Sinning to save someone's life

[St_Francis]

That’s great. You’re not allowed to lie but you can use every round about way tooward deception possible.

You’re not allowed to deceive any old time. If the person has the right to the truth, if there is reason to deceive, then the CCC is saying it’s different.

Look at it this way: the gunman has your child. He says, commit a sin and I will let your child go.

If I chose lying as the sin, then the gunman will not be deceived by what I say, but I will have uttered an untruth. I will have gone against God Himself in favor of my child.

Consider the story of Abraham: he was told to kill his son himself, and he was willing to do that.

Consider the story of God: He sent His Son to be killed also.

 

[EviPolevhia]

If I chose lying as the sin, then the gunman will not be deceived by what I say, but I will have uttered an untruth. I will have gone against God Himself in favor of my child.

So in the example you could state “The Sun is made of blueberry ice cream”, a lie, and your child would live. That would be an affront to God? Letting someone die is a better thing then to bear false witness against no one?

Consider the story of Abraham: he was told to kill his son himself, and he was willing to do that.

Consider the story of God: He sent His Son to be killed also.

Murder is preferable to disobeying God. And Human Sacrifice can be justified given the right circumstances. And a white lie is more important then a human life. Where is this in error?

 

[St_Francis]

So in the example you could state “The Sun is made of blueberry ice cream”, a lie, and your child would live. That would be an affront to God? Letting someone die is a better thing then to bear false witness against no one?

Murder is preferable to disobeying God. And Human Sacrifice can be justified given the right circumstances. And a white lie is more important then a human life. Where is this in error?

The problem with the scenario, besides its extreme unlikeliness, is that it involves an enormously emotional situation.

Suppose I proposed: there is a woman murderer holding a gun to a man’s head. She says she will kill him if he does not commit a sin. This might at least make it a little easier for some Catholics to see the issues involved.

A sin will be committed one way or another, the issue boils down to who will commit the sin?

Few of us have the true understanding of the magnitude of the offense against God by the commission of any single sin. Lying is objectively a mortal sin–when I say objectively, I mean that it is listed as such, not that subjectively, or in particular cases, the guilt might not be mitigated.

Suppose the man choses a different sin. Killing several people, for example, would be a sin. Do you think it would be all right for this man to kill several people in order to save his own life?

Do you think it would be all right for the man in the original question to kill several people in order to save his son’s life?

This all boils down to how you consider sin. If a person considers sin as an offense against Christ, Who suffered death on a cross for us, we might hope that were we ever to be in that situation that we would receive the grace not to offend Him.

 

[jimmy]

You’re not allowed to deceive any old time. If the person has the right to the truth, if there is reason to deceive, then the CCC is saying it’s different.

Look at it this way: the gunman has your child. He says, commit a sin and I will let your child go.

If I chose lying as the sin, then the gunman will not be deceived by what I say, but I will have uttered an untruth. I will have gone against God Himself in favor of my child.

Consider the story of Abraham: he was told to kill his son himself, and he was willing to do that.

Consider the story of God: He sent His Son to be killed also.

So, are you telling me that if you tell the gunman the sky is green you have sinned. That is a complete joke. You make a meaningless statement out to be some kind of existential turning point or something. Everything hinges on the fact that you state that the sky is blue, not green. You favor a meaningless fact over the life of your child. Do you think God cares if you recognize the color of the sky?

 

[St_Francis]

So, are you telling me that if you tell the gunman the sky is green you have sinned. That is a complete joke. You make a meaningless statement out to be some kind of existential turning point or something. Everything hinges on the fact that you state that the sky is blue, not green. You favor a meaningless fact over the life of your child. Do you think God cares if you recognize the color of the sky?

This *is *a fictional scenario, you know.

Read my last post above.

 

[jimmy]

This *is *a fictional scenario, you know.

Read my last post above.

It is irrelevavt that is a fictional scenario. The scenario with Jews was not. You wouldn’t be able to tell a lie to save a mans life. That is a problem. You have placed a law above Loire and charity.

 

[St_Francis]

It is irrelevavt that is a fictional scenario. The scenario with Jews was not.

The situation differs form that of the Nazis and the Jews.

