Santa Claus

  • Thread starter Thread starter LaSainte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
catholictiger said:
  1. you aren’t using evil means to achive your end
Click to expand...
But if lying is always wrong, it is by definition evil. So you would be using evil means to achieve your ends.

Of course, “evil” is a loaded word because people connect evil with Hell and grave matter. I only meant it in the sense that it is always a sin. You cannot sin to achieve good ends, because no matter how good the ends are they are never good enough to justify sinning.
 
Timothysis said:
What I find the most depressing here at CAF is those people who, while trying to live a Catholic life, will extinguish the slightest joys in life for fear of doing something wrong.

Does anyone honestly think that they will one day stand in judgement to God Almighty for telling their little ones about Santa or the Easter Bunny, or seeing the joy and amazement in their eyes on Christmas and Easter morn? I pity the poor child whose parents treat them as an adult instead of a child. Do I need to go to confession for telling my little 5 year old great niece that I saw my sister’s dog Bob riding a bicycle down the street? Or telling my little 2.5 year old great nephew the little stories that he seems to enjoy so much? Is joy de vivre a sin? One of the biggest complaints here about the laity is that they/we don’t know our faith. When I read that someone thinks it a sin to tell children about Santa, then I have to agree that we don’t know our faith.
Click to expand...
Dead on!!! 👍👍👍

God bless you.
 
beehumble said:
I would bet most if not all who think kids should be told there is no Santa, don’t have kids. 😉
So they really don’t know what they are saying, they are out of their depth,so to speak! 😉
Click to expand...
So because we don’t have kids we can’t make judgments on what constitutes a lie or not?

That’s really what the thread is about. Santa is just an example.

Even Peter Kreeft, who doesn’t have a problem with belief in Santa Claus, didn’t believe this is a no-brainer, and made an argument to address the issue.

(BTW, Dr. Feser has children.)
 
catholictiger said:
simple question does anyone here understand the principle of double effect because I’m pretty sure in many of the situations people are brining up the principle of double effect would apply.

lying to protect jews from nazi’s satisfies the principle of double effect.
  1. the act of saving lives is good
  2. you aren’t using evil means to achive your end
  3. you are only enduring the evil and focusing on the good.
  4. the good is proportional to the evil being done
so you lie.

the principle of double effect is an important part of moral theology and I hope a part of this discussion.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. But I have two questions for you : 1-Is lying an intrinsic evil? 2-if the answer to 1- is “yes”, then the principle of double effect nullifies the intrinsic evil or overrides it?
 
So if a Nazi version of Santa Claus asks you for directions to an abortion clinic that is hiding Jews, what do you do?

Remaining silent or using deception is suspicious. Unless you are good at deception, Santa Claus will probably realize you’re up to something, and pull something out of his bag of goodies that he could use to, ahem, persuade you to be more honest.

I think you could say that lying is wrong and so that you should try one of those regardless, and if Santa Claus finds the Jews hiding in the abortion clinic, that’s just an unfortunate bad thing that happened but that ends don’t justify the means. In fact, if saying something that was untrue with an intention to deceive (or at least a known and accepted side affect that your untrue statement will deceive, even if it’s not your primary intention) was always inherently sinful, then this would be the way to go. I think it’s wrong, but it’s a coherent position.

Likewise you could formulate a theory of lying in which either lying is not always sinful, or in which this sort of statement to Nazi Santa Claus is not a lie.

But what we cannot do is say that lying is a sin and that we would do it anyway and not feel guilty because it’s not a serious sin. That’s not how sin works. Sin does not just mean “against the rules,” so that a minor sin is just a minor infraction against the rules that we can do and have God not mind. Sin is offense against God. By definition, if God doesn’t mind, then it’s not a sin.

That is, even the smallest sins are insults to God. So, we can either say that God wouldn’t mind and hence that “lying” in this case is either not a sin or not really lying, or we can say that it is a sin and we absolutely should not do it no matter the consequences - even a mild sin. The mildness of sin comes into play after we mess up and commit it and are trying to recover, but to wave them away before we commit them as something that doesn’t matter much and so that we could commit guilt free in certain circumstances is to flirt with the more serious sin of presumption.

That is what sin is. Sin is something that we absolutely should not do, no matter the consequences.
 
Has anyone read the book Kringle by Tony Abbott?? It’s very bizzare which intrigued me more. I think it’s more similar to St. Nicholas than to Santa because it’s seem more of the age. It’s suppose to be a story of how Santa started and involves magic,elves,trolls, and pirates but what I loved best was that in the end they attach it all to " a special baby that was born". It reads like old English but I was amazed at how my 6 yr old listened with fascination.

To me the Easter bunny does nothing for the resurrection of Christ but somehow Santa (when dealing with a child) makes the birth of Jesus just more miraculous.

