with dismemberment in exchange for treatment is perfectly moral.

Obviously, this is ridiculous. The reason is in the action. The act wasn’t the operation. It was the kidnapping and threats. So it’s the same in your scenario.

What is actually your scenario:

1. Intention: Save the people in your house.
2. Act: Lying to the Nazis at the door about the Jews’ presence.
3. Does the good outweigh the evil? In terms of ends, yes, people living as opposed to dying is better. But in terms of means, no, because lying is a sin. Always. The ends don’t justify the means.

Now, if it’s a sin to lie to somebody who does not have a right to information is up for debate. But if lying is always wrong there is no way out of the fact that lying to the Nazis would be wrong.

 

[catholictiger]

Yes, but you’re not the one doing the evil-and you can’t do evil for a good end, even saving somebody’s life. (BTW, I disagree with you-you cannot lie, no).

The principle of double effect, applied the way you are, basically just tells us that the ends justify the means. Think about:

-Your young son has cancer. Your intention is to be cured of cancer, but the only way that this is possible is if you can afford an extremely expensive treatment. You can’t, so you kidnap the doctor and force him to perform the treatment, claiming that if he doesn’t you’ll be forced to chop off his fingers, one by one. He performs the treatment and your son is cured, so you let the doctor go.

Using the principle of double effect I can argue that this is moral:

1. Intention: To save the child’s life.
2. Act: Give the kid treatment.
3. Does the evil outweigh the good? No, kidnapping a man and threatening him with some minor disfigurement is clearly not worse than a small child DYING. So saving a child’s life outweighs the evil.

Conclusion: Kidnapping a doctor and threatening him with dismemberment in exchange for treatment is perfectly moral.

Obviously, this is ridiculous. The reason is in the action. The act wasn’t the operation. It was the kidnapping and threats. So it’s the same in your scenario.

What is actually your scenario:

1. Intention: Save the people in your house.
2. Act: Lying to the Nazis at the door about the Jews’ presence.
3. Does the good outweigh the evil? In terms of ends, yes, people living as opposed to dying is better. But in terms of means, no, because lying is a sin. Always. The ends don’t justify the means.

Now, if it’s a sin to lie to somebody who does not have a right to information is up for debate. But if lying is always wrong there is no way out of the fact that lying to the Nazis would be wrong.

you misread what I said about the priniciple of double effect.

I’ll I was trying to explain first of all is that in eptopic pregnancy an evil effect is unavoidable, aka the loss of the life of the unborn. So you have to use the prinicple of double effect to determine what to do.

requirement one, the act must not be evil, so a direct abortion is an evil act

requirement two, a bad act can’t be used to acchive the good ends.

requirement three, the intention of the person doing the act must intented the good and only endure the evil.

requirement four, the good most be proportional to the evil.

your kidnap doctor case

1. get a doctor to save the kids life.
2. bad effect brings about the good (so it doesn’t make it.
3. intention probably fit
4. you could say its proportional but that doesn’t matter because 2 doesn’t apply, making it immoral.

I’m sorry if I didn’t make this clear earlier, I think I was wrong in saying that in this situation the principle of double effect would apply, I’m not to sure about that. But my main argument is that you should do what you can to save lives, if that means lying it must be done. I don’t see how any rational moral person could believe that you should tell the truth when the truth would lead to the death of innocent human beings.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

But my main argument is that you should do what you can to save lives, if that means lying it must be done.

In other words-you are saying the ends justify the means. The ends NEVER justify the means. Ever. There aren’t exceptions, even when lives are at stake.

 

[catholictiger]

In other words-you are saying the ends justify the means. The ends NEVER justify the means. Ever. There aren’t exceptions, even when lives are at stake.

I could try to work around it but it seems like I am this is something I will have to pray about and bring to people I trust, no disrespect to you or the people on this board but I trust the word of my teachers and my formatters over the word of some guy behind a computer screen. I hope you understand. I will also leave this debate at this.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I could try to work around it but it seems like I am this is something I will have to pray about and bring to people I trust, no disrespect to you or the people on this board but I trust the word of my teachers and my formatters over the word of some guy behind a computer screen. I hope you understand. I will also leave this debate at this.