With the Nazis looking for Jews, they were not requiring a sin to save a Jewish person. They just asked a householder if there were Jews there, or something along those lines. In fact, they probably didn’t even usually ask; they probably just barged on in to look for themselves, because of course, they wouldn’t *believe *a negative answer. Notice that our police officers do not ring people’s doorbells and ask if they have evidence of a crime in their house–they just get a search warrant and look for themselves.

If the Nazis were to ask the question, a mental reservation could be used: There are no Jews here [in the foyer]. I saw the Rosen family on the other side of town [last month], I was seeing some friends (if asked why one was out at night), because the Nazis were asking a question, ***not *requiring one to sin as the OP proposed.

You wouldn’t be able to tell a lie to save a mans life. That is a problem. You have placed a law above Loire and charity.

Now that the difference between the situation with the Nazis and the fictional scenario is clear, let’s look at the fictional scenario.

One could trick the would-be murderer by telling a truth that he would not believe.

One could commit a sin.

Committing a sin is not only not acceptable for a Catholic, it would be completely ironic, because it is an offense against God Who allowed His Son to be killed that we might live. God gave up the life of His Son for us, but we will not give up the life of our child for Him?

You say that by refusing to commit a sin, the parent would be placing “a law” above love and charity. But we are talking about God’s Law, not a civil law, and God’s Laws are based on love. Our first love must be for Him, because every human person we have on earth to love was given to us by Him.

 

[jimmy]

The situation differs form that of the Nazis and the Jews.

With the Nazis looking for Jews, they were not requiring a sin to save a Jewish person. They just asked a householder if there were Jews there, or something along those lines. In fact, they probably didn’t even usually ask; they probably just barged on in to look for themselves, because of course, they wouldn’t *believe *a negative answer. Notice that our police officers do not ring people’s doorbells and ask if they have evidence of a crime in their house–they just get a search warrant and look for themselves.

If the Nazis were to ask the question, a mental reservation could be used: There are no Jews here [in the foyer]. I saw the Rosen family on the other side of town [last month], I was seeing some friends (if asked why one was out at night), because the Nazis were asking a question, ***not ***requiring one to sin as the OP proposed.

You simply side stepped the issue. Rather than answer the problem you avoided it. You change it by saying, ‘well the nazi’s would probably barge in.’ You avoided the question. The truth of it is that the life of the Jew and charity are less valuable than the fact that you are hiding the Jew. It would be better that the Jew die than tell a lie about his location.

It’s a bit contradictory really. I have the right, and even the obligation, to kill if necessary to defend my life or the life of those I love. But I can’t tell a lie to the aggressor to protect my life or the life of those I love.

Now that the difference between the situation with the Nazis and the fictional scenario is clear, let’s look at the fictional scenario.

The difference isn’t clear as mentioned above.

One could trick the would-be murderer by telling a truth that he would not believe.

One could commit a sin.

Committing a sin is not only not acceptable for a Catholic, it would be completely ironic, because it is an offense against God Who allowed His Son to be killed that we might live. God gave up the life of His Son for us, but we will not give up the life of our child for Him?

You say that by refusing to commit a sin, the parent would be placing “a law” above love and charity. But we are talking about God’s Law, not a civil law, and God’s Laws are based on love. Our first love must be for Him, because every human person we have on earth to love was given to us by Him.

And you show your love for God by loving your neighbor. Read the epistle of John.

So it is love that says the fact that a Jew is in your house is more important than the life of the Jew?

 

[St_Francis]

You simply side stepped the issue. Rather than answer the problem you avoided it. You change it by saying, ‘well the nazi’s would probably barge in.’ You avoided the question. The truth of it is that the life of the Jew and charity are less valuable than the fact that you are hiding the Jew. It would be better that the Jew die than tell a lie about his location.

Well, the situations *are *different. The OP had listed a direct requirement to commit a sin in order to stop him from murdering the child. This is different from situations in which a lie might seem to be helpful.

It’s a bit contradictory really. I have the right, and even the obligation, to kill if necessary to defend my life or the life of those I love. But I can’t tell a lie to the aggressor to protect my life or the life of those I love.

It’s not contradictory, you just don’t understand the foundations of the moral theology for the various acts. The prohibition is against what we would casually call murder, *not *against taking a life in the course of defending or accidentally, etc.

And you show your love for God by loving your neighbor. Read the epistle of John.

Where does it say in John that one should offend God in order to show that one loves one’s neighbor?

