Question (is Lying A Mortal Sin?)

July 7, 2003

Is lying a mortal sin?

July 7, 2003

i'm answering off the top of my head so i might be wrong...it depends on what the lie was about.

July 7, 2003

Yes, lying is gravely sinful. However, like with all mortal sins, if you didn't give the lie your full consent of will (you were under duress or psychological or other mitigating circumstances) or you didn't realize that what you were doing was wrong, then it's only venially sinful. Either way, if your conscience is bugging you, go to confession before next Sunday.

July 7, 2003

musturde,

Check out the Catechism. You want to look to see what requirements are needed for an act to be a mortal sin as well as read the section about bearing false witness to see the gravity of lying. A lot depends upon the nature of the lie. If you lie habitually, you can easily lead yourself into a mortal sin. But in practically, most people's lies are usually venial.

Let me know if you want links to the particular passages in the Catechism.

July 7, 2003

Is lying a mortal sin?

I would say Yes. If we know the truth, and purposfully lie, it would be a mortal sin. Unless someone's life was at stake... take for instance the priests that hid the jews in WWII... they could morally lie to the nazi's to save the lives of the jews.

From the Catechism: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sec...t2chpt2art8.htm

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. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.

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.

2487

Every offense committed against justice and truth entails the duty of reparation, even if its author has been forgiven. When it is impossible publicly to make reparation for a wrong, it must be made secretly. If someone who has suffered harm cannot be directly compensated, he must be given moral satisfaction in the name of charity. This duty of reparation also concerns offenses against another's reputation. This reparation, moral and sometimes material, must be evaluated in terms of the extent of the damage inflicted. It obliges in conscience.

Hope this helps...

God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary

ironmonk

July 7, 2003

I have an odd feeling of scepticism upon me . My father is paying half of my trip to Lebanon but for some reason I am not excited (seems ungrateful) but my mom told me if asked say yes because she noticed I was acting excited. She told me that I didn't know I was excited which confuses me also. Our neighbor got to a conversation with me and asked if I was excited about going, I answered yes and moved along. This seems to be a work of scepticism and even if I am innocent the devil is still working on causing me great scepticism .

July 7, 2003

Unless someone's life was at stake... take for instance the priests that hid the jews in WWII... they could morally lie to the nazi's to save the lives of the jews.

Ironmonk, this exact scenario is something about which I've been wondering. Are you sure that this is right? Do you have any Catholic quotations/sources about it? I'd really like to know. Thanks.

July 7, 2003

Ironmonk, this exact scenario is something about which I've been wondering. Are you sure that this is right? Do you have any Catholic quotations/sources about it? I'd really like to know. Thanks.

I don't have any exact sources, but in an instance like what da Monk related, those who were doing harm to the Jews didn't have the right to know the information they sought so the priests were less/not culpable for the sin of lying.

Also such an instance, I think could fall under the principle of double effect, and so the evil of lying was allowed for the greater good of saving lives.

July 7, 2003

Also such an instance, I think could fall under the principle of double effect, and so the evil of lying was allowed for the greater good of saving lives.

Oooh, now we're getting heavy.

So, in theory, if say, we lie to non-Catholics with the intention of saving their souls (the greater good), whether it is an effective way of conversion or not--is it a sin? And might this be the same mentality a lot of anti-Catholics use when speaking falsities against the Church? They know it's false information, but continue to propogate it to "save us" (the greater good in their minds)?

Deep.

July 7, 2003

Oooh, now we're getting heavy.

So, in theory, if say, we lie to non-Catholics with the intention of saving their souls (the greater good), whether it is an effective way of conversion or not--is it a sin? And might this be the same mentality a lot of anti-Catholics use when speaking falsities against the Church? They know it's false information, but continue to propogate it to "save us" (the greater good in their minds)?

Deep.

LOL I guess some could try and use PDE like that, but it would be an abuse of the theory--they'd just be using it left and right to condone their actions.

I gotta run, so I can't explain PDE any more than that right now...

July 7, 2003

Read on:

2488

The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

2489

Charity and respect for truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet languae. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.