I absolutely understand, and you are doing the right thing. Good luck.

 

[migueltojose]

Another thread that postulates that it is ALWAYS a sin to lie got me thinking. Is there anyone out there who actually thinks it is a sin to tell kids that Santa will come to their house, guided by magical reindeer with a sleigh full of toys made by tiny elves, squeeze down the chimeny and give them the loot? Anyone?

And if it IS a sin, why does the Church not condemn this practice? On the contrary, MANY Catholic parishes promote it.

And don’t say that St. Nick was a real person so it’s not a lie, because we all know that we go to VERY elaborate lengths to deceive our children each and every year, on Christmas Day no less!

I for one do not think it is sinful, but if it is not sinful, than not ALL lies are sinful, correct?

Santa Claus… Maureen O’Hara / Natalie Wood… they came around in the end…

 

[garn9173]

A take on the q. from a CA apol.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=119576&highlight=santa

Based on her comments, parents should be ashamed of themselves if they don’t let their kids believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny.

It is not lying to create stories for young children. That is basically what is done when parents tell their children of imaginary creatures such as the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. From the beginning of time parents have spun such tales for the entertainment and education of their children. Rather than “lying,” it can be considered “myth-making.” Myths are a means of conveying certain truths pictorially rather than didactically. When parents tell their children tales of the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, the larger truths that are being conveyed mythically are that we are part of a larger universe and are watched over and cared for by good spirits whom we cannot yet know empirically. This can be considered groundwork for later introduction to the communion of saints.

As for Santa, he is based on a real person: St. Nicholas, an early Catholic bishop who is a patron saint of children because of positive interactions he was believed to have had with children during his life. The stories that have been based upon St. Nicholas are what we call legend. Legends are generally non-historical or unverifiable stories passed down through the ages about a person or group of people. While Catholic parents may want to make sure children know about the real-life saint behind the Santa Claus legend, there is nothing wrong with passing on pious legends to children

 

[tafan]

I believe in Santa Claus. That belief, while certainly not a requirement of the Catholic faith, is just as much not prohibited by the Catholic faith. Since I believe in Santa Claus, it is certainly not a lie to tell my children about that belief.

 

[migueltojose]

Based on her comments, parents should be ashamed of themselves if they don’t let their kids believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny.

It is not lying to create stories for young children. That is basically what is done when parents tell their children of imaginary creatures such as the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. From the beginning of time parents have spun such tales for the entertainment and education of their children. Rather than “lying,” it can be considered “myth-making.” Myths are a means of conveying certain truths pictorially rather than didactically. When parents tell their children tales of the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, the larger truths that are being conveyed mythically are that we are part of a larger universe and are watched over and cared for by good spirits whom we cannot yet know empirically. This can be considered groundwork for later introduction to the communion of saints.

As for Santa, he is based on a real person: St. Nicholas, an early Catholic bishop who is a patron saint of children because of positive interactions he was believed to have had with children during his life. The stories that have been based upon St. Nicholas are what we call legend. Legends are generally non-historical or unverifiable stories passed down through the ages about a person or group of people. While Catholic parents may want to make sure children know about the real-life saint behind the Santa Claus legend, there is nothing wrong with passing on pious legends to children ."

Yeah… what he said… so often others can say what you mean so much better than you can…

 

[Socrates1889]

Yeah… what he said… so often others can say what you mean so much better than you can…

Amen… when I get a signature I want to put this in it!! I am horrible at putting my thoughts into words!!

 

[migueltojose]

Amen… when I get a signature I want to put this in it!! I am horrible at putting my thoughts into words!!

Like Steve Martin said in about 1976… “some people have a way with words… other people… oh, I don’t know… not have way…”

 

[Socrates1889]

Like Steve Martin said in about 1976… “some people have a way with words… other people… oh, I don’t know… not have way…”

 

[Samson33]

Regardless of whether Santa and the Easter bunny consist of lies or not. They began as christian(even catholic) traditions. Santa is a mixture between Odin and St. Nicholas. The rabbit is associated with Easter because(believe it or not) in the medieval ages people thought rabbits were hermaphrodites and could give birth without having sex. Therefore rabbits were sacred to Our Lady. I haven’t looked to check, but I often wondered if there are pictures of Mary or the Passion with a bunch of Lepus’s in the backround.(they are really cute ).

