Sinning to avoid sin--when is it OK?

[Prodigal_Son]

If someone is forcing you to do something or hundreds will die, you no longer have free will and the criteria for sin no longer exists. There is certainly a sin there, but it is not on you.

False. If someone puts a gun to another person’s head and tells you to rape someone, you are obliged not to do so. Same if they threaten 800 people.

 

[Rau]

…The Church does not -]dogmatically/-] teach that lying is always wrong. I’m quite certain of that. There was a controversy during the creation of the recent Catechism about this.

Might be worth looking to the catechism for possible support to this claim.

As for your point on theft, that seems to be a point in semantics. Most people would call theft “taking something that isn’t yours without getting permission”. Taking food during a famine is, thus, clearly theft, in the ordinary use of language.

Moral theology often does not use language in the ordinary way. Blue’s remark in this regard is correct. “Thou shall’t not steal”, like all the negatively expressed commandments, has no exceptions. The meaning of “steal” has to be properly understood.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Of course in such a situation, the culpability for lying would be largely if not completely mitigated.

I think this is the key point, personally. Remember that sin requires that you freely consent to it. If you’re lying to save someone’s life because Nazis are at the door with machine guns, you’re hardly consenting. You’re under extreme duress.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That was my point: if it is justified by Double Effect, it is never a direct killing. Why? Because the intention is never to end a life. That is always just a side effect.

Some of this may be semantics, though. I think my description is accurate to Catholic teaching, but it doesn’t use the same terms that every other Catholic theologian would use.

The Church does not dogmatically teach that lying is always wrong. I’m quite certain of that. There was a controversy during the creation of the recent Catechism about this.

As for your point on theft, that seems to be a point in semantics. Most people would call theft “taking something that isn’t yours without getting permission”. Taking food during a famine is, thus, clearly theft, in the ordinary use of language.

1. You need to decide whether you run with Church definitions or that of other organisations. You cannot run with the hares and hunt with the hounds which is what you have done below sorry. Your definition of theft is clearly at odds with that of the Catholic Church.
   Likewise with lying.
2. You are mistaken re State Killings. Currently, as has always been asserted in the past, it is prefectly acceptable to hold that legitimate Capital Punishment is a direct killing in the place of God. I personally disagree and hold that it is PODE based. That too is becoming an acceptable position. However I accept it is not the traditional one.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Rau, the issue of whether lying is ever permissible was controversial before the publication of the Catechism, and the two drafts of the Catechism on this issue did not affect the continuation of the theological controversy. See: jimmyakin.com/2013/05/pope-francis-and-lying-to-save-life.html and jimmyakin.com/2005/02/ratzinger_on_th.html.

Blue Horizon,

The same truths can be expressed in different words. I prefer expressing them in words that do not stretch the meanings of ordinary words beyond comprehension. I feel that this facilitates communication to those who are not Christian.

 

[Rau]

Rau, the issue of whether lying is ever permissible was controversial before the publication of the Catechism, and the two drafts of the Catechism on this issue did not affect the continuation of the theological controversy. See: jimmyakin.com/2013/05/pope-francis-and-lying-to-save-life.html and jimmyakin.com/2005/02/ratzinger_on_th.html.

I pointed you to the Catechism because it is our go to reference for what the Church teaches, not because it confers some special status on any teaching. So the 2nd link is not relevant. But the first link makes this ‘relevant’ contribution:

“…advocates of the lying-is-sometimes-not-wrong view should bear in mind that the historical majority position and at least the wording in the current edition of the Catechism is against them.”

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I pointed you to the Catechism because it is our go to reference for what the Church teaches, not because it confers some special status on any teaching. So the 2nd link is not relevant. But the first link makes this ‘relevant’ contribution:

“…advocates of the lying-is-sometimes-not-wrong view should bear in mind that the historical majority position and at least the wording in the current edition of the Catechism is against them.”

I’m fine with that. I don’t think I was saying mine was anything like “the Catholic view”, but I do think it is well within the tent of Catholicism.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue Horizon,

The same truths can be expressed in different words. I prefer expressing them in words that do not stretch the meanings of ordinary words beyond comprehension. I feel that this facilitates communication to those who are not Christian.

I have no issue recognising that the Church has unsettled views on the finer points of many teachings. And I appreciated the sources you provided on the grey areas re lying in the different Catechism versions which was something I had not averted to.
Re killing I personally agree with you that all direct killing is wrong and it can only be justified by TPODE. However the traditional teaching re State killing denies this and it still stands.

You were therefore mistaken to make the following statement below:
“it’s never permissible to kill a person if your intent is simply “to make that person dead”.”
The State may do exactly this in some circumstances, ie a directly intended killing for the sake of just punishment."

Your explanation of theft was also mistaken, and not just as a matter of using synonyms for the sake of apologetics. It does seem to indicate a slight error in actual moral analysis and principle.

 

[Rau]

Prodigal: “it’s never permissible to kill a person if your intent is simply “to make that person dead”.”

Blue: The State may do exactly this in some circumstances, ie a directly intended killing for the sake of just punishment."

The “intent” of CP can’t be described as “to make a person dead”. That fails to reveal the intent. Were harming a person the intent (intended end) the act would surely be immoral.

The State in CP takes a life for good intent and the moral object of the act is good. But there may be better choices than CP.