So it is love that says the fact that a Jew is in your house is more important than the life of the Jew?

I don’t understand this comment

 

[jimmy]

I don’t understand this comment

You can not lie about the existence of the Jew in your house. It is the fact of him being there that is important. The only moral imperative in the scenario is that you can not deny that fact. If it comes down to the death of you and the Jew, or denying that fact then you are better off dying and allowing the Jew to die. As I said, the fact has more value than a human life.

 

[Bill_Martin]

You can not lie about the existence of the Jew in your house. It is the fact of him being there that is important. The only moral imperative in the scenario is that you can not deny that fact. If it comes down to the death of you and the Jew, or denying that fact then you are better off dying and allowing the Jew to die. As I said, the fact has more value than a human life.

Remind me never to hide in your house.

I’d absolutely lie to save a person’s life if I knew the person knocking was going to murder him.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I will say “sure” and kill the hostage taker. Then I will light a cigarette, puff once, say, “thou shalt not kill” and then throw the butt at his corpse.

 

[jimmy]

Remind me never to hide in your house.

I’d absolutely lie to save a person’s life if I knew the person knocking was going to murder him.

Haha, I agree with you; I would lie right to their face. I am arguing against St. Francis above though, and his perspective is that you can’t lie. I am simply making the point that when it comes down to it, life has less value than historical facts in St Francis’s perspective.

 

[Bill_Martin]

Haha, I agree with you; I would lie right to their face. I am arguing against St. Francis above though, and his perspective is that you can’t lie. I am simply making the point that when it comes down to it, life has less value than historical facts in St Francis’s perspective.

Okay, I thought you were taking that position. Never mind.

 

[St_Francis]

I’m sorry that you do not understand the moral theology of your own Faith, Jimmy, Bill, and Constantine.

Suring the day, we cannot see the stars, many of which are much larger than our own star, becasue the Sun shines so brightly. We must make an effort to remember the stars are there.

In the same way, the material consumes our senses, and it is hard to remember the spritual realm where God resides.

 

[jimmy]

I will say “sure” and kill the hostage taker. Then I will light a cigarette, puff once, say, “thou shalt not kill” and then throw the butt at his corpse.

That is actually quite good because you chose the sin that happens to be acceptable. You found a hole in the argument.

 

[jimmy]

I’m sorry that you do not understand the moral theology of your own Faith, Jimmy, Bill, and Constantine.

Suring the day, we cannot see the stars, many of which are much larger than our own star, becasue the Sun shines so brightly. We must make an effort to remember the stars are there.

In the same way, the material consumes our senses, and it is hard to remember the spritual realm where God resides.

It is also easy to get your head stuck in the clouds so that your feet don’t reach the ground.

 

[St_Francis]

I will say “sure” and kill the hostage taker. Then I will light a cigarette, puff once, say, “thou shalt not kill” and then throw the butt at his corpse.

I misunderstood your reply earlier–Now that I understand I say this is the best answer I’ve read to the scenario.

 

[Bill_Martin]

I’m sorry that you do not understand the moral theology of your own Faith, Jimmy, Bill, and Constantine.

Suring the day, we cannot see the stars, many of which are much larger than our own star, becasue the Sun shines so brightly. We must make an effort to remember the stars are there.

In the same way, the material consumes our senses, and it is hard to remember the spritual realm where God resides.

The Church says that I have a grave duty to defend someone whose life I am responsible for. I can use legitimate defense in that situation, including deadly force if necessary.

But according to you, I cannot lie to do the same thing.

 

[St_Francis]

The Church says that I have a grave duty to defend someone whose life I am responsible for. I can use legitimate defense in that situation, including deadly force if necessary.

But according to you, I cannot lie to do the same thing.

Right, because some good things are *better than *other good things.

The thing about using deadly force is that it does become sinful at the point at which what you want to do is to kill the person. If you *must *kill the person for effective defense, that is unfortunate. But if there is a point at which what you want to do is just to see that person dead, then that aspect would be sinful.

So, the taking of a life can be sinful or not sinful; it can be murder or it can be killing.

Mere killing, as in defense, is not sinful, so you ahve not committed a sin in the protection of the life.

However, if you lie, that is in and of itself sinful, so you can’t do it, *even *to save a person’s life.

Deceit, otoh, is all right in that situation where it wouldn’t be in others.