Can A Sin Be Justified?

[zunshynn]

Raphael is still correct, Jim... He never said that lying to a Nazi to protect people hidden in your house was equivalently evil to lying with malice, but that doesn't make the lie not a sin. Sure, it's less grave, but still not the morally acceptable decision to make... the morally acceptable decision, like he said is to mislead with silence or a truthful answer that does not give them the information they do not deserve to know.

Of course, the pressure in such a situation would also be an extenuating circumstance, I would think, but it still wouldn't entirely make the lie not sinful.

Sorry for my awkward wording here.

Edited November 9, 2009 by zunshynn

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='09 November 2009 - 01:41 PM' timestamp='1257792109' post='1998877']
Raphael is still correct, Jim... He never said that lying to a Nazi to protect people hidden in your house was equivalently evil to lying with malice, but that doesn't make the lie not a sin. Sure, it's less grave, but still not the morally acceptable decision to make... the morally acceptable decision, like he said is to mislead with silence or a truthful answer that does not give them the information they do not deserve to know.

Of course, the pressure in such a situation would also be an extenuating circumstance, I would think, but it still wouldn't entirely make the lie not sinful.

Sorry for my awkward wording here.
[/quote]
Thank you. Certainly the culpability would be diminished in some cases (notably the example with the Nazis), but it is still objectively sinful.

As for your quote, Jim, it never says lying is okay, it simply says that moral evasion can be used...asking a redirecting question rather than answering or using a statement that has a double meaning and may easily be misinterpreted by the other as what you'd like to say (that would be a lie). Further, saying something like, "the owner of this house..." deflects the question from what one would answer oneself to what another might answer. All of these would be examples of evasion and not lying.

[Apotheoun]

If I was hiding Jews at my house and the Nazis came and asked if I was hiding any Jews I would say, "No, there are no Jews here."

Now it would not be my fault that the Gestapo agents failed to ask me what I meant by the word "here."

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Raphael' date='09 November 2009 - 02:55 PM' timestamp='1257792908' post='1998894']
Thank you. Certainly the culpability would be diminished in some cases (notably the example with the Nazis), but it is still objectively sinful.

As for your quote, Jim, it never says lying is okay, it simply says that moral evasion can be used...asking a redirecting question rather than answering or using a statement that has a double meaning and may easily be misinterpreted by the other as what you'd like to say (that would be a lie). Further, saying something like, "the owner of this house..." deflects the question from what one would answer oneself to what another might answer. All of these would be examples of evasion and not lying.
[/quote]


Here's more to digest.


[quote]From the middle of the eighteenth century onwards a few discordant voices have been heard from time to time. Some of these, as Van der Velden and a few French and [url="../cathen/02395a.htm"]Belgian[/url] writers, while admitting in general a lie is intrinsically wrong, yet argued that there are exceptions to the rule. As it is lawful to kill another in [url="../cathen/13691a.htm"]self-defense[/url], so in [url="../cathen/13691a.htm"]self-defense[/url] it is lawful to tell a lie. Others wished to change the received definition of a lie. A recent writer in [url="../cathen/11480c.htm"]Paris[/url] series, [i]Science et Religion[/i], wishes to add to the common definition some such words as "made to one who has the [url="../cathen/13055c.htm"]right[/url] to [url="../cathen/15073a.htm"]truth[/url]." So that a [url="../cathen/05781a.htm"]false[/url] statement knowingly made to one who has not a [url="../cathen/13055c.htm"]right[/url] to the [url="../cathen/15073a.htm"]truth[/url] will not be a lie. This, however, seems to ignore the malice which a lie has in itself, like [url="../cathen/07610a.htm"]hypocrisy[/url], and to derive it solely from the social consequence of lying. Most of these writers who attack the common opinion show that they have very imperfectly grasped its [url="../cathen/15073a.htm"]true[/url] meaning. At any rate they have made little or no impression on the common teaching of the [url="../cathen/03449a.htm"]Catholic[/url] [url="../cathen/13554b.htm"]schools[/url]. [/quote]


Jim

[LivingStone]

I agree, a sin can never be justified. Lying is an intrinsic evil act that can never be 'permitted' or 'tolerated' for the sake of a greater good. We cannot reduce Catholic Moral Principles to consequentialism or proportionalism as explained in JP 2's Veritatis Splendor.

But I had a question. I am not a good fan of sarcasm, but are the following considered a sin:
a) a sarcastic statement in which a false statement is satirically articulated
b) a joke of some sort
c) telling kids that Santa really does exist (or the Easter Bunny, etc.)

Thanks guys.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='09 November 2009 - 02:07 PM' timestamp='1257793657' post='1998908']
Here's more to digest.


[quote]From the middle of the eighteenth century onwards a few discordant voices have been heard from time to time. Some of these, as Van der Velden and a few French and Belgian writers, while admitting in general a lie is intrinsically wrong, yet argued that there are exceptions to the rule. As it is lawful to kill another in self-defense, so in self-defense it is lawful to tell a lie. Others wished to change the received definition of a lie. A recent writer in Paris series, Science et Religion, wishes to add to the common definition some such words as "made to one who has the right to truth." So that a false statement knowingly made to one who has not a right to the truth will not be a lie. This, however, seems to ignore the malice which a lie has in itself, like hypocrisy, and to derive it solely from the social consequence of lying. Most of these writers who attack the common opinion show that they have very imperfectly grasped its true meaning. At any rate they have made little or no impression on the common teaching of the Catholic schools.[/quote]


Jim
[/quote]
I'm at a loss for how that's supposed to disagree with what I said. So there have been a few dissenters. Fortunately, we believe in what the Church teaches in Christ's name, not the voices of a few dissenters.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='LivingStone' date='09 November 2009 - 02:14 PM' timestamp='1257794097' post='1998916']
I agree, a sin can never be justified. Lying is an intrinsic evil act that can never be 'permitted' or 'tolerated' for the sake of a greater good. We cannot reduce Catholic Moral Principles to consequentialism or proportionalism as explained in JP 2's Veritatis Splendor.

