Question (is Lying A Mortal Sin?)

[vianney]

I never said Jesus sinned, He could of at anytime stopped his death. He was afraid to die, so much so he sweat tears of blood in the garden. My point was that in a way it was a good thing that Jesus died for us but at the time Im sure there was a side of him that wasnt happy about it either but he knew it had to done. He loved us that much to do that. I agree lying isnt justified but I am saying that sometimes bad things or negative things happen so that good can come out. Just like if we work hard for something. While we do it it will smell of elderberries and it will be hard and negative but the good that will come out of that is all worth it. Same can be said about christ. I will agree with Ice Princess on this one.

Yours in Christ

Vianney

[IcePrincessKRS]

IronMonk is right, SIN cannot be excused, but its possible I think to be less cuplable. I don't know for sure, though, with this case--thats why I kept emphasizing "I think." With PDE evils can be "allowed" but not directly committed.

[ironmonk]

I never said Jesus sinned, He could of at anytime stopped his death. He was afraid to die, so much so he sweat tears of blood in the garden. My point was that in a way it was a good thing that Jesus died for us but at the time Im sure there was a side of him that wasnt happy about it either but he knew it had to done. He loved us that much to do that. I agree lying isnt justified but I am saying that sometimes bad things or negative things happen so that good can come out. Just like if we work hard for something. While we do it it will smell of elderberries and it will be hard and negative but the good that will come out of that is all worth it. Same can be said about christ. I will agree with Ice Princess on this one.

Yours in Christ

Vianney

I follow what the Church teaches.

The priests would be guilty of lying if they lied... We do not know if they lied. They could have easily just withheld the truth without telling a lie.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

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).

See my post on July 7, 4:47 PM.

God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary

ironmonk

Edited July 10, 2003 by ironmonk

[jasJis]

IronMonk,

Okay. This is giving me a headache, but I'm begining to re-think by opinions. In your prior post, I don't understand the rebuttal for point #5 that is talking about Abraham's actions. Can you explain it in your words for me?

[ironmonk]

Are you meaning Objection 3 or 5 - or did you get the two mixed up?

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.

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.

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.

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.

GBLCM,

ironmonk

[jasJis]

3

[vianney]

Thanks Iron Monk I got it now

[Chrysologus]

What is PDE?

[cmotherofpirl]

Jesus was a willing sacrifice, that is why He came into the world.

[ironmonk]

3

Objection 3 is saying that some lies are ok because holy men of old lied, since they were "models" of how we are to live.

The gist of the reply to the objection is saying that if they appeared to have lied, then the statements were figurative and prophetic. Also, some where praised for the desire to do a great thing, even though they made a few mistakes.

"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"

I hope that helps.

God Bless, Love in Chirst & Mary

ironmonk

[IcePrincessKRS]

What is PDE?

Principal of Double Effect--meaning a good effect and an evil effect occur. It can be used to determine the moral good in conflict situations where there is a question about whether something is moral or not.

[jasJis]

Thanks IronMonk,

That clears it up. Let me summarize here. I think I've fleshed out and slightly changed my opinion.

Intentional lying is never okay. We have to be careful about judging if a person is intentionally lying. It is okay to not share the truth or knowledge in certain circumstances. If lies are told in some situations, they have to be accidental to witholding privelidged knowledge, not intentionally to decieve. So in the case of hiding Jews in WWII, you could say "I haven't seen Jews in sometime", not "I haven't seen Jews ever".

Does that sound about right with what you posted earlier?

[Norseman82]

For a sin to be mortal, there are three conditions that must ALL be met. Serious/grave matter is one of them. According to CCC 2484, it appears that not all lies are grave matter.

However, there is a paragraph in the catechism that I ran across that made reference to the fact that venial sins weaken charity. So even though there is no formula that X amount of venial sins = 1 mortal sin, venial sins can lead us down the road to bad habits that could eventually lead us to a mortal sin.

My advice: if in doubt, mention it in confession and see what the priest says.

I do have to make one exception: I was taught a long time ago that perjury - lying under oath - IS a mortal sin.

[ironmonk]

I would think that breaking any of the 10 Commandments would be a mortal sin. We know when we are breaking them.

Don't mistake "gravity of a lie" to mean venial or mortal. There are different levels of mortal sins... For example; 3 Hail Mary's, 10 Hail Mary's and an Our Father, 25 Hail Mary's, etc... Levels of gravity.

