I would imagine that also includes deliberate omission of sentences or paragraphs from Catholic doctrine and taking those things purposely out of context as to mislead someone or to get your personal opinion or belief across, right? I have seen this done quite a few times on people’s personal websites…without a specific explanation that it isn’t Church Teaching but personal opinion.I missed reading this post before my previous post.
Mental reservation may be used if telling the truth would cause grave harm.
Or a person can remain silent.
Lying is the direct and deliberate deprivation of truth from an assertion. So silence, mental reservation (misleading someone), telling a fictional joke, telling a parable, or bluffing in poker would not be lies.
Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral. So one cannot choose a lesser intrinsically evil act in order to avoid committing a greater intrinsically evil act. One is required by the moral law to refrain from all intrinsically evil acts.
The CCC does not state that lying is justified in a circumstance when the other person has no right to a particular truth.
A not unexpected or implausible hypothetical. The nazis have read the CCC and are well aware that Catholics might remain silent or engage in word play to avoid answering the direct question of whether Jews are being hidden on the property. Silence or anything short of a “yes” or “no” will be taken as a “yes”, and will result in the execution of the entire household.I missed reading this post before my previous post.
Mental reservation may be used if telling the truth would cause grave harm.
Or a person can remain silent.
Lying is the direct and deliberate deprivation of truth from an assertion. So silence, mental reservation (misleading someone), telling a fictional joke, telling a parable, or bluffing in poker would not be lies.
Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral. So one cannot choose a lesser intrinsically evil act in order to avoid committing a greater intrinsically evil act. One is required by the moral law to refrain from all intrinsically evil acts.
The CCC does not state that lying is justified in a circumstance when the other person has no right to a particular truth.
How do you lie in a poker game??that, or a poker game.
The Church teaches that lying is intrinsically evil and therefore always immoral. If someone does not have a right to a particular truth, one may remain silent or use mental reservation, but lying remains immoral.A not unexpected or implausible hypothetical. The nazis have read the CCC and are well aware that Catholics might remain silent or engage in word play to avoid answering the direct question of whether Jews are being hidden on the property. Silence or anything short of a “yes” or “no” will be taken as a “yes”, and will result in the execution of the entire household.
Once again, do the Jew hunters have a right to the truth? And is telling them the Jews are not here when they actually are present a lie? I’m guessing that we agree that its not a lie and therefore not intrinsically evil.
Ron,The Church teaches that lying is intrinsically evil and therefore always immoral. If someone does not have a right to a particular truth, one may remain silent or use mental reservation, but lying remains immoral.
Some persons take the position that lying is sometimes moral, and these persons generally allow for supposedly-moral lying in numerous circumstances, little lies told to protect someone’s feelings, or to avoid a negative consequence, in various daily circumstances.
But no one takes the position that lying is only ever moral when there is grave danger to the lives of the innocent, or other grave circumstances.
What happens very commonly, though, is that people use the example of grave danger to the innocent (for some reason they often cite the Holocaust) in order to justify all the little convenient lies of daily life. It is reprehensible to use the deaths of millions of Jews during World War II as a way to justify selfish little lies told to avoid some relatively minor unpleasantness in daily life.
Those are not lies, but fictional stories. Children do not distinguish sharply between fanstasy and reality. When we tell children such stories, we are presenting a fanstasy, not a lie about reality.Ron,
Yes I agree to an extent with the above, especially using grave circumstances to justify “non-grave” actions.
And Yet, I have not done so but rather used the most benign examples of small children and the things we tell them - Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, causes of lightening and thunder…things like this. I find it interesting that you have chosen to avoid responding to these.
You say we may “remain silent or use mental reservation” yet I don’t see how either of these can be applied to Santa Claus… or even more, the Easter Bunny…
Do we Lie, and therefor sin, by encouraging these fantasies in small children?
Peace
James
Please do not conclude from my questions that I am trying to say the Church’s teaching is wrong. I am trying to better understand the teachings.Those are not lies, but fictional stories. Children do not distinguish sharply between fanstasy and reality. When we tell children such stories, we are presenting a fanstasy, not a lie about reality.