July 7, 2003

Excellent post, Anna. Keeping in mind fraternal love would colour how you answer your dad about going to Lebanon. You could say yes you are excited, but you are also a little nervous, or concerned about it too. When talking to the neighbor, are they really asking, or just commenting? If you said no, would they be willing to listen to the explanation, or would they probably misconstrue your misgivings and think you ungrateful or your father uncaring of your feelings?

What does the Catechism say about mortal sin?

July 7, 2003

Thanks for the quote, Anna, but that doesn't say that we can lie, only that we can remain silent or answer in a discrete manner. I'm not sure how I would answer Nazis in a discrete manner. Another thing about this that has been bothering me is the military. They lie about things which are secret. A "cover story" is in fact, a lie. Is this okay?

I don't know what this "double effect" thing is, but I was taught in RCIA that it's NEVER okay to do something evil in order to produce something good. Two wrongs don't make a right. An example my priest gave was that we can't perform an abortion even if not doing so would kill the mother and possibly the child, but we can emove her uterus to save her life, even if the side effect is that the fetus is lost. It was a matter of primary and secondary causes.

July 7, 2003

2491 Professional secrets - for example, those of political office holders, soldiers, physicians, and lawyers - or confidential information given under the seal of secrecy must be kept, save in exceptional cases where keeping the secret is bound to cause very grave harm to the one who confided it, to the one who received it or to a third party, and where the very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Even if not confided under the seal of secrecy, private information prejudicial to another is not to be divulged without a grave and proportionate reason.

You have to balance the lesser of two evils. Easy deception, habitual lying, can lead to unneccessary lying in grave matters. Lying to prevent a greater evil is required in some circumstances. For example, if a person was hiding a Jew in Nazi Germany, are they to reveal them if asked the "right" question? If you refuse to answer, it would be logical you don't want to answer in the affirmative.

Let's say your child has a fatal illness. Do you tell the child they are going to die, or do you say they are very sick and the doctor is doing all they can to help them. Is that not deception and a lie?

July 7, 2003

I don't know what this "double effect" thing is, but I was taught in RCIA that it's NEVER okay to do something evil in order to produce something good. Two wrongs don't make a right. An example my priest gave was that we can't perform an abortion even if not doing so would kill the mother and possibly the child, but we can emove her uterus to save her life, even if the side effect is that the fetus is lost. It was a matter of primary and secondary causes.

You're right Chrys, we cannot do something evil to produce something good. PDE "allows" the evil to occur for. The way the use of PDE should go is the good happens before or at the same time as the evil. The good cannot be the direct effect of the evil.a GREATER good. The good must be equal to or outweigh the evil that is allowed.

In the case Ironmonk stated the priests saying 'Sorry guys, I don't see any Jews around here" outweighs the evil of the Jews being killed, etc. that would have occured had they said 'Here ya go, take these guys off our hands, will ya?" The Jews in hiding, being safe would be the good effect, and if silence or a lie was used (the priests may not have said anything and just let the Germans run through and check out the place--remember the Sound of Music? The nuns never lied, they just didn't say anything) the evil would have occured after or simultaneously. (Maybe I should pull out my readings and notes from Moral Theology and give a couple quotes.... lol)

July 7, 2003

Ironmonk, this exact scenario is something about which I've been wondering. Are you sure that this is right? Do you have any Catholic quotations/sources about it? I'd really like to know. Thanks.

I was wrong. Please forgive me.

No lie is justified. I'm sure some priests of WWII could have avoided telling a lie to protect the Jews.... it is lawful to hide the truth prudently, by keeping it back

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. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.

2491

Professional secrets—for example, those of political office holders, soldiers, physicians, and lawyers—or confidential information given under the seal of secrecy must be kept, save in exceptional cases where keeping the secret is bound to cause very grave harm to the one who confided it, to the one who received it or to a third party, and where the very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Even if not confided under the seal of secrecy, private information prejudicial to another is not to be divulged without a grave and proportionate reason.

