When I questioned him about his dirty clothes, he replied, nana, theyre gonna get dirty anyway. I couldnt argue with that. However, i had to laugh at his reply when I told him his red t-shirt was on backward. Is it against the law? (This is a 4-year-old who probably heard that expression from an adult.) Did i argue with him? It wasnt hurting anything so why should I make a big deal. When the Pharisees questioned and challenged. Jesus teaching, their motive was to discredit Him.
Screw The logan Act, have we forgotten That Official lying
Recently, we were playing tackle football. My oldest grandchild, Cheyenne, began shouting out the rules. I replied, There are no rules. Lets just have fun. What ensued when we threw out the rules? Dog piles with Nana and three giggling children, rolling on the freshly cut grass. Side-splitting laughter as Nana tried to extricate her legs from three sets of short arms hanging on tightly and yells of touchdown when someone made a goal. My goal when I have my grandchildren to myself is to enjoy them and as my grandson, Brennan, says, make memories. When we woke up the morning after our football game, the kids were eager to eat breakfast and head back outside to play. Instead of putting on clean clothes, business my youngest grandson, cash, dressed himself in the previous days stained shirt and jeans.
I tell people, this Nana is in grandmother heaven, especially when they get to stay overnight or when their parents are absent. While i am aware of and respect their parents rules, i allow my grandchildren to do things I probably would have objected to when their daddies were children. I tell my grandchildren, What happens at Nanas stays at Nanas. I allow them, occasionally, to have pancakes and bacon for supper, without the benefit of a green veggie. A snack—think. M.—is not out of the question. If I want to sleep, however, umum a sugary snack. With longer days, its hard to have them bathed and in bed before 10, especially if weve spent the evening outdoors playing games.
Ok, now its your turn. But before answering, remember your Catechism: friendship A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving to lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature. 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 (ccc ). Posted by, carol round on, jun 13, 2014 in, relationships, spiritual transformation, comments Off on Is it Against the law? Yes, said Jesus, the same horrors await you! For you buy crush men beneath impossible religious demands—demands that you yourselves would never think of trying to keep—. Luke 11:46 (tl, spending time with my grandchildren is a joy.
I just dont like being asked to say that it is permissible to do evil in order that good may come. The best I can do is to shrug and say, even though we live in a big, bad world, this is still lying. But it may not be the most serious sort of lying given the circumstances. We all know it goes. Lets not call it good, but other things being equal, lets not lose a lot of sleep over it either. There are big lies that cause grave harm and there are smaller lies that cause less harm. Not every lie is a mortal sin or equally harmful.
Lying to police a crime: Should it Be?
But lying to such a person would not make the lie something other than what it is: a lie. What about state-sponsored lying in matters argumentative of national security? Dont ask me to call it good or not a lie. But the fact that every nation knows that the others are lying is a factor. This does not make it good or not a lie, but would tend to make the practice less egregious and lessen the culpability of the officials who engage. In a big, bad world, permit me to shrug on this one—but dont ask me to call it good, or virtuous, presentation or not a lie.
What about undercover investigations by the police or journalists that use assumed identities or present false information or intentions? Here, too, dont ask me to say that telling a lie is really telling the truth. The fact is, its a lie. One should always seek to gather information in a straightforward manner. In criminal investigations the lie may be less egregious since most criminals are on their guard for exactly these sorts of tactics. But here, too, i would request that you not insist I call such practices good or even justifiable.
But to call any lie good or justifiable is to harm a moral principle unnecessarily. Call it what it is: a lie. It is not good. And it is not permitted to do evil in order that good may come. With this in mind it is better to say that what you describe would constitute a lie, lamentable but understandable.
And given the gravity of the situation, there would not likely much if any blame incurred. Life sometimes presents us with difficulties that are not easily overcome. But to adjust moral principles to accommodate anomalies is to engage in a kind of casuistry that does harm to moral principles. Sometimes the best we can do is to shrug humbly and say, well its wrong to lie, but lets trustingly leave the judgment on this one up to god, who knows our struggles and will surely factor in the fearsome circumstances. So theres my view, succinctly stated. There was no room in the column to address the questions that might arise based on my answer, but I will do so here: Is this the case even if someone does not have the right to know the truth? I am not sure it is right to say that someone does not have the right to know the truth. Certain matters may be no ones business, but if that is the case then you should respond, This is not for you to know and I will not answer.
How to avoid going to jail under
I call it unfortunate because it seems to say that a lie is not a lie. But in the common example you cite, you clearly would be lying since it meets the definition of lying: speaking that which is untrue with the intention of deceiving. Indeed, the entire purpose of the lie is to deceive the officials by saying what is untrue. It will be granted that the situation described is dreadful and fearsome. But i, like many moral theologians, am not prepared to say that it is not a lie simply because the situation is fearful and the authorities are bad people. Perhaps the better approach is to say that it is a lie and that, as a lie, it is intrinsically wrong. However, when one is under duress or sees no clear way to avoid a consequent grave evil paper or injustice, ones culpability for such a lie is lessened. It seems rather doubtful that God would make a big deal of the sort of lie you describe on Judgment day.
(Note that the answers I provide in that venue are required to be brief.). Is every lie intrinsically evil? I remember 60 years ago, when the jesuits were still faithful teachers of Holy mother Church, being taught that if a person was not entitled to the truth, dog one could, in fact, lead them away from the truth, by lying. For example, if i knew the hideout of Anne Frank and the gestapo asked me if i knew her whereabouts, according to this theory, if I said I did not that would not be intrinsically evil. Ed., muscatine,. A: Permit a personal reply to this, with the understanding that reasonable people may differ with some aspects of my answer. Unfortunately, the approach that you cite is a widespread notion related to a questionable concept called mental reservation.
Charles Pope, february 2, 2016, many of you know that I write the. Question and Answer Column for Our Sunday visitor on both their newspaper side and in their magazine, the catholic Answer. Every now and then a question comes in that seems like a good topic for the blog. The following question comes up frequently whenever I teach moral theology classes and we cover the issue of lying. In a way it is remarkable that the format of the question almost never changes, and that the usual (and I would argue questionable) answer has taken such deep root in Catholic thinking. Here is the question followed by my answer.
There is a discussion in the history arm of StackExchange that got sidetracked into the merit of brainwashing society for their own good, as advocated in Plato's. Imo that side track deserves a separate discussion in the Philosophy arm of StackExchange, therefore here we are. There have been many arguments by historians, philosophers, politicians, and laymen about the relative merits of different political systems, including anarchy, democracy, oligarchy, monarchy, etc. Plato seems to advocate oligarchy; most people today favour democracy; however, more often than not, one sees the following curious amalgam of democracy and oligarchy. Namely, the system is often setup in a manner that leads people to believe that they live in a democratic society, that their voice matters, and indeed many minor things are warming decided by popular vote get hyped up beyond any proportion by the media. However, all the important things are decided by oligarchy and are never publicised. A fair comparison would be a parent of a 3-year old who would present the child with a false dichotomy so that the child would make the parent's choice, for the child's own good, while still believing that the choice has been made solely. An example of that would be the deal between fdr and Churchill regarding Lend-lease and extension of us navy patrol into the Atlantic, which was in direct contradiction to the strong desire of us populace to remain completely neutral. This raises a couple of questions.
Section 1001 for lying
Falling against what you know, falling against the tide. Oh what you want, is it what you want, is it what you want? Is this what you want? Because we are young. And things are wrong, we'll lose the chains. We'll make things right before the sun goes down. And out of sight we'll lose the chains 'cause you and writing i, we move against the tide.