The Magisterium teaches that certain types of acts are intrinsically evil and therefore always immoral (because they have an evil moral object). It is not a valid theological argument, when the Church teaches, as a matter of faith, that an act is always immoral, to consider every possible act of that type, find an act that merely **seems **like it should be moral, and thereby conclude that the Church’s teaching is wrong. All you have are a few examples which seem like moral lies. This does not even speak to the principle taught by the Church that an evil moral object makes an act always immoral.
See Veritatis Splendor for extensive magisterial teaching on the moral object.Two - Could please clarify wht the “evil moral object is”? I believe I have an idea in this but would like to see the “official” definition. (Sorry if you already posted this and I missed it.
Morality is concerned with the knowingly chosen acts of human persons (called human acts, or simply acts). Certain acts are intrinsically evil. These acts are of a type that is inherently morally disordered; in and of themselves, these acts are immoral by the very nature of the act, independent of intention and circumstances. /QUOTE]
Ron, you do a great job of referencing the magesterium. Thanks.
Pardon my thickness here. The quoted phrases confuse me. ‘Knowingly’ and ‘chosen’ imply something of the mind set of the actor.
‘knowingly chosen’ implies intention, doesn’t it? If so, then it cannot be both intentional and unintentional.
What did I miss?
Thanks.
rc,Ron Conte;7307216:
Ron, you do a great job of referencing the magesterium. Thanks.Morality is concerned with the knowingly chosen acts of human persons (called human acts, or simply acts). Certain acts are intrinsically evil. These acts are of a type that is inherently morally disordered; in and of themselves, these acts are immoral by the very nature of the act, independent of intention and circumstances.
Pardon my thickness here. The quoted phrases confuse me. ‘Knowingly’ and ‘chosen’ imply something of the mind set of the actor.
‘knowingly chosen’ implies intention, doesn’t it? If so, then it cannot be both intentional and unintentional.
What did I miss?
Thanks.
Ron,See Veritatis Splendor for extensive magisterial teaching on the moral object.
What I will give is my own explanation, which of course is not ‘official’.
Morality is concerned with the knowingly chosen acts of human persons (called human acts, or simply acts). Certain acts are intrinsically evil. These acts are of a type that is inherently morally disordered; in and of themselves, these acts are immoral by the very nature of the act, independent of intention and circumstances. The knowing choice of this type of act is necessarily a disorder of the will – for morality concerns the knowing choices of the free will. Such acts are always objectively immoral. The knowing choice of this type of act is always a sin.
Intrinsically evil acts are inherently disordered because they are inherently directed toward an end, called the moral object, an end in terms of morality – not in terms of intention (the intended end) or consequences (the end result) – which is evil. A moral object is an end toward which a knowingly chosen act is inherently ordered (directed). An evil moral object is a moral object that is contrary to the love of God, and the love of neighbor as self, which is the basis for all morality.
But what makes an act intrinsically evil is not the attainment of the moral object, but rather the inherent ordering of the act itself toward that evil moral object, regardless of whether or not it is attained.
The intention to deceive is not the moral object. The first font of intention is in the subject who acts, so the intention is the purpose chosen by the human person. But the second font of moral object is in the act itself. The act itself is inherently directed toward an end, regardless of the purpose of the person who acts. The CCC explicitly states that deception is the intention, not the object.I decided to go back to the Catechism and found these “definitions” of lying….2482 “A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.”…
2483 … To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order (intend) to lead someone into error.I note that in both of these descriptions the term “intent” is used. Intent is given as a primary factor in what constitutes a lie. In other words, the “inherent moral object”, of a lie is the intent to deceive or cause error, which, of course, is evil.
In other words, in order for something to properly be called a “lie” (for the purpose of being a sin) the object must be to deceive, cause error.
Ron, without having had the opportunity to review the above in depth, I would like to address your choice of examples. While they are quite appropriate, they are also, at least to me, quite obvious. Note how your examples involve the large issues of human life, while those I pose are of a far less critical, life threatening, “mortal sin” nature.The intention to deceive is not the moral object. The first font of intention is in the subject who acts, so the intention is the purpose chosen by the human person. But the second font of moral object is in the act itself. The act itself is inherently directed toward an end, regardless of the purpose of the person who acts. The CCC explicitly states that deception is the intention, not the object.