Jas Jis

Here is the example I thought of when reading that from the Catholic Encyclopedia...

Nazi knocks on a Priests door in WWII ( sorry this sounds like a joke - it's not a knock knock)

Priest answers door.

Nazi says "Are you hidding any Jews?!"

Say the Priest is hiding Jews, in a hidden celler of his house.

If the Priest said "No", it would be a sin.

If the Priest said "Would you like to search my house?" or "You can search my house." - that would not be a sin. The priest never denied the truth, he withheld the truth to save lives.

God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary

ironmonk

[Norseman82]

There are different levels of mortal sins... For example; 3 Hail Mary's, 10 Hail Mary's and an Our Father, 25 Hail Mary's, etc...  Levels of gravity.

9! 9!

Any mortal sin will rob the soul of sanctifying grace and cause eternal damnation (see CCC 1861); venial sin will not (see CCC 1863). How can there be different levels of not getting into heaven?

To say there are different levels of mortal sin is like saying there are different levels of physical death.

Edited July 11, 2003 by Norseman82

[ironmonk]

9! 9!

Any mortal sin will rob the soul of sanctifying grace and cause eternal damnation (see CCC 1861); venial sin will not (see CCC 1863). How can there be different levels of not getting into heaven?

To say there are different levels of mortal sin is like saying there are different levels of physical death.

No it's not.

There are different penances, hence different "levels".

Is killing one man equal to killing one hundred men? No.

What we don't pay for in penance here, we will pay for in purgatory. We must pay every last cent.

Killing 100 men, we must do more penance for than if we killed one.

God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary

ironmonk

[jasJis]

IronMonk,

As far as the mortal sin, a tape by Fr. Richard (from CatholicCity) describes mortal sin as a step off a 50 story building. It is complete and final. Venial sins have varying degree of consequence or gravity, but by definition, mortal sin is 100% mortal.

[Norseman82]

No it's not.

There are different penances, hence different "levels".

Is killing one man equal to killing one hundred men? No.

What we don't pay for in penance here, we will pay for in purgatory. We must pay every last cent.

Killing 100 men, we must do more penance for than if we killed one.

God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary

ironmonk

I think what you are referring to are different levels of penance, not sin. Penances like how many Our fathers and Hail Marys are subjectively determined by the confessor. I do not know of any official standard "book of penances" that exist.

To give you an example of the subjectivity, have you ever confessed the same sin to two different priests and received different penances?

Let me quote CCC Part 3, section 1, article 8.IV "The gravity of sin: mortal and venial sin"

"1854. Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture, became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corrobated by human experience. "

(I will skip 1855 and 1856 because it talks of the effects of mortal sin)

"1857. For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed full knowledge and deliberate consent".

(1858-1861 talk more about the three conditions; unintentional ignorance; and the consequences of mortal sin on our soul).

"1862. One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or complete consent."

EVERYONE: I found the CCC paragraph that answers the original question directly:

"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 the 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".

[ironmonk]

IronMonk,

As far as the mortal sin, a tape by Fr. Richard (from CatholicCity) describes mortal sin as a step off a 50 story building.  It is complete and final.  Venial sins have varying degree of consequence or gravity, but by definition, mortal sin is 100% mortal.

Though it is "mortal", some mortal sins are still worse than others.

If that wasn't the case, then they all would have the same penance given.

i.e. "say 10 hail mary's" vs. "say 100 hail mary's".

Some mortal sins are worse than other mortal sins, even though they are both 'mortal'.

Killing 100 men is worse than lying.

[Norseman82]

Some mortal sins are worse than other mortal sins, even though they are both 'mortal'.

Killing 100 men is worse than lying.

I agree with you that in our eyes - and the Church's (see CCC 1858) - that is the case. But the end RESULT is the same - hell, whether it be for ONE unconfessed/unrepented mortal sin or ONE MILLION unconfessed/unrepented mortal sin.

But per my above posts - especially the reference to CCC 1862 - there is a differemce in gravity between mortal and venial sins.

In your eyes, please give an example of a venial sin (please omit any mortal sins that are rendered venial due to the absence of full knowledge or complete consent).

(Please note that I am NOT trying to pick a fight with you. I admire your ability to show the Catholic church to be the biblical church, as that is what I try to do as well in the forums/communities I hang out in and some day we must get together to have dinner and compare notes/experiences. I am simply trying to understand where you are coming from).