MIKolbe Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 [quote]Eleventh: Yes, the Hebrew midwives, Rahab and Judith lied. Not only that, Israel slaughtered men, women, children and cattle in ancient semitic warfare. Care to appeal to that aspect of Old Testament morality while we’re at it? St. Thomas tells us (just like the Church today) that lying is always a sin. Honest. That’s what he says. Yes, he is nuanced in his approach (like I am) and recognizes that not all speech acts must be in conformity with flat-footed literalism. But he does not tell us “Bible characters are allow to lie and so are we.” He says: Reply to Objection 2. The midwives were rewarded, not for their lie, but for their fear of God, and for their good-will, which latter led them to tell a lie. Hence it is expressly stated (Exodus 2:21): “And because the midwives feared God, He built them houses.” But the subsequent lie was not meritorious.[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) [quote name='peach_cube' timestamp='1298209728' post='2214103'] So to be clear then, when Raphael passed himself off as a human being to Tobit, since it was a deception it was a sin. When Rahab helped the Jewish spies and Judith passed herself off as a prostitute to General Holofernes, both sinful? Yes or no. [/quote] Did Raphael say, "Dude, check me out, I'm your cuz?" No. He said he was "He whom God has helped: the great son of God has been Gracious." "Azariah, son of Ananias the great." Not his fault Tobias had relatives with names much like that. [i]Deception[/i] is not a sin. [i]Lying[/i] is a sin.[i] [/i]Deception ≠ lying. Is all deception lying? No. It's not. Is some deception lying? Why, yes! Rahab? Yes. Rahab lied through her teeth. Lying is a sin. You also forgot the midwives who lied to Pharaoh about the Hebrew babies. They lied too. St. Thomas went into all this: God rewarded them for their good will, not for their lies. St. Thomas also said "A lie is sinful not only because it injures one's neighbor, but also [b]on account of its inordinateness[/b], [b][intrinsically disordered nature: that means it can never be good, for any reason, ever. But can it ever be good for any reason? No. No, it cannot.][/b] as stated above in this Article. Now it is [b]not allowed to make use of anything inordinate in order to ward off injury or defects from another:[/b] as neither is it lawful to steal in order to give alms, except perhaps in a case of necessity when all things are common. [b]Therefore it is not lawful to tell a lie in order to deliver another from any danger whatever.[/b] Nevertheless it is lawful to hide the truth prudently, by keeping it back, as Augustine says (Contra Mend. x)." ~Sternhauser Edited February 20, 2011 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peach_cube Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Okay, I see what you are saying, and on a logical level it makes sense. However, it just doesn't sit well with me. The whole thing feels heartless. I am just curious as to where the outrage was on this issue before the Lila Rose and PP issue came about. I've been on phatmass for almost 8 years and can't recall anyone speaking out against undercover police work, secret shoppers, surprise birthday parties, undercover journalism, etc. I will bring this up with my confessor, forgive me if I follow his advice if it is contrary to yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) [quote name='peach_cube' timestamp='1298212074' post='2214107'] Okay, I see what you are saying, and on a logical level it makes sense. However, it just doesn't sit well with me. The whole thing feels heartless. I am just curious as to where the outrage was on this issue before the Lila Rose and PP issue came about. I've been on phatmass for almost 8 years and can't recall anyone speaking out against undercover police work, secret shoppers, surprise birthday parties, undercover journalism, etc. I will bring this up with my confessor, forgive me if I follow his advice if it is contrary to yours. [/quote] Yes. It does make sense on a logical level. Now you say it seems "heartless." Do you know which faculty you are obliged to follow, when confronted with a discrepancy between Church teaching/right reason, and your feelings? It seems heartless. Terribly heartless. It seemed heartless to Eve, too, that God was trying to keep her from living forever, and to keep her from knowing good and evil. How could He do that to her? If your confessor tells you that it is ever OK to deliberately speak a falsehood with the intent to deceive, it probably won't be you who will need the forgiveness. But for the sake of his immortal soul, you should probably point him toward St. Thomas's passage, there. And if he doesn't, then point yourself there and find a new confessor. You've been on Phatmass for 8 years and haven't seen anyone speak out against undercover police work that involves lying? You haven't been looking enough. A secret shopper does not