The Catechism teaches that intention and moral object are two different fonts. The definition of lying mentions the intention to deceive, because this is the most common intention [first font] in lying. But any speaking of a falsehood (speaking or acting against the truth) is still a lie. The moral object is the denial of a truth, or assertion of a falsehood.
This is also the case with euthanasia. The intrinsically evil act of euthanasia is murder with the purpose (intention) of relieving suffering. But if the same act is committed for a different purpose or intention, the moral object is unchanged and so the act is still murder.
Pope John Paul II: “Regardless of intentions and circumstances, euthanasia is always an intrinsically evil act, a violation of God’s law and an offence against the dignity of the human person.”
Letter of his Holiness Pope John Paul II to the Elderly
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_01101999_elderly_en.html
Pope John Paul II: “Despite the intentions or circumstances, direct euthanasia is an act which is always and per se intrinsically evil…”
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1993/november/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19931111_pennsylvania-ad-limina_en.html
Similarly, abortion is murder in the circumstance that the person who is killed is prenatal. But if the murderer waits until the prenatal is born before killing him, then the circumstance has changed, but the moral object has not changed.
Intention and circumstances cannot make an intrinsically evil act moral, nor can a change in intention or circumstances change the moral object.
So even though the catechism states the most common intention for lying (the purpose of deceiving), it is still an intrinsically evil act if the purpose changes.
The same analysis applies to contraception.
Lying is usually done for the purpose of deceiving, but even with a different purpose, the moral object remains evil.
- A married couple use a condom for the purpose (intention) of avoiding pregnancy. This is contraception and is intrinsically evil.
- A married couple use a condom to prevent disease transmission. The intention has changed, but the nature of the act is the same. This is still contraception and still intrinsically evil.
- A married couple use a abortifacient contraceptives for the purpose (intention) of avoiding pregnancy. This is contraception and abortion, and is intrinsically evil.
- A married couple use abortifacient contraceptives with the purpose of treating a medical disorder. The intention has changed, but the nature of the act is the same. This is still contraception and abortion, and still intrinsically evil.
You are losing me again.The intention to deceive is not the moral object. The first font of intention is in the subject who acts, so the intention is the purpose chosen by the human person. But the second font of moral object is in the act itself. The act itself is inherently directed toward an end, regardless of the purpose of the person who acts. The CCC explicitly states that deception is the intention, not the object.
In the items quoted from the Catechism (my main source of teaching) nothing is said about “fonts”. The two references state what a lie is. It is, to speak or act against truth in order to lead someone into error. It consists of, 1) speaking a (known) falsehood with the 2) intent to deceive….The Catechism teaches that intention and moral object are two different fonts. The definition of lying mentions the intention to deceive, because this is the most common intention [first font] in lying. But any speaking of a falsehood (speaking or acting against the truth) is still a lie. The moral object is the denial of a truth, or assertion of a falsehood.
OK, this is an easy one….Now explain how it applies to telling an untruth to someone to ensure their surprise at their surprise birthday party….This is also the case with euthanasia. The intrinsically evil act of euthanasia is murder with the purpose (intention) of relieving suffering. But if the same act is committed for a different purpose or intention, the moral object is unchanged and so the act is still murder.
From the Didache (Apostolic fathers, ~100AD) ch.3I see no such blanket prohibition.
Yes - The Bolded section is at least part of the reason for my inquiry.Why do we spend so much time trying to find really good exceptions to the rules or possible loopholes in each of the commandments?
I think where there is a lot of confusion about what is or isn’t lying is because we generally accept that any statement that is not true is a lie. The examples mentioned earlier about pants making someone look fat or an ugly baby are not good examples because any answer cannot be an objective reply. Any response is the speaker’s opinion which cannot be true or false. In these specific examples, there is no objective truth about how fat looks or what is ugly.
We have to speak the objective truth about something when someone is entitled to the answer. Does this mean that when a child asks us a question that an adult answer needs to be given in order not to lie? No. The response should be age appropriate but should never be a lie.
I play at a semi-professional level here in Las Vegas (meaning I play a lot) and I ask people all the time what they have, or whether they’ can beat a certain hand (which might or might not be my hand) or whether they’d call. A bluff is a nonverbal misrepresentation, someone who thinks he’s picked off a tell is a prime target for another kind of deceit.How do you lie in a poker game??
I have never had anyone ask me what cards I have when I have played poker.