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

Remaining silent or using deception is suspicious. Unless you are good at deception, Santa Claus will probably realize you’re up to something, and pull something out of his bag of goodies that he could use to, ahem, persuade you to be more honest.

I think you could say that lying is wrong and so that you should try one of those regardless, and if Santa Claus finds the Jews hiding in the abortion clinic, that’s just an unfortunate bad thing that happened but that ends don’t justify the means. In fact, if saying something that was untrue with an intention to deceive (or at least a known and accepted side affect that your untrue statement will deceive, even if it’s not your primary intention) was always inherently sinful, then this would be the way to go. I think it’s wrong, but it’s a coherent position.

Likewise you could formulate a theory of lying in which either lying is not always sinful, or in which you may lie to this Nazi Santa Claus.

But what we cannot do is say that lying is a sin and that we would do it anyway and not feel guilty because it’s not a serious sin. That’s not how sin works. Sin does not just mean “against the rules,” so that a minor sin is just a minor infraction against the rules that we can do and have God not mind. Sin is offense against God. By definition, if God doesn’t mind, then it’s not a sin.

That is, even the smallest sins are insults to God. So, we can either say that God wouldn’t mind and hence that “lying” in this case is either not a sin or not really lying, or we can say that it is a sin and we absolutely should not do it no matter the consequences - even a mild sin. The mildness of sin comes into play after we mess up and commit it and are trying to recover, but to wave them away before we commit them as something that doesn’t matter much and so that we could commit guilt free in certain circumstances is to flirt with the more serious sin of presumption.

That is what sin is. Sin is something that we absolutely should not do, no matter the consequences.
Click to expand...
I hope I’m not offending you, but your post calls to my mind Ray Comfort. He’s a preacher who would convict people asking someone, for instance, if they’ve ever stolen something. Person says, “Yeah I stole a 5 cent powder lollipop when I was 6 years old”. Ray: “What does that make you?”. Person :🤷 Ray: " A thief".
 
Robertanthony said:
I hope I’m not offending you, but your post calls to my mind Ray Comfort. He’s a preacher who would convict people asking someone, for instance, if they’ve ever stolen something. Person says, “Yeah I stole a 5 cent powder lollipop when I was 6 years old”. Ray: “What does that make you?”. Person :🤷 Ray: " A thief".
Click to expand...
Not offended, don’t worry about that.

The difference between what Ray said and what I’m saying is here:
40.png
me:
The mildness of sin comes into play after we mess up and commit it and are trying to recover, but to wave them away before we commit them as something that doesn’t matter much and so that we could commit guilt free in certain circumstances is to flirt with the more serious sin of presumption.
Click to expand...
That is, what I did as a 6 year old was bad, and shouldn’t have been done, but it was mild and in the past and I have (assuming I’ve done the normal Catholic thing) been forgiven and should move on. That’s fine.

What I’m saying is that I cannot say that it’s ok to plan on stealing a lollipop because it’s not a big deal.

If it’s a sin at all, we should not do it and should not plan on doing it, and should not pretend that it’s ok to do it. If we do it anyway, we should seek forgiveness and move on, and for a mild sin that may be pretty easy to do. But that doesn’t mean that it was actually good to do or that we should do it in under the presumption that we will be forgiven such a minor thing.

(Note, this is different from saying “I don’t know if it’s a sin, but if it is it is minor and my best judgement says I should do it” - that’s fine within reason. It’s the “I know this is a sin, but God will forgive me so I’ll do it anyway” that’s the problem.)
 
Marc_Anthony said:
So because we don’t have kids we can’t make judgments on what constitutes a lie or not?

That’s really what the thread is about. Santa is just an example.

Even Peter Kreeft, who doesn’t have a problem with belief in Santa Claus, didn’t believe this is a no-brainer, and made an argument to address the issue.

(BTW, Dr. Feser has children.)
Click to expand...
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.
I seem to remember a certain Dr. Spock in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. His books on child rearing were viewed by many American women as if they were Holy Writ. Through his books on child rearing he became became a multi-millionaire and ended up ruining the lives of many families and screwed up the lives of at least 2 generations of American children.
His teachings are directly responsible for the secularist society we live in today, a “gimme” society of unearned entitlement…
And incidentally, I have known the families of several professional Psychologists and Psychiatrists, and their children all grew up warped and as adults are under constant psychological counseling. Some professionals should really leave their professions at the office and not inflict their theories upon their families.
And, bye the bye, until you have children of your own, you have no right to moralize about how people rear their children and what they teach them because your pronouncements are mere intellectualization and have no basis in fact. Without the fantasies of the brothers Grimm, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, childhood in our society would be truely joyless.
Yes, we all can, and should, object to the secularization of our Christian Hollidays, but there is a huge difference between a pleasant myth and a lie.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
But if lying is always wrong, it is by definition evil. So you would be using evil means to achieve your ends.