necessarily lie. Do you know what a secret shopper does? Do you have to lie to have a surprise birthday party? We've discussed the morality of lying to cover up a surprise on here, too. Do you have to lie to be an undercover journalist? They've also talked about spying and lying. ~Sternhauser Edited February 20, 2011 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peach_cube Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Heartless in that, I can see the logic but cannot find myself submitting to it in some circumstances. I would lie to protect peoples lives. I would not even hesitate for a moment, despite seeing the logic presented to me. That is why it seems heartless. If you don't agree with me I completely understand. If you can say without hesitation that you would not lie in any of these circumstances or any circumstance then you are truly a better person than I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) [quote name='peach_cube' timestamp='1298213496' post='2214109'] Heartless in that, I can see the logic but cannot find myself submitting to it in some circumstances. I would lie to protect peoples lives. I would not even hesitate for a moment, despite seeing the logic presented to me. That is why it seems heartless. If you don't agree with me I completely understand. If you can say without hesitation that you would not lie in any of these circumstances or any circumstance then you are truly a better person than I. [/quote] What I would do and what I [i]should[/i] do are not always identical. But what I [i]should[/i] do is objective, and I don't confuse it for what I [i]feel[/i] I should do. In keeping with the true teaching of St. Thomas: if I did not coward out, I would not lie to protect people's lives. I would, however, attempt to non-surgically trepan the skull of anyone who unjustly threatened the lives of others. But that doesn't "feel" right to a lot of people here, either. Doesn't matter. It's objectively moral. ~Sternhauser Edited February 20, 2011 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 [quote name='peach_cube' timestamp='1298212074' post='2214107'] Okay, I see what you are saying, and on a logical level it makes sense. However, it just doesn't sit well with me. The whole thing feels heartless. I am just curious as to where the outrage was on this issue before the Lila Rose and PP issue came about. I've been on phatmass for almost 8 years and can't recall anyone speaking out against undercover police work, secret shoppers, surprise birthday parties, undercover journalism, etc. I will bring this up with my confessor, forgive me if I follow his advice if it is contrary to yours. [/quote] i've haven't been here for 8 years and i have seen numerous posts about th immorality of undercover cops and police stings. it goes on here all the time. you just must be not looking at th deabte or open mic boards. they are not hard to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 [quote name='peach_cube' timestamp='1298213496' post='2214109'] Heartless in that, I can see the logic but cannot find myself submitting to it in some circumstances. I would lie to protect peoples lives. I would not even hesitate for a moment, despite seeing the logic presented to me. That is why it seems heartless. If you don't agree with me I completely understand. If you can say without hesitation that you would not lie in any of these circumstances or any circumstance then you are truly a better person than I. [/quote] this is the same arguement catholic who are for abortion in cases of rape or incest use. its the same arguement catholics use who are for contraception because pregnancy is dangerous to the mother. i personally would not want my opinion to be the same as these peoples opinion. you can make an arguement on everything that it is heartless in certain situations. what do you think God would say about making exceptions to his commandments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peach_cube Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1298214393' post='2214113'] this is the same argument catholic who are for abortion in cases of rape or incest use. its the same argument catholics use who are for contraception because pregnancy is dangerous to the mother. i personally would not want my opinion to be the same as these peoples opinion. you can make an argument on everything that it is heartless in certain situations. what do you think God would say about making exceptions to his commandments? [/quote] So by admitting that I would protect life by lying that puts me on par with the pro-choice Catholic? Thanks. Don't respond. I don't value anything you have to say. Exceptions to the commandments, like not working on the Sabbath? Is there not exceptions for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peach_cube Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 [quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1298214055' post='2214111'] What I would do