2492

Everyone should observe an appropriate reserve concerning persons' private lives. Those in charge of communications should maintain a fair balance between the requirements of the common good and respect for individual rights. Interference by the media in the private lives of persons engaged in political or public activity is to be condemned to the extent that it infringes upon their privacy and freedom.

And from New Advent: Summa Theologica

Whether every lie is a sin?

Objection 1. It seems that not every lie is a sin. For it is evident that the evangelists did not sin in the writing of the Gospel. Yet they seem to have told something false: since their accounts of the words of Christ and of others often differ from one another: wherefore seemingly one of them must have given an untrue account. Therefore not every lie is a sin.

Objection 2. Further, no one is rewarded by God for sin. But the midwives of Egypt were rewarded by God for a lie, for it is stated that "God built them houses" (Ex. 1:21). Therefore a lie is not a sin.

Objection 3. Further, the deeds of holy men are related in Sacred Writ that they may be a model of human life. But we read of certain very holy men that they lied. Thus (Gn. 12 and 20) we are told that Abraham said of his wife that she was his sister. Jacob also lied when he said that he was Esau, and yet he received a blessing (Gn. 27:27-29). Again, Judith is commended (Judith 15:10,11) although she lied to Holofernes. Therefore not every lie is a sin.

Objection 4. Further, one ought to choose the lesser evil in order to avoid the greater: even so a physician cuts off a limb, lest the whole body perish. Yet less harm is done by raising a false opinion in a person's mind, than by someone slaying or being slain. Therefore a man may lawfully lie, to save another from committing murder, or another from being killed.

Objection 5. Further, it is a lie not to fulfill what one has promised. Yet one is not bound to keep all one's promises: for Isidore says (Synonym. ii): "Break your faith when you have promised ill." Therefore not every lie is a sin.

Objection 6. Further, apparently a lie is a sin because thereby we deceive our neighbor: wherefore Augustine says (Lib. De Mend. xxi): "Whoever thinks that there is any kind of lie that is not a sin deceives himself shamefully, since he deems himself an honest man when he deceives others." Yet not every lie is a cause of deception, since no one is deceived by a jocose lie; seeing that lies of this kind are told, not with the intention of being believed, but merely for the sake of giving pleasure. Hence again we find hyperbolical expressions in Holy Writ. Therefore not every lie is a sin.

On the contrary, It is written (Sirach 7:14): "Be not willing to make any manner of lie."

I answer that, An action that is naturally evil in respect of its genus can by no means be good and lawful, since in order for an action to be good it must be right in every respect: because good results from a complete cause, while evil results from any single defect, as Dionysius asserts (Div. Nom. iv). Now a lie is evil in respect of its genus, since it is an action bearing on undue matter. For as words are naturally signs of intellectual acts, it is unnatural and undue for anyone to signify by words something that is not in his mind. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 7) that "lying is in itself evil and to be shunned, while truthfulness is good and worthy of praise." Therefore every lie is a sin, as also Augustine declares (Contra Mend. i).

Reply to Objection 1. It is unlawful to hold that any false assertion is contained either in the Gospel or in any canonical Scripture, or that the writers thereof have told untruths, because faith would be deprived of its certitude which is based on the authority of Holy Writ. That the words of certain people are variously reported in the Gospel and other sacred writings does not constitute a lie. Hence Augustine says (De Consens. Evang. ii): "He that has the wit to understand that in order to know the truth it is necessary to get at the sense, will conclude that he must not be the least troubled, no matter by what words that sense is expressed." Hence it is evident, as he adds (De Consens. Evang. ii), that "we must not judge that someone is lying, if several persons fail to describe in the same way and in the same words a thing which they remember to have seen or heard."

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 (Ex. 2:21): "And because the midwives feared God, He built them houses." But the subsequent lie was not meritorious.