But I had a question. I am not a good fan of sarcasm, but are the following considered a sin:
a) a sarcastic statement in which a false statement is satirically articulated
b) a joke of some sort
c) telling kids that Santa really does exist (or the Easter Bunny, etc.)

Thanks guys.
[/quote]

A and B. If it is understood to be a satire or joke and not seriously meant, then it does not come with the intent to deceive, which is part of a lie.
C. I would argue (and this could be debatable) that if it is presented as fable and folklore and not as a matter of fact, it is not a lie. Young children will probably believe in Santa even if he is presented as fable, but if asked point blank, it would certainly be a lie to say the toys under the tree came from a jolly fat guy who lives in the Arctic, unless of course you happen to be a rather happy, overweight individual who lives in Alaska or Northern Canada or Siberia or some similar region.

I would opt to tell the kids about Santa that Santa is another name for St. Nicholas of Myra and that he is known for his generosity, so we could say that Christmas gift giving is done in his name (along with the Three Kings).

[StColette]

"From the middle of the eighteenth century onwards [b]a few discordant voices[/b] have been heard from time to time."

Yeah, we should really listen to discordant voices.

I think the Catechism is pretty clear on what the Church says about lying

2482 "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving."281 The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."282

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error. By injuring man's relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. The deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. The culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Raphael' date='09 November 2009 - 03:23 PM' timestamp='1257794588' post='1998924']
I'm at a loss for how that's supposed to disagree with what I said. So there have been a few dissenters. Fortunately, we believe in what the Church teaches in Christ's name, not the voices of a few dissenters.
[/quote]

This sentence was of importance, which supports my original, that a lie has to be told with malice, to be a sin.

[quote]
This, however, seems to ignore the malice which a lie has in itself[/quote]


As the statement, which comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia BTW, says, if its right to kill in defense, it would be right to lie in defense.

Its not whether its lie or not, but whether the lie told was a sin or not.

The article I presented seems to say in the scenario I presented, it is not.

Jim

[StColette]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='09 November 2009 - 02:31 PM' timestamp='1257795107' post='1998932']
As the statement, which comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia BTW, says, if its right to kill in defense, it would be right to lie in defense.

Its not whether its lie or not, but whether the lie told was a sin or not.

The article I presented seems to say in the scenario I presented, it is not.

Jim
[/quote]

The statement within the article from The Catholic Encyclopedia is from, I quote, "From the middle of the eighteenth century onwards a few discordant voices have been heard from time to time. Some of these, as Van der Velden and a few French and Belgian writers, while admitting in general a lie is intrinsically wrong, yet argued that there are exceptions to the rule. As it is lawful to kill another in self-defense, so in self-defense it is lawful to tell a lie." The position that it is lawful to lie in self-defense is the idea or statement coming from these writers who the same Catholic Encyclopedia article calls "discordant voices".

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='09 November 2009 - 02:31 PM' timestamp='1257795107' post='1998932']
This sentence was of importance, which supports my original, that a lie has to be told with malice, to be a sin.

As the statement, which comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia BTW, says, if its right to kill in defense, it would be right to lie in defense.

Its not whether its lie or not, but whether the lie told was a sin or not.

The article I presented seems to say in the scenario I presented, it is not.

Jim
[/quote]

As the same article says, dissenters were claiming that it would be okay to lie in defense. That's not support from the Church for your position, it's being held up as bad theology in the article.

Obviously, since the definition of lying is that it is a falsehood told with the intent to deceive, intent counts for something, but so long as that intent is part of what a lie is, then we must say that a lie has an inherent malice, which is what your sentence quoted above is saying. Lies have an inherent malice. Therefore, all lies, since they have inherent malice, are sin.

However, telling a falsehood for a different intention (not to deceive, but, say, as part of a joke that is understood as a joke) or telling a truth to deceive both miss the mark of what a lie is and therefore are not lies.

A falsehood stated with the intent to deceive, however, is a lie, and stating a falsehood with that intent, no matter what reason one might have for doing it, is a sin.

Please go read Veritatis Splendor, #71 ff. It addresses the consequentialist teleological ethic you are using and it's far more in-depth and updated than the old Catholic Encyclopedia.

[StColette]

If lying was okay in matters of self-defense then when asked "Are you a Christian?" in order to save your life you could say "No, I'm not." Now, I'm pretty sure it's wrong for a Christian to deny that they are in fact a Christian, even if faced with death. Fear could contribute as to why they lied and reduce their culpability but it would still be wrong. If lying in this manner was not wrong, then why does Scripture portray it as wrong when Peter does this very thing, 3 times no less.

btw, the Catechism and Church in general is always clear when there is an exception. For example, the Catechism clearly says that in matters of self-defense killing an aggressor in order to preserve your life or the life of someone else is permissible.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I'd like to add that killing an aggressor in self-defense is not murder, but killing.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Raphael' date='09 November 2009 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1257797362' post='1998968']
I'd like to add that killing an aggressor in self-defense is not murder, but killing.
[/quote]


The Catechism is explicitly clear in saying that the right to self defense cannot be considered an exception to the prohibition against killing.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='09 November 2009 - 04:18 PM' timestamp='1257797890' post='1998976']
[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/caption_yes.gif[/img]

The Catechism is explicitly clear in saying that the right to self defense cannot be considered an exception to the prohibition against killing.
[/quote]


Thats prohibition against murder.

[quote]2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow

[/quote]

Jim