and what I [i]should[/i] do are not always identical. But what I [i]should[/i] do is objective, and I don't confuse it for what I [i]feel[/i] I should do. In keeping with the true teaching of St. Thomas: if I did not coward out, I would not lie to protect people's lives. I would, however, attempt to non-surgically trepan the skull of anyone who unjustly threatened the lives of others. But that doesn't "feel" right to a lot of people here, either. Doesn't matter. It's objectively moral. ~Sternhauser [/quote] Yes, I see what I should do. But knowing and putting that knowledge into action are two very important things. Are not the abortionists unjustly threatening the lives of others? Anyway... At the very least this conversation will lead me to do a more careful examination of conscience, and for that I am thankful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 [quote name='peach_cube' timestamp='1298215737' post='2214117'] So by admitting that I would protect life by lying that puts me on par with the pro-choice Catholic? Thanks. Don't respond. I don't value anything you have to say.[/quote] You would have to be incredibly ignorant to assume that is what Havok is actually saying. [quote]Exceptions to the commandments, like not working on the Sabbath? Is there not exceptions for that?[/quote] Doing necessary work on the Sabbath is not an exception to doing unnecessary work on the Sabbath. Working on the Sabbath is not intrinsically evil. Lying is. ~Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 [quote name='peach_cube' timestamp='1298216360' post='2214119'] Are not the abortionists unjustly threatening the lives of others? Anyway..[/quote] They are. But such means would not be efficacious for ending abortion as a whole. Changing minds is the only way to bring about a culture of life. ~Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peach_cube Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Peter Kreeft's take, since I seem to be the only one taking this position. http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=14306 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) [quote name='peach_cube' timestamp='1298220531' post='2214130'] Peter Kreeft's take, since I seem to be the only one taking this position. [url="http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=14306"]http://www.catholicv...dex.php?p=14306[/url] [/quote] Kreeft is wrong. His example: "Besides, the Nazis are not geniuses. They would suspect clever prevarications and sniff out duplicitous ploys. They could be reliably deceived and deterred from searching every inch of the house only by an answer like "Jews? Those rats? None of them in my house, I hope. Please come in, and if you find any, please give them rat poison. I hate those vermin as much as you do." You [i]promised[/i] the Jews to hide them from their murderers. To keep that promise, you have to deceive the Nazis. Physical hiding and verbal hiding are two sides of the same coin, whether you call it lying, or deception, or whatever you call it." A lie is speaking a falsehood with the intent to deceive. Is Kreeft's example a lie? No. It is a deception. It is not a falsehood. If his "moral intuition" isn't ultimately founded on right reason, it's absolutely worthless. "If lying is always wrong, then it is wrong to lie to a nuclear terrorist (the “ticking time bomb” scenario) to elicit from him where he hid the nuclear bomb that in one hour will kill millions if it is not found and defused. The most reasonable response to the “no lying” legalist here is “You gotta be kidding”—or something less kind than that. Thomas Aquinas said that even torture is sometimes justified; in emergency situations like that; if torture, then [i]a fortiori[/i] lying." He cites St. Thomas [inaccurately, and St. Thomas was also wrong about torture], while St. Thomas categorically decimates his argument about the possibility of lying. This is the best Kreeft has to offer? That steaming pile of consequentialism? ~Sternhauser Edited February 20, 2011 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LoreleiLynn Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 [color=#333333] The commandment is "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" You must not testify falsely against your neighbor. Was Lila Rose falsely testifying against her neighbor, i.e. making things up about them? No. She didn't break the commandment. According to your logic, we should be scrupulous to a fault, making mountains out of molehills about things like the Eastern bunny to our children, surprise parties, etc. Obsessive introspection does not lead to fruitfulness.[/color] [color=#333333] [/color] [color=#333333]'It's all in the intention. For instance, God commended the DISHONEST steward. [/color] [color=#333333] [/color] [color=#333333]LUKE 16:8 "The end does not justify the means, [b]but[/b] we must be wise, and exercise common sense."[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now