Of course, “evil” is a loaded word because people connect evil with Hell and grave matter. I only meant it in the sense that it is always a sin. You cannot sin to achieve good ends, because no matter how good the ends are they are never good enough to justify sinning.
Click to expand...
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.
 
I am 50 years old and “believe” in Santa:D

No, not the Jolly fat elf, but I DO believe in what Santa represents. The pure love of giving:thumbsup:

The Three Wise men are “Santa” in that they brought gifts of love to our Saviour.

We all can be “Santa” when we give gifts of Love.

There is so much evil in the world, the concept of someone who is pure LOVE is not a bad thing and that is what Santa represents.👍

I once saw a painting of the figure of Santa kneeling before the manger of Jesus, gives a powerful message and reminds us all (or at least it should) of the true meaning of what Christmas is all about.

“Santa Claus” is welcomed in my home.

Happy Birthday Jesus my Saviour and thank you for sending Santa’s into our life.👍
 
MaryandJoseph said:
I am 50 years old and “believe” in Santa:D

No, not the Jolly fat elf, but I DO believe in what Santa represents. The pure love of giving:thumbsup:

The Three Wise men are “Santa” in that they brought gifts of love to our Saviour.

We all can be “Santa” when we give gifts of Love.

There is so much evil in the world, the concept of someone who is pure LOVE is not a bad thing and that is what Santa represents.👍

I once saw a painting of the figure of Santa kneeling before the manger of Jesus, gives a powerful message and reminds us all (or at least it should) of the true meaning of what Christmas is all about.

“Santa Claus” is welcomed in my home.

Happy Birthday Jesus my Saviour and thank you for sending Santa’s into our life.👍
Click to expand...
I believe in santa claus as well his name is Saint Nicholas of Myra who existed in the 4th century and showed arias why he should believe in orthodoxy and not heresy.

that’s the santa claus I believe in and I may incorporate traditions surrounded with him and not the secularization traditions that have happened in this country.
 
beehumble said:
I would bet most if not all who think kids should be told there is no Santa, don’t have kids. 😉
So they really don’t know what they are saying, they are out of their depth,so to speak! 😉
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Kids come up with wild stories all the time. Should we squash them from telling these stories because they are “lies?”

We’re simply talking to them on their own level. We can be like that psychologist relative of mine and speak to children like post-doctorate students, which kills their imagination and turns them into miserable little kids.
 
I have to think that either:

1.) This does not fall under God’s definition of “lying”
2.) Lying is not always a sin

If this were really a big deal, the Catholic Church would be telling all parents to stop teaching their kids about Santa, but they do not. Why?

When I was a child, we went to a children’s Christmas Eve mass at our parish. We sang carols, and in the middle of the homily, we heard sleigh bells outside. The priest paused, “What could that be? Is it Santa Claus?”. All of a sudden, Santa burst through the doors of the church, laughing “Ho Ho Ho!” with a giant bag of toys over his shoulder. He waddled to the front, where he proceeded to hand out toys to all of us, while the bemused priest looked on in delight. Then, he wished us all a very Merry Christmas and waddled out of the church, as the sleigh bells started up again and (we were all imagining) the reindeer flew off into the night with his sleigh. The priest then continued on with the homily, talking about the wonder of the birth of Jesus and the joy of Christmas.

This was over 25 years ago, and it is one of my most cherished childhood memories.

How ANYONE can see even a venial sin on the part of the priest, “Santa” or the parents (who were all in on it) is truly beyond me.
 
LaSainte said:
This was over 25 years ago, and it is one of my most cherished childhood memories.
Click to expand...
Same here.

I know our family is going to be laughing about “Elf on Shelf” for the rest of our lives. 🙂

Lying typically implies malicious (though not all definitions of lying do). Playing into a child’s fantasies does no so thing.
 
Bookcat said:
1.) forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9996084&postcount=3
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=120163&highlight=santa

(forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9996115&postcount=5)

2.) forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9996076&postcount=2
Click to expand...
I found #2 more satisfactory. No offense meant to anyone, but just a little observation: I find there is something pharisaic about wondering if it’s a sin to lie to a Nazi officer/soldier about the family of Jews you’re hiding somewhere in your house, I find it’s quite similar to a pharisee in Jesus’ time who would have thought twice about helping someone who was having a massive heart attack on the sabbath. Are we too bogged down in the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit of the law? Is that a symptom of scrupulosity?
 
Robertanthony said:
. No offense meant to anyone, but just a little observation: I find there is something pharisaic about wondering if it’s a sin to lie to a Nazi officer/soldier about the family of Jews you’re hiding somewhere in your house, I find it’s quite similar to a pharisee in Jesus’ time who would have thought twice about helping someone who was having a massive heart attack on the sabbath. Are we too bogged down in the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit of the law? Is that a symptom of scrupulosity?
Click to expand...
No such would not be a scruple (unless they thought it was a mortal sin)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9987507&postcount=13
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top