Can A Sin Be Justified?

[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

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='09 November 2009 - 03:03 PM' timestamp='1257800594' post='1999010']
Thats prohibition against murder.



Jim
[/quote]
Whatever. Exactly what I meant.
In any case, what I said is correct. The death of the aggressor is unintended.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[picchick]

Thank you all for your input. Thank you especially for the CCC refereneces. They are helpful

I see lying as hurtful regardless of the situation. Call it slippery slope, but I also see it as opening the doors for greater sins of lying. The thought of, "I got away with it that one time, I might be able to get away this time" comes to mind.

Of course I see the situation with the Nazi soldiers. I think though that if I were in that position, I would go to a priest and tell him what happened. I think too that God will see these types of lying in serious situations as less grave and will forgive (althoug I shouldn't presume on God's mercy.)