Reply to Objection 3. In Holy Writ, as Augustine observes (Lib. De Mend. v), the deeds of certain persons are related as examples of perfect virtue: and we must not believe that such persons were liars. If, however, any of their statements appear to be untruthful, we must understand such statements to have been figurative and prophetic. Hence Augustine says (Lib. De Mend. v): "We must believe that whatever is related of those who, in prophetical times, are mentioned as being worthy of credit, was done and said by them prophetically." As to Abraham "when he said that Sara was his sister, he wished to hide the truth, not to tell a lie, for she is called his sister since she was the daughter of his father," Augustine says (QQ. Super. Gen. xxvi; Contra Mend. x; Contra Faust. xxii). Wherefore Abraham himself said (Gn. 20:12): "She is truly my sister, the daughter of my father, and not the daughter of my mother," being related to him on his father's side. Jacob's assertion that he was Esau, Isaac's first-born, was spoken in a mystical sense, because, to wit, the latter's birthright was due to him by right: and he made use of this mode of speech being moved by the spirit of prophecy, in order to signify a mystery, namely, that the younger people, i.e. the Gentiles, should supplant the first-born, i.e. the Jews.

Some, however, are commended in the Scriptures, not on account of perfect virtue, but for a certain virtuous disposition, seeing that it was owing to some praiseworthy sentiment that they were moved to do certain undue things. It is thus that Judith is praised, not for lying to Holofernes, but for her desire to save the people, to which end she exposed herself to danger. And yet one might also say that her words contain truth in some mystical sense.

Reply to Objection 4. A lie is sinful not only because it injures one's neighbor, but also on account of its inordinateness, as stated above in this Article. Now it is not allowed to make use of anything inordinate in order to ward off injury or defects from another: as neither is it lawful to steal in order to give an alms, except perhaps in a case of necessity when all things are common. Therefore it is not lawful to tell a lie in order to deliver another from any danger whatever. Nevertheless it is lawful to hide the truth prudently, by keeping it back, as Augustine says (Contra Mend. x).

Reply to Objection 5. A man does not lie, so long as he has a mind to do what he promises, because he does not speak contrary to what he has in mind: but if he does not keep his promise, he seems to act without faith in changing his mind. He may, however, be excused for two reasons. First, if he has promised something evidently unlawful, because he sinned in promise, and did well to change his mind. Secondly, if circumstances have changed with regard to persons and the business in hand. For, as Seneca states (De Benef. iv), for a man to be bound to keep a promise, it is necessary for everything to remain unchanged: otherwise neither did he lie in promising--since he promised what he had in his mind, due circumstances being taken for granted--nor was he faithless in not keeping his promise, because circumstances are no longer the same. Hence the Apostle, though he did not go to Corinth, whither he had promised to go (2 Cor. 1), did not lie, because obstacles had arisen which prevented him.

Reply to Objection 6. An action may be considered in two ways. First, in itself, secondly, with regard to the agent. Accordingly a jocose lie, from the very genus of the action, is of a nature to deceive; although in the intention of the speaker it is not told to deceive, nor does it deceive by the way it is told. Nor is there any similarity in the hyperbolical or any kind of figurative expressions, with which we meet in Holy Writ: because, as Augustine says (Lib. De Mend. v), "it is not a lie to do or say a thing figuratively: because every statement must be referred to the thing stated: and when a thing is done or said figuratively, it states what those to whom it is tendered understand it to signify."

July 8, 2003

Now I'm just really confused. I think I just need to get a book about moral theology and read it for myself.

July 8, 2003

Probably the best course of action. :blink:

July 9, 2003

Did not Jesus willingly die to save our souls? Bad for Good?

July 10, 2003

Did not Jesus willingly die to save our souls? Bad for Good?

He was killed. Jesus did not sin.

Bad things happen so good things can.

Sin (such as lying) is never justified.

God Bless, Love in Chirst & Mary

ironmonk

Sign In

Question (is Lying A Mortal Sin?)

Recommended Posts

musturde

hyperdulia again

Chrysologus

jasJis

ironmonk

musturde

Chrysologus

IcePrincessKRS

dUSt

IcePrincessKRS

Anna

jasJis

Chrysologus

jasJis

IcePrincessKRS

ironmonk

Chrysologus

Kilroy the Ninja

vianney

ironmonk

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in