I just thought I had to add that. It may or may not be lying to tell your children about Santa/Easter Bunny/Booggey Man/Leprechauns. Santa Claus/Sinter Klaus and the Easter Bunny started as christian traditions. I think as long as you tell your kids Christmas is about Jesus and that Jesus gave us a gift that Santa doesn’t compare with. (namely a life in heaven) and the same with Easter

Thats just my two cents, not that anybody asked(or cares) .

 

[NovusAugustus]

I better not catch anyone in the no-Santa camp reading their kids nursery rhymes without prefacing the whole story with a friendly disclaimer:

“This story is false in its entirety. I’m telling you this, not because I’m worried about you, but because I don’t want to risk an extra minute in purgatory–despite the fact that the Church does not prohibit story telling. Now, on to the story!”

 

[Socrates1889]

I better not catch anyone in the no-Santa camp reading their kids nursery rhymes without prefacing the whole story with a friendly disclaimer:

“This story is false in its entirety. I’m telling you this, not because I’m worried about you, but because I don’t want to risk an extra minute in purgatory–despite the fact that the Church does not prohibit story telling. Now, on to the story!”

 

[Arizona_Mike]

As a Catholic, I always feel comfortable in telling people that I really do believe in Santa Claus - or at least, St. Nicholas. He was, and is, a real person. He is a member of my Church, although he is in the Church Triumphant section of the pews, not the Church Militant section where I sit. I can and do offer prayers for his intercession. He is a wonderful man who interceded on my behalf on at least two occasions, and I firmly believe there are at least two people who are alive today because of that and who were saved from an early death. As a Saint and a fellow Catholic, he has an interest in my well-being (both physical and spiritual), and I can communicate with him. I don’t have to even send a letter to the North Pole to do it, I can just pray.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...005.jpg/542px-Ilja_Jefimowitsch_Repin_005.jpg

St. Nicholas rocks.

If even half the stories that were told about him are true, he can do far more amazing things than the commercial depiction of Santa Claus (or Father Christmas, to our British brethren). He was not a fat, jolly old elf, but a tough, hardened product of the Roman prison system, where he was imprisoned for his faith but never broke. When that hippie heretic Arius claimed that Jesus was only spiritual, not physical, St. Nicholas laid the smack down on him at Nicea. Sometimes a Saint has to do what a Saint has to do.

St. Nicholas gave gifts of gold anonymously not to encourage commercialism, but to keep young girls from being sold into prostitution because of their poverty - a cause that St. Patrick and St. Augustine also fought for, and which Catholic Charities is fighting in the forefront today.

St. Nicholas rescued three children who had been kidnapped by a pagan cannibal, which is why he is the patron saint of kidnapped people today.

St. Nicholas is also the patron saint of sailors, pawnbrokers, military intelligence officers, lovers, haberdashers, fishermen, dockworkers, archers, military police, pawnbrokers, wine sellers, even pirates. Busy man.

I would recommend teaching children about the REAL Santa Claus, but think it’s probably okay to teach children about the mythical version of Santa, as yet another way to explain the virtues of charity and anonymous and selfless giving at all times of the year, but especially as a way to commemorate the Feast of the Nativity.

J.R.R. Tolkien certainly thought so - buy a copy of his “Letters from Father Christmas” that he wrote to his children each year (and illustrated) - reading one of Tolkien’s fun-filled (and increasingly complex) letters each night during the Christmas season is a lot of fun and we did it with my kids. C.S. Lewis included Father Christmas as a harbinger of the good that is coming during the seemingly endless winter of a frozen, evil-enslaved, pre-Aslan Narnia - something his friend Tolkien advised against, but which worked on several levels.

Is it okay to tell children such invented stories, or to tell them that he is bringing gifts as a way to teach larger messages? Sure. Christ did it all the time. They are called parables. They are no less true for not being literally true.

An old Jewish story tells how Truth wandered naked in the cold but was unable to find anyone who would open the door and let her inside until Parable took her in and wrapped her in her own cloak. Wrapped in the golden garments of Parable, Truth was then welcomed in every home.