Paul lying?

[Open Heart]

Someone has asked me about Romans 3:7 -- "But if God’s truth redounds to his glory through my falsehood, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?" Other translations use the word "lie" instead of falsehood. You get the picture. What does this mean? My friend says it means that Paul lied in order to get converts. How could that be the case. And if not, what does it mean instead?

 

[football5680]

Saint Paul is not addressing himself, he is putting himself in the position of somebody who might try to make this argument. The next verse clarifies the point he is making and says their (3rd Person) condemnation is just. He is saying that you cannot justify your sins by saying something positive came out of it. Verse 5 gives an example. Our unrighteousness shows just how righteous God is which enhances his glory but we will not escape judgment because of this fact so we must ask for forgiveness.

 

[MikeK]

Saint Paul is not addressing himself, he is putting himself in the position of somebody who might try to make this argument. The next verse clarifies the point he is making and says their (3rd Person) condemnation is just. He is saying that you cannot justify your sins by saying something positive came out of it. Verse 5 gives an example. Our unrighteousness shows just how righteous God is which enhances his glory but we will not escape judgment because of this fact so we must ask for forgiveness.

Correct. We may not do evil so that good may come. We may not lie to save a life (though that does not mean that we must always share the full truth when it is not due), we may not abort a child to save a mother (or 1000 people, for that matter), we may not profane the Eucharist for $1,000,000 which would be given to charity.

 

[Open Heart]

We may not lie to save a life

So if you are hiding a Jew and a Nazi asks you "Is this woman a Jew," you say "Yes" ???? Are you serious?

There are simply certain exceptions. For example although it is normally a sin to harm or kill someone, you can harm or kill someone in self defense or in defense of an innocent. In the same way, you may lie to defend yourself or an innocent.

 

[AXO]

So if you are hiding a Jew and a Nazi asks you "Is this woman a Jew," you say "Yes" ???? Are you serious?

There are simply certain exceptions. For example although it is normally a sin to harm or kill someone, you can harm or kill someone in self defense or in defense of an innocent. In the same way, you may lie to defend yourself or an innocent.

–A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).
Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1753.

–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."
Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2263.

I hope I have helped you.

 

[LoAmmi]

If you cannot sin to save a life does that mean according to Catholic theology, when the Law was in place prior to Jesus, a person under it would be correct in letting a man freeze to death by not lighting a fire because lighting a fire was prohibited on the Sabbath?

 

[Sword of the Lord]

If you cannot sin to save a life does that mean according to Catholic theology, when the Law was in place prior to Jesus, a person under it would be correct in letting a man freeze to death by not lighting a fire because lighting a fire was prohibited on the Sabbath?

Jesus specifically spoke about how it was and is perfectly acceptable to do good deeds on the sabbath.

 

[LoAmmi]

Jesus specifically spoke about how it was and is perfectly acceptable to do good deeds on the sabbath.

A good deed could be wrapping a man in a blanket. I'm talking about something expressly forbidden in the text. No question about it being forbidden. Exodus 35, if you'd like to look it up.

 

[classicalhero]

David was given some that is expressly forbidden for him to eat and yet God didn't punish nor the priest who have him the food.

 

[LoAmmi]

David was given some that is expressly forbidden for him to eat and yet God didn't punish nor the priest who have him the food.

I'm aware of this. It's why in my faith it is permissible to break the Torah in order to save a life (with a few exceptions such as practicing idolatry). However, I see here a hardline stance that it is not permissible to do any sin to save a life in the theology presented. So I figured I'd ask.

 

[Open Heart]

I'm aware of this. It's why in my faith it is permissible to break the Torah in order to save a life (with a few exceptions such as practicing idolatry). However, I see here a hardline stance that it is not permissible to do any sin to save a life in the theology presented. So I figured I'd ask.

I think we are running across some radicals. I don't think this extreme stance is typical of Catholics. What would the Pope think about my Nazi question? Honestly, Rome hid Jews in convents and monasteries throughout Italy -- I doubt it was with the idea that they wouldn't lie to the Germans.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I'm aware of this. It's why in my faith it is permissible to break the Torah in order to save a life (with a few exceptions such as practicing idolatry). However, I see here a hardline stance that it is not permissible to do any sin to save a life in the theology presented. So I figured I'd ask.

I think that it is morally permissible to break a lesser of God's laws if it is done in order to keep one of the greater of his laws. Jesus condemned the Pharisees because they were showing false piety in using a lesser law as an excuse to neglect a greater of God's laws.

 

[Miss Shelby]

Jesus spoke in Parables. Those were made up stories.

 

[MikeK]

I think that it is morally permissible to break a lesser of God's laws if it is done in order to keep one of the greater of his laws. Jesus condemned the Pharisees because they were showing false piety in using a lesser law as an excuse to neglect a greater of God's laws.

This position is contrary to Church teaching. We may not do evil so good may come. We may not lie to save a life. The morality of an act does not hinge on whether good is coming of it. Culpability can be reduced if evil is down for good, but the evil act does not become a moral act. Object and intent, 1749-1761.

 

[MikeK]

So if you are hiding a Jew and a Nazi asks you "Is this woman a Jew," you say "Yes" ???? Are you serious?

You do not owe the asker truth in such a scenario, but it is still immoral to lie. You can change the subject, incredulously exclaim "Who me?! You know better!", you can tell the truth. You cannot knowingly tell a lie so that good may come. Intent can change culpability, but it cannot change the object. Day 1 of any moral theology class.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

This position is contrary to Church teaching. We may not do evil so good may come. We may not lie to save a life. The morality of an act does not hinge on whether good is coming of it. Culpability can be reduced if evil is down for good, but the evil act does not become a moral act. Object and intent, 1749-1761.

I was saying if the intent is to obey God's greater law.

In the Catholic Church, sins are not all considered equal.

 

[LoAmmi]

You do not owe the asker truth in such a scenario, but it is still immoral to lie. You can change the subject, incredulously exclaim "Who me?! You know better!", you can tell the truth. You cannot knowingly tell a lie so that good may come. Intent can change culpability, but it cannot change the object. Day 1 of any moral theology class.

So, I ask you, was it morally correct for a Jew prior to Jesus arriving to refuse to light a fire on the Sabbath if it would save a freezing man's life?

 

[MikeK]

I was saying if the intent is to obey God's greater law. In the Catholic Church, sins are not all considered equal. So if we are forced to choose between obeying a greater of God's laws while neglecting the lesser, such as when Jesus healed a man on the Sabbath, then we should choose to obey the greater of God's commandments.

We are not talking about graduality of sin but of the morality of doing evil. Not everything that is forbidden by God is evil. It is not evil for God to heal a man on the Sabbath or any other day. This is one of the most very basic (though not always easy to understand) bits of moral theology. You may not do evil. What is evil? Lying is evil. Murder is evil. Profaning the Eucharist is evil. Abortion is evil.

What is not automatically evil? Working on the sabbath is not evil. Killing human beings is not automatically evil.

 

[MikeK]

So, I ask you, was it morally correct for a Jew prior to Jesus arriving to refuse to light a fire if it would save a freezing man's life?

I don't know beans about Jews and fires, sorry.

 

[LoAmmi]

I don't know beans about Jews and fires, sorry.

The Torah states directly that you cannot light a fire on the Sabbath. I could post the verse if you desire, but it's in there. So, lighting a fire would be a sin. You maintain that one cannot commit a sin even if it would be a moral good, yes?