Can A Sin Be Justified?

[Slappo]

Jane could even go farther rather then just saying "why would you think that?"

And say something (as long as it were true) like "I didn't coordinate a surprise party!" If she were only assisting with it and someone else were coordinating it. If she wasn't actually part of the planning, but instead was merely volunteering to bring a dessert or something, she could even say she didn't plan it.


Basically it can't be a flat out lie, but it can look pretty close to a lie to the point where some might even argue that it is semantics.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='picchick' date='08 November 2009 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1257705417' post='1998257']
perhaps but won't Jane eventually have to answer the question yes or no?[/quote]

Probably, and that was my contention.

[quote]So when does "innocent" lies to evade difficult/awkward situations become sins?
[/quote]

If it's a lie, it is a sin, and it is not innocent. It can merely be a very light sin.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 8, 2009 by Sternhauser

[kafka]

lying is intrinsically evil

indepedent of the circumstance/consequences the moral object chosen is a direct and voluntary assertion of a falsehood. This is [b]always[/b] in contradiction to God who is Truth. Lying by its nature is sinful.

Analyzing lying is actually useful since the whole moral law is based on the Nature of God who is Truth, Love, etc. So it is clear that to assert a falsehood directly and voluntarily contradicts God's nature and human nature since we are made in his own image.

Now obviously the above examples are not grave enough to be seriously sinful. One could justly use mental reservation in the case of the surprise party. It also possible that people might slip out of surprise etc. and tell a lie without realizing or intending it. I'm not sure it this sort of lying is considered a fault or a venial sin of weakness. Perhaps a fault or imperfection since it is involuntary and indirect.

Edited November 8, 2009 by kafka

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='picchick' date='08 November 2009 - 01:36 PM' timestamp='1257705417' post='1998257']
perhaps but won't Jane eventually have to answer the question yes or no?

By the way, all these qustions are out of curiosity.

I agree with apparently. Once you start you can't just stop. So when does "innocent" lies to evade difficult/awkward situations become sins?
[/quote]
You never have to answer a question. Silence is always an option. It's what St. Thomas More did, although it eventually cost him his head.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='picchick' date='08 November 2009 - 01:36 PM' timestamp='1257705417' post='1998257']
perhaps but won't Jane eventually have to answer the question yes or no?

By the way, all these qustions are out of curiosity.

I agree with apparently. Once you start you can't just stop. So when does "innocent" lies to evade difficult/awkward situations become sins?
[/quote]
There's no such thing as an innocent lie. Moral evasion or silence are the only options.

[MIKolbe]

pity tho... to be a good moral evader, it helps to be a believable and convincing liar.

[JimR-OCDS]

For a lie to be a sin, it has to be done with malice.

Telling a Nazi soldier, that there are no Jews hiding in your house, would not sinful. You're withholding information he has no right to.

Edited November 9, 2009 by JimR-OCDS

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='08 November 2009 - 08:20 PM' timestamp='1257726033' post='1998494']
For a lie to be a sin, it has to be done with malice.

Telling a Nazi soldier, that there are no Jews hiding in your house, would not sinful. You're withholding information he has no right to.
[/quote]

I've never seen "malice" as a requirement for something to be a lie. A lie is simply an untruth said with the intent to deceive. Your definition seems like casuistry.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 9, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='08 November 2009 - 07:20 PM' timestamp='1257726033' post='1998494']
For a lie to be a sin, it has to be done with malice.

Telling a Nazi soldier, that there are no Jews hiding in your house, would not sinful. You're withholding information he has no right to.
[/quote]
You are incorrect. You don't need to have a bad intention to commit a sin.

"By its very nature, lying is to be condemned." -CCC 2485

A lie is an intrinsically evil act. It cannot be rendered moral by intention or circumstances.

[JimR-OCDS]

Interesting reading on the subject:

[quote]
St. Augustine held that the naked [url="../cathen/15073a.htm"]truth[/url] must be told whatever the consequences may be. He directs that in difficult cases silence should be observed if possible. If silence would be equivalent to giving a sick man unwelcome news that would kill him, it is better, he says, that the body of the sick man should perish rather than the [url="../cathen/14153a.htm"]soul[/url] of the liar. Besides this one, he puts another case which became classical in the [url="../cathen/13554b.htm"]schools[/url]. If a man is hid in your house, and his life is sought by murderers, and they come and ask you whether he is in the house, you may say that you [url="../cathen/08673a.htm"]know[/url] where he is, but will not tell: you may not deny that he is there. The [url="../cathen/13548a.htm"]Scholastics[/url], while accepting the teaching of St. Augustine on the absolute and intrinsic malice of a lie, modified his teaching on the point which we are discussing. It is interesting to read what St. [url="../cathen/12671c.htm"]Raymund of Pennafort[/url] wrote on the subject in his [i]Summa[/i], published before the middle of the thirteenth century. He says that most [url="../cathen/05072b.htm"]doctors[/url] agree with St. Augustine, but others say that one should tell a lie in such cases. Then he gives his own opinion, speaking with hesitation and under correction. The owner of the house where the man lies concealed, on being asked whether he is there, should as far as possible say nothing. If silence would be equivalent to betrayal of the secret, then he should turn the question aside by asking another — How should I [url="../cathen/08673a.htm"]know[/url]? — or something of that sort. Or, says St. Raymund, he may make use of an expression with a double meaning, an equivocation such as: Non est hic, id est, Non comedit hic — or something like that. An [url="../cathen/08004a.htm"]infinite[/url] number of examples induced him to permit such equivocations, he says. Jacob, Esau, Abraham, Jehu, and the [url="../cathen/06330a.htm"]Archangel Gabriel[/url] made use of them. Or, he adds, you may say simply that the owner of the house ought to deny that the man is there, and, if his [url="../cathen/04268a.htm"]conscience[/url] tells him that this is the proper answer to give, then he will not go against his [url="../cathen/04268a.htm"]conscience[/url], and so he will not [url="../cathen/14004b.htm"]sin[/url]. Nor is this direction contrary to what Augustine teaches, for if he gives that answer he will not lie, for he will not speak against his mind ([i]Summa[/i], lib. I, [i]De Mendacio[/i]). [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm[/url]
[/quote]


Jim

Edited November 9, 2009 by JimR-OCDS

[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".